A Study review of: Here and Now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology

A Study review of:

Here and Now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology

- Florence Martin and Jeffrey Ertzberger

University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA

Introduction

Mobile Technology opens the door for a new kind of learning and performance support in the field, providing anytime and anywhere access to information, processes, and communication. While mobile devices are increasingly being used for learning in the classroom (Lacina, 2008; Meurant, 2010; Sheppard, 2011), there is still a need for research on Mobile devices used in the context of their learning which could be outside the classroom.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study by Martin and Ertzberger was to investigate the effects of here and now mobile learning on student achievement and attitude. Specifically, the researchers wanted to investigate if here and now mobile learning improved student achievement and attitude when compared with computer based instruction, and if there were differences for here and now mobile learning delivered via tablet versus a smartphone or iPod. They explored how mobile devices were used to learn art content situated in the context of the learning, by viewing the art in an education building.

Research Questions –

Their research questions were as follows:

(1.)  Does “Here and Now” mobile learning significantly improve student achievement when compared with computer based instruction?

(2.)  Does “Here and Now” mobile learning significantly improve student attitude when compared with computer based instruction?

(3.)  Are there differences in student achievement and attitudes when “Here and Now” mobile learning is delivered using a tablet versus and iPod (or smartphone)?

Research Method –

(a)    Participants: The participants in this particular study were 109 undergraduate students enrolled in pre-service instructional design and instructional technology courses at a regional south-eastern university in the USA. They participated as part of the course requirement. 87% of them were female and 13% were male. 75% of them were in the 18-22 age range, 65% of them were juniors and 31% were sophomores. They each owned a mobile device, which was used in the study. They were distributed as follows:

13% had an iPad, 34% had an iPhone, 36% had the iPod Touch, 30% had an Android phone, 6% had an Android Tablet, 3% had a Windows phone, 7% had a Blackberry phone, and the remaining 38% had other internet capable mobile phones.

They were also asked how they normally use their mobile devices and their distribution was recorded as follows:

100% of participants used them for talking on the phone;

100% of participants used them for texting;

75% of participants used them as MP3 players;

93% of participants used them for browsing the internet;

83% of participants used them for school;

59% of participants used them for work;

75% of participants used them as a learning tool; and

35% of participants used them for other activities.

(b)    Materials: Two versions of an art lesson (computer based instruction and iPad/iPod version) were developed using Lectora Inspire and the various versions incorporated information on five different paintings. The iPad and iPod versions of the lesson used the same instructional material, except that in the iPad version, the material was zoomed out and easier to read when accessed on the tablet.

(c)     Procedures: Eight sections of students (n = 109) who were enrolled in the instructional design/instructional technology course were grouped by classes and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups. To avoid variation in treatments within the class, the students were assigned to the treatments by class and not by individual. This was one of the limitations to the study but helped to avoid differences in content, attitude, or time spent on the program between the students enrolled in the same class. The students in the computer based treatment went and viewed the painting then came back to the classroom to read about the paintings, following which they completed the post-test and attitude survey. The iPad/iPod treatments read the information about the paintings while they were in front of the paintings, and then came back to the classroom to complete the post-test and attitude surveys.

Research Results

2 x 2 ANOVA conducted on the attitude data indicated significant differences for 7 out of 12 items in the attitude survey. Post hoc Tukey tests were conducted to check for these significant differences between the treatments. There were no significant differences on the items when comparing the iPod and iPad treatments, whereas 5 out of the 7 major items in the attitude survey had significant differences when comparing CBI and iPod; and 6 out of the 7 items had significant differences when comparing CBI and iPad.

(a.)   Achievement results: The researchers in this study had anticipated that the iPod/iPad groups would outperform the CBI treatment. Surprisingly, the CBI treatment scored higher than the iPad and iPod treatments. There have not been many research studies done comparing computer based instruction with mobile technology treatments. Previous research (Clark, 1983) has revealed that although significant differences in final exam scores were found in several cases, closer examination revealed that most of the large effect sizes of computer-based studies were due to poorly designed studies and other confounding factors (Clark, 1983). In this case, the comparison is not just with the technology but with the here and now concept of learning to see if situating the learner in the context of their learning makes a significant difference.

