Category Archives: Connected Learning

How a University in Texas is Leading the Charge for Mobile Learning

Posted on by
Reply

“The increasing use, availability, and low cost of equipment invites educators to begin finding ways to successfully use these devices in their classrooms” (Martin, 2012, p. 51). Here is how an entire university has been doing what Martin described for several years already.

In my quest for an example of mobile technology integration, I stumbled upon Abilene Christian University in Texas. “Since 2008, ACU has been recognized nationally as a visionary leader in campus-wide exploration and 1-to-1 deployment of iPhones, iPod touches and iPads.” DA82069LOGOIt’s been fascinating exploring how ACU has been utilizing mobile technologies to capitalize on mobile learning. I want to focu on “Revolutionizing the Classroom” YouTube video, the first video posted below. The other two videos I pulled out small excerpts to focus on. Do not feel like you have to watch the entire 30-minute video at the bottom, unless you feel compelled to keep exploring. I know I did! It provides a fascinating background on mobile learning, technology, and history and leads up to what ACU is doing—really good stuff!

In this example, ACU gave iPads to two different groups of students. One group was using the iPads to experience a completely digital classroom: no paper, no books—everything was on the iPad. The second group of students, a senior-level marketing strategy class, was charged with studying the first. Talk about ethnographic, hands-on research. There was most likely an additional layer of research happening in the background, with faculty researching how the second group of students were researching the first group of students. Here is a quote from a student in the first group, the completely digital classroom:

“With a digital textbook, you can also incorporate media; you can incorporate audio. Not only can you do all that, but then you can maybe blog about it. You can copy and paste it to an email. You can be in a class; you can research something.” —Jonathan Murata, student

Another quick example at ACU is from Adam Hester, Chair of ACU Theatre Department:

“Mobile learning has allowed me a kind of versatility and an immediacy that I didn’t have before…it allowed me to hack in a little bit more into my class than I normally would have.”

The “ACU Mobile Learning” video (above, second video in this post) starts at 3:20 to highlight Hester’s comment. Although there is another fascinating example from a freshman student earlier on in that video. He used the myACU app to find building locations of his classes and to map out walking routes. The myACU app appears to be a native application designed by ACU. It makes me wonder why a large University like Penn State doesn’t have an app like this.

This last idea comes from Dr. William Rankin, Director of Educational Innovation at ACU. The video begins at 24:23 with this quote, “We need to create is not the factory; we need to blow that up. We need to create the laboratory.” He then describes Thomas Edison’s laboratory and how he needed access to everything because he “didn’t know what he needed until he needed it.” He parallels this to a “mobile-y equipped generation” where they carry “a thousand libraries in their pocket”. He mentions how flexible books are becoming and we need flexible teaching that not only allows people to consume but also to create. He ends with an example of climate change and hints at Peppler’s (2013) framework for interest-driven arts learning, one that is “cross-disciplinary—and perhaps anti-disciplinary” (p. 19).

References

Abilene Christian University. (2012, August 23). Mobile Learning [YouTube Playlist]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD29F1464C77E45FD

Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Snider, J. (2012). Developing mobile based instruction. TechTrends, 56 (5), 46-51.

Mobile Learning Research. (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2015, from http://www.acu.edu/technology/mobilelearning/research/

Peppler, K. (2013). New opportunities for interest-driven arts. Report commissioned by The Wallace Foundation.

Identity affected by Mobile Device Learning? OR Mobile Device Learning affecting Identity?

Posted on by
2

These two readings were definitely interesting and challenging. The theme that I kept circling back to is identity. identityiconBransford (2006) references Lave & Wenger, as well as a few other researchers in the “New Theoretical Constructs for What Changes When People Learn” section, “that learning involves changes in people’s identities— who they understand themselves to be and who others position them to be” (p. 220). Branford also mentions Lave & Wenger’s “idea of legitimate peripheral participation, which highlights the practices by which newcomers are gradually enculturated into participation in existing ‘communities of practice’” (p. 220). I am actually familiar with Lave & Wenger’s work on communities of practice and find it fascinating. Wenger (1999) says that “a community of practice is a field of possible trajectories and thus the proposal of an identity” (p. 156). Legitimate peripheral participation is just one of the possible trajectories that Wenger mentions in his book. I found it even more fascinating that Wenger mentions that “we not only produce our identities through the practices we engage in, but we also define ourselves through practice we do not engage in” (p. 164). I know I just loaded you with a bunch of deep, thinking references to identity and participation, but what does all that mean? Who defines our identity? Branford mentions two possibilities, “who [the learner] understand themselves to be and who others position them to be” (p. 220). Does that mean our identity is who we think we are, or who others say we are? Or does what other people say about us shape who we view ourselves to be? Wenger (1999) describe identity as “lived, negotiated, social, a learning process, a nexus, and a local-global interplay” (p. 163).Quote-Mimi-Ito

