AN EXPLORATORY STUDY: MOBILE DEVICE USE FOR ACADEMICS

This exploratory study surveyed how undergraduate students and higher education instructors at two small faith-based universities in Southern California used mobile devices in and outside of the class for academic purposes. The researcher cross-referenced the results from the two groups to make correlations. The results of this study showed that nearly all instructor participants had multiple devices and almost half of the student participants had two or more devices as well. Those devices are being used in and outside of formal class for academics in very basic and emerging way that are just touching the surface of their capabilities. This study found that students use their devices in class to read, reference, or search materials. Faculty reported using their devices as presentation devices most often.

• Educated, mentored, and motivated students with diverse backgrounds, abilities, and needs to students with a solid educational foundation • Team taught special education students, collaboratively planned units and assessments to meet the diverse needs of all learners • Designed the school webpage and assisted faculty in their web construction for continuity • Motivated students as a track and volleyball coach to help instill healthy lifestyles SKILLS Specialized in educational technology skills including but not limited to, online learning and course design, mobile devices, multimedia, web 2.0, web design, flipped classrooms, SMART software, staff and faculty training, peripheral devices, educating all levels and experienced individuals

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
• Computer Using Educators • International Society for Technology in Education

Chapter One: Introduction
The popular Apple computer company has changed the educational landscape with the reinvention of traditional music players and basic cellphones, as well as the creation of advanced mobile devices, including the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad. Apple has inspired other companies like Google and Microsoft to reinvent cellphones, transform them into smartphones, and also create tablets. These devices, though used by individuals of all ages, have become quite popular on college campuses. According to the Pew Organization (Rainie & Smith, 2013), 56% of all American adults own a smartphone. Eighty percent of those adults who own smartphones are between the ages 18 to 29 years old. The undergraduate population that participated in this current study was within that age range. In addition to smartphones, e-readers and tablet computers have also become commonplace for Americans ages 16 and older, with 24% owning those devices.
Undergraduate students appear to use their devices for more than just talking, texting, and social networking; these devices have also become tools for academic learning. Capitalizing on students' use of mobile devices could help lead educators to include these devices in their courses more deliberately. According to the Pew Institute (Rainie & Smith, 2013), 34% of all cellphone Internet users used their phones, rather than a desktop or laptop computer, as a primary tool to access the Internet . With these statistics in mind, it was apparent at the time of this study that there was much to be learned about the ways in which undergraduate students were using these devices for academic purposes. By uncovering the way students use academic mobile device, educators can begin to merge technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) practices into their pedagogical approaches (Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
TPACK guided the theoretical framework for this study. TPACK builds on and expands Shulman's (1986) PCK (pedagogical and content knowledge) framework for teaching by adding the important technological piece that is so evident in today's learning environment. TPACK suggests best teaching practices to provide a blend of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge into all courses. By providing an equal blend of each of the TPACK components (technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge), educators can establish rich learning environments for their students to keep them engaged while utilizing specific technologies and pedagogies that relate to their content areas.
Very few research studies have been done regarding the use of mobile devices in the higher educational environment. Additionally, none of those existing studies connected mobile learning to the TPACK framework. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study was to determine the mobile learning of undergraduate students and instructors and correlate the two groups' data. The correlated data gathered on both groups was connected with the TPACK framework to suggest pedagogical strategies for instructors to provide a richer learning environment that meets the needs and demands of today's mobile learners.

Research Questions
The following research questions were explored: 1. In what ways, if any, do undergraduate students use mobile devices in class for academic purposes?
2. In what ways, if any, do undergraduate students use mobile devices outside of class for academic purposes?
3. In what ways, if any, do higher education instructors use mobile devices for academic purposes in class? 4. In what ways, if any, do higher education instructors use mobile devices outside of class for academic purposes?

Significance of the Study
At the time of this study, limited research was available on student and faculty usage of mobile devices for academics in and outside of the classroom. Wu et al. (2012) discussed studies on mobile devices that focused on motivation, perceptions, and attitudes of teachers and students toward mobile learning; however, those studies did not research the manner in which instructors and students used such devices for academic purposes. One exception is the Chen and deNoyelles (2013) study from the University of Central Florida (UCF), which examined the ways in which undergraduate students used mobile devices for learning; however, instructor usage was not taken into consideration in this study. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to explore undergraduate students' and higher education instructors' uses of mobile devices for academics and connect their pedagogical strategies to those mobile devices. The present study's focus on students and faculty will provide valuable information that is currently scarce in the literature.
Recent research involving the use of TPACK has focused largely on how TPACK was utilized and embedded in pre-service teacher programs; those studies analyzed and assessed the quality and effectiveness of TPACK instruction (Archambault & Barnett, 2010;Chai, Koh, & Tsai, 2010;Pamuk, Ergun, Cakir, Yilmaz, & Ayas, 2013;Polly & Brantley-Dias, 2009;Tomak, Incikabi, & Ozgelen, 201;Tomak, Yelken, & Konokman, 2013). Such studies did not include or provide suggestions for mobile device pedagogical applications. Some of the specific technological uses that were studied included: 3D objects, PowerPoint, Blogs, chats for communication, and educational games (Tomak et al., 2012(Tomak et al., , 2013. Of these technological tools, several now have mobile devices applications; however, in those past studies, neither uses nor applications were discussed. A more descriptive and specific look at TPACK using mobile devices was needed. The current study attempted to provide more specific examples of uses by the two groups, which made it possible to provide integration suggestions for mobile devices into postsecondary instruction. Furthermore, this study used TPACK as the theoretical framework to connect student and teacher uses of technology to make suggestions for further mobile device integration into course instruction.

Significance
Undergraduate students have been utilizing mobile devices for socialization for years, by taking pictures, sharing videos, sending messages, etc. When walking through campus, one could observe these students multitasking with their mobile devices while moving from class to class, eating lunch, or communicating with friends. The manner in which learning with these devices happened on campus could be presumed, but the specific tools, purposes, and methods for doing so were unknown. There was a need to uncover the tools that both students and instructors utilized with their mobile devices to enhance everyone's classroom experiences. The purpose of this study was to uncover the ways in which undergraduate students and instructors used mobile devices for academic purposes both in and outside of the classroom. This research has uncovered the variety of tools used in order to better inform instructors' future teaching practices.

Future Contributions of the Study
This study sought to provide information that could be useful to students and teachers about the impact of technological tools on learning. This includes new tools or methods that student may have learned about that could have helped influence their learning and/or professors that may have become better informed of tools that students were using, and to apply those tools in their teaching environments. Yet, students and the instructors did not benefit directly from the immediate research. However, the data collected has been shared with the university communities that participated in this study.

Delimitations
Two universities in Southern California with similar demographics were used to triangulate the data. Both universities had traditional undergraduate programs (students who attend classes full-time, may live on campus, and are traditionally young adults, ages 18-22), adult undergraduate programs (attend classes full-time, but also work full-time. These classes are accelerated and offered once or twice a week at night for large blocks of time), and graduate programs (masters or doctoral degree programs). The sheer size of all the programs combined would not have allowed a specific enough look into how mobile devices were being used for academic purposes. The traditional undergraduate students that were typically of the ages 18-22 made up about 80% of the American smartphone user population in 2013 (Rainie & Smith, 2013). Since this age group represents the majority of smartphone users, researching these subjects was deemed to be most beneficial.
The quantitative survey was hosted online to provide easy access and privacy for the subjects. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis and cross-tabulation. These analyses provided enough data so that additional qualitative survey data was not needed; however, a second round of survey data could be collected in a second iteration of a later study. The literature review explored mobile learning theories, mobile learning studies, mobile learning pedagogies, PCK, and TPACK to provide a broad overview of many elements of mobile devices used for academic purposes.

Limitations
The results of this study are best applied to other universities with similar demographics and populations. Information about participants was obtained through self-report measures; therefore, the results may reflect personal uses that are not demonstrative of the entire university populations' usage. The researcher pulled a random sample from each research site to provide a representative population sample. The sample of research subjects was limited to those who consented to participate in the study and were students who attended two small Christian liberal arts universities in Southern California. The intent of surveying a random sample was to obtain a cross section of the population to provide the most accurate view of the universities' student populations. The researcher adapted the student survey instrument that was used by researchers from UCF (Chen & DeNoyelles, 2013) to incorporate the most up to date research data; those adaptations are discussed further in Chapter Three. The student and faculty surveys were piloted before the start of the data collection. Two experts in the educational technology field validated those pilot study survey results. Data collection was limited to the time allowed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The researcher gathered data over the course of 6 weeks during in-session semesters to best capture the participants' uses of mobile devices for academic purposes.

Definition of Terms
The current study defines undergraduate students as, traditional undergraduate students as young adults if they are within the age range of 18-22, live on campus, or are enrolled in school full time. This population of students was representative of the typical undergraduate population of students across America. The faculty members that were studied taught at least one course per semester in the higher educational setting. Instructors could have taught across programs, graduate and undergraduate, and were asked to respond to survey questions overall with one of their most typical classes in mind.
Mobile devices were defined as portable electronic devices with applications, e-mail, texting, and Internet capabilities utilizing Wi-Fi or cellular networks (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009Greco, 2013;Traxler, 2010;Wu et al., 2012). Laptop computers, Chromebooks, and Netbooks were not considered mobile devices because they lack applications and are typically used for productivity tools like the Microsoft Office Suite or Google Drive. As the focus was on immediate accessibility, Smartphones, tablets, and the iPod touch were all considered mobile devices. The aforementioned terms for mobile devices were used interchangeably throughout the research.
Learning was viewed in in two different ways: informal learning and formal learning.
Informal learning describes the learning that happened outside of direct teacher instruction or just in time information that contributed to one's body of knowledge. This learning was student directed and included personal and social aspects that contributed to their body of knowledge.
An example could be using Evernote (a cloud based productivity application) to record lectures, taking photos of notes on a whiteboard, and taking notes that can then be hosted and shared online. The student would initiate this process on his/her own and use it for studying and learning. Formal or classroom learning describes teacher-directed and occurred in the classroom, including include application usage or classroom activities, such as assigning students to use Prezi (dynamic multimedia presentation tool that can be shared and collaborated with online) to create a presentation.

Summary
Extensive research on both faculty and student mobile device usage for academic purposes has not been conducted at this time, nor has a descriptive and cross-tabulation analysis been done connecting the two groups. Uncovering the ways in which undergraduate students and instructors use mobile devices for academic purposes may help educators better understand how to implement these devices into their classrooms appropriately. This study exploratory survey research study complements the existing research surrounding mobile learning practices and contributes by building upon the current body of knowledge.

Chapter Two: TPACK Integration Through Mobile Devices
This study explored the ways in which college students and faculty used mobile devices: portable web-enabled devices for learning. The role of technology has changed the way people communicate with each other, which has also led to changes support of students' learning.
Pedagogical efforts and instructional theories were also considered when proposing mobile technologies for learning. TPACK connects technologies with specific pedagogical strategies (Koehler & Mishra, 2008 questions to be answered and knowledge to be shared (Prensky, 2010).
A meta-analysis of trends from mobile learning studies found that the key factors to define mobile devices were mobility and the ability to engage in educational activities without being tied to a location. Users are able to access wireless technology to access data, communicate, and mediate other educational activities (Wu et al., 2012). However, many users were not using the devices to their fullest potential. Being device centric, focusing on the device rather than the pedagogy in the devices' use, has hindered the ability to completely conceptualize the educational capabilities of those powerful mobile devices. Contrary to being device centric, using TPACK does not focus on the device; rather, it focuses on the full integration of technology into required content areas with appropriate pedagogies (Wu et al., 2012).
Revisiting the role of technology in learning when students have had constant access to multiple devices has provided an untapped potential to educators. Through TPACK, technologies can be integrated into the classroom while allowing students to use their own mobile devices.
Such mobility offers an opportunity for students and educators to make connections and learn on the go. Education has misplaced its focus on emphasizing the importance of content knowledge, discounting the equal importance of pedagogical and technological knowledge for educators. The emphasis on integrating technology has been neglected over the last decade; however, the best way to accomplish this has been discussed through TPACK. TPACK provides a framework for how to integrate the demanded technology while still incorporating important aspects of pedagogy and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
Early adopters slowly began to integrate technology into classrooms. Educators who were digital natives, typically born after 1979, found it easy and second nature to use technologies in their instruction, whereas digital immigrants needed to make a mind shift to incorporate these tools in everyday instruction. Digital natives are individuals who have grown up with and are surrounded by technology. Digital natives speak the digital language, and go to the Internet first to get answers. All students in K-12 today and at the time of this study can be considered digital natives. In contrast, digital immigrants comprise most current educators, especially in higher education. Digital immigrants do not think naturally in terms of technology tools. They mainly use the Internet as a secondary source, and they look for a user's manual rather than expect the technology to be intuitive. Technology integration specialists have believed that digital natives' brains were physically different than those of digital immigrants, thus the difficulty creating a teaching connection between the two groups (Prensky, 2010). Educators needed to begin learning how to use technology in diverse ways because technology is a key tool of instruction and the teaching practice has evolved.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Shulman (1986) observed the focus of education on teachers' content knowledge in terms of teacher certification. Up until around 1986, teachers were to prove their knowledge of subject matters through tests, while never really needing to prove they understood pedagogical strategies to use with that content knowledge. He emphasized that both pedagogy and content knowledge needed to have shared importance when educating students. Too much focus on one or the other disrupted the necessary balance for students to learn accurately and effectively. If there was too much emphasis on the content knowledge but the teacher did not know how to convey those facts, the student would not learn. If the teacher was good at explaining content to students, varying their teaching techniques, but the content knowledge was wrong, then it still did not matter because the knowledge being taught was useless. Teachers needed to learn not just pedagogy itself, but also different pedagogical strategies in regard to different subject matter.
Teaching should not be a one size fits all model. For example, science may require more hands on experiences like dissection, language arts requires peer-to-peer writers' workshops, and social studies may require utilization of primary source materials to enrich the learning environment.
Shulman described this content-pedagogy connection as Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), and it has changed the nature of teacher education in 1986 from that point forward.

