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.

 

Design for Learning in Learner Structured Mobile Learning Environments

Following on from my previous analysis of the future of learner structured learning using mobile devices and technologies, I will now further expand upon the 3 key elements of design for mobile learning which include Design Types, Design Aspects and Space Design. (See my previous post: The Future of Learner Structured Learning Using Mobile Devices and Technologies for a prelude to this.)


Design Types:
As previously stated, design types include Personalised Learning; Situated Learning; Authentic Learning and Informal Learning.

Personalised Learning refers to learning that is uniquely adapted to the learners specific learning preferences, and allows the learner to actively choose the way content and activities are presented and arranged. In e-learning for example, the personalised learning system refers to a model that is designed with the user's learning style in mind.

The UK department for Education defines Personalised learning as "a highly structured and responsive approach to learning for each individual child and young person. It creates an ethos in which all pupils are able to progress, achieve and participate. It strengthens the link between learning and teaching by engaging pupils and their parents as partners." Source: NCSL accessed 2012-05-18 (http://www.education.gov.uk/vocabularies/educationtermsandtags/5867)

Similarly, within the US Department of Education's National Educational Technology plan, personalised learning is defined as "adjusting the pace, adjusting the approach, and connecting to the learner's interests and experiences. Personalization is broader than just individualization or differentiation in that it affords the learner a degree of choice about what is learned, when it is learned and how it is learned." Source: New York City Department of Education (http://izonenyc.org/about-izone/)

Of course there is a difference between Personalised Learning and Individualized or Differentiated Learning as the chart below explains (Bray and McClaskey):

As you can see from the above chart, personalization goes beyond customizing instruction based on the learning needs of the individual learner. It rather flips the entire approach to a more learner-centric one in which the learner actively participates in the design of their own learning, and gives them the opportunity to build a network of peers, experts and teachers that can help guide and support their learning. This does not happen in traditional classroom based lectures (because teachers traditionally take charge of all of this), and can only be attributed to a few new adaptive e-learning systems.

An ideal format for testing the efficacy of a novel mobile design approach to learning would be to first incorporate all 3 key elements of design for mobile learning, and then would test them directly against the traditional classroom teaching model, and also test against a personalised e-learning model in order to identify what unique advantages the mobile design presents over a traditional e-learning system as well.

According to Traxler and Kukulshka-Hulme, personalised learning recognizes diversity, difference and individuality in the ways that learning is developed, delivered  and supported. it includes learning that recognizes the different learning preferences and approaches, and social, cognitive and physical difference and diversity (e.g. autistic people, see Rodriguez-Fortiz et al. 2011).

But learning designed for mobile technologies offers a perspective that differs dramatically from personalized e-learning designed for networked desktop computers. It supports learning that can potentially recognize the context and history of each individual learner (and perhaps their relationships to other learners) and delivers learning to each learner when and where they want it. Prototypes exist for learning designed on the basis of knowing where the learner is, how long they've been there, where they were before, who else was learning nearby, their likely schedule and itinerary, their social networks and communities (both formal and informal), and their progress and preferences as learners (Yau 2011). Furthermore, the design of the learning delivered by the system can evolve with the learner and their learning.


Situated Learning on the other hand, refers to learning that takes place in the course of activity, in appropriate and meaningful contexts (Lave and Wenger 1991; Mayes and de Freitas, 2010). In contrast with most classroom learning activities that involve abstract knowledge which is out of context, Lave argues that learning is situated; that is, as it normally occurs, learning is embedded within activity, context and culture. It is also usually unintentional rather than deliberate. Lave and Wenger call this a process of “legitimate peripheral participation.”

Also referred to as cognitive apprenticeship, the idea grew up by looking at people learning in communities as apprentices by a process of increased participation. It can also be extended to mean learning in the field, in the hospital ward, or in the workshop, and mobile learning can be designed to support theis context-specific and immediate situated learning (Ellaway 2010; Kneebone and Brenton 2005; Wishart et al. 2005; Seppala and Alamaki 2003; Kenny et al 2009).

Building further on the theory of Situated Learning, Brown, Collins & Duguid (1989) emphasize the idea of cognitive apprenticeship, saying: “Cognitive apprenticeship supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop and use cognitive tools in authentic domain activity. Learning, both outside and inside school, advances through collaborative social interaction and the social construction of knowledge.”

Social interaction and collaboration are essential components of situated learning — learners become involved in a “community of practice” which embodies certain beliefs and behaviours to be acquired. As the beginner or novice moves from the periphery of a community to its centre, he or she becomes more active and engaged within the culture and eventually assumes the role of an expert.

