This week’s readings provided a lot of research around mobile learning and how to categorize different aspects of it. While all of the articles mentioned transitioning from one location to another with mobile devices, the article Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda was almost entirely about using mobile devices for learning outside of the classroom. One such instance was a unit on the 3R’s that led students to come to many of their own conclusions about reducing, reusing and recycling. Students had to take photographs, record interviews, and transmit data using a mobile device. They also discussed their findings with their classmates using the same devices. In this instance, I would agree with the statement made in this article that, “The portability and versatility of mobile devices have significant potential in promoting a pedagogical shift from didactic teacher-centered to participatory student-centered learning.”

In, Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective the authors discussed similar concepts to the above reading and also attempted to categorize different aspects of mobile learning based on their research. They also tried to tie in aspects from the perspective of the socio-cultural theory. Through their research, they would eventually end up with the categories of “authenticity, collaboration, and personalization”. The authors of this article also had several examples where they extrapolated data to help back their findings.

I believe that the final article from this week’s readings, titled, Framework for Designing Mobile Learning Environments did the best job covering all aspects of mobile learning and categorizing them in a succinct way. They abbreviated their research into RASE – resources, activity, support, and evaluation. Perhaps I liked this model the best because it is very similar to how I have to write lesson plans as it is. There needs to be an in-depth list of steps, evaluation, and resources meanwhile keeping the student learning goals in mind. Like the other articles, this one also discussed mobile learning from the aspect of different learning theories. I also found the most connections to art education in this article, particularly on pages 5 and 6 where they discussed problem-solving and the theories of Jonassen from 2000. In art students need to construct artifacts using problem-solving skills and “strategic decision-making and planning”.

My only struggle at this point in this course is thinking of ways that art can be included in the grand scheme of mobile learning. While I do have some ideas, I fear that the arts may fall by the wayside as they do in other ways when it comes to supplemental materials. It will be interesting to see in the future of this course if I find more apps other than the ‘museum tour apps’ created by museums.

Learning Theories and Education: Toward a Decade of Synergy

This goal of this article was to discuss a synergistic view of traditional research methodologies that pertain to learning and education. There were three strands of learning discussed in the reading: 1) Implicit learning, 2) Informal learning, and 3) Designs for formal learning and beyond. Of the three, the first two strands of learning were the most related. I can also see both of them relating to technology in many ways. First of all, students can learn about apps from a very young age due to Implicit Learning. In my experience, I have seen many children bang around on a tablet or phone until they get the hang of an app and what types of interactions cause things to happen on screen. They don’t know that they’re learning, but they are. I can see how Informal Learning could happen with technology for similar reasons. A child is using some form of tech for leisure purposes and is learning through doing so without even realizing it. Finally, the third section reminded me of interviewing for teaching jobs when the chapter discussed the KUD, how you know when a student is successful, and the process to get them there. The final section of the article also talked about pedagogical content knowledge, innovation, 21st-century learning, and ideas like knowledge building. All the things that I have had to explain on many occasions during an interview. All in all, this article was very informative but I definitely felt that it could have been shorter or at least used fewer repeated examples.

Mobile Learning: Small Devices, Big Issues

This article stood out to me as being well organized and not too long. It discussed ways to successfully use mobile devices to improve learning, which makes mobile learning successful, and challenges for evaluation of mobile learning. I saw many parallels between how learning situations were designed for mobile integration and regular classroom instruction; as they should parallel each other. The article finished up with three levels of evaluating technology in an educational environment, and three in-depth examples of tech use. The one that resonated the most with me as an art teacher was the MyArtSpace project because it enhanced the learning potential of an art-related field trip.

Media Use, Face-to-Face Communication, Media Multitasking, and Social Well-Being Among 8- to 12-Year-Old Girls

This research study provided a more negative view of the impact of media and technology on social interactions. I think that more studies would need to be done to really show the correlation, but it begs the question if the results would be the same if students were polled on their feelings and interactions only while at school. It could be that students with lower self-esteem are less likely to engage in social activities that are face to face, whereas the results from this study make it seem like students who use more media have more negative social perceptions because of using more media. This could just be my own misinformed interpretation but the tone of the article appears to be trying to make a connection that perhaps isn’t there; that using more tech causes you to feel like you are a social outcast and have a poorer self-image. Despite my opinion, the article does give the statement, “This study cannot establish whether there are a cause and effect relationship between media use and [social consequences]. And if there are such relationships, they could well run in both directions simultaneously.”

Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education

While a very interesting read, the main thing I gathered from this selection was that there are different modalities through which people can identify or be identified. On page 109, the reading includes technology to say that a person engages in a variety of different combinations of things, including “…using objects, tools, or technologies in a certain way.” The only connection I can make is that people will see themselves in a certain way depending on how much technology they do or don’t use. This could get in the way of education or help it, depending on how strong a person’s viewpoint of their tech use is. For example, a person might consider themselves to be, ‘old-fashioned’ and thus reject the use of technology in their classroom just based on that identity. They could also see themselves as ‘tech-savvy’ and try to use too much tech in their classroom based on that identity.

