Unlocking the International Journal of Mobile
and Blended Learning Educational Technology.
Explained. Join us for a comprehensive deep dive
into the fascinating intersection of educational
technology and modern pedagogy. In this Deep
Dives, we unpack the foundational elements of
the International Journal of Mobile and Blended
Learning. We explore what it means to study the
theoretical, technical, and pedagogical aspects
of mobile and blighted environments, discover
the journal's history, established in 2009 by
David Parsons, and learn how its multidisciplinary
research bridges the gap between computer science,
ACM digital library in spec, and human cognition,
psych -ANFO. Whether you are an educator, an
EdTech enthusiast, or a lifelong learner, this
exploration will give you a profound understanding
of how academic knowledge in the digital age
is categorized, published, and indexed. Educational
technology, mobile learning, blended learning,
academic journal, pedagogy, David Parsons, EdTech,
peer -reviewed, IGI global, academic indexing.
So today's mission is to take a magnifying glass
to the seemingly brief but incredibly dense source.
quite the document when you really get into it.
It really is. We are looking at a Wikipedia entry,
and it's detailing an academic publication called
the International Journal of Mobile and Blended
Learning. Right. OK, let's unpack this. Because
on the surface, I mean, it's a very short page.
Oh, yeah, it's tiny. Specifically categorized
as an education journal stub, and it was last
edited on October 13, 2025. But if you know how
to read the metadata, the terminology, and the
indexing databases, it actually provides this
massive structural outline of the modern educational
landscape. That is exactly the analytical stage
we need to set today. I mean, the goal isn't
just to read the facts of a stub article, right?
Right. No, we want to go deeper. Exactly. We
are going to dissect the anatomy of an academic
journal. When you look at its structure, its
focus, and specifically where it is indexed,
it stops being this dry list of facts. It becomes
a roadmap. Yes, a roadmap. It tells us an incredible
story about the evolution of how humans learn,
how we process information, and how the rigid
traditional academic world attempts to categorize
rapid technological change. And what immediately
stands out in the text, at least for me, is the
specific vocabulary used to define the journal's
core identity. Broad discipline. Yeah, it falls
under the broad discipline of educational technology.
But the text notes that it focuses specifically
on three things. The theoretical, the technical,
and pedagogical aspects of learning. For anyone
navigating this field, those three words represent
a really specific tension. I mean, you might
assume, given the title, that the technical hardware,
the mobile devices, the blended interfaces, that
that takes center stage in the research. You
might assume that, yeah. But this journal intentionally
forces a completely different perspective. How
so? Well, the technical aspect is crucial, obviously.
You are dealing with software architecture, user
interfaces, server latency. All the nuts and
bolts. Exactly. But the theoretical aspect is
the actual bedrock here. The journal requires
an examination of foundational concepts. Why
are we using a specific digital tool in the first
place? Right, it's not just tech for tech's sake.
No, exactly. What is the cognitive theory underpinning
the interaction? Because without that theoretical
foundation, the technology is essentially directionless.
It's just a shiny new toy. Precisely. Which brings
in the third requirement. The pedagogical aspect.
Yes. And this is where the friction really happens.
The journal isn't just evaluating standard instructional
methods. It's forcing researchers to prove how
traditional teaching translates when the primary
interface is a four -inch touchscreen. Or a virtual
environment. Right. You can have a flawless theoretical
model of memory retention. And a bug -free technical
application. But if the instructional method
fails to connect with the user in that specific
environment, the entire system collapses. It
totally collapses. What's fascinating here is
that requiring peer -reviewed research to synthesize
all three of these aspects of the theoretical,
the technical, and the pedagogical acts as a
massive filter. It keeps the quality control
high. It actively prevents the journal from just
becoming a catalog of flashy new gadgets. Yeah,
because researchers cannot simply submit a paper
proving that a new mobile application functions
correctly. No, that's not enough. They have to
prove that it functions, sure, but then explain
the cognitive theory behind why it functions.
And demonstrate that it facilitates human learning
in a measurable way. It's such a rigorous standard.
It treats the digital space as a distinct ecosystem
of education, not just a novelty. Ecosystem is
the perfect word. And that ecosystem concept
is heavily reinforced by the title itself. mobile
and blended learning. Exactly. The text specifically
targets learning in these environments. And the
word blended implies a merging of traditional
and digital spaces. It does. It isn't treating
the digital realm as a supplementary add -on.