Development of Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK)
TPACK became relevant as a technology integration expert in higher education while considering how undergraduate professors can begin to integrate mobile devices into their formal instruction. Koehler and Mishra (2008) built upon and extended Shulman's (1986)  Any combination of the three TPACK components with knowledge and the core components can exist. Content knowledge is the knowledge of the subject matter that is to be taught. Historically, higher education has been full of subject matter experts or individuals who are accomplished in their fields, hold much experience, and may even be well published. These individuals are known as content knowledge experts. Being a content knowledge expert is an important aspect of teaching because misrepresentation of content knowledge could impact students greatly (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Students have looked to their professors as the subject matter experts, and for the most part have accepted information given by teachers without question. If the content was misrepresented, it created holes in the students' foundational knowledge, impacting how they used that knowledge, creating the need for clarification of that knowledge down the road and further supporting the importance of content knowledge.
Pedagogical knowledge is the educators' knowledge regarding how to teach, including educational objectives, students' evaluation, and learning processes (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 This pedagogy can be demonstrated through differentiation of instruction and a strong sense of care for the students' education and well-being. Being an expert in pedagogy is what separates knowledgeable people from knowledgeable educators (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 be able to find errors in students work and suggest corrections. The instructor will not only know math concepts, but also be able to adapt the instruction to meet the students' needs (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Technological Knowledge is the knowledge someone has regarding technology tools, whether analog (books and/or whiteboards) or digital (Internet, tablet applications, and/or web 2.0 tools; Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Technological knowledge is always changing since technologies are always changing. With that in mind, it is difficult to define technological knowledge due to its state of flux. Becoming computer literate is a skill that an educator holds with the ability to stay flexible and apply knowledge across platforms or tools, making an educator knowledgeable in technology (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Educators who have technological knowledge are able to troubleshoot technology on their own or with little to no direction or support. Individuals with sound technology knowledge do not require a lot of direction and they also have a large repertoire of tools to use. However, possessing technological knowledge alone does not make an effective educator (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).
Teachers are blending Technological Knowledge and Content Knowledge when they find or create connections between content areas and technologies. An expert teacher in this regard would be able to find tools that connect to the core subject areas, for instance using Geometer's Sketchpad for teaching mathematics. Technological and Content Knowledge teachers are able to replace tasks that were done without technology and provide technologies to achieve those same learning objectives (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). For example, rather than have a teacher provide a lecture on Newton's laws of physics, he/she might provide interactive games or use web 2.0 tools to teach the same content.
Technology teachers are usually strong in Technological and Pedagogical Knowledge and are able to choose the right technologies for the learning objectives at hand. Such an educator understands and demonstrates different teaching strategies and varies the uses of technologies. An expert in this area is able to find a variety of tools for a variety of instructional uses (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). He/she is able to adapt to and stay up to date on the latest trends in technology, educational and otherwise. Rather than take an analog task and rework it with technology, this type of teacher will use technology as a tool to make that learning project better.
For example, studying Newton's Laws of Physics again, an instructor could have students digitally record gravity at work by dropping two different weighted items at once, and have the students slow the recording down to re-watch to see if the heavier object drops first or at the same time. The key to technological and pedagogical knowledge is the diversity in tools and strategies that the teacher implements. The technology is the tool, not the purpose (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). An educator who incorporates TPACK effectively is able to build on students' prior knowledge by including appropriate technologies and best pedagogical practices. The incorporation of all three components, Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge, blends technology seamlessly into the classroom. TPACK applies to the technology teachers and their courses as well as the subject matter instructors. The teacher does not use technology for its own sake, but rather has an educational purpose, and is able to find several different applications of those tools.
An effective TPACK integrating educator is able to model this framework in instruction daily and provide an integrated teaching approach to meet the diverse needs of all learners (Mishra & Koehler, 2006).

Resistance to Changes in Education
New innovative technologies are appearing on the educational landscape everyday. Many teachers in K-12 schools are discovering and implementing these technologies into their classrooms daily. However, in higher education, students rarely see this technology integration.
Some professors are courageous and ambitious enough to explore these technologies for the sake of their students' learning. However, many educators are somewhat apprehensive in tackling new technologies for fear of their lack of educational impact or the time vacuum implementing technology might incur. Teachers should provide immersive, meaningful learning activities that engage the students actively in the content (Ackermann, 2001). This immersion should be representative of the way these technologies are used in the world or in today's workplace. Dewey's (1938Dewey's ( /1988) model of learning through active engagement in meaningful activity is the way technology in education would be best put into practice. Working on real life problems as those problems arise brings more meaning to those tasks (Shaffer, 2006). Implementing technology naturally in higher education will provide a seamless transition for students to present real life problems and solutions. For many years universities have had technology education courses held outside of the core subject areas solely for students interested in computer programing or other technology fields. These stand-alone courses make it difficult for students to make the content related to real-life connections. The technological real life integration is vague because it does not hold a logical place within the curriculum. As a result, students see technology as separate from their coursework and their personal lives (Mishra & Koehler, 2006 (Chang et al., 2012). Taking advantage of the availability of mobile devices and taking a mobile teaching and learning perspective to integrating technology into the classroom may yield better results.
Integrating the TPACK framework into higher education will create a relevant teaching and learning experience all students. By integrating mobile technologies educators, can be the necessary facilitators between task-based and sense-making activities. Students can perform a task and the educators can help schematize the content to its life applications. The instructor's assistance will help students to move between tasks and form connections between activities (Rogers, Connelly, Hazlewood, & Tedesco, 2010). Learning tasks and materials must be sensitive to the five psychological challenges of the mobile learning experience: context dependency, resource limitations, distributed cognition, and attitudes and preferences concerning technology use (Terras & Ramsay, 2012).
Participants in this study will learn firsthand that the technologies exist in world outside of the formalized classroom settings. Using a blend of TPACK provides an example of what the world is today and how those technologies exist within it.

Pedagogical Uses of Technology
Today's learners are surrounded with technologies, emphasizing the importance of not only pedagogy and content knowledge, but also technology integration. Some studies have been conducted with pre-service teachers and their use of TPACK when preparing to become teachers. Sahim (2011) studied the relationship of study grade point averages (GPAs) to the usage of the three components of TPACK. He found that higher use of TPACK components was associated with higher GPAs. This study showed that with equal distribution of the TPACK components, students excelled more overall in school.
Today's educators use technology as efficiency aids or as extension devices rather than as transformative tools (Harris, Mishra, & Koehler, 2009 The following topics are teaching approaches adopted by several university educators that demonstrate sound steps toward using technology tools of instruction through implementing TPACK.

Pedagogy and Technology
Problem Based Learning. Problem Based Learning (PBL), a pedagogical teaching strategy that is now being taught to pre-service teachers, is beginning to gain popularity within K-12 education. The Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA, 1993) made a big push for this constructivist teaching style in the early 1990s within professional career training. This approach tasks students with real world problems to solve; the idea is to create a cross-curricular experience for the students in which their learning becomes more relatable to real life situations.
Technologies are being integrated into these projects loosely. Since this approach is student centered, the digital natives naturally uncover technologies that are useful in solving these problems.  (Traxler, 2010). Creating a flipped classroom experience allows teachers to make better use of their class time. Students have more time to engage with each other and their instructors authentically. Uploading lectures online saves time and meets the needs of diverse learners. Seeing or hearing the lesson repeatedly as many times as they need to allows students more practice, and they can learn at their own pace. With the growing popularity of the flipped classroom, technologies are being used to create additional classroom content for students to access outside of the schools' four walls (Lage, Platt, & Treglia, 2000

Growth of Technology and Mobile Devices
Walk onto any college campus across America and you will find the majority of undergraduates connected to their mobile devices. According to a recent PBS Frontline study by Evan Wexler (2014), of teens between the ages of 12-17, 74% are mobile Internet users. That age group may indicate the mobile Internet usage of undergraduate students today. The ubiquity of students' mobile devices contributes to how, when, and where learning can and does happen (Barnhart & Pierce, 2011). Most students own at least one mobile device and spend a great deal of time and money "choosing, buying, customizing, enhancing, exploiting their personal mobile devices" (Traxler, 2010, p. 25 Connections worldwide. With mobile devices becoming more and more ubiquitous, the ways in which undergraduates use those devices has gone understudied. As mobile technologies are becoming more popular among teens, and it is argued that such technology should become more embedded within education (Merchant, 2012). The purpose of this quantitative study was to discover how undergraduate students and instructors use their mobile devices in and outside of formal class. Timberg (2013) noted that world's population is about 7.1 billion, and the number of mobile devices is growing toward 7.4 billion, up from 6.8 billion devices in 2012. The rise of mobile devices is growing faster than the world's population. Table 1 shows the rapid growth of technology and dependency on these technologies worldwide. With the growth of Internet connectivity, users are finding more and more ways to access the web, and mobile devices are a tool for that connection. These mobile devices are fighting their ways into the educational landscape and classrooms. Mobile devices are embedded in people's everyday lives; however, many instructors see mobile devices as a distraction or as unnecessary (Merchant, 2012). The current study explored how undergraduate students and instructors describe their academic use their mobile devices in and outside of formal class, asking questions about teacher-directed uses as well as student-initiated academic uses. The data gathered in this study will provide information to merge the two groups uses of mobile devices to provide the best possible learning environment rather than serve as a distraction.
Ubiquity of mobile devices. In PBS Frontline's 2011 study of teens between the ages of 12-17 and their use of mobile devices, they found that 37% of all teens have smartphones in 2012, up from 23% in 2011 and 95% of teens use the Internet (Wexler, 2014). This group of 12-17 year olds comprises the group of students just before they attend college. It can be predicted that even more undergraduate students have smartphones than the group of 12-17 year olds that PBS studied due to their independence and being away from home.
In terms of access, 93% of teens have computer access at home but 71% say the computer or laptop they use at home is shared with other family members (Wexler, 2014).
Shared devices raise the demand for personal mobile devices for privacy and personalization.
According to danah boyd (as cited in Wexler, 2014), principal researcher at Microsoft Research, "teens want a place of their own to hang out with the people they want to and not with the people that drive them crazy" (p. 1). With so many teens being connected today and the lack of restriction on university campuses, it exposes the possibilities of these devices being used academically.
Ease of access to technologies today. The growing popularity of mobile devices is due to anytime anywhere access to information . Mobile devices allow people to communicate, negotiate, socialize, and learn in cooperative and collaborative ways that would not happen otherwise. Educators who are taking advantage of the anytime anywhere devices utilize them for the extended "possibilities for formal educational activities of active collaboration, real-time chats, shared screens and boards, support for team creation, awareness of participation, and control time of activities" (Cruz-Flores & Lopez-Morteo, 2010, p. 9). Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo, Sánchez, and Vavoula (2009) redefined the idea of a physical learning space, or classroom learning space. As the physical, conceptual, and social spaces become mobile, time has become more flexible and malleable for the user. Additionally, Plant (2001) suggested making changes to commonly used definitions and notions of time.
Rather than viewing time as a common structure in place, it has become approximate, allowing approx-meetings or multi-meetings. Time is now socially negotiated (Sørensen, Mathiassen, & Kakihara, 2002) and the "micro-coordination of everyday life" (Ling, 2004, p. 69) alongside the "softening of schedules" (Ling, 2004, p. 73) that is afforded by mobile devices. Nyíri (2007) stated that, "with the mobile phone, time has become personalized" (p. 301). Or perhaps, "…this means the replacement of one time by a series of overlapping times" (Traxler, 2010, p. 7). Since students are becoming busier and busier, running from class, work, jobs, and other responsibilities, this notion of not needing to be tied to a location in order to learn has become more important.
Not only are mobile devices changing the definition of time, but they are also eroding physical space. Now individuals can be present without actually being present, also known as absent presence (Gergen, 2002). Groups can be together in "physically co-located groups, in the family home or in the university common room, all connected online elsewhere and by simultaneity of place" (Traxler, 2010, p. 8). Mobile devices have changed physical space into virtual spaces of social and conversational interaction (Traxler, 2010), allowing today's students and teachers to still connect with each other anytime, anywhere. Students no longer have to spend long hours in the library to meet with study groups; rather, they can use their mobile devices, FaceTime, Google Hangout, or Skype to accomplish the same goals without having to be in the same room.
With the notion of physical space being reexamined, today's libraries are looking at ways to integrate with mobile devices. Mobile devices have changed the ways in which learning, research, and teaching happen (Barnhart & Pierce, 2011). For example, EBook readers and mp3 media players allow for transportability of information. The traditional media of books and records are longer necessary to store and transmit literature and music (Traxler, 2009).
Transformation changes the ways in which students seek and obtain information. Mobile devices offer greater mobility and connectedness than laptop or desktop computers (Traxler, 2010 (Barnhart & Pierce, 2011). Learning and knowledge are now no longer confined to physical places or artifacts (Traxler, 2010).
Mobile devices now provide easier capabilities for mini instruction or microinstruction among the masses in formats, such as Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
Microinstruction transforms the traditional classroom of students and provides means for meeting the needs of the underserved population (Barnhart & Pierce, 2011). "One hundred and eighty million children in developing countries will have the opportunity to stay in school between now and 2017 due to Mobile Education" (GSMA & A. T. Kearney, 2013, p. 34).
Because of the unique characteristics of mobile devices-such as portability, connectivity, convenience, expediency, immediacy, accessibility, individuality, and interactivity-they have taken education to the next level (Song, 2011). Students no longer need to take field notes and wait to get back to the lab to record or further their knowledge; instead, they may locate information in the field at the moment it is needed (Merchant, 2012).  Figure 2. The majority of users indicated that the most favorable factors were portability, storage, computing power, and convenience. One hundred percent of smartphone users used them to communicate, and 21% of personal digital assistant (PDA) users and 19% smartphone users used their devices for collaborative learning. However, in the subsequent follow up section of his study, additional users indicated that they did collaborate but just did not recognize it as such.
Ninety percent used their devices for taking notes to support informal learning. Voice recorders were the most commonly reported used feature of their devices, web access -while away from the computer, and 90% synced their devices with their computer. However, since 2009, cloud storage has made synchronization much easier and minimized the necessity of doing so manually.
Forty-five percent accessed the web daily or weekly and 30% stated that they accessed the web occasionally. Users indicated that they often used Wikipedia for informal learning. Some indicated that they used the camera in informal learning activities, but not exclusively for informal learning. Lack of use of the mobile devices' camera could be attributed to its low quality and or lack thereof on mobile devices at the time of that study. A few users noted the use of audiobooks and podcasts, and 84% reported using administrative features daily such as the calendar and contacts. Although the participants did not explicitly recognize it as such, collaboration was a key theme and knowledge sharing was also commonplace. Based on the findings of this study, the researcher believes that digital natives in undergraduate educational settings today are utilizing these informal learning applications as well as many more that were not yet developed in 2009 or were been mentioned by the participants in Ally's (2009) study.
The National Association of Independent Schools' (NAIS) 2012 Mobile Survey Report found that 75% of independent K-12 schools were using mobile technologies and 12% were actively planning to use them. There are obstacles to implementing mobile devices in the K-12 setting, such acceptable use policies and school owned devices versus student owned. In light of those obstacles, 75% of schools still reported using mobile technologies. It can be assumed that today's undergraduate students are accustomed to using mobile devices in their past educational experiences. Undergraduates likely have encountered academic uses of mobile devices that can be shared with their current instructors. If 75% of K-12 schools are using mobile devices for learning in spite of many obstacles, the percentage should be higher in the university setting.
Theses students are growing up with technologies used in their K-12 classes every day, but then find such technologies practically absent from the college classroom (Thuermer, 2012). Smith (2010) found that, in 2010, two in five adults used their mobile devices for Internet, e-mail, or instant messaging, which an increase to 40% from 32% in 2009. There has also been growth in use of non-voice applications in recent years, especially among young adults and 30-49 year olds. Additionally, 95% of cell phone owning 18-29 year olds reported using textmessaging and were significantly more likely to use their cell phones over other technologies for other mobile data applications, such as taking pictures, sending e-mail, or accessing the Internet.
Collaborating through e-mail, text message, or use of non-voice applications and pictures may be current academic uses both in and outside of class. Since this study is 4 years old, it can be assumed that those learning applications have been taken further and new applications have emerged since its publication.

