In this our final blog post, I tried to focus on the topic of how I was going to put together all of the thoughts inside my head regarding this class, and specifically how I would be able to apply everything we have learned to our final project. I had originally chosen three articles, each dealing with a slightly different topic, but after reading Stephanie’s blog post last week I added an article she had shared because it seemed to go along with my project topic. So, before I begin I feel like I need to first thank my Blog-mates Darrin, Leah, Stephanie, and Rachel for sharing all of your thoughts and articles throughout the semester. I have enjoyed reading your blogs and appreciate all that I have learned from you.

I am going to begin with a case study by Huang et al (2016) in which a group of 21 middle school students in Taiwan were divided into three groups to examine “the impact of learner emotion on experiential learning and learning performance using the AR action ecological system.” (page 73) The students were taken to a botanical garden for a whole day outdoor learning experience where they were divided into three groups, the first using an AR system for self-learning, the second using the AR system plus a commentator, and the third group as the control group following only a commentator through the learning experiment. The overall results of the experiment showed that the AR plus commentator group showed the most positive outcomes for both learner emotion and for learning performance. This made me wonder how much the human factor made a difference for this group of learners. We know that learning is a social process so as a classroom educator in a formal learning environment this is something to consider when designing my own m-learning experiences.

I read two more case studies both regarding blending paper-based learning with m-learning. In both cases QR codes were a facet of the m-learning experience, however the purposes of each study were very different. The first was a study by Rikala and Kankaanranta (2013) presented to us last week by Stephanie. In this study the researchers and a teacher created a math trail for 5th grade students to practice decimals. This article sparked some ideas for me as to how to integrate QR codes into my own learning environment as they can greatly enrich paper-based materials. One thought I had was to add a QR code to student grammar notes or homework assignments which links students to instructional videos on how to complete a specific verb conjugation, use proper syntax with interrogatives, or learn how to replace direct objects with direct object pronouns. No doubt there would be a good deal of front end work on my part but it would be worth it to help the students. I would have to keep in mind that not all students have smartphones or tablets. However I could still post links to the appropriate videos  available on my Canvas course for everyone. It would be interesting to see if my students would find those extra resources to be helpful and if it would increase their learning outcomes.

The other case study I read including QR codes by Huang et al (2012) did not focus on the use of the QR codes themselves, but how procedural scaffoldings in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context affect learning outcomes. This study included 60 senior and graduate level students at a university in Taiwan each broken into groups of three, given a pre-test, a QR code enhanced reading assignment, a group activity worksheet, and a post-test. Half of the groups were given the extra task of typing their thoughts on the group discussion questions into their smartphones into an application which allowed all members of the group to read one another’s responses prior to the group discussion. The researchers found that the levels of discussion and the learning outcomes were significantly higher for the experimental groups which were provided the extra discussion scaffolding through their smartphones. This  brings me back to the human factor regarding learning, however in this particular case it was the strategic use of the m-learning tool that helped facilitate the higher level of learner discourse which in turn led to higher learning outcomes. Once again this reminds me of the careful consideration we must give to the pedagogical needs in designing learning experiences.

Speaking of pedagogy, the final article I would like to discuss was by Kearney et al (2015) regarding how educators are using the distinctive pedagogical features of mobile learning, specifically personalization, authenticity, and collaboration as we had read about in on of the required readings of last week. This article was, for me, a representation of one of the struggles I have on a regular basis and that is how to put theory into practice. For example, on page 53 the researchers stated that, in regards to authenticity, most tasks by teachers were not truly authentic but instead were “authentic in a simulated way, in the sense that the task engages students in a simulated form of reality.” As a foreign language teacher I am always faced with the challenge of how to make language learning as an authentic a process as possible, however reality shows us that taking my students to another country to practice in an fully authentic situation is not a possibility. In regards to personalization, on page 54 the researchers stated that the majority of teachers perceived that their learning tasks gave “absolutely no student control over aspects such as learning context – where and when activity occurs (28% of teachers), task pacing (24% of teachers), task content and learning goals (25% of teachers.)” This is another place where the theory of personalization of learning sounds wonderful, but in reality more often than not even teachers themselves have very little control over each of these factors.

Where this brings me is the question of how to put it all together. In taking in the theory and reading about various studies of learning experiences in practice I must now find a way to fit all of the pieces together. The readings themselves, my reflections,  as well as the reflections of the members of my blog group have helped lead me towards the direction of a project which I hope will blend m-learning into my formal learning context. I look forward to seeing where this leads each one of us and how we fit our puzzles together.

Huang, H., Wu, C., & Chen, N. (2012). The effectiveness of using procedural scaffoldings in a paper-plus-smartphone collaborative learning context. Computers & Education,59(2), 250-259. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.015

Huang, T., Chen, C., & Chou, Y. (2016). Animating eco-education: To see, feel, and discover in an augmented reality-based experiential learning environment. Computers & Education,96, 72-82. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.008

Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education,80, 48-57. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.009

Rikala, J., & Kankaanranta, M. (2013, November 30). Blending Classroom Teaching and Learning with QR Codes. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED557237