Splicing the Divide

The part of this research paper that talked about the integration of popular culture and student interest stood out to me as being very important in this article. I think that this is true for all aspects of education, not just for integrating technology. If a student is learning about something and a pop culture reference is somehow used in relation to the lesson, then the student is more likely to relate to, and thus learn, the material. I also thought it was interesting to see that low-SES schools are more likely to use computers to drill or use a word processor, but the reasons provided didn’t seem to actually be what I have seen in my experiences in low-SES schools. Basically, the author says that students are parked on a computer to give them something to do to keep them from misbehaving. While this is very negative and may be true in some instances, I don’t feel that this is entirely the reason. Students in low-SES schools and neighborhoods are less likely to have as strong of an educational support presence at home than a student from a high-SES area. Because of that fact, students are coming to school less and less prepared every year and therefore need more practice. I have seen many students who don’t know the alphabet or even their name when they start school. Since these students need more remediation than their peers in high-SES areas, it stands to reason that this could be part of the cause for more students to be on computers doing drills. If a student doesn’t have basic skills then they are going to be hard-pressed to do some of the things that high-SES schools were described to be doing on computers. I am not a researcher so perhaps this really isn’t the case, but I can definitely speak from experience in a low-income school that provides education to a low-income area.

Mobile Learning

This article gives a lot of examples of mobile learning that could happen in a classroom setting. What I don’t think this article does very well is delving into the possible successes and failures of each example. While the end of the article does give some general ideas, everything is very brief. I think his ideas for critical success factors are decent, but perhaps ownership should be moved to a different category. In my experience, student ownership of their own devices has caused more issues than anything else, although that is mainly because we don’t have a BYOD policy at the school I work at. I could also see a lot of potential issues even if we did have a BYOD policy or a 1:1 ratio of school-provided tech.

Income, Race, and Class

I liked that this article did not focus entirely on the differences between each group but also talked a lot about the similarities. I also thought it was good that the article gave seemingly valid and believable reasons for why each group responded the way they did. One line stuck out to me as being important, especially as someone who teaches in an urban school, and that was, “Managing and monitoring social media use are secondary concerns.” It really hit home for me because I was never able to understand how parents could allow their children to use their phones in the way that they tend to, but no one had pointed out to me before the obvious fact that being in a low-income situation, those same parents have bigger concerns than what their child is doing with their cell phone. This article was definitely an interesting read.

My name is Jamie Hicks and this is my introduction and blog post about our first week’s reading. I am a K – 8 art teacher at an urban school district in York, PA. I have been teaching since 2010 and would like to incorporate more technology into my classroom. I am studying for my M. Ed. in LDT through Penn State, World Campus to learn as much as I can about how I can use technology to an art classroom.

Our first week’s reading is all about mobile technologies and their classroom applications. Even though this chapter discusses ideas that are in some cases over 10 years old, it still has many valid points about the application of such technologies in learning ecologies. The first couple of paragraphs under the subtitle, Motivation on pages 427 and 428 basically sums up the reason for being in this course right now. With the cost of tech constantly decreasing while it’s capabilities increase, and due to the fact that many schools have a 1:1 ratio of Chromebooks or laptops to students, technology should be integrated into classrooms seamlessly and effectively. By effectively, I mean to increase student knowledge and achievement and not just as an enrichment activity (not that there is anything wrong with enrichment activities, mind you).

The chapter goes on to describe possible uses for handheld wireless devices, or WILDs as they continuously refer to them. The authors briefly mention learning outside of school using these devices. I know that some school districts near me use the 1:1 ratio of Chromebooks to their advantage on snow days by having teachers upload the day’s lessons, readings, homework, etc. into a digital classroom so that students don’t miss a day of school due to inclement weather. This is greatly advantageous to keeping students in an educational mindset even on days off but also in keeping the district on pace per their calendar year (no need for built-in snow days or tacking days onto the end of the year!). They also briefly mentioned on page 434 using ‘WILDs to foster deeper understandings, inquiry processes, and collaborative problem-solving whether as small groups or in whole classrooms.’ After finishing LDT 467, I know that this is a huge reason for the use of technology in classrooms. We learned about all the ways that technology can be used to foster inquiry, collaboration, communication, and incorporate problem-solving abilities through the use of Wikis, blogs, applications, and more. There was also a mention of using cell phones basically as clickers for real-time feedback, questions, and group learning. I think that this would be a great way to include cell phones in the classroom and have used mine during teacher training days with the Kahoot app before for this very reason.

In summation, this chapter described many ideas for how to use technology in the classroom and the reasons why it should be used, such as lower costs and higher performance of WILDs. It also focused on the idea that quality of education was the main goal for using said technology in the classroom at all. There was a point near the end of the chapter that I think really encompasses my own opinion about technology in the classroom and I will share it here as a quote, “…a third type of convergence would also be beneficial to societies worldwide: a convergence between the technical integration being pursued by industry, the research and development being advanced by the learning sciences, and the wisdom of practice of K – 12 educators.” No matter how much technology you add or use in a classroom, it is important that the teacher still be a part of the equation.