Importance of Studying Undergraduate Students and Educators
Undergraduate education is currently suffering from a standstill in technology integration in the formal academic setting. These students are young adults who are digital natives with not just one device, but also several. They see their devices as extensions of themselves because mobile devices offer anytime, anywhere learning (Terras & Ramsay, 2012). Students use their devices to communicate with each other constantly, and yet when they get to class, they are told to put their devices away. They grew up in their primary educational settings where many of their schools had one device to every student, robust Wi-Fi on their campuses, interactive whiteboards, etc. Now when they step foot on a college campus it is as if they take a time machine to a place where these devices do not exist. Based on the researcher's observations, it seems many undergraduates are using their devices to assist with their academic coursework.
Many studies have been done with K-12 students; however, there is a lack of information regarding the undergraduate population's academic usage of mobile devices. The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) e-learning program in the UK set out to research understudied topics related to today's learners, one of which was mobile device usage. Yet, one study conducted on the topic of mobile device usage found a mismatch of experiences and expectations of learners and academic staff in regard to mobile devices usage (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). It is known that students are connected, but it is unknown to what extent they use their devices to further support their learning.
In addition to uncovering how undergraduate students use their devices academically both in and outside of class, researching to what extent the undergraduate educators utilize mobile devices academically both in and outside of their courses will help provide a direction for better educational mobile device implementation. Through gathering data from both undergraduates and educators, the data can inform both groups of academic users of mobile devices to enhance learning.

Omnipresence on Campuses
Thousands of devices are arriving on campuses each year, presenting challenging the speed of and congesting college wireless networks. Empty a college student's backpack and one is likely to find several devices: laptop, tablet, and/or smartphone. This phenomenon is called device explosion. Armstrong Atlantic State University took an inventory of devices in 2012, finding it to increase by 260% the following year. This growth is a demonstration of students' demand to be connected at all times (Straumsheim, 2013).
Early adopting campus like Robeson Community College (RCC) in North Carolina are working diligently to keep up when it comes to meeting needs and demands of their students, who expect to use mobile devices for everything and are comfortable using so. RCC has created mobile apps to allow students to register, log into the school's learning management system, check grades, access course materials, and connect with teachers or classmates. Their goal is to accommodate learning anytime, anywhere, and on any device. They have increased the wireless access points to 128 across their 127-acre campus. Additionally, RCC is requiring their educators to have an online presence to enhance the teaching and learning educational experience (Wong, 2012).

Timeliness of this Study
Today, higher education is under the microscope and being investigated more closely to reform the educational stage and make changes. The working world demands that today's students create and research, not just consume information. The Higher Education Academy working diligently to create technology rich learning environments for their students; however, as mentioned previously, once students graduate and go to college, they go back in time with regard to technology integration. Traditional higher education institutions are falling behind with regard to progressive education, and now they must be forced to make changes or they will lose students to more innovative forms of education like MOOCs. Mobile device integration is one progressive change that higher education institutions must begin to recognize that students are demanding.
Although students use their devices on their own, they could benefit more if their instructors would find deliberate uses for these powerful technologies. Ally (2004Ally ( , 2009 found that students used their mobile devices for both simulation and explorative information retrieval.
However, students required some assistance from instructors to guide them away from misconceptions while searching the web for answers during information retrieval using devices.
Additionally, when students were given devices rather than using their own technology, students experienced more difficultly because they were using unfamiliar technologies and instructional time was lost (Chang et al., 2012). If students have devices, they know how to use them; teachers merely need to ask them to do a task and the students will know what tool to use to accomplish it.
Educators do not need to be experts in devices; however, getting involved in the learning process with those tools will create better learning environment where both student and teacher will benefit. With mobile device implementation educators will not feel as though they are fighting the potential distraction of mobile devices and students will feel empowered and guided to use these powerful devices. Traxler (2010)  How students connect and learn with others has changed dramatically. What students know and how they know it is no longer something that is only obtained from sitting in a classroom or reading out of a textbook. The gathering of information has become more attainable and immediate. Rather than going to class or to the library, students can get answers within seconds on their own devices. Students no longer require the assistance of a professor or personally known expert in order to ask questions or make connections. Rather, students can now send a tweet into the Twitterverse and receive answers within minutes. These answers can be validated by the masses since they are posted publicly. Students can utilize a variety of other resources within communities or other like-minded learners (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). Learning is now experienced and supported in digitally mediated environments (Bell, 2011). This immediacy and ease of access to information is changing the landscape of higher education.
Learning no longer needs to be confined to four walls and a professor; rather it is social, interactive, 24/7, and immediate.
Learning is more than just processing content; social learning theory emphasizes the importance of the context in which information is received (Bandura, 1971). Students need to learn through observations, direct instruction, and social experiences. A variety of experiences to reinforce the content are needed for students to conditionalize that information. Mobile devices afford students opportunities to engage in the content socially as often as needed. Mobile devices provide more mobility to learning, providing students with necessary social learning experiences.
This study is timely due to the high pressure on higher education intuitions to offer something relevant to today's mobile learners. With the rise in MOOCs that provide opportunities for free education to the masses, higher education institutions must work hard to provide a unique and personalized learning experience. K-12 schools are setting the standards for rich technology environments, yet when students arrive on college campuses their use of technologies diminishes drastically. Using TPACK will provide a sound framework to take the focus off of the particular devices and focus on an equal blend of all the important components of learning to meet the digital demands of today's students.

Attitudes
It is important to look at the attitudes held by faculty and students toward using mobile devices for academics. Attitudes contribute to the diffusion rate at which these devices will be integrated into academic courses. As students have traditionally been early adopters of new technologies, educators have typically been the laggards. Looking closer at some of these attitudes may offer potential opportunities to overcome some of the negative beliefs held regarding mobile device usage for academic purposes.

