The Successful Integration of Technology in the Classroom

4®• 3µ££•≥≥¶µ¨ )Æ¥•ß≤°¥©ØÆ Ø¶ 4•£®ÆØ¨Øßπ ©Æ ¥®• #¨°≥≥≤ØØ≠

David MCDONALD Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303, U.S.A. and Juhi BULCHANDANI Department of Computer Information Systems, Georgia State University Atlanta, GA 30303, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT use the technology, 2) not knowing where to start, 3) fears of appearing incompetent to their peers and This proposed study is to continue a research students, and 4) perceived “techno failure” of the program into the effective use of 21st century technology itself [2, 3]. Moreover, even for those instructional technologies in the classroom. For the faculty who have more experience and are more past year, a significant pilot study, inclusive of all comfortable in using technology, they will colleges within a large southeastern university was undoubtedly encounter obstructions resulting from conducted to determine the effectiveness of a newly pressures of research agendas [4], the additional time developed mobile instructional technology product, required to develop electronic resources and the Text Questioning System (TQS™). The TQS™ strategies [4-7], and a general lack of institutional is a single module of a cloud-based, mobile, audience reward structures acknowledging the extra time and response system (ARS). Based upon weaknesses effort spent on technology integration [8]. discovered in the pilot, the authors have developed a behavioral-based framework to improve the adoption rate of the full ARS. The combined theories found in 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation are used as the basis of this framework. In this research, the authors seek As much as faculty resist technology, the literature to determine whether stakeholders’ technology presents a convincing case that technology provides adoption traits can prognosticate the successful students with both classroom and learning benefits. implementation of an innovative ARS. Classroom benefits accrue from the combination of the instructor’s skill, the pedagogy employed, the learning environment, and the students’ willingness Keywords: Instructional Technology, Technology Adoption, Audience Response System to learn. Some of these classroom benefits include; 1) improvement in classroom attention spans, 2) higher attendance rates, 3) a marked increase in participation when the technology supports anonymity resulting in 4) more engagement in

1. INTRODUCTION classroom activities [9, 10], 5) increased interaction Technological change seems to increase more rapidly and discussion amongst faculty, students, and peer each year. University faculty are often confused as to groups [11-13], 6) contingent learning where which technologies would best be used in the instruction is modified based on student feedback classroom or, even more importantly, whether to [14-17] even bother to keep abreast with technology changes. There is evidence which indicates that change Student-centric learning benefits which increase are: associated with technology is perceived by faculty to 1) improved communication and collaboration with be more disruptive than change without technology better articulation of student thinking [11], 2) better [1], These perspectives on technological change are formulated questions from students, 3) a pedagogical partially explained by the definable impediments shift away from the needs of faculty to the needs of which faculty confront for successfully integrating the students [11, 18], 4) more effective peer-to-peer technology. Some faculty may intellectually discussions [14, 19, 20] and most importantly, 5) acknowledge benefits of new technology, but resist active learning resulting in improved student change due to; 1) making poor choices of how best to performance. Qualitative research suggests that l e 2 i [ T o o t C k m s r i i t o [ t s Y t a q t E t n t u e [ p r s d p s c i m p D l i m f a e n h n n h e e o r h n i n a 1 e 2 3 e i t m y p f o c m n e n 3 f r u u e i r r k n i h l a m a c e c i c e a s t a e f s e n e c s

l s

2 i 8 6 o a v s t a p w r n o a t a f ] f e e a n o g f i g a t t r p h t h t u p r

r t

t t m o p t c c f . , - , p a s i s r b r i

n r f s l e i r

l o n w t h e k e e

r a r

i n n a

a o 3 u o l l i e t c n

s u e i a u v c a e 1 3

e n d l t t l t b i o a a o r c m i [ r w e g o h W l l o o r s n 1 i l e t n p i e

r c u n n c c n c a c r s 4 7 4 e

i s u s r a v a h g t t e o d y i o i f n t a l l l

z s t ]

h t t t t

l o a g

s s s e o n , ] 0 o t c s a t y o o r e

a e e i i i i i i m o o . t f p h n e s o r

i u s o . e s o t v m

o o

o o s n s y g n 1 r a s - r d

s r n n [

g g o h

l 3 p i m i e d g

d t a i

o e

4 n m a s

k 3 o R g n n v n n o t

, l n a

5 u

i e o C m i d i y n r s . p e

“

i i i e r s y p n t 2 m e e p . 8 r

b a . e a

r s o i f o , o r d n s t c e f

s e r i c

i a

R s n u e

e s o o s u s i t a p g ]

l s l t

, i

q u i f f s f

e h n s v t l

e c n u

d a

t M h .

