Category: Uncategorized

Mobile Learning and Math Education

In the beginning, I was planning to write a blog post about adult numeracy and mobile learning. However, I could not find substantial study on this topic. Then, I decided to look at literature on using mobile learning for math education. I think, especially, from k-1 to k-5, topic of adult math literacy and school topics overlap a lot. That is why, gaining an insight about using mobile learning in schools for math education gives a general idea about development of math literacy, too.

Mathematics is a fearsome subject for some students. Mobile learning can facilitate learning mathematics. In the study of “Learning Mathematics in an Authentic Mobile Environment: The Perceptions of Students”, Baya’a and Saher (2009) state that students thinks that mobile learning enables exploring mathematics independently, learning mathematics, through collaboration and team work, learning mathematics in a social environment, learning mathematics in authentic real life situations, visualizing mathematics and investigating it dynamically, carrying out diversified mathematical actions using new and advanced technologies, learning mathematics easily and efficiently. Another study done by Franklin and Peng (2009) states that student can present difficult concepts in a visual format and then discuss them with friends thorough mobile learning. I think, making math easier to understand is great achievement and mobile learning offers a great help for this achievement.

For the learning mathematics, mobile learning offered a new experience for students. Baya’a and Saher (2009) state that the students valued the fact that they explored mathematics and did not learn it only from the teacher. Representing mathematics visually and dynamically by using mobile tools helps the learner to feel the dependencies between the mathematical phenomenon parameters or relations (Baya’a & Saher, 2009). On the other hand, as educators, we need to be careful about what students understand from the activity. For example, students participated study of Franklin and Peng (2009) expressed that the activity was about both learning the app and the mathematical concept. As we here in this example, activity may not be in the direction of what we aimed.

Learning how to use the app

One of the common points of studies that are done on this issue is that they teach students how to use the app. Franklin and Peng chooses their participants based on past work with Palm technology by the two math educators and the researcher (2009). Kiger et. al (2012) introduced an application a day for students to learn and use. In addition, effective implementation of mobile learning depends on administrative and school commitments and adequately trained teachers on pedagogy, integration of instructional technologies, mobile device operations and classroom management / facilitation (Kiger et al, 2012).

I think, learning how to use an application has long terms effects. If a student can learn how to use the app deeply, it helps them to use it in informal settings. Kiger et. al (2012) emphasize this point and state that teacher can facilitate a student’s out-of-school use of mobile devices. As a result, facilitator person plays a serious role in mobile learning especially in the early steps.

References

Franklin, T., & Peng, L. W. (2008). Mobile math: Math educators and students engage in mobile learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(2), 69-80.

 

Kiger, D., Herro, D., & Prunty, D. (2012). Examining the influence of a mobile learning intervention on third grade math achievement. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45(1), 61-82.

 

Baya’a, N. F., & Daher, W. M. (2009). Learning mathematics in an authentic mobile environment: the Perceptions of Students. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 3, 6-14.

 

I think, pedagogical perspective to mobile learning is so critical. This helps us to deal with real problem. When I was examining applications two weeks ago, I was paying attention whether this application really address the objectives. We can see fancy activities, creative design. But, this doesn’t guarantee that the application addresses the objectives. Application can be good, attractive, interesting and fun to engage. But, this doesn’t mean that it solves the correct issue. There can be type-2 error and application can solve wrong problem! That’s why, pedagogical ground of the mobile learning activities is significant.

I was looking for a theoretical framework for mobile learning activities because my research interest area is using mobile learning opportunities in adult education in informal settings. This week’s readings were very useful for me in this aspect. Especially Kearney et al. (2012) offers a rich debate on the framework issue.  I will save readings of this week for my future studies.

I see “mobagogy” term first time in the study of Kearney et al. (2012). It is interesting to see such a term specifically used for mobile education.  I think, mobagogy term fills a gap in the literature. On the other hand, this study is also an example of shows how to develop a theoretical framework. I am happy to read about development phases of the framework.

 

Study of Looi et. al. (2010) offers model for explaining mobile learning. I think, this study and Karen et. al. (2012) completes each other and offer readers different framework. Looi et. al. (2010) discuss about the challenge-experiential model. This model reminds me Transformative Learning Theory (TLT), which is a promising theory for explaining how adults learn. Challenge-experiential model seems like a dense version of TLT. It is overlapping with TLT.

Here is a comparison chart. You can see similarities in their steps.

 

 

 

In addition to offer model for mobile learning, Looi et. al. (2010) also makes a discussion about methodological limitations of the studies that has been done on seamless learning. Long-learn experience is very important for the understanding of the mobile learning but current studies fails to provide long term results (Looi et. al., 2010). Technical issues and assessment are other serious challenges that Looi discussed. Software can be compatible with wide range of devices in order to solve technical, combability issue.