Like a smart board rolled into a traditional
classroom. Right. Or a projector. It's treating
the blended environment as a continuous loop
where the physical and the digital are totally
synthesized. Synthesized. I like that. And that
synthesis fundamentally changes the nature of
the learning itself, doesn't it? Oh, completely.
How you interact with a pedagogical framework
while moving through a physical space with a
mobile device that is entirely different from
how you interact with a static text in a lecture
hall. Sitting in a desk for an hour. Right. By
focusing entirely on these blended environments,
the journal acknowledges that the medium is inextricably
linked to the educational outcome. To really
grasp the foresight of that approach, I think...
We have to look at the historical context the
Wikipedia text provides. The founding date. Yeah.
It states the journal was established in 2009.
2009. If you think back to the state of mobile
technology in 2009... This is a highly significant
date. Very significant. We were just entering
the foundational era of modern, ubiquitous mobile
interfaces. The idea of relying on those devices
for rigorous, continuous academic learning was
incredibly nascent. It was nascent, and frankly,
it was met with a lot of institutional skepticism.
Oh, I bet. The academic establishment in 2009
wasn't entirely convinced that mobile phones
were anything more than distractions in a classroom
setting. They were something you confiscated.
Not something you taught with. Exactly. Establishing
a peer -reviewed academic journal dedicated exclusively
to this topic at that specific moment was incredibly
forward -thinking. They saw the writing on the
wall. They weren't reacting to an established
norm. They were laying down the academic infrastructure
for a paradigm shift that was only just beginning
to materialize. And let's not forget... the practical
reality of 2009 mobile technology. The hardware.
Yes. We are talking about the era of 3G networks.
Imagine trying to execute a complex blended pedagogical
module on a device that drops its signal indoors.
It drains its entire battery in a few hours.
Right. The technical hurdles researchers were
studying back then were monumental compared to
today's seamless broadband environments. Which
makes the longitudinal study of this field so
vital. The technical constraints of 2009 forced
researchers to be incredibly precise with their
theoretical and pedagogical models. Because they
didn't have the bandwidth to be sloppy. Exactly.
They couldn't rely on high definition video or
instantaneous cloud computing to mask a poor
instructional design. The core mechanics of how
to teach through a screen had to be highly optimized.
That continuity brings us to a remarkable detail
in the text regarding the key figures behind
the publication. The editor -in -chief. Yeah,
it names David Parsons from Massey University
as the primary architect. But what is structurally
significant is that the text states, Parsons
established the journal in 2009 and he remains
the editor -in -chief today. That is huge. The
entire mobile landscape has transformed. The
bandwidth, the devices, the cultural integration
of screen time, yet this one individual has maintained
editorial control the entire time. That kind
of longevity is incredibly rare, and it is highly
consequential for a peer -reviewed journal. Why
is that? Having the same editor -in -chief for
over a decade and a half through a period of
exponential technological volatility, it ensures
a rigid consistency in vision. Right, he knows
exactly what the journal's supposed to be. Parsons
has essentially shepherded this discipline from
its absolute infancy into full maturity. It prevents
the journal from constantly shifting its editorial
standards to chase whatever new tech trend happens
to be dominating the news cycle. It's not just
jumping on the bandwagon for every new gadget.
Exactly. It provides a stable, unshifting anchor
for an incredibly fast -moving field of study.
And that study editorial hand directly influences
how the journal operates within the broader mechanics
of academic publishing, because the Wikipedia
page outlines the partnership that brings this
research to the public. And it's a fascinating
division of labor. It really is. It notes that
this is the official journal of the International
Association for Mobile Learning, which is based
in the United States. However, it is published
on their behalf by an entity called IGI Global.
It is a symbiotic relationship that perfectly
illustrates how modern academic knowledge is
actually disseminated. How does that breakdown
work, practically? Well, the Professional Association,
the International Association for Mobile Learning,
acts as the intellectual engine. They are the
network of subject matter experts, the pedagogues
and the computer scientists who conduct the experiments
and provide the rigorous peer review. The brains
behind the operation? Right, but... Generating
knowledge and distributing it globally are two
entirely different skill sets. Right, the researchers
aren't running server farms. Or managing global
library subscriptions. Exactly. That is where
IGI Global comes in. They take the raw, peer
-reviewed science curated by the association,
they format it, they ensure it meets international
library standards, and push it out through their
established distribution networks. So the association
focuses on the integrity of the educational technology,
and the publisher handles the logistics of making
it accessible. Perfectly stated. We also gain
insight into the rhythm of this specific publishing
apparatus from the text. The publication schedule.
Yes. It specifies that it is a quarterly journal.
