Models of good teaching practices for mobile learning in higher education

In recent years, the use of mobile devices in education (mainly smartphones and tablets) is becoming increasingly important. The Horizon Reports have been highlighting this trend for some years now, specifying that mobile learning (m-learning) will be implemented in one year or less at the higher education stage (Alexander et al., 2019). This indicates the importance attached to the application of this resource in the classroom. Thus, m-learning is defined as the use of mobile devices to support the teaching-learning process (Díez et al., 2017). The potential of the use of mobile devices in education lies in their main characteristics, which are the mobility they allow, ubiquity (being able to be used at any time and place), lightness, low cost, and connectivity (Arain et al., 2019). In this way, m-learning contributes to the transformation of teaching practice (Boude, 2019), since it is based on the current of student-based teaching, where the teacher acts only as a guide to learning. In Spain, experiences have begun to be developed in the levels of pre-school and primary education that highlight the increase in motivation (Gil, 2019). In turn, some studies corroborate the effectiveness of m-learning in improving student learning (Bai, 2019; Fox, 2019). Furthermore, students perceive it as a useful tool for their learning, since it favors self-regulation (Hossain et al., 2019; Lim et al., 2019). Therefore, the possibility that m-learning allows to be connected at any time and place, has a direct impact on the self-management of learning by the student, where they are the ones who establish the schedule and time that best suits their individual needs to perform the tasks. On the other hand, the development of digital competence is another of the implications of m-learning (Fuentes et al., 2019; Rodríguez et al., 2017; Pinto et al., 2019). This is essential in Spain, since the National Institute of Educational Technologies and Teacher Training of Spain (INTEF, 2017) has already stressed the importance of training students in digital skills in order to be fully equipped in the digital society in which we find ourselves. In relation to teachers, Salcines-Talledo et al. (2017) highlight that there are three teaching profiles in the use of the smartphone: promoters, professionally initiated, and non-professional users. This refers to the degree of commitment and acquisition of digital skills for the educational implementation of mobile devices, where the drivers are those with the highest degree of application experience. These promoters would be the so-called agents of good teaching practices (GTP), which stand out for carrying out m-learning experiences with satisfactory results for the students (Alonso-García et al., 2019). Therefore, it is important to locate these teachers in order to compile the teaching experience carried out and to make it transferable to other contexts because of its excellence. On the other hand, we should not forget certain studies that warn of the risks of mobile devices for health (Qi, 2019; Stilgoe, 2016), where their abusive use can end up in addictive behaviors (Arpaci and Unver, 2020; Chen, 2020; Cevik et al., 2020). Therefore, education in the good use of technology linked to the development of GTP is essential. This is key to diminishing the negative aspects of mobile devices while educating in their good use. In relation to previous studies of m-learning in higher education, different research trends are collected. On the one hand, we find studies focused on the adoption of m-learning (Fagan, 2019; Gómez-Ramírez et al., 2019; Hoi, 2020; Israel and Velu, 2019; Kaliisa et al., 2019; Kumar and Bervell, 2019; López and Silva, 2016; Saroia and Gao, 2019). Others focused on establishing an m-learning framework (Benali and Ally, 2020; Irugalbandara and Fernando, 2019; Jinot, 2019; Xue, 2020). Of a more practical nature where experiences of application are gathered (Jahnke and Liebscher, 2020; Kumar et al., 2019; Vacas et al., 2019; Vasilevski and Birt, 2020). And those studies based on the development of GTP of m-learning (Caldeiro-Pedreira et al., 2018; González-Fernández and Salcices-Talledo, 2017; Navarro et al., 2018). Hence, the number of investigations focused on the perception and adoption of m-learning is much greater than the studies of a practical nature, where applications and GTP of m-learning are collected. Based on these facts, it was proposed to revert this tendency through a pioneering study that had as objectives (i) to evaluate the m-learning practices implemented by Spanish university teachers and (ii) to compile experiences on GTP of m-learning developed in the classroom. In consideration, they were raised as research questions: RQ1: What was the frequency of development of good teaching practices of m-learning? RQ2: In which universities were the good teaching practices of m-learning located? RQ3: Are there significant differences according to gender, age, or institution in the development of good teaching practices of m-learning? RQ4: What were the m-learning experiences that you highlighted as examples of good teaching practice?

The paper situates its study within existing higher education m-learning research, identifying four main trends: (1) adoption-focused studies (e.g., Fagan, 2019; Gómez-Ramírez et al., 2019; Hoi, 2020; Israel and Velu, 2019; Kaliisa et al., 2019; Kumar and Bervell, 2019; López and Silva, 2016; Saroia and Gao, 2019); (2) conceptual frameworks for m-learning (Benali and Ally, 2020; Irugalbandara and Fernando, 2019; Jinot, 2019; Xue, 2020); (3) practical applications and classroom experiences (Jahnke and Liebscher, 2020; Kumar et al., 2019; Vacas et al., 2019; Vasilevski and Birt, 2020); and (4) studies on good teaching practices (GTP) in m-learning (Caldeiro-Pedreira et al., 2018; González-Fernández and Salcices-Talledo, 2017; Navarro et al., 2018). The authors note a gap: far more studies examine perceptions and adoption than practical, classroom-based applications and GTP. This study aims to address that gap by evaluating GTP at a national level and compiling transferable exemplary practices.