My third article is “A typology of young people’s Internet use: Implications for education”, Eynon & Malmberg (2010). I think, this article related with first two study because learning in informal settings was emphasized in by both Looi and Karmen. And, the learning cases that is examined in this study mostly occurs in informal settings. As we see in p.589, communicating, participating, information seeking, entertainment are most common internet activities that teens do. Like authors stated, findings of this study complement other works in this field (Eynon & Malmberg, 2010).

 

References

Eynon, R., & Malmberg, L.-E. (2011). A typology of young people’s Internet use: Implications for education. Computers & Education, 56(3), 585-595. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.020

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.

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

 

 

In this post, I will discuss about developing a lesson design based on mobile learning. The study of Martin et al. (2012), Developing Mobile Based Instruction, offers us a deep insight about design and development process for mobile learning. Martin et al. (2012) see mobile learning as intersection of mobile computing and e-learning. In order to use mobile learning opportunities efficiently, we need to understand it better and know more about components of design of mobile based instruction. Quinn (2011) states that a well implemented mobile learning helps people to learn whatever they want and helps people to do their work better. But, this also requires augmenting one’s learning and performance in order to bridge the gap between learning activities and mobile devices (Martin et. al).

Wang and Shen (2012) generates advice for practitioners, presents a set of guidelines in the light of the learning theories and design principles. Authors discuss impact of learning a cognitive theories, human-computer interaction, devices and methodologies. Dual coding theory fits in m-learning as they do in all instructional media (Wang & Shen, 2012). In addition, mobile learning with unique opportunity to promote interactivity in social and informal learning environments, situated learning theory can be used as a framework (Wang & Shen, 2012).

When and Shen (2012) list four principles of message design for different devices:

• Design for different devices
• Design for e-learning, adapt for m-learning
• Design short and “condensed” materials for smart phones
• Be creative when designing for mobile devices with fast mobile network such as 3G and 4G.

Role of Assessment in Mobile Learning

Assessment is another crucial dimension mobile based instruction design. Hwang and Chang (2011) proposes a formative assessment-based approach for improving the learning in mobile learning settings. Formative assessment approach promotes the students’ learning interest and attitude in addition to improving students’ achievement (Hwang & Chang, 2011). Formative assessment provided students a more challenging learning environment, encouraged students to solve their problem on their own compared to conventional mobile learning approach (Hwang & Chang, 2011). In this study, I wonder what Authors’ conventional mobile learning approach is. I put here a question mark.

In conclusion, by considering all discussed points into consideration, it can be concluded that a well-designed mobile learning activity requires a meticulous work. In order to fill the gap between learning activity and the device (medium), educators should develop well-designed mobile learning activities and provide positive models.

 

References

Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education, 56(4), 1023-1031.

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

Quinn, C. (2011). Designing mLearning: tapping into the mobile revolution for organizational performance. Pfeiffer Publishing, USA

Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2012). Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, human cognition and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 561-575.

 

 

I am a fan of e-reader devices. I have experience with Kindle DX device, kindle PC application and android application.  While reading the articles, I compared my reading and my experiences.

Critique of Davidson & Carliner’s Study

First of all, I think, study of Davidson & Carliner (2014) are quite informative. These studies offer a serious insight about electronic reading.

On the other hand, I have some critics about Davidson & Carliner (2014) study. I think, the difference between e-ink screen and backlit (regular screens available in phones, laptops) screen should be emphasized more because e-ink screen is the main factor what makes the differences. Basically, I would categorize e-readers in two group e-ink screen devices and backlit screen devices. This would offer a better classification because in terms of eye health of the readers, e-ink and backlit screen is the main differentiating factor.

In page 716, Davidson & Carliner (2014) claims that Kindle and Nook will offer color-version e-readers. This is a misleading claim for the current technology available to end users. Authors are probably talking about Kindle Fire devices which offer colorful screen. But Kindle Fire is not a different device than any tablet or phone in terms of screen, basically. Kindle Fire (colorful screen kindle) uses backlit screen. It is just a tablet that you can read an e-book as any other tablet. All they use backlit screen. That’s why it Kindle Fire comes with a colorful screen. It is not a colorful e-ink screen. That’s why, the statement “technological development led to color versions of e-book readers like the Kindle and Nook” (p. 716) is misleading. Color version of the e-book readers such as laptops were available long ago.

Secondly, on p. 718-719, Davidson & Carliner (2014) discuss about reading e-books in other platforms and they say “only users of Nook can lend those books to others to read on their own devices”. This is correct but a narrow statement. The real issue here is file formatting issue. Kindle supports mobi file format while rest of the e-readers support ePub and pdf. Nook devices are also in the “rest of the” category and support ePub, PDF, CBZ formats (NOOK Tablet Frequently Asked Questions, n.d.). That’s why, “only user of the Nook can lend the book to others” is not a correct statement. Other e-reader brands, such as Ectaco and Kobo, also can lend their books because their books are also in ePub format. Actually, you are buying e-book in ePub format (if you are not buying from amazom.com) and sending it the device whatever you have other than Kindle. Onlie ebook sellers such as Barnes&Nobles don’t care what device do you have because other than Kindle, rest of the devices support same file format, ePub.