Four times a year. Right. Now, in the context
of technology, three months is an eternity. Entirely
new software frameworks can be developed and
deployed in a single quarter. You see that all
the time. But in the context of peer -reviewed
academia, where experiments must be designed,
executed, analyzed, and independently vetted,
a quarterly release schedule is a relentless
driving pace. It is a constant cycle of synthesis.
Yeah. But here's where it gets really interesting.
OK, lay it on me. Despite studying the absolute
cutting edge of digital mobile ephemera on this
rapid quarterly schedule, The text reveals a
highly irregular transition of mediums. Oh, the
annual collections. Yes. It states that annual
collections of papers from this journal are also
published as a series of edited books. They take
all of this research about boundless digital
blended environments and enshrine it in the most
traditional static physical format possible.
It is a profound paradox. You have an entire
academic community dedicated to proving that
learning can happen anywhere dynamically through
digital screens. Yet at the end of the year,
they still utilize the physical book as the ultimate
archival medium. It suggests that while the delivery
of education is becoming increasingly mobile,
the academic record itself still relies on the
permanence of print to establish historical authority.
That duality is literally encoded into the metadata
provided in the stub. Yeah, the Wikipedia entry
lists three distinct identifiers that prove the
rigor of the publication. A print ISSN of 1941
-8647, a web ISSN of 1941 -8655, and an OCLC
number of 216 -884 -549. Those identifiers are
the scaffolding of global academic tracking.
They legitimize the whole operation. Absolutely.
And having both a distinct print ISSN and a distinct
web ISSN mirrors the very nature of the journal.
It is a blended publication in the most literal
sense. It exists officially and simultaneously
in physical libraries and digital repositories.
And what about that OCLC number? The OCLC number
ties it directly into the global network of library
catalogs. It ensures that a researcher, regardless
of their location, can pinpoint this specific
repository of knowledge. Which transitions us
into what is unequivocally the most expansive
and analytical section of this entire source
text. The abstracting and indexing section. Yes.
This isn't just a list of databases. It is the
actual map of how this knowledge is categorized
by the global scientific community. The text
lists six different databases and the variance
between them is staggering. It's a very wide
net. It is highly unusual to see such a widespread
of indexing databases for a single publication
and it highlights just how multidisciplinary
the study of blended learning is. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, you have to understand
that indexing databases are the ultimate arbiters
of an academic journal's impact and identity.
What are the gatekeepers? They really are. If
a journal isn't indexed by the major gatekeepers,
its research effectively doesn't exist to the
broader scientific community. Wow, so it's make
or break. Completely. The databases that agree
to index a journal tell you precisely what kind
of science is surviving the peer review process.
And the list in this stub reveals a massive tension
between hard computer science and deep human
psychology. Let's dissect the technical side
of that map first. The text lists the ACM Digital
Library, which is the association for computing
machinery. major player. It also lists InSpec
from the Institution of Engineering and Technology
and Compendex, which is an Elsevier engineering
database. For anyone working in the sciences,
You know, these are not lightweight generalized
databases. No, not at all. These are the absolute
heavy hitters of engineering and computer science.
The inclusion in ACM, InSpec, and Compendex is
a massive validation of the technical aspect
we discussed earlier. It proves they aren't just
messing around. It proves that the International
Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning isn't
just publishing theoretical essays on teaching
strategies. It is publishing hard, rigorous engineering
research. So we are talking about papers detailing
complex Network architecture. Algorithmic efficiency
in mobile learning environments. The mathematical
modeling of human computer interaction. Exactly.
The global engineering community recognizes this
journal as a valid source of technical innovation.
But then you look at the very next database on
the list and it completely subverts that purely
technical narrative. This is the best part. The
journal is also indexed in PsychNFO, which the
text notes is produced by the American Psychological
Association. So you have the Institution of Engineering
and Technology on one side and the American Psychological
Association on the other, both looking at the
exact same quarterly journal and extracting entirely
different scientific value from it. This raises
an important question. Why does a psychological
database care about network architecture and
mobile interfaces? Why would they? Because you
cannot study mobile learning without studying
the human mind's reaction to it. It's all connected.
Indexing in PsychNFO means the journal is producing
rigorous psychological data. A computer scientist
might read an article in this journal to understand
how to reduce server latency. To make the app
run faster. Right. But a psychologist reads that
exact same article. to understand how that latency
impacts a student's cognitive load, their attention
span, their memory retention in a blended environment.
