Examples of Mobile Computers in Designed Learning Environments
Developing Mobile Based Instruction
I chose to review an article about implementing mobile based instruction because it is an area that continues to interest me as we move throughout this course. The curious thing about mobile based instruction is that although it is becoming increasingly prevalent in formal learning environments and more case studies are being done, research has not identified much consistency or “best practice” to the instructional design process using mobile technologies and there are few studies out there that have collected measurable data representative of the learning that takes place using mobile technology. Prior to reading this article I hadn’t taken much time to explore the design and development perspective of mobile learning like it is presented here. In “Developing Mobile Based Instruction” by Martin et. al. take a closer look at mobile learning through Traxlers (2009) “Miniature but portable elearning” category. It has become increasingly important that instructional designers be familiar in designing for mobile platforms yet, there is minimal research on miniature e-learning that can be utilized in designing for the mobile domain” (Martin et. al, Page 47).
In this reading we take a look at two case studies whose participants are graduate students at Southeastern University. Students participating in a “Computer Based Instruction” course were asked to develop mobile instruction for the mobile web using Adobe Dreamweaver. For the project they were asked to create a 10-minute tutorial on a topic of their choosing. Projects needed to include an introductory screen, objective screen, practice interface, and feedback for both correct and incorrect answers. The first example was a tutorial to teach visitors of the Saguaro National Park how to identify rattlesnakes. The second a tutorial on knowing how to evaluate information from library resources using “CRITIC”. Participant reflection after the study concluded that size was a challenge in designing for mobile delivery. “The small screen dictated many of the design and content decisions for the project and put limitations on the amount of content that could be delivered without overwhelming the learner” (Martin et. al, Page 49). Another challenge was usability of the mobile design. Navigation and organization had to be simplified to facilitate usability. Lastly, content design alone posed its own challenges. Students reported that content needed to complement the delivery, as well as be instructionally sound. A simpler design allows content to take center stage. (Martin et. al, Page 49).
Ultimately the results of the case study suggest that we need to consider mobile development and delivery methods, product testing, and developing from a distance (testing sites outside of the classroom) when developing instruction using mobile devices. “The mobile device has the potential to aid the teaching and learning experience. The increasing use, availability and low cost of equipment invites educators to begin finding ways to successfully use these devices in their classrooms” (Martin et. al, Page 51.) I enjoyed reading this article because in addition to discussing the implementation of mobile learning it also highlighted the design and development aspects and challenges of mobile based instruction.
Practical Example of Mobile Technology Integration
The video link below is my practical example of mobile technology integration using the Flipgrid application. I’ve discussed and reviewed Flipgrid in my past blog posts because I think it’s such a cool application. Prior to this assignment I hadn’t explored much outside what my basic knowledge and implementation of the app was and I found this example. The video highlights some of the cool features of the app and points out how this apps creates relationships and connections to content through online video blog interactions. Joyce Valenza, a program director at Rutgers University, speaks in the video and makes a great connection. She talks about “using technology in authentic ways not just for consuming but for creating. The authenticity of video and voice really helps build community and relationships and relationships are what it’s all about. Learning happens best when there is a relationship between the faculty member and the students and among the students”. Michael Shehane another speaker calls this generation of students the “selfie generation”. The Flipgrid app provides a familiar interface for kids growing up in this increasingly digital day and age. It provides yet another mobile tool that helps to bridge the gap between formal and informal learning environments with mobile technology. Students can participate in learning anywhere at anytime along with the guidance of an instructor.
Empirical Article Reviews
Social Anxiety and Technology
The two articles I chose to review for the last part of our assignment this week fall into the category of teens using technology as they relate to human behavior and education. The first article “Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens” by Tamyra Pierce explores the role that social anxiety plays on how teens communicate with others (technologically or face-to-face(FTF). Many young people use socially interactive technology(SIT) to communicate on a regular basis. “Although some research suggests that computer mediated technologies and SIT’s promote and even increase FTF social interaction, others argue that these technologies allow users to avoid or replace FTF communication” (Pierce, Page 2). Most individuals are motivated by a need to feel included or a sense of belonging. SIT’s provide a tool for more introverted people (those who may have social anxiety) to have a voice. It allows the individual to think and edit what they say before they say it. For socially anxious individuals SIT’s could have both a negative and positive effects. It hinders their interactions face-to-face but still fulfills a sense of belonging.
The research done in this article is focused around a series of hypotheses:
- H1: Females will report using socially interactive technology (text messaging, cell phone, email, social networking site, IM) more so than do males.