Key design considerations in situated learning are access to situation-relevant content, situated support,  and planning how learners will capture and share their experience on location or shortly afterwards.

References: Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Kenny, R.F., Park, C. L., Van Neste-Kenny, J.M.C., Burton, P.A. & Meiers, J. (2009). 'Using Mobile Learning to Enhance the Quality of Nursing Practice Education'. In M. Ally (Ed.), Empowering Learners and Educators with Mobile Learning. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Kneebone, R. & Brenton, H. (2005). Training perioperative specialist practitioners. In A.
Kukulska-Hulme & J. Traxler (Eds), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp.106-115). Milton Park: Routledge.
Kukulska-Hulme, A and Traxler, J (2013). 'Design principles for mobile learning' in: Beetham, H and Sharpe, R (eds) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 244–257. 
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mayes,T., de Freitas,S. (2013). Technology-Enhanced Learning: The role of theory. in: Beetham, H and Sharpe, R (eds) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 17–30. 
Seppala, P., & Alamaki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 330-335.

Wishart, J., McFarlane, A., & Ramsden, A. (2005). 'Using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) with Internet Access to Support Initial Teacher Training in the UK'. Paper presented at MLearn 2005 4th World Conference on mLearning: Mobile Technology: The Future of Learning in Your Hands, Cape Town, South Africa, 25-28 October 2005.

Yau J.Y.-K. (2011) 'A mobile context-aware learning schedule framework with Java learning objects', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Warwick.

Curiosity and Intuition - The Future of Learner Structured Learning Using Mobile Devices and Technologies

In his famous commencement speech at Stanford University in 2005, Apple CEO Steve Jobs talked about some of the key elements that helped him create a dynamic new company with a pioneering vision of the future of computers: the choice to follow his own academic path during his final 18 months before dropping out of college. Essentially he created his own curriculum that combined science and art in ways that no single degree would have otherwise allowed him to do. And because he had officially dropped out, he attended these diverse classes for free. (You can see it here: Steve Jobs at Stanford)

Thoughts like these would have been prohibitive, or at least counter-intuitive 20 years ago. But with the dynamic societal changes that have taken place in the last 2 decades, such as the widespread use of the internet, the availability of massive open online courses (MOOCs), and the proliferation of powerful, personal mobile devices, the foundational concepts of education itself are beginning to change.

According to Traxler and Kukulshka-Hulme (2013), unlike 20 years ago, educators are now faced with the challenge of designing for learners equipped with mobile technologies who want more adaptable or personally engaging ways of learning. Therefore the process of design for learning itself must shift accordingly, if we are going to create activities and interactions that support current and future educational ends.

First and foremost, the definition of Mobile Learning here is simply learning with mobile devices. This is not the same thing as e-learning accessed via mobile phones, because most e-learning is designed based on the current institution-led, structured framework that is just an online version of the learning that takes place in classrooms. And accessing e-learning through a mobile device does not make it any different from accessing it via a desktop computer or being in the classroom itself.

Instead mobile learning here is defined in the context of a system of education that is designed around a mobile society, that rather lets the learner, just like Steve Jobs, choose the structure of their learning based on their own curiosity, need and pace.

The mobile society in this case is the generation of learners that have grown up with personal, internet-enabled mobile devices integrated into every aspect of their lives, including information sharing, entertainment and other interactions in both formal and informal settings. For a community like this, education that is not personalised, and is not self-directed is not only unnatural but is also incomplete.

More than merely a new curriculum therefore, the need here is for a review in the entire process for learning design. They write:

"One reason to review the process of design is the fact that educational institutions must now appropriate personal technologies - the mobile phone, as well as social networks, immersive worlds and micro-blogging - partly due to student demand for mobile access and partly because these tools facilitate interactions that can support educational ends... Now, in attempting to appropriate personal technologies for teaching and learning, [educational institutions] must also address the more complex ways in which different individuals and their communities adopt and adapt these personal technologies. The space available for educational design becomes much more complex and fragmentary."

Several references have been made to the works of Pachler et al. 2010; Rasul 2011 and Potter 2011, who all highlight that in recent years much of the thinking and research into the impact and significance of social and cultural change on the nature of learning with mobile devices has been on things like the institutional policies related to mobile learning as well as the ethics issues and the evaluation methodologies; especially in the last 3 years.
Again Traxler and Kukulshka-Hulme insist that this is because most of the research in this area has been done by people exclusively in the fields of psychology, education and computer science.

