There is a growing interest in the use of mobile technologies in the educational sector, evidenced by both research and uptake in the use of tablets and mobile phones in K–12 and Higher Education (Groupe Spéciale Mobile Association (GSMA) 2012; Wu et al. 2012). The recent New Media Consortium (NMC) Horizon Report (Johnson et al. 2013) identified that the adoption of tablet computing in higher education would occur within a year or less, signifying that adoption is actually already established in some areas.

Key opportunities in mobile learning include: encourage anytime, anywhere learning; reach underserved children; improve 21st century social interactions; fit with learning environments; and enable a personalized learning experience (Shuler 2009, p. 6). In their toolkit for adopting mobile learning, Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2011) provided some tangible benefits associated with the use of mobile technologies. Most of these are examples on Shuler's list but also add the promotion of active learning, enablement of new learning environments, and accessibility, to the list of tangible benefits when using mobile technologies.

Recently, the University of Hull was commissioned by the Scottish government to research the affordability and effectiveness of iPads in education (Burden et al. 2012). The study found that the use of tablet devices such as the iPad facilitates the achievement of many of the core elements required within the Curriculum for Excellence framework. It also noted that the adoption of mobile technologies comes with many attendant benefits for learning, which include motivation, engagement, parental involvement, and understanding of complex ideas. Furthermore, the study having tried several setups for implementing the use of the iPad, found that the personal ownership of the device is the single most important factor for successful use (Burden et al. 2012, p. 9). Although this report is encouraging, it flags up the issue of cost of implementation in Further Education, with more students, and many more simultaneous classes.

This pilot study aims to investigate the benefits as well as the potential issues in implementing the use of mobile devices as shared devices, and aims to answer the following questions:

What are the benefits linked to the use of tablet devices in the classroom?

The rate of adoption of mobile devices in Further Education compared to K–12 has been at a slower pace and smaller in scale (Wishart and Green 2010). A search of education index databases using the search term ‘mobile learning’ in Further Education and its counterparts produced only a handful of results in comparison to a search of mobile learning in K–12 and higher education. Whilst dissemination of mobile learning in Further Education has been limited in peer-reviewed journals, m-learning in Further Education has attracted attention via a proliferation of case studies and good practice on the Internet.

Amongst the attributed benefits of mobile learning in Further Education were the improvement of communication channels, updating students about course materials via SMS (Derwen College 2008) and other forms of alerts and updates through mobile devices. This process has proven to be useful in engaging students and has improved learner welfare and retention (Northampton College 2010; Yorkshire Coast College 2010).

On a one tablet per class setup, there are cost benefits associated with cheaper applications on tablets and cheaper hardware (Bridgewater College 2013; Clydebank College 2012). Mobile devices also facilitated location-based assessments (Excellence Gateway 2008; South Lanarkshire College 2012) allowing assessors to document student progress using various multimedia. This highlights not just the digitisation of processes, but also the manner in which mobile technologies can widen the physical scope of the classroom environment.

Location-based learning using mobile devices facilitated learners to have meaningful language interaction (JISC 2005b) and explore concepts in authentic environments (Lius 2011; Mobiilisti 2012). In addition, the mobility of these devices allows learners to engage with their learning materials anytime, anywhere and not just in the classroom environment (JISC 2005a).

Mobile devices have now evolved from mere communication tools to pocket computers with their own share of added functionalities and limitations. Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney (2006) identified seven functions by which a mobile device would serve educational requirements: administration, referential, interactive, micro world, data collection, location aware, and collaborative. The first four items are functions that can be carried out with traditional fixed-location computers while the latter three items highlight beneficial features of mobile devices. Patten's framework shows that a variety of learning activities can be carried out with mobile devices.

Puentedura (2009) introduced the Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition (SAMR) model for technology integration (see Figure 1). The framework states that technology adoption ranges from substitution, where the technology acts as a direct substitute for traditional tools, to that of redefinition, where the technology allows for the creation of new tasks previously inconceivable. These two frameworks of mobile use and technology integration will be used to evaluate the range of activities carried out in the different subjects during the intervention, alongside the evaluation of the benefits of using mobile devices.

This is an interventionist/action research project that examines how the use of tablets as a shared device can contribute in a Further Education learning environment. The authors’ role in the research was interventionist, in that propositions were identified, and then practitioners were consulted to invite their collaboration to help to prove or disprove the propositions. Action research was then undertaken in various classroom scenarios to observe, gather data, and evaluate outcomes.