The iPad and iPod users were engaged and excited about the technology but did not score as high as the CBI treatment. From observations and attitude data, it was noted that the CBI users who scored the highest were less distracted compared to the iPad/iPod users. They also suppose that novelty of the device could have been a contributing factor to the lower scores of the iPad/iPod treatments in the post test.

The iPad/iPod users were processing both visual and verbal information at the same time whereas the computer based treatment students were processing the visual information first, and then the verbal information. According to the dual coding theory (Paivio, 1971) multiple channel representation should benefit the learner, but Martin and Ertzberger thought that this may have overloaded the students in this instance. This was mainly because in contrast, the computer based treatment (who did much better in the post test) were given the visual representation first, then they were given the verbal representation.

The achievement results of this study also go against Mayer’s temporal and spatial contiguity principle (Mayer, 2009). Temporal contiguity states that “students learn better when corresponding words and pictures are presented near rather than far from each other on the page or screen. While spatial contiguity states that students learn better when corresponding information is presented simultaneously rather than successively”. Though the content wasn’t presented on the same screen, the students were able to see them at the same time.

(b.)  Attitude results – It was also evident from the open-ended responses that the CBI group focused more on the content than the devices they used. While the iPad/iPod treatments focussed on the technology. These findings were consistent with previous research that found mobile devices can provide unique opportunities to deliver content in authentic learning situations (De Jong, Specht, & Koper, 2010).

While previous studies have improved learning outcomes (Wu et al, 2012) with the use of mobile learning, this study found that the achievement scores favoured the CBI group, while the attitude scores favoured the iPad and iPod groups. But based on findings from Garris, Ahlers, & Driskell (2002), which state that motivated learners are enthusiastic, focused, and engaged; and also enjoy what they are doing and persist over time. Is it therefore possible that over time the achievement scores of the mobile device groups would improve because of their motivation to learn?

Weaknesses and Research Gaps

a.)     Post-test – The reliability of the post-test was .71. This was a limitation of the study because students were exposed to the items on the pre-test and this could have influenced their response to the post-test.

Question: How can one administer a pre-test to assess the students’ current level of knowledge without directly affecting how they learn and what their responses are to the post-learning review?

b.)     Procedures – Surely they could have used the same mobile devices to complete the post-test and attitude surveys, without the need to go back to a classroom afterwards.

c.)     Dual Coding Theory – Perhaps a spatial representation of words should have been done in audio format and represented simultaneously with the visual. Then there might have been a much better mobile score consistent with Paivio’s dual coding theory.

d.)     Tracking – There was no tracking technology used in this study to monitor students’ behaviour as they navigated through the content on their devices. There was therefore no way to keep track of the pages viewed or the time spent on each page. So they couldn’t determine whether or not the students navigated through all the informational pages.

e.)     Context and Standardization – It is also unclear if the mobile technology users in this study felt rushed because they were outside the classroom. CBI users took the post-test immediately after the module whereas there was a delay for the iPad/iPod users to come back to the classroom to take the post-test. There is no way to determine if administering the post-test in the context of learning would have made a difference. There is therefore a clear need for standardization to tighten up the loose variables in the study.

f.)      Key Elements for Consideration – There are three main issues to consider that may have directly influenced the outcomes in the achievement section of this study. They are:

i.)                   Distraction

ii.)                 Novelty

iii.)               Behaviour Tracking Technology

These must be factored in to any future research that compares here and now learning with mobile devices to CBI treatments in order to ensure that a more standardized comparison is measured and more accurate results are recorded.

Future Research

Based on the outcomes of this research by Martin and Ertzberger, future research studies will be best served to focus on the following:

1.)     Design Principles for Mobile learning in the context of here and now learning

2.)     Do achievement scores in mobile test groups improve over time as the novelty wears off? And if so, then how much time? And how much improvement? And why?

3.)     Is the audio overload theory correct?