However, they advocate that it is now time to review and reconsider design for mobile learning because as they say, we are at a tipping point in the relations between education and society. And as the ownership and use of digital technologies become universal, social, ubiquitous and pervasive, mobile technologies are at the heart of these changing relations.

Also considering the different commercial interests in the design of online mobile educational systems (both hardware and software), such as clickers and ipads or apps and services such as Apple's iTunes University and several educational apps in the different app stores, all selling high volumes of inexpensive educational applications direct to learners, we have now seen the birth of a form of mobile learning that simultaneously serves business ends and also delivers learning to the "long tail". This, they say, is why we can assume that the future of mobile learning will no longer be guided exclusively by research but rather by a combination of commercial sense, research, and pedagogical design expertise.

Design for Mobile Learning

They go on to summarise a set of design principles that carefully considers the relationship between design for learning that utilizes the strengths of mobile technologies, and the design of aspects of learning such as content, activities and communication in the context of technology that has become universal. They also consider the importance of physical space layout in learning design and the networking capabilities of mobile technologies.
This means that design for mobile learning then includes 3 key elements: Design (Types) for Learning (personalized, situated, authentic and informal types); Design (Aspects) of Learning (content, activities and communication); and Space Design (location-specific, immersive, augmented and collaborative forms).


Design Principles

Two main points to be considered in the understanding of the basic principles suggested by Kukulshka-Hulme and Traxler are first, that mobile technologies are everywhere, are personal, and are social and changeable, not uniform, consistent or provided by the institution. And secondly, that learners expectations in the use of their mobile devices for educational purposes may come from outside institution-led, formal or structured systems. Therefore they may be driven by motivations as diverse as personal curiosity, urgent enquiry and self-paced recreation.

On this basis they recommend and propose the following design principles:

1. Start with learners - recognise their diversity, agency and habits, including patterns of mobility and ubiquitous social interaction.
2. Design to meet learners on their terms, with their devices, in their spaces.
3. Work with learners - seek opportunities for prototyping, participation and feedback.
4. Look for added value, e.g. opportunities for contingent learning, situated learning, authentic learning, context-aware learning.
5. Design for inclusion, enabling accessibility and greater access than may be possible using desktop computers.
6. Recognise that learning activities designed by you are liable to be played out differently as learners engage with them outside the classroom.
7. Be prepared to trial and discard activities more frequently as technologies evolve.
8. Wait for the novelty to wear off before evaluating, and take account of lifestyle and environmental factors that may impact on mobile learning.


References:

Kukulska-Hulme, A and Traxler, J (2013). 'Design principles for mobile learning' in: Beetham, H and Sharpe, R (eds) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 244–257.
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B. and Cook, J. (2010) Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer.
Potter, J. (2011) 'Creation and curatorship in new media', in K. Rummler, J. Seipold, E. Lübcke, N. Pachler and G. Attwell (eds) Mobile Learning: Crossing boundaries in convergent environments. Book of Abstracts. London Mobile Learning Group.
Rasul A. A. (2011) Cultural Factors in a Mobile Phone Adoption and Usage Model: A Case of UUM Postgraduate Students. Masters thesis, Universiti Utara Malaysia.

What Schools will look like in the year 2020

I found this recent publication on the future of education quite fascinating. Apparently teachers agree that the school of the future will have no walls, be highly tech-infused, and available to more people than ever before.

And Sweden's newest school system has no classrooms at all. (More on this here: Swedish school system.)

The Content Debacle

The question of what content is being delivered can sometimes supersede the question of appropriate mode of delivery. And in many instances it can actually determine which learning style and mode of delivery is more appropriate.

So what is content? Is it the 'How' part of learning or is it the 'What' part of learning? Is it explanation or experience? Has the learner truly learned anything if they are told how something works rather than actually being shown what the process is? Is describing the process of making a cup of coffee from scratch the same as showing someone the process and having them make one for themselves?

So what is content? And before we consider the mode of delivery of this content, shouldn't we at least consider what educational content truly is? Do we sometimes limit learning to fit our delivery mechanisms rather than expand our modes of delivery to encompass all that learning truly is?

It is a unique human capability that we are able to learn  from instruction as well as from personal experience. And the nature of what needs to be learned as well as the mode in which it is delivered both equally determine the effectiveness of learning.

So when we are unable to fit it all in, what do we do? Do we cut out the parts that don't fit? Or do we look for a better way to teach it? (If it can easily be measured then it is certainly not it!) [quote required]

There are many issues to consider here. The first one is the role of the teacher in technology-enhanced learning. The next one is: what real reasons do we have for assuming that with technology-enhanced learning the teacher will have an enhanced rather than a diminished role?