Student demands.
Even though instructors may not be promoting mobile device use, students are still demanding it and use them when possible. Students want to have control of what they learn and how they learn it. Some instructors use mobile learning via clickers or polling, like Socrative or Poll Everywhere,. Instructors also use mobile devices to enable students to access course materials like presentations, videos, or learning management systems.
For these purposes, students use their own devices (also known as Bring Your Own Device or BYOD); however, the experiences are not usually shared or collaborative between teacher and student (Cruz-Flores & Lopez-Morteo, 2010). Rather, those technology uses are no different than passing out worksheets. Meeting the students' demand for dynamic device inclusion is an important factor when considering motivation and empowerment of students by educators (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). Sung and Mayer (2013) conducted an experimental, comparative study on learning with desktop computers and handheld devices. Their results study showed that students reported more satisfaction with learning on mobile devices than the desktop users. This finding was attributed to the portability and capability of the informal learning environments afforded by mobile devices. Many of today's students are constantly on the go, running from class to class, job, and home; additionally, many have long commutes. With mobile technologies, students no longer need to feel strapped for time to study. Their studying can take place anytime, anywhere.
Interacting with a desktop computer takes place in a bubble. "Desktop technologies operate in their own little world; mobile devices operate in the world" (Traxler, 2010, p. 2). Sung and Mayer compared attitudes of American and South Korean students, finding that the delivery medium, whether via mobile or desktop/laptop means, was more important to American students than South Korean students. American students felt that learning with mobile devices was fundamentally different than learning with computers. American students felt that the portability and easy access of mobile devices did not restrict their learning. They were not confined to a particular space and time; rather, they were in control or what and when they learned. South Koreans saw the learning on both computers and mobile devices as the same; however, when asked which they preferred, both South Koreans and Americans preferred mobile devices.
Ting (2012) studied the pitfalls of mobile learning, and when polled, most learners had an unfavorable impression of learning with mobile technologies; however, when the learning experience was contextualized with real life examples, their perception became more favorable.
Some of the negative perceptions may have been related to the type of device the students were using. If students were provided with mobile devices, school owned or otherwise, student perceptions were negative. When the students were not familiar with the devices, they spent more time trying to figure out how to use the device than accomplishing the given academic task.
In this study, the mobile technologies hindered the learning process. By allowing students to use their own devices this obstacle could be overcome, as well as allowing the instructor to focus on the educational context of the lesson, helping create clear connections for the students. Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz (2013) studied teachers and their attitudes toward integrating tablets into their instruction. They found that, overall, teachers' attitudes varied when integrating tablets; however, when working with disabled children, teachers were more likely to use tablets.
Special education teachers have been more accustomed to using adaptive technologies and they feel tablet computers are merely an additional adaptive technology to use with that demographic group. The limitations of mobile technologies that educators described were the small screens, limited input, and low computational power, all of which damper their use thereof in classrooms (Ting, 2012). However, it is important to note that screens are getting bigger today, devices are getting lighter, and more powerful for productivity. However informed educators are regarding mobile devices, many choose not to use mobile devices in the formal setting due to concerns about information overload, privacy breaches, or that students would not follow the rules (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). According to a study in 2013, teachers who resisted the use of mobile technologies stated that there are too many obstacles to overcome to integrate tablets into the classroom successfully (Ifenthaler & Schweinbenz, 2013). These teachers felt the learning curve was too steep and they would rather focus on their craft: the pedagogy and the content knowledge. Yet, the world is changing and technology is ubiquitous; it cannot be avoided.
Teaching without technology is no longer an acceptable practice. Using TPACK will engage students with the current technologies that are demanded in today's workplace. This resistance to mobile device integration has literally left students to their own devices, in and outside of the classrooms (Koehler & Mishra, 2008).
In a study by Terras and Ramsay (2012), educators expressed concerns regarding mobile learning, describing the potentially "significant psychological risk in terms of user engagement and concentration" (p. 823). For example, Terras and Ramsay stated: When the learner moves from context to context, the environmental stimuli change and there is an associated greater risk of interruption, distraction and reduced concentration.
These interruptions come in many forms: attentional distractions, noise, changing audiovisual stimuli, changing temperature, differing comfort levels, differing visibility levels, etc. All of these factors have the potential to disrupt the engagement of the mobile learner.
(p. 823) Educators managing these distractions and engaging with the information rather than managing the interruptions becomes the challenge. Many instructors do not want to deal with the added obstacles that come with mobile device integration. Managing a classroom of students is difficult enough, let alone needing to manage the infinite unknown other distractions that are so easily obtained through mobile devices. Students in these types of classrooms either hide their devices during class or choose to follow the rules and not use them at all. More information and data are necessary to provide professors with mobile device uses and applications to accommodate both parties' concerns.
Obstacles to adoption. There are many reasons why educators choose not to integrate technology into their classrooms. One, and perhaps the biggest reason, is time. Technological knowledge is never fixed, which contributes to the amount of time spent learning technological tools. Teachers like to create lessons that they know they can use for many years to come with small adjustments or updates. If they create a technology lesson and that technology changes drastically from year to year, they may feel that their time is not spent wisely. Additionally, there are many different versions of software, hardware, and web 2.0 tools that all require different knowledge to use; moreover, some of that knowledge may be incompatible with the other tools.
These factors require educators to become lifelong technology learners. Educators need to be willing to accept that educational technology is always changing and make a concerted effort to keep up with those changes (Koehler & Mishra, 2008). Everyone feels they need more time; however, accepting the direction of today's education and embracing the need to be a lifelong technology learner will have positive effects on today's students.
Secondly, a lack in basic technological knowledge deters educators from technology integration. Especially at the collegiate level, most educators are experts in content knowledge, but not in technological knowledge. Also, many informational technology (IT) support personnel are experts in the technologies but not experts in the pedagogy or the content areas, making it difficult for them to support educators adequately. Many higher education professors went to school before modern technologies were used in the classrooms at a basic level. This lack of exposure can be a contributing factor as to why those instructors do not feel appropriately prepared to use technologies in their classrooms (Koehler & Mishra 2008). Additionally, exploring a new teaching method is daunting because many veteran teachers have already solidified their pedagogical knowledge (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Changing mindsets and taking on a new task is difficult and may seem unnecessary to seasoned educators. Educators must feel that technology integration and content inclusion is consistent with their pedagogical beliefs in order to use those skills in their classrooms (Koehler & Mishra 2008). They may have excellent student evaluations and not see a need to change their pedagogy. Yet, the world outside of their classrooms is changing, and in order to capture students' attention, they would be well served to consider using relevant content related technologies.
Finally, fear is a common reason to avoid including technology applications into classroom instruction (Koehler & Mishra 2008). Many educators fear that if technology does not work correctly, they will lose their credibility, or they will not teach as well. Accepting that educators do not need to be technology experts is important. Rather, students are experts on their own devices. By embracing the use of mobile devices in the classroom, students will be inspired to use them more often and they can uncover new educational uses of the devices together.
Additionally, by uncovering previously unknown student mobile uses, educators can use an informed place of reference to begin to suggest academic uses of mobile devices in formal classes.

Learning In and Outside of Class
Learning happens all the time; not just in class, but also outside of class. People are curious beings who seek knowledge and learning. Mobile devices have afforded individuals the ability to seek enlightenment at any time, in any place. Students no longer need to be physically situated in a formal learning place like a classroom or a library in order to learn.
Formal classroom learning. Since teens today use mobile devices largely in social settings, it is important to build a teacher-student relationship so that educators can bring informal learning uses of mobile devices into the formal setting. Educators can help bridge informal and formal learning with students (Bull, Thompson, Searson, Garofalo, Park, Young, & Lee, 2008). By opening the doors for communication about the mobile device uses of students and educators, the gap can begin to be bridged. As mentioned earlier, some minor uses of technology are slowly beginning to be implemented into the classroom, but there is still a long way to go. Educators are the content and pedagogical experts and students may be the technology experts on their own devices, but the students are not technological and pedagogical knowledge experts. Together, combining students' knowledge with the instructors' knowledge will build a more technologically rich, motivating, relevant classroom.

Informal learning.
Informal learning is done on one's own; the need to learn is not imposed by work, university, or school, and individuals can use a variety of techniques, personal preferences, or learning styles to obtain information (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). Informal learning is not always work; rather, it can be self-motivated and serendipitous (Traxler, 2010;Vavoula, 2003).
Bell (2011) defined informal learning with regard to mobile learning as "Internet users learning whilst surfing and acquiring information to enrich other learning activities, such as face-to-face discussion" (p. 99). Through one's daily activities, there may be a point when a learning opportunity presents itself; it is then classified as unintentional informal learning (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). Open educational resources, like MOOCs, uncover widespread online public education that acknowledges: The informal learning that has always taken place outside the classroom, in the workplace and at home. Web-enabled learning is undertaken by individuals as independent, informal learners, often within a social setting: This may occur in places of formal education, in workplaces, and in society in general. (Bell, 2011, p. 100) A study by Ally (2009) found that Canadian adults reported spending more time on informal learning activities (an average of 15 hours per week) than on formal learning activities.
However, this study did not denote whether or not the participants were enrolled in school.
Based on this finding and the researcher's observations on college campuses, the researcher believes that students enrolled in a formal undergraduate educational settings would engage in at least, if not more than, 15 hours per week on informal learning activities. Informal learning activities take the form of innovative connective and collaborative activities that are only possible with mobile devices. Since learning may be unintentional, individuals may be unaware that the learning is taking place (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). In the current study, participants were not asked to recall instances of using devices for formal or informal learning; rather they were asked to tell a time when they used a device for academic purposes in and outside of class. This minimized the potential for students to misinterpret what the researcher defined as formal or informal learning. The data collected were coded as formal or informal learning activities.
Ally (2009) defined informal learning as "a deliberate effort to gain new knowledge or skills or obtain improved insights or understandings" (p. 100). Livingston (as cited in Ally, 2009) defined informal learning as "any activity that involved learning which occurred outside the formal curricula of an educational institution" (p. 100). Livingston distinguished between explicit informal learning and implied informal learning that occurs in social or other types of activities. Both explicit and implied informal learning have the same results of acquiring new knowledge or skills. However, Livingston noted, "only the explicit informal learning project is motivated by some immediate problem or need" (Ally, 2009, p. 100), which Tough's (1979) definition emphasized as well. Vavoula, Scanlon, Lonsdale, Sharples, and Jones (2005) partnered with Ally (2009)   With the ubiquity of mobile devices, informal learning has become more frequent and available. The benefit of mobile devices to informal learners is the freedom and potential to explore knowledge unconstrained by formal learning goals (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). Groups or communities on the web form around topics of interest that are easily accessed at any time.
Informal learning groups behave as smart mobs, "self-organizing technology-mediated social groups such as flash mobs" (Traxler, 2009, p. 12), where groups of people form to collect intelligence in this mobile age. Informal learning environments create more of a social learning environment, or a community of practice, surrounding participants' interest in a desired topic (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Students are able to use their mobile devices to gain additional insight and background knowledge on the topics taught in class and build upon those topics outside of class, which is an example of informal learning (Chang et al., 2012). Students can use mobile devices to access data to add depth to their partially formed ideas and understandings and integrate new information gained from their devices with their understanding and observations to make generalizations about new material (Rogers et al., 2010). Students are able to use the power of their devices and the web to maximize knowledge and collaboration that impacts the education and lives of students (GSMA & A. T. Kearney, 2013). Since informal learning is based on the learner's preferences and learning styles, the motivation for informal learning is different than it is for formal learning (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). These informal learning practices related to mobile device usage, when and if uncovered, can be used to differentiate teaching in order to motivate students.
For the purpose of the current study, informal learning was defined as learning in which a student engages that is not teacher directed. Students are self-motivated to engage in informal learning in order to obtain new or deepen current knowledge, and it can be either unintentional or intentional. Formal learning or in class learning describes learning that is teacher directed and done within the course setting (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009).
Mobile learning. One is naturally led to mobile learning theory when studying the learning that takes place with mobile devices. Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2007) defined mobile learning as "the processes of coming to know through conversations across multiple contexts amongst people and personal interactive technologies" (p. 225). Ally (2009) asserted that "mobile learning is essentially personal, contextual, and situated; this means it is 'noisy,' which is problematic both for definition and for evaluation" (p. 10). Through the dissection of mobile learning, informal learning emerges and requires a definition. Ally merged the notion of mobile learning into a definition of informal learning where individuals "access additional and personalized learning materials from the Internet or from the host organization" (p. 1). In this study, mobile learning was defined as the act of using one's mobile device to connect with others and gather information to communicate or collaborate with others or in a community.
Mobile device studies. In a meta-analysis of trend from mobile learning studies by Wu et al. (2012), the authors set out to answer the following four research questions: learning, higher education students were most commonly studied, following elementary school students, and finally high school students. These studies focused on motivation, perceptions, and attitudes toward ubiquitous learning (Wu et al., 2012).
The authors of this meta-analysis distributed research methods into two purposes, reflected in Table 2: (a) evaluation-dominant with application-minor or (b) design-dominant with evaluation-minor. Table 2 denotes the research methods used and the number of studies that used the corresponding method (Wu et al., 2012). Overall, higher education institutions favored mobile phones (51.98%) and most dominantly in non-formal education contexts; the frequency of use was somewhat lower in formal education in higher educational institutions. Of those who used mobile phones for learning, elementary students made up 17.51% of the total population, adult learners comprised 12.43% of the total population, secondary comprised 8.47% of the total population, and disabled students comprised .056% of the total population. Table 3 presents a breakdown of the mobile learning usage for educational purposes in higher educational institutions (Wu et al., 2012). This meta-analysis had seven findings: 1. Most studies have focused on effectiveness followed by mobile learning design.
2. Surveys and experimental methods were most commonly used regardless of whether the purpose was focused on evaluation or design.
3. Research outcomes in mobile learning studies are significantly positive.
4. Mobile phones and PDAs are the most commonly used devices; however, it is projected that both will be replaced by emerging technologies.
5. Mobile learning is most common in higher education institutions, followed by elementary schools.
6. Students in the professional studies and applied sciences were found to best support student learning, although mobile learning can be used in any course.
7. Mobile learning system design followed by effectiveness articles were most highly cited. Since mobile learning is most commonly done in higher educational institutions, it lends itself well to study the ways in which informal learning happens (Wu et al., 2012).
At the UCF, Chen and deNoyelles (2013) found that among undergraduate students, tablets are the most popular devices used for academic purposes. Students reported that they use these devices in a self-directed manner with little or no guidance from instructors: informal learning. This study investigated undergraduate students' mobile learning practices; however, this study did not study instructor mobile device usage. The current study not only explored how undergraduate students are using mobile devices for academic purposes, but also undergraduate instructors' mobile learning practices.
The purpose of the present quantitative research study was to describe the effects of mobile devices for academics purposes in and outside of formal class settings for undergraduate students and professors at two small faith-based Universities in Southern California. The following research questions were explored: conducted descriptive analysis and cross-tabulation analysis on the data. The data surveyed categorical and frequency data from undergraduate students and instructors. Profiles of uses and frequencies were completed through the descriptive analysis and cross-tabulation. The ways in which undergraduate students and instructors used mobile devices for academic purposes in and outside of formal class was not studied before the time of this study.