e s h l n T a

o l

d w e

t i u A t e n t 3 s u

n a e s n D e 1

a t m o h s l t v t a

e t d e e c m s e e o e

a o e h r s u i i

a u y c d h o n m s H 9 a - e u L l t m , e t o , d a a i m c e t u k n f c e c m p s v I n

s v

b e r

r a

e e c d

e n e c h d

a ] c i r a 2 r n h s i a p o w h e n h F d e r g c a … m o s e E d

n o a r y . a

n s e c n e e t c e a

e r s 4

t y r s n r p

t t n h l n t i

i c n i F t e s

e r

e u s h

n h n e t e

w c e n t s

O a e s n p t o o t t n s i a T -

t o a t o

e o d e s o d h e a l s d s r a n , o q ” e s s

e c c e t o U i o 2 n e c u o o c b l y d ’ s

d e a l f u e l s e l n i v n i e h R t i s

x s

o h n u i d e

o c n 7 e o b o f i

t r f a i n i , a i p r i t r

d S

c n p f p

s o c o e A , r

f v p l t f

c , r i n e S n i d

t e

c g y ] g s g s E u

s n o g t e e i e t

u a o t e m

r e e t I

t . a e

e h o t

p , c o n u a u h t

e y y t i y h R e h l o d

- f O R n r t t r c

a s T m f e h t e

r c

s t r e n l o c s a b

r r h r h m o d e - s e c

e i i r e p o i

a e r h n d i S p o c e p s d l e a e e e a n b . r h o I r t n d e N

o e a n e m e a

d s i

e r n t . h

e a e e g n e a

m e s e s , l C t t e d a a

c s n d

g i d i

r e c c o

l r o a h P s

m , o p

o d n s p A a s t i f v c n a e y e s u o

s v e k e y h l

e O a i l i n f A e u n f r u p s a s i o p i l o s s l c o y r r a r e n e

t a d v l r r e e

o s i e a d s g o . f a a i s s i g i o e t t n t p y t t f i e

n f r d s l n t

L r

e m i o o .

s s i s i

t s r e f i d n n a n g

o s a o

t s a c a i c s

a i s s p

[ o l o

i s

s m

t F

a i h r n

f t s n

c f l y i

d q e l y t i t 3 r p s s t e n g d b

c a p i

m e I A o y a g

n f B

t n l

u e e e h y f a e a o a l u j a

d t s s

u a e p N i l s 2 e i t e y e e

p s o r a

w i e s o q e s e

m t c i s e z l l o c S s R t r s o l i A t [ r

s c d c t a e i m

l - i r

y l t

e c r t l d u t n f y

a u N c 4 e a i n e e n o l s r 3 i m e i w y

a l a y t n e o a

t i b s S o t

m t e C c o o a d

t b g e d

i l i e , i a m 6 o h n n a e l s n l 5 i s r

m g -

f i r n O

t t v y m r c

a h l t

o p a r s n i l a a a

e a o l e ] n x o s o y t y n e s s K s

] i e

e o b e i

m e

i t e

t , e . i r s g a

c n t t

m l

. p

t n s V w

a s g u p

r o r v

i x s

c l s o g a m

e u f e

y n t i t o m a w a

s k o

e i G u

t a u m s i

a o o i r

a u n l v

s p h C a n

o x n f p y r d

t h [ A l n f c n h e s

n t e c l r a s l f i t t i

b h

a d d o a s

4 s

c e p f R

t g r e e a i

e i d i g h n i A m e v a s a

k s e h s l j i

T t

t y o c i o o n e i r t n e f 3 m e n a l

( f o n

s o u r , c e e i e

v n e

a i O o s o f h s

n R e

e A v e o o c n o t e s a

- r I t e

u r

f w

a e i a a b r v t a n t s r 4

o c s a r t

o r s t n e O r

- e

f . f n f n u o e c S l U u

t r a R u

y i e r

e i o b n

n 5

f r t s e r m t a e

n c d e m o t e s m c n d

d y i t a

e i N T

t t a i

N h S ] s r i

a u e s e n

d s a e n

i s

p i e . t e s

a e

h s ) e t

. a n

e c

s n n g

e D [ n g e n n

- .