 

However, considering the fact that throughout man's history, with or without technology, formal learning has always involved a teacher, mentor, coach, instructor or master. The face-to-face and other social aspects of formal education have always existed and have always been crucial to mastery of the learned subject or content. As Dreyfus said, technology-based teaching without the accompaniment of the teacher 'will produce only competence, while expertise and practical wisdom will be out of reach' (Dreyfus 2001, p. 49)

The argument is that learning at any level is essentially a 'human process enhanced by human beings' (Volungeviciene and Leduc 2006, p. 26), and the teacher plays a major part in it.

At the moment it seems that without the teacher, educational technologies can enhance information navigation, data gathering and knowledge implementation. But in the presence of an experienced and subject-practiced teacher or mentor, the learner has a chance to become an expert in that field with practical experience and internalized mastery of that specific subject area.

References:
Dreyfus, Hubert L. 2001. Thinking in action: On the Internet. New York and London: Routledge
Volungeviciene, A. and Leduc, L. (2006) 'Variations in transnational tutoring in distance learning' International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 3, 2, pp. 19-27

Multifunctional Mobile Models for Teachers and Learners Alike

Designs for an integrated system of learning and teaching are also to be considered in the development of models for learning using mobile technology. One significant reason for resistance on the part of teachers to the use of digital technologies for teaching is that in some cases these technologies seem to add to the daily responsibilities teachers already have.



The 'job' of the teacher includes so much more than just teaching - it also involves discipline, assessment, classroom control, as well as several targets that must be met, all with time constraints and deadlines. Any tech that does not deliberately make any of this easier, quicker or better is more likely to be seen as a problem rather than a useful tool or device. This has been cited as one of the main reasons why many teachers have refused to adopt several new digital technologies in their teaching.

An idea therefore, for the design of models for learning, would be one that integrates teaching tools with other aspects of the teacher's daily routine, making it so much easier for the teacher to organize lessons, assess students progress, provide feedback, and still build reports, lesson plans, correspondence (letters or emails) to stakeholders, and anything else that forms part of their regular duties.
A system that is all-inclusive and multifunctional is more likely to garner interest, exploration, and finally adoption from teachers than one which does not.

ICT4D and Personalised Learning

I started considering the preponderance of mobile devices in Africa a few years ago, and decided that I needed to contribute to the development of ICT projects there. While thinking about developmental projects in education and how mobile learning can truly change the world, I came across a counter argument from Neil Selwyn in his book Education and Technology - Key issues and Debates.

My focus had always been on equality and the level playing field that educational technology provides, as well as a clear and objective view of the costs involved and possible risks to anyone attempting to venture into this seldom traveled road. But upon closer examination, there had been several arguments against it.

"Educational projects form a large part of what has come to be known as ICT4D - The ICTs for Development movement where digital technologies are used as potential solutions to the challenges of community development (see Colle and Roman 2003).

Many of the challenges that ICT4D seeks to address are relatively basic. For instance, with only 15 per cent of rural households in sub-Saharan Africa having access to electricity, issues of power are of paramount importance. Another issue is the provision of low-cost and robust technological devices that are capable of working in poor and under-resourced communities where fundamental necessities such as teachers, books, shelter, water and food are still sparse.

Yet despite all these issues, technology is still seen as a major means of overcoming entrenched educational inequalities across the developing world. In particular, digital technology is being heralded as a key part of achieving some of the basic goals of providing access to free universal primary education of good quality, and the development of life-skills and vocational skills in later life.

Michelle Sellinger reasons:
ICTs can indeed hold the key to a step change towards improvement in the world's education systems. ICT is certainly not a panacea for education, but it is a powerful tool that when implemented appropriately can catalyze and accelerate education reform and development. (Sellinger 2009, p. 206)

Computer aid (charity work) p.104:
A range of non-governmental organizations like the Scandinavian Fair Allocation of Info Tech Resources project and the UK Computer Aid International charity all work to supply developing countries with refurbished and recycled computers that have been donated from firms and individuals in developed nations."*

Personalised Learning Ideas:
Ideas for personalised learning can be sought from special schools that cater for children with special needs, and inadvertently buck the trend in schools. Their attention to detail and unique approaches to helping these children achieve and excel means that the methods and systems they employ as successful and lead to exceptional achievements for the individual and for the school.

*(Culled directly from: Education and Technology - Key issues and Debates by Neil Selwyn, 2011, London. Chapter 5)

References:
Unwin, T. (ed.) (2009) ICT4D, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
The ICT4D Collective: http://www.ict4d.org.uk