Students in a new medical school were provided with laptops. This study explored the feasibility and educational benefits of mobile learning for two cohorts of students learning in two settings—university campus (first-year students) and rural clinical placements (second-year students). Evaluation involved questionnaires, focus groups (faculty and students), and document analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Response rates for questionnaires exceeded 84%. Compared with second-year students, significantly more first-year students (60%) took their laptops to campus daily ( ) and used their laptops for more hours each day ( ). All students used laptops most frequently to access the internet (85% and 97%) and applications (Microsoft Word (80% and 61%) and Microsoft PowerPoint (80% and 63%)). Focus groups with students revealed appreciation for the laptops but frustration with the initial software image. Focus groups with faculty identified enthusiasm for mobile learning but acknowledged its limitations. Physical infrastructure and information technology support influenced mobile learning. Document analysis revealed significant costs and issues with maintenance. If adequately resourced, mobile learning through university-issued laptops would be feasible and have educational benefits, including equitable access to learning resources, when and where they are needed. However, barriers remain for full implementation. 1. Introduction Gippsland Medical School (GMS), Monash University, is a graduate entry medical curriculum offering a bachelor of medicine/bachelor of surgery (MBBS) over four years [1]. GMS is located in rural Victoria, Australia. The curriculum offers very different experiences for students over the first two years with the first predominantly spent on campus while the second is largely spent in rural clinical placements across a large geographical area. GMS provided all students with laptops at the commencement of their studies with students taking a custodial role. The provision of laptops was considered an equitable way in which to provide students with access to resources despite their distribution across significant distances. This educational offering is sometimes referred to as mobile learning. That is, “… the acquisition of any knowledge and skill through using mobile technology, anywhere, anytime, that results in an alteration in behaviour” [2] or “… is any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices.” [3]
References
[1]
Gippsland Medical School, http://www.med.monash.edu.au/medical/gippsland/.
[2]
S. J. Geddes, “Mobile learning in the 21st century: benefit for learners,” Knowledge Tree e-journal, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 214–228, 2004.
[3]
J. Traxler, “Defining mobile learning,” in Mobile Learning 2005, P. Isaias, C. Borg, P. Kommers, and P. Bonanno, Eds., International Association for development of the Information Society Press, Valletta, Malta, 2005.
[4]
D. Nestel, H. Brenton, and R. Kneebone, “Handheld computers in veterinary medical education: a view from human medical education,” Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 121–126, 2005.
[5]
D. Seabra, M. Srougi, R. Baptista, L. J. Nesrallah, V. Ortiz, and D. Sigulem, “Computer aided learning versus standard lecture for undergraduate education in urology,” Journal of Urology, vol. 171, no. 3, pp. 1220–1222, 2004.
[6]
G. Yamey, “The professor of “telepreventive medicine”,” British Medical Journal, vol. 328, no. 7449, article 1158, 2004.
[7]
P. W. Callas, T. F. Bertsch, M. P. Caputo, B. S. Flynn, S. Doheny-Farina, and M. A. Ricci, “Medical student evaluations of lectures attended in person or from rural sites via interactive videoconferencing,” Teaching and Learning in Medicine, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 46–50, 2004.
[8]
D. J. Solomon, G. S. Ferenchick, H. S. Laird-Fick, and K. Kavanaugh, “A randomized trial comparing digital and live lecture formats ISRCTN40455708,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 4, article 27, 2004.
[9]
S. C. Stain, M. Mitchell, R. Belue et al., “Objective assessment of videoconferenced lectures in a surgical clerkship,” American Journal of Surgery, vol. 189, no. 1, pp. 81–84, 2005.
[10]
D. M. Fleiszer, N. H. Posel, and S. P. Steacy, “New directions in medical e-curricula and the use of digital repositories,” Academic Medicine, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 229–235, 2004.
[11]
L. Howatson-Jones, “Designing web-based education courses for nurses,” Nursing standard, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 41–44, 2004.
[12]
G. W. Matkin, “Distance education: its concepts and constructs,” Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 220–225, 2007.
[13]
J. B. McGee and M. Begg, “What medical educators need to know about ‘Web 2.0’,” Medical Teacher, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 164–169, 2008.
[14]
J. G. Ruiz, M. J. Mintzer, and R. M. Leipzig, “The impact of e-learning in medical education,” Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 207–212, 2006.
[15]
J. M. Sargeant, “Medical education for rural areas: opportunities and challenges for information and communications technologies,” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 301–307, 2005.
[16]
M. H. Sims, N. Howell, and B. Harbison, “Videoconferencing in a veterinary curriculum,” Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 299–310, 2007.
[17]
D. Nestel, A. Ng, K. Gray et al., “Evaluation of mobile learning: students' experiences in a new rural-based medical school,” BMC Medical Education, vol. 10, no. 1, article 57, 2010.
[18]
C. Varsavsky, W. McKenzie, G. Romeo, and L. Webster, InterLearn—A Tool for Collaborative Learning, Ascilite, Auckland, New Zealand, 2002.
[19]
R. S. Barbour, “Making sense of focus groups,” Medical Education, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 742–750, 2005.
[20]
J. Kitzinger, “The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants,” Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 103–121, 1994.
[21]
J. Kitzinger, “Focus groups,” in Qualitative Research in Health Care, C. Pope and N. Mays, Eds., pp. 21–31, BMJ, Oxford, UK, 2006.
[22]
D. Morgan, “Focus groups,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 22, pp. 129–152, 1996.
[23]
D. L. Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, SAGE, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 1997.
[24]
D. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2005.
[25]
K. Garman, “Eastside, westside... an exercise in applying document analysis techniques in educational evaluation,” Research on Evaluation Program Paper and Report Series 78, Northwest Regional Educational Lab, 1982.
[26]
S. Merriam, Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 1977.
[27]
L. Prior, Using Documents in Social Research, Sage, London, UK, 2003.
[28]
J. Scott, Documentary Research, Sage, London, UK, 2006.
[29]
M. Patton, Qualitative Research Evaluation Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 3rd edition, 2002.