t f

i n e

n 2 s h a

t t

u o

n d

u t o r

t l s

c l d

1 s I h t s

s t e a

i - e

o n

d C t s T t o r p

f { s S t C t p f i d a Ç c

e e e h n a o e t u

n o

i u o o e

p o a c c c e n f s m r

c d p m t s t e

f k

h h e h m

o c e c e i u

l u

e a

n n n t t o m n o e

x l

s , i i n h [ h r i

o o o

e v f t m y a a

i a c i

d e u i o i o l l d l e n t e m a

r c h

o o o e I

i n

d s

l v a o

l r w

t g g g

l i

o ( .

e f

l e y s

n c y

a i y y

o c

a h t

a i

r Students’ use of technology y e r C a

w i $ i t r g t r s i s t i r

n h %

n n l i s ’ t a

h g

i e

l o

w e w f

d t i

t s

r a

a i a

l h n n o s h e

u i g o u e

i c c t

n y

e g

e l

h t e

c a v c m 1 l y

t s g

n k

e e b s e m a

t )

o t

e r [

p t e p

o l o h

i r e p i

4 i

o m

b T y n t t f e a o u s d

a o e 7

l e t w i

o l c c n f d

s ]

e t p

e a u i a t o . e y t s n c

s s

h h

c u

c i b t e

m e

t .

e h T l o

a l

e t w y

i A a a

a t

o e t c p f

h I h

i t e

i t i h

b s I r h n f h

o e

n I t

i a s I

e s i f

o h s n n

e s

, n

c n

r ’

l t

o o a f

h e m r o e

g t h i s

a i e m

h l n v n

n w

s e

o c t t a f s

a j a

t r v

h n h

e t e

a g e s y t

n t t

o c a o e e e a w

a c

c i

Ü o t l m

o r

r b l

e k n r h t

h a i p v s

o a

i f

c s n e e n

g i s e o , e

r e l r

h e

, h d n s

i w

w k n a u

v s o , n

i o

s t y o c f i e o

c p i f o l e h v

e f d

c d s o o

d i r t l u f n Ç e a d

p t

k e r

o e i r

m t t

p l

t r t ,

e i

t i t m e

s i w e

o t o h h s a

m h g ! s

a w

n u

s n i s l e

e r

" n i s

o t i

e l

o r m

n h t m i

o t

o s

I I

s e

f p i I V

a t t p !

p p n

e h r

l s a

o c

e e n . n h v

, t

n e

o l

o g y

problems and additional improvements or * enhancements created, the “Early Adopters” begin to +" try the technology. Next come an additional 13.5% a , of those more willing to gamble on the innovation, seeing benefits that the technology offers. As the rate of adoption is diffused over time in the s-shaped curve, the innovation goes from a period of slow, gradual growth throughout the adoption period for the Innovators and the beginning of the Early Adopters acceptance of the technology. Then, at Applicable Diffusion Theory some point between the transition between the Early Everett M. Rogers' book Diffusion of Innovations Adopters and the Early Majority, the innovation [47] is really an amalgam of four theoretical experiences a period of relatively dramatic and rapid foundations: Innovation Decision Process; Individual growth. At the start of the diffusion, the growth Innovativeness; Rate of Adoption; and Perceived pattern is relatively linear. However, the rapid Attributes. Although the reader is encouraged to growth period is typically exemplified by a change to explore each of these theories in depth, for the sake an exponential growth pattern [52, 53]. Notice also of brevity, only the areas germane to this research are that following the period of rapid growth, the presented here. innovation's rate of adoption will gradually stabilize and eventually decline until the other extreme is Central to this research is diffusion theory focused on reached where one finds the Laggards who resist the human and interpersonal aspects of innovation adopting an innovation until very late in the diffusion diffusion. Adopter based theories are end user process, if ever [47]. centric; i.e., it is the individual who will ultimately implement the innovation in a practical setting, as the Adopter based theories focus on the human and primary force for change [36, 46]. Rogers states that interpersonal aspects of innovation diffusion. diffusion is a longitudinal process with five Adopter based theories are inherently instrumental in distinctive stages [47]. Individuals who are philosophy because they view the end user -- the predisposed and excited about new technologies will individual who will ultimately implement the adopt an innovation prior than those who are less innovation in a practical setting, as the primary force predisposed. Figure 2 displays a bell shaped for change. These theories reject the assumption that distribution of individuals’ propensity toward superior products and practices will automatically be innovations as well as the percentage of potential attractive to potential adopters. adapters which Rogers theorized to fall into each category [50, 51]. The adopters who are the most Mobile phones are becoming increasing sophisticated prone to new technologies are the first group with a number of current models – termed as encountered in this distribution. These groups, aptly “smartphones” that provide functionality such as web named “Innovators,” are the risk takers and pioneers browsing, document editing and wireless who adopt an innovation at the very beginning of the connectivity such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. The diffusion process. The Innovators account for about familiarity of today’s student with this technology 2.5 of the population for a technology that reaches a makes it the natural successor to instructional social saturation point. technologies with their origins in the 20th century.