Chapter Three: Methodology
The ubiquity of mobile devices and their uses in education has been increasing over the last decade, 2004 -2014. The ways in which those devices are being used by undergraduate students and instructors has not been studied sufficiently. This survey research study investigated the ways in which these mobile devices have been used for academics purposes in and outside of formal class settings by faculty and students at two small faith based Universities in Southern California to answer the following questions:

Rationale for Research Approach
Since it is known that many adults use mobile devices, an exploratory study was determined to be the best way to uncover how those devices were being used. In this exploratory study, survey research was deemed the best way to uncover those actual uses of mobile devices for academics in and outside of class. This exploratory study combined checkbox answers as well as open-ended text boxes, as to not restrict the participants' answers regarding the researcher's preconceived notions of mobile device usage.
By answering these open-ended questions, the participants had the opportunity to report the actual ways in which they have used those devices, whether academic or not. Mobile devices are ubiquitous, and one can observe both students' and instructors' constant connection to those mobile devices. The survey allowed participants to think about their usage in ways that related to the literature as well as report unique, new, and/or unreported uses in the current literature.
For the purpose of this study, mobile devices were defined as handheld devices that are Wi-Fi enabled, application based, lightweight (typically less than 2 pounds). Devices had to have a small display screen and a small keyboard or touch screen. These devices included, but were not limited to: iPads, iPod touches, Kindles, smartphones, and other tablet computers. Mobile devices had the following capabilities: text messaging, emailing, Internet, and or applications.
For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks were not considered mobile devices.
Since mobile learning was a major component of this study, it was important to define it.
In this study, mobile learning was defined as the act of using one's mobile device to connect with others and gather information to communicate or collaborate with others or in a community (Ally, 2009;Sharples et al., 2007).
Additionally, informal and formal learning were considered in this study. Informal learning was defined as learning that happened outside of direct teacher instruction or just in time information that contributes to one's body of knowledge. Informal learning is student directed and includes personal and social aspects that contribute to their knowledge. Formal or classroom learning is teacher directed and done in class. It includes suggested application usage or classroom activities (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009.

Sample and Sampling Procedure
The researcher chose two similar research sites to triangulate the data. Students and faculty were recruited from two small religiously affiliated liberal arts universities in Southern The sample of undergraduate students over the age of 18 and instructors at both universities had an opportunity to participate in this study. The questions were nonthreatening and the participants were not treated unfairly in any way. There may have been some bias in that students self-selected and self-reported in the survey. However, participants were encouraged to answer in a truthful and honest manner.
Participants gave consent to use their responses in the research by clicking agree on the first page of the survey; all subjects participated in the study on a voluntary basis. Before participating in the survey, participants reviewed a written informed consent form (see Appendix D) explaining the risks, terms, and conditions of participating in the study, and what agreeing to participate meant. The informed consent also provided key definitions of mobile devices, formal learning (in class or teacher directed), and informal learning (student directed). By agreeing to the terms and conditions the research subjects gained access to the survey questions. Participants acknowledged the privacy statement and limited potential risks and clicked agree to proceed into the survey. The consent was written on the first page of the survey, which allowed them access to the survey questions upon agreement. Participants were told they could withdraw from the study or quit answering questions at any time during the survey, and their responses would be deleted. Participants who withdrew before the end of the survey did not encounter negative consequences. The sole researcher was the only person with access to the data. Personal information, email address and IP addresses that were collected in connection to the survey were stripped from the rest of the data to maintain privacy and confidentiality when the data were analyzed. Participants had the option to provide their school affiliated email address to enter in the drawing to win one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. Those winners were randomly selected and the two gift cards, one for a student and one for an instructor, were awarded at the closeout of data collection. Winners were notified through the email addresses that they provided that they had received an electronic gift card from Amazon.
All other demographic information has been kept private and only accessible to the sole researcher. There was no risk of harm to any of the participants and they had minimal chance of experiencing mental distress as a result of participating. Participants gave about 10-15 minutes of their time to participate in this study. The requirements put into place by Pepperdine University and the additional researched universities' Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) were followed strictly.
Thirty-eight undergraduate students between the ages of 18-27 years of age participated in this study. The average age of the participants was 21.05 years of age with a standard deviation of 2.3 years. Due to the difficulty of obtaining parental consent, minors were not allowed to participate in this study. Table 4 presents the majors of the students participants. Note. N = 38.
Nineteen instructors participated in this study, ranging from 6 months to 37 years of teaching experience in higher education. The average years teaching in higher education was 15.98 years with a standard deviation of 11.68 years. Table 5 presents the departments in which the participating instructors teach.

Data Collection Methods
There were two phases of data collection. In the first stage of data collection, a random sample of students and faculty member received an email with access to an online survey. The participants responded anonymously through the survey tool, Qualtrics. The first round of survey dissemination occurred in the summer term and was open for participation for 1 month; a reminder email (see Appendix E) was sent to participants encouraging them to complete the survey 2 weeks after the initial email was sent. First round surveys and reminder emails (see Appendix E) were sent out on Mondays, as statistics have shown that participants are most likely to respond to a survey received on a Monday than any other day of the week (Zheng, 2011).
Participation in the first round was low, so a second phase of data collection was initiated a week after the Fall semester started to allow for more student and faculty participation.
A second random sample of 100 students and 50 faculty members was determined by University A's IR administrators through random sampling. The department cross-referenced participants' email addresses to ensure those emails were not duplicated from the first sample.
Again, the survey was disseminated on a Monday to encourage the highest level of participation.
The second round of data collection was open for 2 weeks, as the first round of data collected showed that most respondents participated within the first few days of receiving the initial email (see Appendix A) and reminder emails (see Appendix E). A reminder email (see Appendix E) was sent out 1 week later. This quantitative study surveyed a total of 38 undergraduate student participants and 19 instructors.
Upon completion of the data collection phase, descriptive and cross tabulation data analysis were conducted. These analyses described ways undergraduate students and instructors use mobile devices in and outside of class, the frequency of use between the devices and applications of the two groups, and determined any significant differences between device usage amongst students and instructors.

Instrumentation
The quantitative student and instructor surveys (see Appendix B & C) were adapted from the UCF student survey on student mobile device usage (Chen & deNoyelles, 2013). The UCF survey was used as a baseline for the survey that was used in this study. Several modifications were made to access more specific data that could be correlated between students and instructors.
Unlike the UCF survey, the current survey asked demographic questions like age, major, department, and years teaching to uncover connections between those variables. The UCF survey asked what specific devices the students owned. This question was deemed too narrow because many students/faculty may use more than one device regularly that they may not own, yet to which they may have regular access. Also, many devices vary in features; for instance the iPad 1 does not have a camera, whereas the later generations do. In addition to asking about a specific device, this study also asked about features of their device/s. The UCF survey made the assumption that students used mobile devices for assignments, whereas the current study's survey first asked if they used mobile devices to complete assignments, and then asked what specific applications were used to complete assignments. This survey also asked about specific applications used outside and inside of class. The UCF survey mainly focused on academic uses. To build upon the UCF survey, current studies have provided updated student mobile device uses. The PEW (Rainie & Smith, 2013;Smith, 2010) and PBS Frontline (Wexler, 2014) surveys were used to provide updated and relevant examples of applications used by students on their mobile devices. The PEW study of smartphone users showed that users rely on their devices to access the Internet rather than laptop or desktop computers (Smith, 2010). Those data were used to inform questions in this survey regarding reading and researching on their devices. week, 5 = several times a month, 6 = never).
Many of the same questions that were asked of the students were used for the faculty survey. The instructors were asked about reasons for not including mobile devices; that question was based on research done by Terras and Ramsay's (2012), which found that many faculty members abstain from mobile device usage due to potential student distractions. Ifenthaler and Schweinbenz's (2013) work informed this survey's option of too many obstacles to overcome to integrate tablets. Koehler and Mishra's (2008)

Data Analysis Methods
Multiple-choice data were analyzed with descriptive statistics; answers to open-ended items and comment boxes were coded using rubrics that went through several iterations.

Students' questions and responses.
In these sections the questions that were asked of the students will be listed along with the corresponding coded answers. listed from most commonly used to least commonly used. The rubric in Table 6 reflects the applications instructor reported asking students to use with their mobile devices. Some responses fit into multiple categories. Those who responded yes were asked a follow up question regarding the frequency with which they used mobile applications to complete assignments. The frequency chart is listed in Chapter 4 in the data analysis section, Table 35.  Table 7 reflects the types of mobile applications that respondents reported using outside of class. Some responses fit into multiple categories. to least commonly used. The rubric in Table 8 reflects the types of mobile applications that respondents reported using in class. Some responses fit into multiple categories.   Tell me about a time when an instructor has explicitly asked you to use a mobile device.
Students were asked to tell about a time when their instructors explicitly asked them to use a mobile device. Thirty-one participants responded to this question; four of those 31 said none. are listed from most commonly asked to use to least commonly asked to use. The rubric in Table   11 reflects those uses and the numbers of respondents who reported using those applications outside of class. Some responses fit into multiple categories.   Table 13 from most commonly suggested to least commonly suggested. The rubric in Table 13 reflects the students' suggestions of better use of mobile devices and applications on campus.
Some responses fit into multiple categories.      Table 18 reflects the instructor reported ways they asked students to use mobile devices in their classes.
Those examples are assigned to a code in the left-hand column. Some responses fit into multiple categories.   Table 20). Some responses fit into multiple categories.

Issues of Trustworthiness
This survey asked questions regarding personal use of mobile devices inside and outside of class. It contained questions regarding participant perceptions and the extent of their academic learning or teaching using their devices. The surveys were adapted from the student survey that was validated by researchers at UCF; additionally, they were pilot tested for their validity and reliability (Chen & deNoyelles, 2013). An expert review panel assessed the quality of questions for clarity and succinctness. The panel ensured that the questions accurately measured what the researcher intended to measure. The participants were asked how they used their devices for academic purposes in and outside of the classroom, both intentionally and unintentionally (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009. Internal validity was calculated and reflected the assertion that significant mobile device usage can reflect increased usage for academic purposes.
The quantitative surveys were hosted online using Qualtrics. Upon completion of the data collection, the data were transferred to the researcher's computer hard drive and were only available to the researcher for the sole purpose of this study. The sole researcher had exclusive access to the data, which were also stored in password-protected files. All contents of the files have remained confidential and will be erased permanently 3 years after the data collection period.
The surveys were pilot tested, debriefed, and validated by a team of the sole researcher and six experts in the educational technology field. The experts had all completed doctoral coursework in learning technologies; worked in the educational field as professors, educators, or instructional designers; and or were technology directors. The surveys used Bryman's (2008) suggestions to ensure survey validity. The expert team considered measurement, internal, external, and ecological validity. Measurement validity determined that the questions on mobile device usage in and outside of the classroom reflected actual mobile device usage. Internal validity reflected that overall significant mobile device usage could contribute to usage for academic purposes. External validity determined that the results of the study could be generalized beyond the two research sites that were used. Finally, ecological validity determined that the findings of mobile device usage could be applied to people's everyday, natural social settings.

Limitations and Delimitations
There were no immediate benefits to the research subjects who took part in this study.
However, the results of this study have been made available to both university communities. This data can help instructors better utilize technology tools and applications in their courses to enable a more deliberate instructional approach. Instructors can gain insight on how their students are already using these tools and provide the instructors with better ways to communicate the course material to their students in and outside of the classroom's four walls.
It was assumed that the research subjects who participated in this study did so honestly and accurately. The quantitative surveys were hosted online in a structured manner. The research gathered from the two universities is best applied to other universities with similar size and demographic make up.
The delimitations of this study were as follows: 1. Only undergraduate students and instructors participated in the study. Several studies on uses of mobile devices have been conducted within the K-12 setting, and the undergraduate student and instructor population was lacking in research. Additionally, current undergraduate students were classified as digital natives, according to Prensky (2010) and the purpose of this research was to describe the uses of mobile devices for academic purposes by digital natives and instructors in and outside of class.
2. The research sites were due to the researcher's access, experience, and observations of the aforementioned students and instructors utilizing their devices for academic purposes.
3. Mobile devices were investigated over general computer technologies (laptops or desktops) due to the growing popularity and ease of access with university populations and in educational settings.
These delimitations have made the study stronger and built on the existing research.
The following limitations affected this study: (a) the participants selected for data collection were from two universities in Southern California, (b) the participants who participated in the study were pulled from random samples and then self-selected, and (c) the perceptions and tools used are tied to the time of the research. With respect to time and limited resources for this study, only two research sites were utilized. However, additional universities may be studied in future research. For ethical purposes, a random sample and then self-selection was deemed the most appropriate method of participant selection. As technologies change rapidly, it cannot be predicted what new applications will emerge, contributing to the perceptions tied to the time of the research.

Chapter Four: Findings
Following the release of the iPod touch in 2007, learning on the go has grown in popularity (Apple, n.d.). As of May 2013, 56% of all American adults owned a smartphone. As of September 2013, 24% of all Americans 16 and older owned an eReader, and 35% owned a tablet computer. Of the 56% of American adults who owned a smartphone, 80% were between the ages of 18-29 (Rainie & Smith, 2013). This age group encompasses the typical makeup of the traditional undergraduate student population and all respondents in the current study (i.e., 18-27).
People who love to use their smartphones for talking, text, and social networking also enjoy using them for academic purposes (Ally, 2004(Ally, , 2009). However, many educators struggle to use mobile devices deliberately for academic purposes. Additionally, 34% of cell phone Internet users report mainly using their phones to access the Internet, rather than using a desktop or laptop computer (Rainie & Smith, 2013). The aforementioned statistics indicate that there is much to learn about how students and instructors use mobile devices academically. By understanding students' mobile device usage, educators can begin to use mobile devices purposefully and strategically in their courses to enhance the learning experience. This study set out to uncover the ways in which students and instructors use mobile devices for learning in and outside of formal class. It also asked questions about personal use to try to understand the depth of mobile device usage within those two groups to suggest future academic connections.
This study relied on two surveys-one administered to faculty and one administered to students-at two different small private liberal arts universities. Both surveys shared a core set of items about mobile device use and each had an additional set of items specific to the audience (student/faculty). Eight identical questions were asked of both groups. The rest of the survey questions asked similar questions on mobile device usage of students and instructors. The student survey focused on personal mobile device usage in and outside of the classroom, and the instructors' survey focused on ways they used or asked students to use mobile devices in and outside of the classroom. The student survey asked 22 questions and the instructor survey asked 19 questions. This chapter reports the findings of the four research questions of the study: 1. In what ways, if any, do undergraduate students use mobile devices in class for academic purposes?
2. In what ways, if any, do undergraduate students use mobile devices out of class for academic purposes?
3. In what ways, if any, do instructors use mobile devices in class for academic purposes?
4. In what ways, if any, do instructors use mobile devices out of class for academic purposes?

