Mobile Learning Fun: Seamless Learning, PAC Framework, Temporal Effects, and Multitasking

I’m really glad that we are visiting seamless learning again. This was an idea that I was really drawn to when it was mentioned in Week 4, Lesson 3 by Sharples (2013). I mentioned in a previous blog post that I could “pick [seamless learning] apart for hours” but I didn’t. I focused on a piece of the definition provided by Sharples that I related to multitasking, which we will also visit briefly later in this post with Bowman et al. (2010). Looi et al. (2010) builds on Sharples’ definition of seamless learning by saying that “seamless learning environment bridges private and public learning spaces where learning happens as both individual and collective efforts and across different contexts (such as in-school versus after-school, formal versus informal)” (p. 156). This is definitely a strong attribute related to mobile learning via mobile technologies, or as Wong (2012) describes/extends it as “mobile seamless learning” (p. E19). Another great point that Looi et al. makes is by quoting Watson: “‘We spend a lot of time trying to change people. The thing to do is to change the environment and people will change themselves’ (Watson, 2006, p. 24)” (p. 156). This could be a great intended design decision when creating mobile learning; focus on changing the environment and the learners’ will naturally adapt.

I really like the concept of seamless learning, but when I got really interested was when Wong (2012) extended Looi et al. seamless learning with the “10 Dimensions”. The three that really stuck out were “MSL 3, 4, and 8; learning across time, learning across locations, and seamless and rapid switching between multiple learning tasks,” (p. E19) respectively. All dimensions are great and should be considered for integration, but these three popped out to me, especially the learning across time. Looi et al. touched on the temporal configuration of seamless learning, but Wong extends this even further and then Kearney et al. really dives into how time affects and is affected by mobile learning. Kearney et al. (2012)  discusses the idea of “malleable spatial-temporal contexts for learning” (p. 4), which takes into account that mobile learning has the power to “blur” popular beliefs that learning only happens in a designated space at designed times. With this idea, the learner has more agency and is enabled to learn wherever and whenever they feel are curious.

kearney-PAC-mobile-circle

Figure 1: PAC mLearning Framework

On that note, Kearney et al. also present a framework for mobile learning (see Figure 1). The framework is built on three constructs, each with two sub-scales, which has a “symbiotic relationship” (p. 8) with time and space in relation to mobile learning. They applied the framework to 30 scenarios of mobile learning, of which they discussed six specific cases. What I find interesting is that the scenarios that were primarily “school-based tasks restrained by curriculum and learning space constraints, the podcast and Maths examples lacked agency and customisation” (p. 13). These scenarios, if you look again, did not rate high in any of these constructs. Maybe we need to consider changing the environment in order for our learners to adapt and change?

To conclude, I read Bowman et al. case study on how college students multitask. Their conclusion is that students actually require more time when performing an academic function if they multitask (e.g., respond to IMs). However, I feel that this study was a bit biased. “Students were told if they did receive IMs, to respond with complete sentences or phrases to equalize response styles across individuals and conditions” (p. 929). This is not realistic at all. Of course the results would favor requiring more time. When students multitask, or any time they IM, I highly doubt students always respond in complete sentences or phrases. That’s just not how texting works in today’s culture and I feel that this study could produce different results if it was more realistic. On another note, multitasking is a concern to acknowledge when designing for mobile learning. Can we keep mobile learning short enough, possibly in bite size chunks, to combat multitasking problems?

References

Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927-931. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024

Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154-169. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective.Research In Learning Technology, 20:1, 1-17. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406. Note: open access journal, click the link to access article. This article is not in the course reserves.

Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3(5), 5-11.

Wong, L.-H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E19-E23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01245.x

One thought on “Mobile Learning Fun: Seamless Learning, PAC Framework, Temporal Effects, and Multitasking

  1. Hi Zach, nice post for this week. I didn’t read the optional Wong article but you’ve piqued my interest in the dimensions.
    I also pulled out the same quote by Watson “‘We spend a lot of time trying to change people. The thing to do is to change the environment and people will change themselves’” (Watson, 2006, p. 24)” (p. 156) and thought it was really interesting. As I thought about it more, it really makes sense. The act of change is learning, we are all constantly changing and adapting to our changing environments.
    This also ties in with the ratings from the Kearney article. As you mentioned the school-based scenarios didn’t score very high on the scale developed. I would agree with you that it’s because the environment is too close to the traditional school environment. Some of the other projects that were creative and outside of the traditional environment scored much higher.
    I had trouble tying my 3rd article to this week’s readings. From your description, it doesn’t sound like Bowman’s study was very realistic. From my own experience, I would say multitasking takes longer, I feel like none of the tasks get my 100% attention but I would also venture that varies based on the person and their comfort level with multitasking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *