Two quotes came to me this week as I was traversing through the readings. The first from John Dewey, “If we teach today’s students as we taught yesterday’s, we rob them of tomorrow.” And the second from a book I mentioned earlier in the semester, The Medium is the Massage. It’s a fascinating read that was published in 1967 and everything inside the book still holds true today; I highly recommend checking it out if you get a chance, it’s a short read. Anyways, the author, Fiore, comment on the state of the family:
The family circle has widened. The worldpool of information fathered by electric media—movies, Telstar, flight—far surpasses any possible influence mom and dad can now bring to bear. Character no longer is shaped by only two earnest, fumbling experts. Now all the world’s a sage” (p. 14)
I bring these two quotes up because they both describe my current thoughts on mobile technologies and mobile learning. Dewey is arguing that educators are holding out on students today by teaching them as they have been taught. Mobile technology cannot simply be used to replicate old and current teaching styles. If that’s the case, we are missing the point. Mobile technology should be revolutionizing learning. As for Fiore’s idea, I interpret this as kids and students and learners in general are now being influenced by the world. Mobile technologies has made the world much smaller. This is changing everything, especially how our identity is shaped and how we come to view ourselves, our neighbors, our local surroundings, and the world.
Martin’s “Designing Mobile Based Instruction” (2012) discusses a computer science based instruction course that taught students, with “no prior programming experience” (p. 48) how to develop mobile instruction for the web. They designed their instruction in Adobe Dreamweaver intended for use on Apple iPods. I was fascinated by the no prior programming experience part, and how successful they were. The students focused on size, usability, and content design; three design recommendations that they discuss after their projects. They note how the small screen size dictates the amount of content allowed and how succinct sentences have to become. Every sentence and word has to be intentional. For usability, one student notes how “you have to take out all the fluff” (p. 49) and as for the content design, the students focused on a “very simple design so that content can take center stage” (p. 49). Two majors challenges that came out of this study was “mobile development and delivery methods” and “product testing” (p. 50). Accessibility was a concern for mobile development and the decision was made to go with a mobile website over an app due to apps being dependent on a certain device, while mobile websites can be accessed more widely.
Next, I dove into Kukulska-Hulme et. al.’s “Mature Students Using Mobile Devices in Life and Learning,” (2011) which turned out to be a fascinating read. The article opened up with a statement from the JISC that “learners can be active makers and shapers of their own learning. They should in using technologies of their own choice where appropriate” (p. 18). The article was largely based on an extensive survey of “mature students”, of which the authors defined as “those who are at the point of completing their Higher Education, in particular those studying at master’s or doctoral level in the fields of education, educational technology, engineering and information technology” (p. 20). The report examined mobile use in everyday life and learning from students in Australia, Portugal, Sweden, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom. The survey included five sections (p. 23):
- About yourself
- The use of mobile devices—now or in the past
- Being part of groups and communities
- Specific uses for mobile devices
- Mobile devices for learning: what’s special, what’s a problem?
The findings were both interesting, yet not surprising. As someone who has grown up with a mobile device, I found that I connected with almost every finding that the survey found. Kukulska-Hulme et. al. noted that “reported benefits of using mobile devices to be part of groups or communities include spontaneous communication, flexibility, speed, fun, support, experience sharing, intellectual stimulation and use of technology to cope with changing arrangements” (p. 27). They also listed several issues that the students pointed out in using mobile devices with learning and everyday life (p. 30):
- Slow writing, difficulty scanning when reading
- Noisy environments, e.g. on public transport
- Restrictive environments, e.g. hospitals
- Can’t connect mobile to projector
- Difficulty synchronizing several devices
- Poor sound quality
- Inequality of access
- Distracting, intrusive
- Feeling of ‘physical togetherness’ is missing
- Becoming dependent on the mobile
These are all important factors to consider when designing for mobile learning; however, there is one that I would like to call attention to: “feeling of ‘physical togetherness’ is missing”. This is a problem that seems to crop up every time technology is a discussion around education, especially distance education. I don’t have an answer for this, but it should not be forgotten. We must keep this in mind when we design mobile learning.
To conclude, I explored two journal articles relating to nursing and healthcare. The first article explored the use of mobile technologies in the acquisition of clinical skills, and followed eight nurses who were taking the Routine Infant Physical Examinations (NIPE). They were given iPods loaded with RLOs, reusable learning objects, and were encouraged to reference these RLOs during their clinical experience. Although there were only eight participants, all eight of them had positive experiences and were satisfied or very satisfied with the RLOs on the iPods. I would like to see this study done again on a larger scale; I’m not sure eight participants is enough to provide valid research. It also seems as if cost is an issue on just about every mobile learning initiative, but when isn’t cost an issue? I also thought it was neat that all the participants “reported that they felt empowered to learn and that the flexibility of where the learning could take place enhanced their acquisition of the performance skills required for NIPE” (Clay, 2011, p. 585).
The last article was an extremely short (2.5 page) article about the mobile chain of survival, or CPR and AED. The authors talked about how mobile technologies has benefited
people and the amount of time needed to call 911 and perform CPR. What drew my attention to this article; however, was Fig. 2. “There are also accessories being developed, to facilitate their use, in the shape of a case and a cradle, which offers additional benefits in terms of reducing CPR fatigue” (Kovic, 2011, p. 777). Not only are mobile technologies aiding in the digital and technological realm, but they are also being used in non-conventional ways to save lives. I find this very fascinating and is a reminder to think outside the box when designing for mobile learning!
References
Clay, C. (2011). Exploring the use of mobile technologies for the acquisition of clinical skills. Nurse education today, 31(6), 582-6. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.10.011
Fiore, Q. (1967). The medium is the massage. New York: Random House.
Kovic, I., & Lulic, I. (2011). Mobile phone in the chain of survival. Resuscitation,82(6), 776-779.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Pettit, J., Bradley, L., Carvalho, A. a., Herrington, A., Kennedy, D. M., & Walker, A. (2011). Mature students using mobile devices in life and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 3(1), 18-52. doi:10.4018/jmbl.2011010102
Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Snider, J. (2012). Developing mobile based instruction. TechTrends, 56 (5), 46-51.