Part 1: Descriptive Analysis Results
This first section of this chapter will review descriptive analysis results from the survey questions. The second section of the chapter will use those analyses to answer the research study questions.
This section will first report the survey questions and the responses of the student participants and follow up with correlated instructor questions and responses. Connections between the two groups will be made and analyzed following the stated results. As indicated in Chapter 3, six core questions appeared on both surveys. They are presented subsequently and the results will be discussed first, with the exception of the last two questions, as it made the most sense to discuss these at the end. 6. On what device did you use to access this survey?
General questions. In this section, the general questions regarding the participants' devices and features of those devices are presented. These questions were asked of both the students and the instructors.

Students & instructors: Do you own or have regular access to a mobile, web-enabled, device (smartphone, tablet, or dedicated e-reader)? Yes, What is it? (list all mobile devices you use regularly). Student and instructor participants both received this exact question and were
asked to fill in the type of devices in which they had frequency access to. Those responses to the open-ended question were coded according to the procedures listed in Chapter Three. Student participant responses will be reported first, followed by the instructors' responses.
Student participants were asked to only consider mobile devices for this survey; laptops were not considered mobile devices. All student participants reported having access to and frequently using a mobile device. Table 22 reflects the devices to which the students and faculty reported they had regular access. Fourteen of the 38 participants reported using multiple devices, 12 of 38 used tablets, two of 38 reported using an eReader, two of 38 reported using an iPod Touch, and five of 38 reported using a laptop (even though the survey explicitly stated that laptops would not be considered mobile devices for this study; the five that responded either did not read or understand that distinction). The responses were categorized into four groups based on the devices that were reported: smartphones, tablets, eReaders, and iPod Touches.
Smartphones users included all participants but two; 36 of the 38 of participants reported using, iOS, Android, and HTC devices. In terms of tablets, which 14 of the 38 respondents reported using, all but one described them as iPads; the other just wrote tablet. Tablets could include both mini and regular iPads, Androids, Windows, and Kindle Fires. EReaders, which two of the 38 respondents reported using, were both reported as Kindles; however, eReaders could also include Nooks or other reading designated devices. Two participants reported having regular access to iPod Touches.
Instructor participants were asked to fill in the type of devices to which they had frequent access. Participants were asked to only consider mobile devices for this survey and were advised that laptops would not be considered mobile devices. However, one participant did respond with laptop; either he/she did not read that section of the directions or did not understand that portion of the directions. All instructor participants reported having access to and frequently using a mobile device as well as a smartphone. Those responses were categorized into four groups: smartphones, tablets, eReaders, and iPod Touches. Smartphones, to which all participants reported having access, included iOS, Android, and HTC devices. Tablets, to which 15 of the respondents reported having access, included iPads, both mini and regular, Androids, Windows, and Kindle Fires. EReaders, to which four of the 19 respondents reported having access, were all Kindles, but could also include Nooks or other reading designated devices as well. One participant reported having regular access to an iPod Touch. Fourteen of 19 reported using multiple devices. Table 24 denotes the most popular devices reported by students and instructors, listed in order from the most popular device to the least popular device (with the exception of laptops since they were not categorized as mobile devices for this study). The popularity of devices was similar in both groups, beginning with smartphones, tablet, eReaders, and iPod Touches. Multiple devices are quite popular as well, although a greater percentage of instructors reported using multiple devices than students. This finding could be attributed to additional institutional issued devices or more disposable income among instructors.

Students & instructors: What are the features of your device/s? (check all that apply).
The student and instructor participants were both asked this question and asked to check all that applied for the features of their devices that they use or to which they have access most frequently. Student participant responses will be reported first, followed by the instructors' responses. Table 25 reflects those responses from students in order from most common to least common features of the aforementioned devices. Table 26 reflects the instructor participants' responses in order from most common to least common features of the aforementioned devices.        Table 30 reflects responses to this question in order from most common to least common reasons for using mobile devices. Seventeen participants responded to this question.
One participant checked other and wrote, Still learning! The most common responses between students and instructors for using mobile devices were to increase communication, easier access to school materials or information, and efficiency with tasks. This finding indicates that both students and instructors have the same goals for using mobile devices and these could be shared with other students and instructors.

Students & instructors: What are some ways this campus could use mobile devices and
apps in the future? The student and instructor participants were both asked this question.
Student participant responses will be reported first, followed by the instructors' responses.
Twenty-eight students responded to this question, of those 28, one said I don't know. The responses that were coded and described in Chapter Three,  Table 31 using the codes in order from the most common ways devices could be used to the least common ways devices could be used on campus.  The common answer between the two groups was Communication. Both students and instructors expressed a desire for an easier way to communicate with each other. Many group SMS applications could be utilized for this purpose without students or instructors needing to give out their personal phone numbers. Additionally, students reported wanting to be able to use devices and not being allowed to do so. Perhaps those instructors who do not allow them could begin to integrate devices deliberately and guide students by using polls or collaboration tools.
Those deliberate integration techniques may also minimize the potential distractions of using mobile devices for learning.

Students & instructors: What device did you use to access this survey? For final survey
question student and instructor participants, were asked on what device they accessed the survey.
Both groups' responses are listed in Table 33. The table reflects the student responses in order from most common the least common types of devices used to access the survey. Thirty-four students responded to this question. The instructors' responses are matched up with the students' most common responses. The discrepancy between the two groups is italicized. Eighteen instructors responded to this question. The most common device used to access the survey was a Laptop, which possibly indicates that when individuals choose to complete a task that may take some time or requires some text responses, respondents still prefer a Laptop. Smartphones was the students' next highest response, which indicates their connectivity and easy access to their smaller mobile devices. Desktop computers were second highest for instructors, yet lower ranked for students.
Low desktop numbers for students can be attributed the possibility that many students do not own desktops due to their lack of portability. Tablets were the least common devices used to access the survey. This could be attributed to the lower numbers of individuals possessing tablet devices.

Student and instructor uses in class.
This section presents the questions asked of students and instructors regarding the way in which the participants used mobile devices in class.

Students: Do you ever use mobile apps to complete assignments? If yes, how often?
Students were asked if they ever use mobile applications to complete assignments. Twenty of the 38 respondents said no and 18 of the 38 responded with yes. For those who answered yes, responses were coded into nine categories of applications that were listed and detailed in Chapter Three, and Quizzes were the codes used to group the responses. The number of students who responded engaging in those uses is reflected in Table 34, from most commonly used to least commonly used. Those who responded yes were asked a follow up question of the frequency with which they did use mobile applications to complete assignments. The frequency chart is listed in Table   35. The frequencies are listed from highest to lowest.   Note. N = 6.
It is interesting that there was a disparity between the student and the instructor responses.
The common themes between the two groups are Collaboration, Special Purpose Apps, and Campus Applications/LMS. The other responses that students gave were more student-centered, like taking notes, which fit into productivity and reading. However, students reported taking quizzes on their devices, yet no instructors reported asking students to take quizzes online.
Perhaps instructors see those quizzes as part of the LMS and not an outside application.

Common uses between students and instructors were Consumption/Searching, Social
Media, and Campus/LMS uses, which indicates and supports the earlier claims that instructors ask students to use mobile devices to look up information or check for references. Social media may be used as a means to connect with other students or experts in the field. Finally, many students and instructors are utilizing their schools' LMSs. Some students are aware of Cloud storage applications, yet instructors are not asking their students to utilize them for easier access to course materials. Additionally, instructors reported asking students to use applications for collaboration, but students are not reporting using those. Collaboration applications such as Google Drive, which could double as Cloud storage, could help students communicate with each other, aid productivity, and well as increase engagement, addressing the concern of the student who mentioned the potential distraction of using mobile devices for learning. If these uses are encouraged and directed by instructors, students may have less chances to be distracted.

Instructors: For the next question, please indicate how often, if at all, you use the following devices in your class.
The instructor participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they used their devices in their classes.  Almost Constantly 7 (37%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Several times a day 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Daily 3 (16%) 1 (5%) 3 (16%) 0 (0%) Several times a week 5 (26%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) Several times a month 1 (5%) 5 (26%) 7 (37%) 1 (5%) Never 2 (11%) 10 (53%) 8 (42%) 12 (63%) The most common device usage between both groups almost constantly was laptops, followed by smartphones by students, whereas instructors reported almost never using smartphones in class for academic purposes. This indicates that the most participants are still heavily tied to traditional uses of computers. Students' responses of using smartphones several times a week indicates the easy accessibility and comfort of using those devices. Table 41 presents the devices in order from most commonly used to least commonly used. Participants who answered other wrote in responses of course meets weekly and not sure how to answer this based on the fact the students can choose to use whatever handheld they prefer. Nineteen participants responded to this question. The responses of frequency were quite low in this section; the last option of never had very high numbers. It can be inferred that instructors may not specify the devices that they ask their students to use; rather they leave the choice of device up to the students to decide. Since universities are typically BYOD, instructors may find it difficult to ask students to use their iPads to collaborate on a Google Doc, for example. Rather than being device centric, instructors may simply ask their students to collaborate using Google Drive, rather than requiring use a specific device to collaborate. The instructors may ask students to perform a task, and the students choose the tool to accomplish that task. Almost Constantly 2 (11%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Several times a day 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Daily 0 (0%) 1 (5%) 2 (11%) 1 (5%) Several times a week 5 (26%) 1 (5%) 3 (16%) 0 (0%) Several times a month 5 (26%) 7 (37%) 4 (21%) 1 (5%) Never 7 (37%) 8 (42%) 9 (47%) 14 (48%)

Instructors: For the next questions, please indicate how often, if at all, you ask your students to use the following devices in your class.
Note. N = 19.  Table   42, from most commonly used to least commonly used. Table 8 reflects the coded ways students reported using mobile devices in class in. Examples of those coded responses were discussed in Chapter 3. Note. N = 32.

Instructors: Tell me about a time when, if at all, you used a mobile device in your class.
Fourteen instructors responded to this question; of those 14, one said have not (used a mobile device in class). The responses fit into five different categories: Reference/Search, Special Purpose Applications, Campus/LMS, Communicate/Collaboration, and Presentation. The responses were coded using the rubric denoted in Chapter Three, Table 17. The number of instructors who responded using those coded responses is reflected in Table 43. Answers are listed from most common type of use to least common type of use. The common responses between the two groups were Reference/Search, Campus/LMS, and Communication. There is some potential for students to be more exposed to the Special Purpose applications like TWEN and Epocrates that the instructors responded as using. These applications are content specific, yet meet the technological and pedagogical needs of the students. Students also have the potential to use collaboration tools in class. Students listed earlier in the survey that they are familiar with them, but indicated that they are not using them in class, which means that those mobile device uses need to be teacher initiated.  Table 14. The number of respondents who reported asking students to use mobile applications in those ways are listed in Table 44, listed from most commonly used to least commonly used. Most of these uses imply uses as a tool to disseminate or present information. There are a few cases where advanced technological and pedagogical uses were invoked, like polling and video conferencing. Students never mentioned video conferencing, which implies they were unaware of these academic capabilities.  Table 45 in the coded categories from most commonly asked to use to least commonly asked to use.  Table 46, from most commonly asked to least commonly asked. Referencing was rated the highest among both groups, which indicates a very basic use of a mobile device as a reference tool, no different than asking students to look in their book for an answer. Campus/LMS uses and Communication were also rated highly. Note. N = 16.

Students: Which, if any, of the following would you like to be able to use in class?
(check all that apply). The students were asked what devices, if any, would they like to be able to use in class. Thirty-three students responded to this question. Respondents could choose other and write in their responses. Two participants chose other and wrote in audio recorder and none. Table 47 denotes the devices that they reported desiring to use from the most common to the least common. Device n Laptop 28 (85%) Smartphone (e.g., iPhone, Android phone, iPod Touch) 19 (57%) Tablet (e.g., iPad/iPad mini, Kindle Fire, Android Tablet, Nook Color) 17 (51%) EBook Reader (e.g., Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader) 8 (24%) Other: Name 2 (6%) Note. N = 33.