Design: Mixed-methods study combining quantitative survey measurement with qualitative structured interviews. Participants and procedure: Cross-sectional convenience sample of university professors from Faculties of Education at Spanish universities with face-to-face teaching. Data were collected via an emailed online survey (Google Forms). In total, 1125 professors from 59 Spanish universities participated (40 public, 19 private). Sample demographics: 434 men and 691 women; age range 20–77 years (M=44.66; SD=10.36). Data collection period: May 2019 to January 2020. After survey scoring, three teachers with high GTP scores were purposively selected and interviewed to document their classroom m-learning experiences. Measures: Analysis of M-learning practices at the University (APMU) scale developed by the authors to evaluate GTP in university m-learning. The instrument has 16 items across five dimensions: mobile devices, digital competence, knowledge construction, cooperative work, and good use of technology. Response format: 4-point Likert scale (1=never to 4=always). Total scores range 16–64; cutoff ≥48 indicates application of GTP in m-learning. Internal consistency in this study: Cronbach’s α = 0.83. Structured interview: Developed from (a) the authors’ definition of GTP in m-learning; (b) common GTP aspects with ICT (student focus, collaborative work, autonomy); and (c) prior GTP studies. The interview covered eight dimensions: (1) Dynamic, (2) Context, (3) Purpose, (4) Materials and resources, (5) Problem solving, (6) Time evolution, (7) Assessment, and (8) Satisfaction. Three high-scoring GTP agents were interviewed to compile detailed m-learning experiences. Data analysis: Quantitative APMU data analyzed using SPSS v24. Descriptive frequencies/percentages of GTP cases were computed by gender, age, and university; group differences tested via independent-samples t-tests and ANOVA. Qualitative interview data analyzed using content analysis in QSR NVivo v11. Steps: term frequency detection; category selection; live coding to specify textual nodes; similarity grouping using the Jaccard coefficient to relate nodes with a correspondence index near 1 (obtained index = 0.93). Results were visualized through concept mapping (CmapTools) to represent the three GTP models.

- Overall, 39.56% (n=445) of professors were classified as applying GTP in m-learning, while 60.44% (n=680) were Non-GTP. - Gender: Men showed a higher GTP rate (41.94%) than women (38.06%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.196). - Age: No significant differences across age groups (p=0.851). - Institution: Significant differences across universities (p=0.000). Higher proportions of GTP cases were concentrated at specific institutions, notably: University of La Laguna (ULL) with over 70% of cases detected (12/17 ≈ 70.6%); University of Almeria (UAL) 66.7%; University of La Rioja (UNIRIOJA) 66.67%; Camilo José Cela University (UCJC) 63.64%; and University of Seville (US) 60.98%. - Three exemplary GTP experiences were documented via interviews: (1) a UGR case using a mobile app for learning activities themed around the film “In Time”; (2) a UAM case using TikTok to share information and address current educational issues; (3) a UNICAN case integrating Mentimeter, EDpuzzle, and Kahoot! across a semester, sometimes combined with flipped classroom approaches. - Common elements across the three GTP models: prior explanation of content and procedures; effective problem-solving plans; group-based tasks; continuity over multiple years; assessment emphasizing self-assessment/participation (supporting self-regulation); and high student satisfaction with increased motivation and meaningful learning.

The findings indicate that nearly 40% of Spanish university professors in Faculties of Education enact good teaching practices in m-learning, aligning with Horizon Report projections regarding near-term implementation in higher education. The absence of significant differences by gender and age suggests no singular teacher profile predominates in deploying successful m-learning practices. However, significant institutional differences emerged: ULL showed the highest proportion of GTP cases (>70%), suggesting strong institutional emphasis on technology integration. Regionally, Andalusian universities collectively accounted for nearly a quarter of all GTP cases, which may reflect strategic plans and policies promoting transformative ICT-based teaching. The three interviewed GTP agents exemplify vocational, innovation-oriented educators employing active learning methodologies, sometimes integrating m-learning with complementary approaches such as the flipped classroom. Their practices engage multiple areas of digital competence and leverage mobile technologies for communication, content creation, and interactive assessment. The convergence of common factors—clear upfront guidance, robust contingency planning, collaborative student work, sustained multi-year application, self-regulatory assessment practices, and high student satisfaction—underscores critical conditions for effective m-learning GTP. These insights expand practical knowledge on m-learning implementation and align with broader definitions and frameworks of GTP and digital competence development.

This pioneering national study evaluates and documents good teaching practices of mobile learning across Spanish universities, demonstrating that successful m-learning can occur across diverse contexts and teacher profiles. Key contributions include: (i) the development and application of a quantitative scale (APMU) to identify GTP at scale; (ii) the selection and in-depth documentation of three agent-led classroom experiences; and (iii) the generation of three transferable GTP models represented via concept maps. These models provide actionable exemplars for educators seeking to initiate or enhance m-learning in their courses. Future research should deepen practical, classroom-based investigations of m-learning GTP, expanding beyond perception/adoption studies to examine implementation processes, contextual factors, and learning outcomes across disciplines and institutions. Educating for the responsible, non-addictive use of technology through GTP remains essential to fostering a society in harmony with digital tools.

The study’s main limitations are the limited sample size in some universities and imbalance in participation across institutions. These cases were retained to preserve representation of all Spanish universities with face-to-face teaching, which may affect the precision and generalizability of institution-level comparisons.