The first article I read was “Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load—a format assessment perspective” and it discussed an experiment that intended to determine if students would be negatively impacted by technology if they had a higher cognitive load than students in a traditional setting with the same criteria. The article was difficult to read as it listed off a lot of formulas and acronyms related to the study. The main findings of the study concluded that if the children in the study had a higher cognitive load (which was determined by a formula) while using the mobile technology, that the technology was negatively impacting their learning. To me, it sounded more like the PDA version was harder and could be confusing compared to the traditional classroom model. However, they determined through theories and formulas that the two methods were comparable and attributed the lower scores and higher mental strain to the technology. They did mention near the end of the article that they felt “…with a proper learning design, the effect of mobile and ubiquitous learning can be much better than that of the traditional approach.” So perhaps they were acknowledging that the design of the lesson on the PDAs was the problem after all and not the PDAs themselves.

The second article I read was “‘It’s more funner than doing work’: Children’s perspectives on using tablet computers in the early years of school” and it was centered around the viewpoints of children as they pertain to their education. They did a study that was set up to view the impact of tablets on math and literacy skills in a group of children in Ireland. By the end of the article, it seems that they didn’t have conclusive evidence of improved skills in either area. They only had recommendations for what types of things to take into consideration when choosing apps for student mobile devices. They identified three key themes across their data sets, which were: “links with home, fun and games, choice and competition.” They talked about the fact that children in this study had seamless interactions between home and school on their tablets, but they discussed more home details when talking with researchers about their use. They would mention the names of people and places where they would use their tablets, showing that these things were important to them. When talking about tablet use at school, they didn’t mention names or locations. There was also a big emphasis on games, choice, and competition. Children enjoyed those three things the most when talking with researchers about what apps they liked to use. The competition included a competition to beat their own high scores, not just to compete with others. They also liked when they had to earn a high enough score to get a prize or reward, such as new in-game content. The article concluded by basically saying that we need to listen more to children and what they say about apps when choosing what apps to use with each age group. Children were described in the article as being the primary source of information about what children like and respond to, and as such, their voices should be heard.

The third article I read was “Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology–enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies” and it was about flipped classrooms and the use of mobile technology. The whole idea behind a flipped classroom is that the content that would traditionally be covered in class is covered before or after class, and the content and tasks that are traditionally done before or after class would be done during class. In this way, students would learn and construct knowledge outside of class (perhaps at home) and then do their homework or project during class. In this way, it creates more dialog between the teacher and student in clearing up confusion and clarifying and solidifying new ideas. The article also discussed the 5C’s of 21st-century learning/skills and proposes that a flipped classroom and flipped learning could better contribute to learning the 5C’s than a traditional classroom setting.

A theme that I keep seeing come up was mentioned here. It should be a no-brainer but apparently is a big hang-up for some when designing their lesson and unit plans. That theme is: “…that the success of mobile technology-supported seamless learning heavily depends on the teachers’ learning designs.” Basically, the success of the lesson depends on how well the teacher designs and implements it. With this in mind, the article finishes by sharing examples and in-depth ideas for promoting the 5C’s and the flipped classroom in general.

Finally, the case study I chose is also about the flipped classroom and it is titled “A Learning Analytics Approach to Investigating Factors Affecting EFL Students’ Oral Performance in a Flipped Classroom”. It describes an 18-week case study of students who are taking English as a foreign language and using Facebook as their classroom’s platform.

1. Chu, H. C. (2014). Potential negative effects of mobile learning on students’ learning achievement and cognitive load—a format assessment perspective. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(1). 332–344.
2. Dunn, J., Gray, C., Moffett, P., & Mitchell, D. (2018). ‘It’s more funner than doing work’: Children’s perspectives on using tablet computers in the early years of school. Early Child Development and Care, 188(6), 819–831.
3. Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology–enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449–473.
4. Lin, C., & Hwang, G. (2018). A Learning Analytics Approach to Investigating Factors Affecting EFL Students’ Oral Performance in a Flipped Classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 205-219. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/stable/26388398