My expectation from study of McClain & Zimmerman (2015) was an insight to electronic books. But, this study’s focus is more on using mobile devices at outdoor places. E-book reader is a great mobile device for this purpose because it doesn’t require internet connection to use the mobile device. That’s’ why authors chose e-readers as mobile platform. On the other hand, any smartphone could do same job, too. As known, as long as we send a document to a smartphone, we don’t need internet connection to read it. A smartphone would do a great job, too, for this study.

An Online Badging System

Because we had only two articles about electronic book, I had to choose the third article from a different topic. Gamrat and Zimmerman’s (2015) study has an interesting topic. Badging system is used in games a lot to motivate players to clear harder content. If players know that there is badge waiting for them, it may motivate them to clear endgame content.

Using such a system in education sounds appealing. Especially in informal learning settings, badging system may fulfill recognition of the achievement mission. Authors state that badging system support personalized learning, mastery of learning, value of the content to for learners and earning recognition. This is a great study that shed light to usage of badging system in education.

 

References

Davidson, A. L., & Carliner, S. (2014). E-books for educational uses.  In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 713-722). Springer New York.

Gamrat, C., & Zimmerman, H. (2015). An Online Badging System Supporting Educators’ STEM Learning. In D. Hickey, J. Jovanović, S. Lonn, & J. E. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Open Badges in Education co-located with the 5th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference (LAK 2015) (pp. 12–23).

McClain, L. R., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2016). Technology-mediated engagement with nature: sensory and social engagement with the outdoors supported through an e-Trailguide. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8455(March), 1–15.

NOOK Tablet Frequently Asked Questions (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://nook.barnesandnoble.com/u/Support-NOOK-Tablet/379003185

 

Technology and Equality in Education

 

In recent decades, technology has been developed considerably and facilitates out lives in many ways. Technology and digital learning tools also have been used in education in variety of ways. On the other hand, effect of technology has become a hotly debated issue. Access, use and outcomes of the new technology affect equity principle of education.

Equity is a serious issue for education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) defines six principles for decision making in schools (2000). One of the NCTM principles is equity. Equity principle is described as high expectations and strong support for all students (NCTM, 2000). At this point, students’ unequal opportunities shadow equity principle. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) states that home environments, social factors, habits of computer usage increase the gap between high and low socioeconomic status (SES) communities.  I think, this is an important issue and should be discussed more deeply.

There are many environmental factors that affecting readiness level of students. For example, low income students less tend to have friends or relative that can use complex digital media tools (Warschauer & Matuchniak, 2010). Warschauer and Matuchniak’s (2010) tell the cases of Zeke, a white fourth grade private school student, and Kadesha, a thirteen years old African American girl. In the article, it is clearly stated that Kadesha’s opportunities are limited to consume multimedia, not creating it. Warschauer and Matuchniak (2010) states that this discrepancy has academic outcomes, too. As a result, role of technology should be examined seriously for providing more equal education opportunities.

On the other hand, I have two questions: “is absolute equality possible?” In the Outliers book, Malcolm Gladwell asserts that there are many environmental factors for success (2008). Gladwell claims that in order to create a big technological company, you need to have certain accesses in certain times. Moreover, you need to be born between 1950 and 1955. According to Gladwell’s statement, people didn’t have equal opportunity for building an innovative, big technology company. There were some certain criteria. I think, this is same for education, too, until a certain level. Educators should try to offer equal opportunities for all students. However, I don’t think this is always possible. There will always be students who have bonuses than others in some way. This is inevitable. Is it unfair? I don’t think. Having educated family is not an unfairness or injustice to anyone. Having a family that has hardworking culture is not an unfair for other students who don’t have such a culture in the family. For example, according to Tieso (2007), mothers’ highest education level has strong relation with giftedness. Does this cause inequality for the students who have low educated mother? If yes, is having highly educated mother unfair? If having an educated mother is fine, then do we approve inequality because we also approve unequal readiness level of students? I think, this is a huge discussion. But, I don’t believe that we can reach absolute equality in education. Then, what should we do? As an educator, I liked NCTM’s expression of equity: strong support for all students. Yes, we can try to do our best for supporting all students. Therefore, there will always be external factors that will affect students’ academic performance greatly and we may have limited control on it.

As a result, there will always be unequal opportunities for students in many different levels. What we can do is to establish at least minimum standards that is defined by educational scientist for all students and provide students high support. In addition, we should consider that what we value shapes our perception of equality. That’s why, what is valued should also be determined carefully.

 

References

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Hachette UK.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.  Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Tieso, C. (2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents: A hierarchical model (vol 51, pg 11, 2007). Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 298-298.

Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of research in education, 34(1), 179-225.