Students: You may not want to use mobile devices for academics. Which may be reasons why?
There may be reasons why students may not want to use mobile devices in class.
The participants were asked to check all that apply for the reasons why they may not desire to use mobile devices in class. Table 48 reflects those responses in order from most common to least common.  Note. N = 16.

Which may be reasons why? (check all that apply).
There may be reason why instructors may not want to use mobile devices in their classrooms. The participants were given potential reasons for not wanting to have students use mobile devices in their classes and were asked to check all that apply. Those responses are listed in Table 50 in order from the most common response to the least common response.  Note. N = 5.
The common concern between the two groups again was the potential distraction. Some students deliberately use mobile devices to distract themselves, which indicates a lack of engagement. Other students are aware of the potential distraction and choose not to use their devices; however, with specific instructor direction, utilization of mobile devices could overcome this obstacle. In history courses, instructors could direct students to primary sources, or in the sciences, students could use the photography or video features of their devices to more accurately notate procedures for later reflection.

Student and instructor uses out of class.
The following section addresses the survey questions that were asked of the students and the instructors regarding mobile device usage outside of class.

Students & instructors: Which categories of apps do you use most frequently for
personal use? (check as many as apply). The student and instructor participants were both asked this question and requested to check all that applied for the types of applications that they use most frequently on their devices for personal use. Student participant responses are reported first, followed by the instructors' responses. Table 52 reflects the students' responses in order from most common to least common types of applications that they reported using for personal use on their devices.

(14%)
Note. N = 38. Table 53 reflects the instructor responses in order from most common types of applications to least common types of applications that they reported using on their devices. Nearly all participants in both groups reported using mobile devices for communicating, including Email, Chat, Messaging, Skype, and FaceTime. This reflects the most common type of mobile device (smartphone) use that was reported by both groups. Both groups reported educational packages as the least commonly used application. This denotes a potential area to be developed for both students and instructors. It is interesting that less than half of students reported utilizing reference applications on their devices, yet that was the highest reported area when asked about what they read on their devices. This could be attributed to the portion of the question that asked about personal use, as students may not consider reading as a personal use activity.
Both laptops and smartphones received high frequency scores. A total of 27 of the 36 students reported using both laptops and smartphones almost constantly for academic purposes.
Students could check all that applied, so some of the students who replied using a laptop almost constantly could have also reported using smartphones just as often. This is interesting because students could be using the two devices simultaneously. Laptops are typically used for productivity and mobile devices have been reported as being used more as quick reference or communication tools. This finding could indicate that students are producing papers or projects while using the smartphones to read, reference resources, and or connect or communicate with others. It indicates that one device cannot take the place of the other at the time of this study; each tool serves its specific purpose. to least commonly used. The rubric used for coding was presented in Chapter Three, Table 9.  are seekers of information and knowledge, and desire to connect with others through communication as well as social networks.

Part 2: Research Questions Answered
This section of the chapter will use the aforementioned analyses to answer the research questions. Using the search feature within an eBook application like iBooks or Kindle, students can quickly pull up the desired information, whereas before, students would have had to rely on their memory of where the information was, bookmarks, or notes. Mobile devices allow users to more quickly and efficiently gather the information that in the past would have taken more time.

Research
Students noted distractions as well. They stated that they were not bored, but got distracted while looking up content. Other students in the study specifically stated that they were aware of the potential for distraction and chose not to use their devices for that reason. Some faculty noted using mobile devices in class for Collaboration, Cloud access, Conferencing/Communicating, and Quizzing/Polling. These uses are taking mobile learning to the next level. Instructors are not necessarily utilizing the mobile devices to their fullest potential, yet they are well on their way to doing so. Some of these functions can be performed on laptop devices; however, with their increased ease of access, mobile devices make these uses timely.
Collaboration through tools such as Google Drive or Prezi allows creation of dynamic content in seconds while including all students. Cloud access allows instructors to provide all students access to electronic documents without ever having to make a photocopy or leave the room.
Conferencing and communicating could that were once done solely via telephone can now be done with smartphones, Skype, FaceTime, or Google Hangout. Viewers can not only hear but also see the other person in real time. This affordance opens many doors to connect with experts in the field across great distances without ever leaving the campus. Finally, quizzing or polling allows teachers to get obtain time formative assessment data from every student to ensure everyone is learning. Since every student in this study had access to a smartphone, mobile devices have the potential to allow instructors to require every student to participate in the means they see appropriate.
Special Purpose Apps, Campus App/LMS, Flipping the classroom, Social Media/Videos utilize the unique features of mobile devices. Professors are able to find content specific applications like the TWEN application, which allows law students to access archives and law specific information; an activity that would have had to be done in a library only years ago.
Flipping the classroom can be done easily through the use of the video camera on a mobile device so that class time can be used in more collaborative and interactive ways. Social media and videos allow instructors to access current content within seconds and connect it with what is being taught or discussed. It allows instructors to personalize each class, rather than teach from a script. Finally, campus apps or LMSs allow instructors to personalize learning for their students, make changes as necessary, and meet the diverse needs of each student through posting a variety of content. uses seem to be more for instructors' personalized learning rather than for their students; however, these uses can be developed and encouraged use in class with their students as well.

Chapter Five: Discussion of Findings
As mobile devices have become ubiquitous, students have found ways to use them for academic uses. The rate at which adults are obtaining mobile devices has been climbing steadily, and providing pedagogical approaches to use such devices in education is necessary. To provide suggestions for mobile device usage among undergraduates and instructors, it was beneficial to explore how these populations were currently using these tools. Those uses were later used to inform suggestions for successful learning experiences. The current research study addressed the tools to which students and instructors had access and how they used their devices to facilitate their education in and outside of class. The survey instruments gathered data to describe the uses of such tools for academic purposes by undergraduate students and instructors.

Context of the Study
Mobile devices usage is growing faster than the global population. The number of mobile devices in the world has overtaken the number of toothbrushes because many users own several devices (heathermac, 2012). Over half of the instructor respondents in this study reported having regular access to multiple devices: 14 of 19. The student respondents a slightly lower level of multiple devices: 14 of the 38. As people gain access to these devices, they are becoming like extensions of the body. Many individuals will not leave home without their devices. If a device is forgotten or lost, individuals feel incomplete. Such devices they are accessed frequently to reference materials or information, communicate quickly, and connect with the world (Traxler, 2010). With this constant connection to devices, it was anticipated that device usage would also drift into academic learning both in and outside of formal class. This study's purpose was to explore the ways in which both students and instructors used their multiple powerful mobile devices for academic purposes.
Research surrounding mobile learning has been done, but past studies have been done in the context of teacher directed mobile device use and or in K-12 schools. No exploratory research had been done on undergraduate students or connecting undergraduate student uses with the practices of higher education instructors. However, UCF (Chen & DeNoyelles, 2013) did study the mobile device uses of undergraduate students, but not instructors. The researchers concluded that those students often used their devices in their own ways with little or no direction from their instructors. The researcher saw this as an opportunity to survey instructors and triangulate the data to potentially see if there were ways that instructors were directing students to use their devices that students may have overlooked. This study not only asked the students how their instructors may have asked them to explicitly use a mobile device in class, but also asked the instructors how they may have explicitly asked students to use a mobile device to uncover both perspectives. TPACK is a growing framework in education and mobile device ubiquity makes it convenient to embed those devices into classroom instruction. With the data gathered in this study, the current uses of students and instructors can be built upon, expanded, and encouraged for other educators. Merely knowing the potential of mobile devices with pedagogical strategies can provide an innovative step toward integrating technology into the classroom through the use of TPACK.

Summary of the Study
The data that gathered in this study explained: (a) participants' general information: age range/year teaching and major/department in which they taught; (l) desired devices to be used in class; (m) reasons for not wanting to use devices for academics; and (n) ways in which the campus could use devices in the future.

Summary of Findings
The study revealed that students use their mobile devices for a wide variety of tasks.
Many of those uses were in fact academic in class; however, a few non-academic themes did emerge. Two students outright reported using their devices to distract themselves. Texts. This distraction potential was a major concern for instructors and contributed to their apprehension about integrating mobile devices into their course. However, out of 38 students who responded, only two explicitly admitted to using it as a distraction, whereas seven other students acknowledged the potential distraction and noted the following reasons for not wanting to use a mobile device in class: (a) It's easy to get distracted, so many apps, (b) it gets distracting, (c) I get distracted easily, (d) mobile devices 100% distract me from school work, (e) will use them for other purposes and distracts other students who handwrite notes, (f) laptop is not as distracting a phone, and (g) gets easily distracted with other things on the laptop or tablet.
However, if instructors are guiding and deliberately integrating devices into their courses, students will be less likely to get distracted.
It is important to acknowledge that distractions do not come from the devices; rather, distractions are a problem with the pedagogy. Whether a student has a device or not, if he/she is not engaged he/she will find a distraction. Students used to pass notes or talk to their neighbors; now mobile devices offer a different medium for distraction. It is not the device that is inherently distracting. Focusing on engaging pedagogical strategies while including mobile devices may begin to utilize the TPACK framework while dispelling the notion that devices are to blame.
In terms of basic usage of mobile devices, students reported using them to find information, read, enhance productivity, and engage in consumption/referencing/searching.
Generally, these tasks do not need to be performed on mobile devices; however, the devices make these tasks quicker to achieve and more accessible. Students could reference their paper textbooks or take notes on paper; however, using the search features in digital books allows students to access exact content within seconds without wasting too much time.
Students and instructors are at the emerging stages of taking advantage of mobile devices for learning. This study's results show that students and instructors are using mobile devices for academic purposes in a variety of ways both in and outside of class. The uses reported by instructors versus students vary somewhat. Students reported that they do not typically use special purpose applications like StudyBlue or Epocrates unless a teacher directs them to do so.
Students are more likely to use their devices on their own to research, search, read, or produce.
Instructors have also reported using mobile devices in the ways previously mentioned by students; however, instructors more commonly use mobile devices as presentation devices: for educational streams, entertainment, and presentations. These uses by instructors are simply using a mobile device to accomplish the same tasks as TVs, desktop computers, and overhead projectors. Just because current technologies are being utilized does not imply that TPACK is being applied. Rather, TPACK is at work when strong pedagogical strategies are paired with specific technology applications. For example, in a biology course, the instructor may ask students to locate the spleen in the human body. Students can utilize interactive mobile applications with diagrams of the human body, allowing instructors to share their rich content knowledge while asking students to locate and identify organs through the use of dynamic technology tools.
Both students and instructors shared a few advanced or unique mobile device uses: collaboration, quizzing/polling, and special purpose apps. However, these uses were reported as being teacher directed, or as formal learning. These uses do not reflect the TPACK framework because the pedagogical strategy is recalling information, nor is the technological application unique to the pedagogical approach. Recalling information can be done just as easily through analog tools as it is through this technological application. The key with TPACK is to not simply substitute analog for digital; rather, it is to provide a rich technological application that supports the pedagogical strategy.
Collaboration uses reported by both students and instructors were at an emerging level passed simply consuming and/or referencing. Dropbox, Prezi, Google Drive, and virtual notebook were some examples of collaborative uses. Dropbox was noted as a place to share files.
Sharing files can also be accomplished through Google Drive or Evernote as well. It is not just the sharing of files that is important, but also the ability to collaborate in real time on those files. This tool provides formative assessment and feedback for both the instructors and the students.
These types of applications allow every student to participate, rather than only the one student that may be called upon when asked questions orally: again a use of TPACK.
The biggest potential is for TPACK integration with mobile devices is the integration of special purpose applications such as VoiceThread, which allows easy collaboration while taking advantage of the presence of mobile devices. By using VoiceThread in history courses, applications, students will be less likely to be off task or distracted as well.
Formal learning. In this study, the mobile device uses that took place within the classroom would be defined as formal learning. Formal or classroom learning was defined as teacher-directed and/or learning or mobile device usage that occurred in the classroom.
Instructors reported asking students to use the campus LMSs, reference materials, and collaborative applications as mentioned earlier. This study found that special purpose applications were most commonly used in the formal learning setting; as a result, there is still a great deal of potential for special purpose applications to be used for formal learning.
Informal learning. Informal learning happens outside of direct teacher instruction and also refers to just in time information that contributes to students' body of knowledge. This learning is student directed and includes personal and social aspects of learning that contribute to their body of knowledge. Informal learning is student initiated for the purpose of studying and or learning. The most common mobile device usage for learning by students outside of class was reference/search applications. Students reported using the Internet often for searching, as well as looking up their syllabi on the campus LMSs, or rubrics for assignments. Based on these findings, students are not utilizing the full potential of their mobile devices for informal learning.
Just in time learning is commonly done through the search features of mobile devices; however, collaboration and connections can be made through mobile devices that students are using only minimally at this time.

Implications
This study was limited due to the fact that it was done at two small faith-based Through this study it has become apparent that further interviews and observations may be necessary to obtain data on the actual uses of the applications. This finding will be discussed in the section regarding recommendations for further research.

Conclusions
This study will allow for current and future instructors to better implement mobile devices with their pedagogical strategies toward utilizing the TPACK framework. This data was collected from two small faith based universities in Southern California with a traditional small undergraduate population of less than 4,000 students. These data may be beneficial to other universities in a similar setting.

Recommendations
This research could be built upon with the following recommendations. As mentioned earlier, a mixed methods study would be beneficial to include observations and interviews to pinpoint the actual uses of the applications the participants mentioned. Many of the applications can cross rubric categories, making it increasingly difficult to place one application into one coded rubric category. Interviews and observations would uncover the specific ways in which those applications are being used to code those applications more specifically. Furthermore, students reported using applications like Netflix and YouTube in class; however, they did not specifically state whether those uses were on task or off task. Again, the observations and interviews would clarify this question.
There is also a deeper need to develop a deeper understanding of the instructors'

Information
This study will focus on how undergraduate students and instructors use mobile devices in and out of class for academic purposes. The survey will inquire about what kinds of activities you perform, frequency of use, and types of mobile devices you use.
Your university has given me permission to request you to participate in this study and the results will be used in my dissertation at Pepperdine University. The findings will be made available to you at the conclusion of my study. My work is being supervised by Dr. Linda Polin, chair for the Learning Technologies program at the university.
People who agree to participate in this study will be entered in a drawing for one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. One student and one faculty gift card will be awarded. Those who wish to be entered in this drawing may provide their school affiliated email address after clicking agree.
The survey consists of three sections, should take no more than 10-15 minutes, and will be open for one month. Your responses will be confidential and I will not collect identifying information such as name, IP address, or email address unless you provide an email address to be entered inb the gift card drawing. You may withdraw from the study at anytime and it will not eliminate you from the pool for the gift card drawing. Participation is the study in strictly voluntary.

Confidentiality
All information provided will be kept confidential. All data is stored in a password protected electronic format. To help protect your confidentiality, if you provide your email for the drawing, it will be stripped from the rest of your responses. The survey response will not contain any information that will personally identify you. The results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes only.

Risks/Benefits
The only foreseeable risk associated with this study is the imposition on your time, 10-15 minutes. The study will be beneficial in that it may provide data to help instructors to better implement mobile devices into their academic courses.
For the purpose of this study, mobile devices will be defined as handheld devices that are wifi enabled, application based, lightweight (typically less than 2 pounds), with a small display screen, and has a small keyboard or touch screen. These devices will include, but are not limited to: iPads, iPod touches, Kindles, Smartphones, and other tablet computers. Mobile devices will have the following capabilities, text message, email, internet, or applications. For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks will not be considered as mobile devices.
If you have any questions at any time about the study or the procedures that are being used, you may contact me: Malia Hoffmann, at Malia.Hoffmann@pepperdine.edu or by cell phone 920-246-7192. My dissertation advisor, Dr. Linda Polin can be reached at Linda.Polin@pepperdine.edu. This research has been reviewed according to Pepperdine University IRB procedures for research involving human subjects.
ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please select your choice below. Clicking on the agree button below indicates that: * you have read the above information * you voluntarily agree to participate * you are at least 18 years of age. If you do not wish to participate in the research study, please decline participation by clicking on the disagree button.

Thank you for your participation.
If you would like to be entered in the drawing for one of two Amazon $50 gift cards, please provide your school affiliated email address below. One will be drawn for the student participants and one for the faculty.
This study is going to ask you about your use of mobile devices. For the purpose of this survey, mobile devices will be defined as handheld devices that are wifi enabled, application based, light weight (typically less than 2 pounds), with a small display screen, and has a small keyboard or touch screen. These devices will include, but are not limited to: iPads, iPod touches, Kindles, Smartphones, and other tablet computers. Mobile devices may have the following capabilities, text message, email, internet, cameras, and/or applications. For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks will not be considered as mobile devices. These mobile devices can be ones that you own or that you have regular access to through someone else. If you don't have regular access to a mobile device you are not eligible to take the survey, but we appreciate your volunteering. This survey is broken into three parts, the first part asks general questions, the second part asks about the frequency and use of mobile devices, and the third part asks for examples of mobile device usage. This survey should take you no more than 30-45 to complete.
Section 1: General Questions This section will ask you general questions about your age, major, access to mobile devices, the features of those devices, and applications you use.

What's your current age?
What is your major? Do you own or have regular access to a mobile, web-enabled, device (smartphone, tablet, or dedicated e-reader)?

What are the features of your device/s? (check all that apply)
What do you read on your device/s? (check all that apply)

Tell me about a time when you used a mobile device in class.
Tell me about a time when you used a mobile device out of class.
Tell me about a time when an instructor has explicitly asked you to use a mobile device.
The last four questions asks about your personal desires or lack of desire to use mobile devices.
Which, if any, of the following would you like to be able to use in class? (check all that apply) You may not want to use mobile devices for academics. Which may be reasons why?
What are some ways this campus could use mobile devices and apps in the future?
On what device did you use to access this survey?

Informed Consent
Information This study will focus on how undergraduate students and instructors use mobile devices in and out of class for academic purposes. The survey will inquire about what kinds of activities you perform, frequency of use, and types of mobile devices you use.
Your university has given me permission to request you to participate in this study and the results will be used in my dissertation at Pepperdine University. The findings will be made available to you at the conclusion of my study. My work is being supervised by Dr. Linda Polin, chair for the Learning Technologies program at the university.
People who agree to participate in this study will be entered in a drawing for one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. One student and one faculty gift card will be awarded. Those who wish to be entered in this drawing may provide their school affiliated email address after clicking agree.
The survey consists of three sections, should take no more than 10-15 minutes, and will be open for one month. Your responses will be confidential and I will not collect identifying information such as name, IP address, or email address unless you provide an email address to be entered inb the gift card drawing. You may withdraw from the study at anytime and it will not eliminate you from the pool for the gift card drawing. Participation is the study in strictly voluntary.

Confidentiality
All information provided will be kept confidential. All data is stored in a password protected electronic format. To help protect your confidentiality, if you provide your email for the drawing, it will be stripped from the rest of your responses. The survey response will not contain any information that will personally identify you. The results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes only.

Risks/Benefits
The only foreseeable risk associated with this study is the imposition on your time, 10-15 minutes. The study will be beneficial in that it may provide data to help instructors to better implement mobile devices into their academic courses.
For the purpose of this study, mobile devices will be defined as handheld devices that are wifi enabled, application based, lightweight (typically less than 2 pounds), with a small display screen, and has a small keyboard or touch screen. These devices will include, but are not limited to: iPads, iPod touches, Kindles, Smartphones, and other tablet computers. Mobile devices will have the following capabilities, text message, email, internet, or applications. For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks will not be considered as mobile devices.
If you have any questions at any time about the study or the procedures that are being used, you may contact me: Malia Hoffmann, at Malia.Hoffmann@pepperdine.edu or by cell phone 920-246-7192. My dissertation advisor, Dr. Linda Polin can be reached at Linda.Polin@pepperdine.edu. This research has been reviewed according to Pepperdine University IRB procedures for research involving human subjects. ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please select your choice below. Clicking on the agree button below indicates that: * you have read the above information * you voluntarily agree to participate * you are at least 18 years of age. If you do not wish to participate in the research study, please decline participation by clicking on the disagree button.

Thank you for your participation.
If you would like to be entered in the drawing for one of two Amazon $50 gift cards, please provide your school affiliated email address below. One will be drawn for the student participants and one for the faculty.
This study is going to ask you about your use of mobile devices. For the purpose of this survey, mobile devices will be defined as handheld devices that are wifi enabled, application based, light weight (typically less than 2 pounds), with a small display screen, and has a small keyboard or touch screen. These devices will include, but are not limited to: iPads, iPod touches, Kindles, Smartphones, and other tablet computers. Mobile devices may have the following capabilities, text message, email, internet, cameras, and/or applications. For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks will not be considered as mobile devices. applications. For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks will not be considered as mobile devices.
These mobile devices can be ones that you own or that you have regular access to through someone else. If you don't have regular access to a mobile device you are not eligible to take the survey, but we appreciate your volunteering. This survey is broken into three parts, the first part asks general questions, the second part asks about the frequency and use of mobile devices, and the third part asks for examples of mobile device usage. This survey should take you no more than 30-45 to complete.
Section 1: General Questions This section will ask you general questions about years of teaching experience, teaching department, access to mobile devices, the features of those devices, and applications you use.

How long have you been teaching?
In what department do you teach?
Do you own or have regular access to a mobile, web-enabled, device (smartphone, tablet, or dedicated e-reader)?

What are the features of your device/s? (check all that apply)
What do you read on your device/s? (check all that apply) The last four questions asks about your personal desires or lack of desire to use mobile devices.
You may not want to have your students use mobile devices in your classes. Which may be reasons why? (check all that apply)

What are some ways this campus could use mobile devices and apps in the future?
On what device did you use to access this survey?

Information
This study will focus on how undergraduate students and instructors use mobile devices in and out of class for academic purposes. The survey will inquire about what kinds of activities you perform, frequency of use, and types of mobile devices you use.
Your university has given me permission to request you to participate in this study and the results will be used in my dissertation at Pepperdine University. The findings will be made available to you at the conclusion of my study. Dr. Linda Polin, chair for the Learning Technologies program at the university, is supervising my work.
People who agree to participate in this study will be entered in a drawing for one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. One student and one faculty gift card will be awarded. Those who wish to be entered in this drawing may provide their school affiliated email addresses after clicking agree.
The survey consists of three sections, should take no more than 10-15 minutes, and will be open for one month. Your responses will be confidential and I will not collect identifying information such as name, IP address, or email address unless you provide an email address to be entered in the gift card drawing. You may withdraw from the study at anytime and it will not eliminate you from the pool for the gift card drawing. Participation is the study in strictly voluntary.

Confidentiality
All information provided will be kept confidential. All data is stored in a password protected electronic format. To help protect your confidentiality, if you provide your email for the drawing, it will be stripped from the rest of your responses. The survey response will not contain any information that will personally identify you. The results of this study will be used for scholarly purposes only.

Risks/Benefits
The only foreseeable risk associated with this study is the imposition on your time, 10-15 minutes. The study will be beneficial in that it may provide data to help instructors to better implement mobile devices into their academic courses.
For the purpose of this study, mobile devices will be defined as handheld devices that are Wi-Fi enabled, application based, lightweight (typically less than 2 pounds), with a small display screen, and has a small keyboard or touch screen. These devices will include, but are not limited to: iPads, iPod touches, Kindles, Smartphones, and other tablet computers. Mobile devices will have the following capabilities, text message, email, Internet, or applications. For the purpose of this study laptops, netbooks, or Chromebooks will not be considered as mobile devices. This research has been reviewed according to Pepperdine University IRB procedures for research involving human subjects. ELECTRONIC CONSENT: Please select your choice below. Clicking on the agree button below indicates that: * you have read the above information * you voluntarily agree to participate * you are at least 18 years of age. If you do not wish to participate in the research study, please decline participation by clicking on the disagree button.
Thank you for your participation. If you are an undergraduate student or teach at least one class in higher education AND use mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.) please read on. If not, this email does not pertain to you.
I am a doctoral student at Pepperdine University and an Assistant Professor of Educational Technology. I am working on my dissertation researching how undergraduate students and instructors use their mobile devices in and out of class for academic purposes. This study is a quantitative survey that should take no more than 10-15 minutes of your time. CUI's IRB as well as Pepperdine's IRB has approved this research and I will be adhering to their requirements. At the conclusion of this study, the findings will be available to you with suggestions for better implement mobile devices for academic uses.
I am requesting no more than 10-15 minutes of your time to participate in the quantitative survey. If you choose to participate and agree to the terms and conditions, you may voluntarily provide your email address for a drawing to win one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. One will be awarded to a faculty member and one to a student. This survey is hosted here (link) using Qualtrics. You may participate on your computer or your mobile device. I need 100 student I am hereby seeking your consent to disseminate emails to the faculty and undergraduate students at Intuition A with a link to the survey instrument. If you agree, please sign this form or reply to this email indicating so at your earliest convenience so that I may move on towards the Internal Review Board process.
I have provided you with a copy of my dissertation proposal, which includes a copy of the informed consent form to be used in the research process. I will be submitting to the Internal Review Board this week and will provide you with a copy of the letter once I receive it.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me on at malia.hoffmann@pepperdine.edu or 920-246-7192. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.  I am hereby seeking your consent to disseminate emails to the faculty and undergraduate students at Institution B with a link to the survey instrument. If you agree, will you please sign this form or reply to this email indicating so at your earliest convenience so that I may move on towards the Internal Review Board process? I have provided you with a copy of my dissertation proposal, which includes a copy of the informed consent form to be used in the research process. I will be submitting to the Internal Review Board this week and will provide you with a copy of the letter once I receive it.
If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me on at malia.hoffmann@pepperdine.edu or 920-246-7192. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Malia Hoffmann
Pepperdine University Doctoral Candidate I, ____________________ agree/disagree to allow Malia Hoffmann, Pepperdine University doctoral candidate, to use the Institution B faculties and students as research participants.