The hardware and the software are in direct conversation
with human cognition. The engineering databases
evaluate how the application runs, while the
psychology database evaluates how the application
alters the psyche of the user. It is the ultimate
synthesis of their theoretical technical and
pedagogical mission statement, and it's playing
out in real time across global databases. And
to solidify its standing across all of those
disparate fields, the text notes its inclusion
in Scopus and the emerging sources citation index
by Thomson Reuters. The prestige metrics. Yes,
exactly. They are the overarching gatekeepers
of academic credibility. To maintain indexing
in Scopus, a journal has to continuously pass
rigorous independent evaluations of its peer
review integrity and its citation It's not a
one and done approval. No, they are constantly
monitored. It guarantees to any university or
policymaker that the multidisciplinary data within
this journal meets global scholarly standards.
It's genuinely remarkable that we can extract
that level of structural insight about the global
educational framework from a page that Wikipedia
explicitly labels as incomplete. It really is.
Let's look at the meta -narrative of the source
itself, because the anatomy of this Wikipedia
article is deeply ironic. Oh, I love the irony
here. At the bottom of the page, the text states,
The irony is unavoidable. We have spent this
entire time analyzing the rigorous peer -reviewed
mechanisms of a journal dedicated to educational
technology and blended learning. Right. Yet our
source material is an article hosted on Wikipedia,
which is fundamentally the most expansive and
successful collaborative educational technology
platform ever created. It is the ultimate blended
environment. It is an open blended learning environment
in its purest form. And it utilizes all the pedagogical
tools of that environment. The text shows links
to talk pages for collaborative debate. It operates
under a creative commons attribution share alike
license to ensure the knowledge remains fluid.
very different from a lockdown academic PDF.
Completely. And it features built -in tools to
download as PDF or generate a download QR code.
You can take this digital text at about a digital
journal, generate a QR code, scan it with your
mobile device, and instantly step into the exact
type of mobile learning ecosystem that David
Parsons has been studying since 2009. It is a
perfect micro ecosystem. The metadata of the
stub itself, showing it was last edited on October
13th, 2025, demonstrates that knowledge in a
blended environment is never static. It's always
moving. Unlike the annual printed books the journal
produces, the digital stub is a living document.
perpetually open to revision and expansion by
the very community it serves. So what does this
all mean for you, the listener? It means that
even a fragment of information, a mere stub,
can reveal the intricate scaffolding of human
knowledge if you interrogate it properly. You
just have to know where to look. The specific
phrasing of the discipline, the historical timeline
of its founding, the division of labor with the
publisher, and the incredible tension between
the engineering and psychological indexing databases.
None of this is just administrative clutter.
It is the blueprint of how academia is attempting
to map our digital transition. And mapping that
transition is critical for you to understand.
Because it isn't just an abstract academic exercise.
The frameworks being established by journals
like this and validated by these massive databases
are literally dictating the future of pedagogy.
They are writing the rules for the next generation.
They are determining which technological theories
are considered sound. And with instructional
methods are deemed scientifically valid, for
the next generation of digital learners. We have
covered a massive amount of ground by simply
reading between the lines of this text. We analyzed
the three -pronged requirement of theoretical,
technical, and pedagogical research. We contextualized
the journal's foundational roots in the early
mobile landscape of 2009 under David Parsons.
We explored the logistical partnership with IGI
Global, and we spent significant time mapping
the deep multidisciplinary divide between the
hard computer science databases like ACM and
the cognitive evaluations of And we did it all
through the lens of a collaborative, open -source
Wikipedia stub. As the lines between physical
and digital spaces continue to blur, the academic
rigor we discuss today will directly shape the
blended environments you interact with every
single day. Which leaves us with a final lingering
contradiction to consider. We spend a great deal
of time discussing how this journal takes its
quarterly, ephemeral, digital research regarding
boundless mobile environments, and at the end
of every year, painstakingly binds it into a
series of edited physical books. Right. In a
society so completely driven by instantaneous
mobile access to information, why do we still
possess such a profound psychological need to
anchor our most cutting edge digital discoveries
in the pages of a traditional static book? It
is a fascinating question of permanence versus
accessibility. Does the physical weight of a
bound text signal an intellectual authority to
the human brain that a digital file simply cannot
replicate? As you continue to navigate your own
professional and personal development, we encourage
you to examine your preferred environments. When
you encounter deeply complex material, do you
instinctively rely on the boundless digital space,
the traditional physical text, or your own carefully
curated blend of the two? Thank you for taking
this dive with us. Keep interrogating the structures
of the information you consume and we will catch
you next time.