4.)     Is performance affected? And how can it improve?

It should also be noted that this study was very limited in scope. Future studies should be more pedagogical rich and collaborative in nature. The authors chose to use a “static” learning application instead of a more modern collaborative application that would be more pedagogically rich with collaboration and content sharing among participants. This study was formed with the idea that baseline data, very limited in scope, was needed before larger more complex studies in this area could be conducted by future research. There are examples in research that show that limited studies must be done with increasing complexity before a synthesis of ideas can emerge.

Martin and Ertzberger conclude by agreeing with Lave and Wenger (1991), who state that “learning occurs through centripetal participation in the learning curriculum of the ambient community”. They propose that creating a more rich pedagogical experience that entails much more collaboration among participants would be a necessity if future studies are to continue to contribute to the research base of modern pedagogical principles.

Here and Now Learning Review  

Canalys (2012) reported that smartphones numbers overtook client PCs in 2011. This has provided educators an opportunity to deliver meaningful learning via the mobile device. Quinn (2000) defined Mlearning as “the intersection of mobile computing and e-learning and includes anytime, anywhere resources; strong search capabilities, rich interaction, powerful support for effective learning, and performance-based assessment”.

The concept of here and now learning is a decade old and has widely been researched as situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). However, mobile devices have added a new dimension and capabilities to situated learning. Some of the mobile functionalities that help in situated learning include:

(1.)  Geospatial Technologies (GIS data, GPS chips, RFID chips, Bluetooth, 2D and 3D bar codes, sensors, and NFC/near-field communication (radio frequency technologies));

(2.)  Mobile search (visual search);

(3.)  Use of camera for image capture; and

(4.)  Social networking (Greer, 2009).

Enrichment of context-aware technologies have also enabled students to learn in an environment that integrates learning resources from both the real world and the digital world (Chen & Huang, 2012).

In this study, Here and Now Learning is defined as:

“Learning that occurs when learners have access to information anytime, anywhere via mobile technologies to perform authentic activities in the context of their learning”.

Here and now mobile learning gives students the opportunity to be in the context of their learning and have access to information that is related to what they are seeing and experiencing at that moment.

Here and Now Mobile Learning Framework

In order to represent the effect here and now mobile learning has on the learning environment, Martin and Ertzberger created a 3-characteristic framework. They go on to review the characteristics of the framework as it was applied to their study.

 Fig. 1. Here and Now Learning Characteristics

Engaging Students in the Context

Here and now learning has the ability to engage learners because of its authentic learning and context based applications. Traditional work on engagement in education refers to specific procedures, strategies, and skills that instructors should implement in order to obtain the engagement of students (McMahon & Portelli, 2004). It has been argued that in today’s current culture of video games and interactive entertainment, students have come to expect a high level of engagement during their learning activities. Prensky (2001) argues that, “It is now clear that as a result of this ubiquitous environment and the sheer volume of their interaction with it, today’s students think and process information fundamentally differently from their predecessors.” (p.1).

Authentic Activities

The basis of the here and now framework is that knowledge should be situated within the context of authentic tasks because learning can be influenced in fundamental ways by the context in which it takes place (Bransford, 2000). Authentic activities are the only way learners can gain access to the type of environment that enables practitioners to act meaningfully and purposefully (Brown & Duguid, 2002). Integrating content and process together with the design of learning activities offer the opportunity to increase students’ experience with authentic activities although achieving deeper content understanding” (Soa & Konga, 2010). A mobile-based learning environment, by virtue of its portability, will provide scaffolding when and where students need it – whether in the classroom or investigating in the field. Mobile technology can sustain the learning environment regardless of where the student or the investigation are situated.

New mobile devices make authentic activities easier than ever to produce. Mobile devices are available to be used in any context, and can draw on those contexts to enhance the learning experience. Mobile devices can support learners by allowing them maintain their attention to the context and by offering them appropriate assistance when required. Here and now learning supports both access and production of information, since learners have a key opportunity to create content as well as receive it. Students can make notes of their perceptions, document observations from the environment, record local sounds, and develop their own location-based projects to share with others (NMC, 2009). Klopfer, Squire and Jenkin (2008) recommend that to utilize the mobile device to its full potential, one has to tap into the context sensitivity characteristics of mobile devices.