Mobile technology, coupled with audience response system concepts is changing the classroom from an instructor-led pedagogy to a student collaboration mode. Student satisfaction levels, attention spans, and an improved quality and quantity of questions demonstrate the potential of these technologies to educators.

C w ! 5 L / Studies have shown that students prefer mobile-based response interactions [54]. But they also have As the innovation gathers a bit more maturity; i.e. concerns about the costs associated with this adjustments made to the product to fix reported technology. More so, and perhaps predictably, instructors are less enthusiastic and much more effort, with the associate provosts for technology as cautious about changes to the traditional classroom well as education acting as champion, enables the use structure. of a research population comprised of a much broader group of faculty, students, and subjects Students have a tendency to “play” with these system taught. when the instructor fails to hold their attention. Other students have reported that these systems distract The full ARS, txtQuest™, has been created to them from the lecture [54]. Attempting to type in a answer vital questions of a higher level of abstraction text question while a complex concept is discussed, in juxtaposition with the above framework For challenges even fairly competent multi-tasking example, what are the behavioral factors, such as students. faculty and student attitudes towards adopting the technology which will improve adoption rates. While these exciting technologies provide new There are abundant examples of simple, easy to use, possibilities for instruction, the less equipment and inexpensive technologies that have low required to use them and the more seamlessly and stakeholder acceptance rates. Are faculty’s ubiquitously they can mesh into the environment, the familiarity and willingness to accept new more of a chance for them to be effective. For a instructional technologies of greater importance in classroom technology to be adopted and effective, it adoption than the same acceptance behavior of must be accepted by both students and faculty, so a students? How does an institution foster an balance of ease-of-use and functionality must be environment for faculty to innovate in the classroom? achieved. Consideration of these questions provides the basis for this research endeavor.

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 5. HYPOTHESES A review of the literature indicated a general consensus that higher educational institutions can There are four prime hypotheses, each designed to benefit from mobile-based ARS. However, most of test the validity of the suppositions found in the the heretofore efforts examined infrastructure-based framework illustrated in figure 1. For each of the issues, but failed to closely examine stakeholder quadrants labeled I-IV, sub-hypotheses query the groups. validity that two independent variables, attitude and aptitude toward technology, have the expected For the past year, a large southeastern university has outcomes shown in the framework. developed and deployed the first module of a new mobile audience response system [55]. This module The authors expect that when stakeholders display is unique to those found in prior systems, allowing both a positive attitude toward technology in general for the integration of mobile technology into Web 2.0 and have the capability to use the instructional technology. This module dubbed the “Text innovation, active learning is more likely to occur Questioning System” or TQS™ is part of a larger than any other scenario. The authors also surmise cloud application developed by the same university that of the two independent variables, faculty’s called txtQuest™. attitude toward the innovation will prove to be a dominant determinant of technology adoption. A design goal of the TQS™ was to alleviate the infrastructure problems found in traditional audience response systems while taking full advantage of 21st century technologies. Although this design objective was achieved, in the prior pilot study, which involved scores of professors and hundreds of students, indicated a reticence by both faculty and students to fully integrate this system into the classroom.