How does mobile devices play into identity? Mimi Ito proposes that “[friendship-driven participation in online learning] is a really important site of learning, the sort of important social behaviors and what it means to grow up in a digital world, and the sort of ways in which kids post, link, forward, comment, create top friend lists. These are all negotiations that are incredibly important to kids growing up today” (DMLResearchHub, 2011). Are kids shaping their identity by how they interact through their mobile devices (e.g. posting, linking forwarding, commenting), or is the interaction from others (in the friendship-driven online space) influencing their identity? And does a positive or negative experience lead kids into messing around and geeking out stages of participation? Collins (2006) states that “the motivation to become a more central participant in a community of practice can provide a powerful incentive for learning. Frank Smith argues that children will learn to read and write if they people they admire read and write. That is, they will want to join the “literacy club” and will work hard to become members. Learning to read is part of becoming the kind of person they want to become. Identity is central to deep learning.” Does this mean that kids’ desire to be “a more central participant in a community of practice” will lead them to contribute more and advance further in Ito’s HOMAGO (hanging out, messing around, geeking out) stages?

How does one’s identity play into the use of mobile devices for learning? Sharples (2009) raises some great questions on technology and the future:

Will the technology become a seamless extension of human cognition and memory? What experiences will people want to capture, and how will they erase them? What is the legitimate sphere of parents, formal education and the state in managing and assessing children’s mobile learning?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but then again I don’t think Sharples does either if he is asking them. I think it’s important to consider identity when thinking about these questions. I think with the advancement of technology, it will one day become an extension of the human mind, and youth will “instinctively” understand how to use it. This idea goes all the way back to the 1960s in Fiore’s The Medium is the Massage, which if you haven’t heard of it or read it, another great suggestion! It is deep, thought-provoking, and oftentimes, a sensory overload. He mentions in it that “youth instinctively understands the present environment—the electric drama. It lives mythically and in depth” (p. 9).

And to close, I want to leave you with one last great thought from Fiore (1967) on identity (p. 152-155):

“…and who are you?”

“I-I hardly know, sir, just at present-at least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think i must have been changed several times since then.”

References

Bransford, J. D., Stevens, R., Schwartz, D. L., Meltzoff, P. K., Pea, R. D., Roschelle, J., … & Sabelli, N. (2006). Learning theories and education: Toward a decade of synergy. In. PA Alexander & PH Winne (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology, (pp. 209-244). Mahwah, nd.

Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship: The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences, R. Keith Sawyer.

DMLResearchHub. (2011, August 24). Cultural Anthropologist Mimi Ito on Connected Learning, Children, and Digital Media[Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuV7zcXigAI

Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage. New York: Random House.

Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233-249).

Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge university press.

Here’s to New Beginnings: Learning about Mobile Learning

Posted on by
4

One of my favorite ideas from this week’s readings came from Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) when they were discussing outcomes. An iPhone sitting in the middle of a fire.They referenced Chris Dede’s (1995) “fire” metaphor on information technology, “Just as a fire radiates heat, many people expect a computer to radiate learning. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Rather, as Dede noted, ‘information technologies are more like clothes; to get a benefit, you must make them a part of your personal space, tailored to your needs’ (p. 10)” (p. 201). This is a powerful example of how educators, policymakers, and the general public should view any technology for any purpose. The big question is how do we instill a sense of passion or initiative in learners to take technology and really make it their own. How in a sense, can we add “interest-driven” learning to information technology.

Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) reference Ito’s two primary categories of online practices, “ ‘interest-driven’ and ‘friendship-driven’ ” (p. 192). These online practices are broken down into three genres of participation by Ito and her colleagues (2010), “hanging out, messing around, and geeking out”. Warschauer and Matuchniak briefly discuss these genres of participation, but do not label them as such. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) note that “the majority of youth do not move beyond friendship-driven activities, but the more creative and adventurous venture into interest-driven genres” (p. 192). This is also backed up by Sharples (2013) when he discusses self-directed language learning under personal and informal mobile learning, “these were motivated, advanced learners, who were willing actively to define their own language needs and to select resources, tools and communication methods that would help them.”

I’m currently taking INSYS 549 with Dr. Ty Hollet, Digital Media and Learning. We are currently looking at learning ecologies, interest-driven and friendship-driven learning, participatory cultures (Jenkins), and much more. So as you can see, there is a huge overlap which is really interesting. I think a great way to challenge mobile learning is to look at it through connected learning.

Connected Learning outlined by the Macarthur Foundation

Credit: Connected Learning Research Network and Digital Media & Learning Research Hub

In a nutshell, connected learning looks to combine three spheres of learning: academic, peer culture, and interests. It is supported by and centers around three core properties: production centered, shared purposed, and openly networked. This is an extremely brief overview of connected learning, but I included a great image of connected learning as well as linked to a great DML report that covers this concept in-depth.

I was also really drawn to the idea of “seamless learning” by Sharples (2013). “Seamless learning implies that students can learn whenever they are curious, using personal devices and embedded learning technology to store, share and recall contextualized knowledge, creating an experience of continuity and the ability to switch rapidly from one learning project to another.” This whole definition is great and I feel like I could pick it apart for hours, but I want to focus on the latter ― “the ability to switch rapidly from one learning project to another”. This aligns with one of Jenkins’ (2009) “new media literacies” ― “multitasking, or the ability to scan the environment and shift focus onto salient details” (p. 61). He uses a fascinating metaphor of hunters and farmers to describe the shift in the need for multitasking (as a new media literacy) as our society “transition[s] from an industrial to an informational economy” (Warschauer and Matuchniak, 2010, p. 179).

“Historically, we might have distinguished between the skills required of farmers and those expected of hunters. The farmer must complete a sequence of tasks that require localized attention; the hunter must scan a complex landscape in search of signs and cues of where prey may be hiding. For centuries, schools have been designed to create “farmers.” In such an organization, the ideal is for all students to focus on one thing; indeed, attention is conceived of as the ability to concentrate on one thing for an extended period of time, while the inability or refusal to maintain such a narrow focus is characterized as a “disorder.” Yet, fixed attention would be maladjusted to the needs of hunters, who must search high and low for their game. Schools adapted to the needs of “hunters” would have very different practices and might well value the ability to identify the relationship between seemingly unrelated developments within a complex visual field. As we look to the future, one possibility is that schools will be designed to support both styles, ensuring that each child develops multiple modes of learning and multiple strategies for processing information. In such a world, neither attentional style is viewed as superior, but both are assessed in terms of their relative value within a given context” (Jenkins, 2009, p. 63).

I had a hard time with the Pea and Moldonado piece. I felt as if I open up a time capsule that was buried in the ground for over ten years. This article was published a year before the iPhone was released to the public, which in my opinion, is a HUGE game changer. The authors talked about “data synchronization across computers” (2006, p. 432), which today is basically common ground with cloud computing. Jump drives are soon going to be obsolete because of cloud services. One of the eight features that Pea and Maldonado (2006) contributed to “the rise in hand-held use within schools and beyond” (p. 428) is a “stylus driven interface” (p. 428). Up until a few days ago (thanks Apple…), I thought these little guys were toast. I feel as if this feature could now be replaced with “touch screen interfaces”.

References

Dede, C. (1995). Testimony to the US Congress, House of Representatives, Joint hearing on educational technology in the 21st century. Retrieved February 2, 2006, from http://www.virtual.gmu.edu/SS_research/cdpapers/congrpdf.htm

Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., & Herr, B. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, geeking out: Living and learning with new media. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. MIT Press.

Pea, R. D., & Moldonado, H. (2006). WILD for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere. (Chapter 25).

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

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds. (pages 179 through 225).