This section outlines the results of the pilot study in terms of (1) the range of activities the tablets were able to support; (2) student engagement; and (3) issues encountered.

A variety of learning activities were carried out using the tablets as shown in Table 2. Most of these activities were carried out as group activities with 2–3 members in a group. In the SVS area, it was possible to provide a one-to-one student – tablet provision, with some activities carried out individually, and later converged into a group activity.

The assortment of activities carried out varied greatly, ranging from referential to collaborative activities. Table 3 shows how each subject area utilized the tablets following Patten, Sánchez, and Tangney (2006) functional pedagogical framework. This shows that tablets can be suitable alternatives for the standard fixed-location computers. At the same time, the tablet's data gathering features, as well as its form factor, make it suitable for carrying out collaborative learning activities inside or outside the classroom.

The activities carried out with the tablets in the various subject areas are analysed in terms of the SAMR model. The tablet feature(s) used, the nature of the activity, information on how an activity is normally carried out without the tablets, and the mapping of these tablet-based activities to the SAMR model is available on Table 4.

From Table 4, it can be seen that some activities carried out with the tablets offer only minor enhancements, such as the use of the tablet for word processing, whereby the only measurable benefit, as the practitioner states, is that it made reading the student output a lot easier as opposed to a short story written on paper. In one case, this minor enhancement provided a functional improvement, namely, the case of using the Socrative App, which allowed the lecturer to see how many students had made a mistake. This allowed for instant corrective action or advice. The Socrative App allows the lecturer to ask questions in the form of a multiple choice question or a short answer without having to create the questions in advance. This way, the question can be elsewhere (e.g. from a textbook, or a totally new, impromptu concept), which is a valued feature over some traditional classroom response systems.

Some tasks constituted a transformation of the learning activity and from Table 4 we can see that these are activities that made use of the tablet's multiple features for the same task. This highlights how the multiple features and functions of the tablets make them suitable tools to be used in the classroom environment, making previously unrealistic activities feasible.

We have set out to identify the benefits linked to the use of tablet devices in the classroom and any issues associated with tablet use. In terms of learning content, the tablets were used in: content consumption, content creation and content sharing. In terms of the range of learning activities carried out with the devices, they were able to simulate activities possible with traditional computers, but at the same time provide the face-to-face interaction often lost when working with desktop computers.

The design of the activities carried out in this pilot project highlighted collaborative learning, student discourse and peer support. In these activities, the mobile devices can be seen as enablers that facilitated these student interactions. They also highlight how the design of mobile technology supported activities that started as in-class activities can be used to encourage students to engage with self-directed learning using their own mobile devices.

It might be worth underlining that the use of tablets in class is not a panacea. Whilst students displayed improved engagement during the activities, there were tasks that did not fit very well with the tablets and there were tasks that were not suited to be carried out as collaborative activities.

Practitioner buy-in is a critical factor in the successful implementation of the tablets, because the activities that produced the most positive student engagement were those that called for a redefinition of the learning task. In addition, these new technologies, including the apps that go with them, very rarely come with a manual, which underlines the need for practitioner commitment to explore the market, and to try various apps before use in the classroom. It became apparent that if practitioners were enthusiastic about tablet use, that enthusiasm was taken up by the student. If the same activities were repeated too often, or the tablets were used constantly, then the students could become disengaged. The influence of the practitioner's attitude in the successful use of such technology cannot be overstated.

It is apparent that there are advantages in the use of such technologies in the classroom. Some of the technical issues encountered may be eradicated in the near future as operating system manufacturers tackle the needs of educational use, and administration and central control will be enabled by device and app management systems. What is clear from this pilot study is that both students and staff enjoyed using the tablets, that student engagement was improved in many cases as evidenced by lecturer feedback and student surveys, and that tasks were carried out which would have been unrealistic in the ‘traditional’ classroom environment.

There has been much research conducted on the use of mobile technologies in classrooms, though the range particularly related to Further Education provision is limited. Political considerations may mean that future research and procurement of devices may need to be pan-organisational, to enable sharing of knowledge, and potential cost savings.

John Small (Language Lecturer, Language School), Diane Murdoch and Tamie Viviers (both Lecturers, Social & Vocational Studies). Paula Muir (Subject Leader, Hairdressing), Margaret McKay (Advisor: Accessibility and Inclusion, JISC RSC).