In the past, most research efforts involved only a class or two focused on a given research question. Often the research methodology was a case study. The gap in past studies is one of scope. This research w [16] K. Hinde and A. Hunt, "Using the personal response system to enhance student learning: Some evidence from teaching economics," in Audience response [1] P. S. Owen and A. Demb, "Change dynamics and systems in higher education, D. A. Banks, Ed., ed leadership in technology implementation," Journal of Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing, 2006, Higher Education, Vol. 75,Num. 6, pp. 636-666, pp. 140-154. 2004. [17] M. Jackson, et al. (2005, Wireless handheld computers [2] M. L. Markus, "Power, politics, and MIS in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Medical implementation," Communications of the ACM, Education Online 10(5). Vol. 26,Num. 6, pp. 430-444, 1983. [18] K. Siau, Sheng, H., & Nah, F., "Use of classroom [3] L. H. Rutherford and S. J. Grana, "Retrofitting response system to enhance classroom interactivity," academe: Adapting faculty attitudes and practices to IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 49,Num. 3, technology," T.H.E. Journal, Vol. 23,Num. 2, p. 82, pp. 398–403, 2006. 1995. [19] G. Bergtrom. (2006, Clicker sets as learning objects. . [4] A. Hannan, "Innovating in higher education: Contexts Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning for change in learning technology," British Journal Objects. of Educational Technology, Vol. 36,Num. 6, pp. [20] J. E. Caldwell, " Clickers in the large classroom: 975-985, 2005. Current research and best-practice tips," Life Sciences [5] Y. Q. Bongalos, et al., " University teachers' Education, Vol. 6,Num. 1, pp. 9-20, 2007. experiences in courseware development," British [21] C. Elliott. (2003, Using a personal response system in Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 37,Num. economics teaching. International Review of 5, pp. 695-704, 2006. Economics Education 1(1). [6] A. C. Masi and L. R. Winer, "A university-wide vision [22] D. Slain, et al., " An interactive response system to of teaching and learning with information promote active learning in the doctor of pharmacy technologies," Innovations in Education and curriculum.," American Journal of Pharmaceutical Teaching International, Vol. 42,Num. 2, pp. 147- Education, Vol. 68,Num. 5, pp. 1-9, 2004. 155, 2005. [23] S. A. J. Stuart, et al., "Using an electronic voting [7] M. R. Phelps, A case study - Production and use of system in logic lectures: One practitioner’s open source education application," Journal of Computer Assisted resources. Boston: Tufts University, 2006. Learning, Vol. 20,Num. 2, pp. 95-102, 2004. [8] S. Santilli and V. Beck, "Graduate faculty perceptions [24] C. Carnaghan and A. Webb, "Investigating the effects of online teaching," Quarterly Review of Distance of group response systems on student satisfaction, Education, Vol. 6,Num. 2, pp. 155-160, 2005. learning, and engagement in accounting education," [9] D. A. Banks, "Reflections on the use of ARS with Issues in Accounting Education,, Vol. 22,Num. 3, small groups," in Audience response systems in higher pp. 391-409, 2007. education, D. A. Banks, Ed., ed Hershey, PA: [25] J. Hatch, et al., "Manna from heaven or clickers from Information Science Publishing, 2006, pp. 373-386. hell," Journal of College Science Teaching, Vol. [10] S. M. Durbin and K. A. Durbin, "Anonymous polling 34,Num. 7, pp. 36-39, 2005. in a engineering tutorial environment: A case study," [26] H. M. Horowitz, "ARS evolution: Reflections and in Audience response systems in higher education, D. recommendations," in Audience response systems in A. Banks, Ed., ed Hershey, PA:: Information Science higher education, D. A. Banks, Ed., ed Hershey, PA: Publishing, 2006, pp. 116–126. Information Science Publishing [11] I. Beatty. (2004, Transforming student learning with 2006, pp. 53-63. classroom communication systems. EDUCAUSE [27] D. J. Nicol and J. T. Boyle, "Peer instruction versus Research Bulletin 2004(3), 1-13. class-wide discussion in large classes: A comparison [12] C. A. Brewer, "Near real-time assessment of student of two interaction methods in the wired classroom," learning and understanding in biology courses," Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 28,Num. 4, pp. BioScience, Vol. 54,Num. 11, pp. 1034-1039, 2004. 