4.5 Review

Research and trends in mobile learning from 1976 to 2013: A content analysis of patents in selected databases

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 6, Pages 1006-1019

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12311

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, Joint Laboratory for Mobile Learning, Ministry of Education-China Mobile Communications Corporation [705-105570GK]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mobile learning has been a very popular topic in the past several decades. As more patents in this field have been submitted, the analysis of patents has surfaced as an important mechanism to understand trends, uses, targeted audiences and other aspects in the mobile learning space. Based on the CNIPR, USPTO, and Espacenet databases, this paper provides an analysis of mobile learning from 1976, when the first patent in mobile learning emerged, to 2013. One hundred thirty patents were analyzed from two dimensions: the instructional dimension (including target audience, situation and purpose) and the patent dimension (including technology and style). It was found that students was the most popular target audience; out of class for education was the most utilized situation; provide more friendly peripheral service was the primary purpose; wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technologies for learning, pervasive computing for learning, u-computing in learning were the most utilized technologies; and system and method was the most common style. Currently, patents in mobile learning are more inclined to provide personalized, contextualized, easily-retrievable, auto-updated and intelligent pushed learning content. Additionally, providing multipresentation, supporting seamless learning, adopting learner analysis, improving learner diversity and context awareness are becoming the characteristics of mobile learning patents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available