Informal Learning

Informal learning refers to learning that takes place naturally and without directed effort. Frank Smith calls this type of learning Classical Learning, and defines it as learning from people around us with whom we identify. Smith also states that this learning occurs without us even knowing that learning is taking place (Smith, 1998). This classical or informal view of learning believes that learning happens by being in the world, not as a way of coming to know about it (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Rather than learning by replicating the performances of others or by acquiring knowledge transmitted in instruction, they suggest that learning occurs through centripetal participation in the learning curriculum of the ambient community (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Research Gap:

While research on the effectiveness of informal learning using here and now technologies is just beginning, many studies have shown that here and now learning can be an effective instructional strategy. In here and now learning research studies, students have shown significantly improved post-test scores (Chen & Huang, 2012), improved learning outcomes (Wu, Hwang, Su & Huang, 2012), and significant positive results in terms of students’ learning in studies of here and now learning (Ju-Ling, Chien-Wen, & Gwo-Jen, 2010). While the above studies have shown the ability of here and now learning to be effective in transferring informal learning, there is a need for more research on here and now learning effects on student achievement, engagement, and attitude toward learning.

Ubiquitous Learning?

However Martin and Ertzberger postulate that here and now learning is a subset of ubiquitous learning where learners learn anything, anytime, at anyplace situated in the context of their learning using a mobile device. The question is, does this postulation hold any truth or significance? Is here and now learning a subset of ubiquitous learning, or are they one and the same thing, just like pervasive learning or any other definition of here and now learning?

Relevant Research Studies on Here and Now Learning –

The following relevant research studies have been made into here and now learning:

(1.)  Chen & Huang (2012) – They proposed a context-aware ubiquitous learning system (CAULS) based on radio-frequency identification (RFID), wireless network, embedded handheld device, and database technologies to detect and examine real-world learning behaviours of students. Their results demonstrated that the CAULS learning system enhanced their learning intention, and the post-test survey result revealed that most students’ testing scores improved significantly.

(2.)  Yang, Hwang and Chu (2008) – They developed a series of learning activities of a butterfly ecology unit of the natural science course for K-4 students and conducted the lesson in the learning environment where students were guided to observe real-world objects with personalised supports from the system. Preliminary experimental results revealed the effectiveness of this novel approach.

(3.)  Wu et al. (2012) – They developed a context-aware mobile learning system that was used as a sensing device for nursing training courses. The learning system guided the individual students to perform each operation of the physical assessment procedure on dummy patients, and also provided instant feedback and supplementary materials to them if the operations or the operating sequence was incorrect. Students learning outcomes were notably improved.

(4.)  Hung, Lin and Hwang (2010) – They developed e-library activity worksheets that helped the students focus their outdoor ecology observation tasks. The e-library provided reliable resources to clarify their observed descriptions, while the automatic scoring and feedback systems were helpful in sustaining the students’ persistent effort. Most students demonstrated substantial improvements in their observation skills, and extended their enquiry abilities.

(5.)  Shih, Chuang and Hwang (2010) – They carried out a study with fifth grade students at the Peace Temple of southern Tainan with the inquiry-based mobile learning system. They used pre- and post-questionnaires along with observations and focus group interviews. The study showed significant positive results for students’ learning.

(6.)  Reynolds, Walker and Speight (2010) – They developed and evaluated web-based museum trails for university-level design students to access handheld devices in the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) in London. The trails were used in multiple ways to explore the museum environment and collections. Student feedback showed that the trails enhanced students’ knowledge, interest and closeness to the objects.

(7.)  Sharples, Londsdale, Meek, Rudman and Vavoula (2007) – They conducted an evaluation of MyArtSpace which is a combined mobile phone and web-based service to support learning between schools and museums. The study showed that MyArtSpace had a positive impact on school museum visits, and identified areas for improvement in the technical and educational aspects of the service.