457-473, 2003. [13] S. W. Draper and M. I. Brown, " Increasing [28] J. El-Rady. (2006, To click or not to click: That’s the interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting question. Innovate Journal of Online Education 2(4). system," Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, [29] A. P. Fagan, et al., "Peer instruction: Results from a Vol. 20,Num. 2, pp. 81-94, 2004. range of classrooms," The Physics Teacher, Vol. [14] G. E. Kennedy, et al., "Evaluating electronic voting 40,Num. 4, pp. 206-209, 2002. systems in lectures: Two innovative methods," in [30] R. Kaleta and T. Joosten, "Student response systems: Audience response systems in higher education D. A. A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers," Banks, Ed., ed Hershey, PA: Information Science EDUCAUSE Research Bulletin, Vol. 2007,Num. 10, Publishing, 2006, pp. 155-174. pp. 1-12, 2007. [15] L. Greer and P. J. Heaney, "Real-time analysis of [31] D. W. Bullock, et al., "Enhancing the student- student comprehension: An assessment of electronic instructor interaction frequency," The Physics student response technology in an introductory earth Teacher, Vol. 40,pp. 30-36, 2002. science course," Journal of Geoscience Education, [32] M. A. Ayu, et al., "Active learning: Engaging students Vol. 52,Num. 4, pp. 345-351, 2004. in the classroom using mobile phones," in Industrial Electronics & Applications, 2009. ISIEA 2009. IEEE [49] S. S. Schiffman, " Instructional systems design: Five Symposium on, 2009, pp. 711-715. views of the field," in Instructional technology: Past, [33] J. Cruz e Costa, et al., "Mobile lecture interaction: present, and future G. J. Anglin, Ed., ed Englewood: making technology and learning click," in IADIS CO: Libraries Unlimited, 1991, pp. 102-116). International Conference Mobile Learning 2008, [50] R. G. Fichman, "Information technology diffusion: a Oulu, 2008, pp. 119-124. review of empirical research," presented at the [34] A. Eshel and I. Menahem. (2007, Public response Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference system with SMS: A pioneering method for in-class on Information systems, Dallas, Texas, United States, lecturer-students communication. 30-33. 1992. [35] M. Esponda, "Electronic voting on-the-fly with mobile [51] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New devices," SIGCSE Bull., Vol. 40,Num. 3, pp. 93-97, York: Free Press, 2003. 2008. [52] V. Mahajan and E. Muller, "Innovation diffusion and [36] M. Freeman, et al., "Factors affecting educational new product growth models in marketing," Journal of innovation with in class electronic response systems," Marketing, Vol. 43,Num. 4, pp. 55-68, Fall79 1979. Australasian journal of educational technology, [53] R. R. Nelson and E. S. Phelps, Investment in humans, Vol. 23,Num. 2, pp. 149-170, 2007. technological diffusion and economic growth. Santa [37] T. Murphy, "Success and failure of audience response Monica, Calif.: RAND Corp., 1965. systems in the classroom," presented at the [54] M. Jones, et al., "Using Mobile Phones & PDAs in Proceedings of the 36th annual ACM SIGUCCS fall Ad-hoc audience response systems," ed, 2005. conference: moving mountains, blazing trails, [55] D. S. McDonald, "Text Questioning System (TQS) - Portland, OR, USA, 2008. An experiment in co-opting SMS technology in the [38] S. L. Cheung, "Using mobile phone messaging as a classroom," in Ubiquitous Learning Conference, response medium in classroom experiments," Journal Boston, 2009. of Economic Education, Vol. 39,Num. 1, p. 51, 2008. [39] M. Ito and D. Okabe, "Intimate Connections: Contextualizing Japanese youth and mobile messaging," ed, 2005, pp. 127-145. [40] W. G. Griswold, et al., "ActiveCampus: experiments in community-oriented ubiquitous computing," Computer, Vol. 37,Num. 10, pp. 73-81, 2004. [41] E. Scornavacca and S. Marshall, "TXT-2-LRN: improving students' learning exper ience in the classroom through interactive SMS," presented at the Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2007. [42] A. K. Tretiakov, Creating a pervasive testing environment by using SMS messaging IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE 05), 2005. [43] C. Greenhow, et al., "Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now?," Educational Researcher, Vol. 38,Num. 4, pp. 246- 259, May 1, 2009 2009. [44] L. F. Motiwalla, "Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation," Computers & Education, Vol. 49,Num. 3, pp. 581-596, 2007. [45] R. Shen, et al., "Increasing interactivity in blended classrooms through a cutting-edge mobile learning system," British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 39,Num. 6, pp. 1073-1086, 2008. [46] D. W. Surry, "Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology," presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1997. [47] E. M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York: The Free Press, 1995. [48] S. W. Campbell, "Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and classroom policies," Communication Education, Vol. 55,Num. 3, pp. 280-294, July 2003 2006.