- H2a: There will be a relationship between not feeling comfortable with talking with others in person(social anxiety) and feeling more comfortable talking with others online
- H2b: There will be a relationship between not feeling comfortable talking with others in person and feeling more comfortable text messaging others instead of talking in person
- H2c: There will be a negative relationship between social anxiety and making new friends online
- H3: Females will report more social anxiety with FTF interactions than will males.
- H4: Females will report feeling more comfortable talking with others via a social SIT than will males.
Participants in this study consisted of 280 high school students that ranged in age from 14-20. They completed a self-report questionnaire that consisted of of demographic questions as well as items that asked about student’s comfort level in interacting with others FTF, online, using a cell phone or text messaging. “Analyses revealed a positive relationship between social anxiety and talking with others online or via text. In contrast, there was a positive relationship between the lack of social anxiety and making friends online” (Pierce, Page 1). The research involving gender differences showed that female students felt more social anxiety than males. Additionally, females also feel more comfortable engaging in SIT vs. FTF communication than males.
I think the results of this research have both positive and negative implications for education. From one perspective it could help reduce anxiety and increase participation if students were able to communicate via mobile technology for educational use. In contrast, I think it’s equally important for students to practice good social and communication skills face-to-face. The social environment could ultimately be used as a tool to increase comfortability with communicating in a face-to-face environment.
Can Students Really Multitask?
I was interested in reading about the results of the second research article I chose “Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading” by Bowman et. al. “The constantly changing array of new media has contributed to a way of life based on multitasking and “continuous partial attention” (Friedman, 2006)” (Bowman et. al, Page 1). This particular research study expands research done by Fox et al (2009) that found participants who IMed while reading did not score differently than those who did not; however, it took them significantly longer to complete the task. This research added the element of taking the time to calculate reading time and subtract the amount of time the participant spent using IM. There were two performance groups, one group received IMs before reading the passage, while another received no IMs. The hypothesis was that “students who were interrupted by IMs would take longer to read the passage (with IMing time removed) and would perform more poorly on a test of their understanding” (Bowman et al., Page 4).
The research participants included eighty-nine college students aged 17-46 years. They used a computer program designed to simulate an environment where students would read an academic source while receiving simulated instant messages online. Reading comprehension was tested using a multiple choice test. Students also completed a demographic survey and a paper-and-pencil task that had them answer questions about whether or not the instructions were clear and if the simulation was representative of their typical IM experiences. As a result of this research the hypotheses were partially supported. Student’s did in fact take a longer period of time to read the passage when they IMed during the reading. However, there were no significant differences in academic performance on the reading comprehension. These results do indeed support the finding of Fox et al. Although multitasking does not hinder academic performance it does affect the time it takes a student to complete said task.
At first these results were surprising to me. We use computers in my classroom on a regular basis and I often find students off task. It’s interesting to me that their academic performances are not affected by this type of distraction; however, I can confirm from experience that it absolutely increases the amount of time students would need to complete that academic task. I tell my students all the good time management skills are the most effective tool in my classroom, because there is the temptation to go on other websites etc. similar to that of answering an IM.
References
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927-931. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024
[Flipgrid Social]. (2016, Nov. 4). Flipgrid: The power of student voice. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A-pbE9qXD4
Martin, F., Pastore, R., & Snider, J. (2012). Developing mobile based instruction.TechTrends, 56 (5), 46-51.
Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367-1372. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003
rrr45 says
Hi Hannah,
Your choice to focus on mobile based instruction is a good choice because of its exponential reach to a large audience. I think finding best practices will be based on different types of learners and their device of choice as smartphones and tablets vary in size and use. As mentioned in the case study using Adobe Dreamweaver, screen size can impact the type of content include in an instructional module.
The latter 2 articles also pair well with your topic since interaction and engagement play important roles towards the receptiveness of a mobile based instruction. Finding the right balance between screen time and face-to-face communication is crucial for developing 21st century skills. Overcompensating one area for another can delay or derail a learning process for any individual.
Your example of flipgrid was great to watch. I’ve never come across it before but it seems to be a great evaluating tool. Is it something you might use in your project? Or in your own work environment?
Marty says
Hi Hannah,
I also read the Martin et al. piece and I found it Interesting on several levels. First, I agree with you that there is no “best practice” or much data regarding the implementation of mobile learning. It seems like we are in the “wild west” phase of mobile learning where the structure and guidelines are just being developed. It would always be easier and helpful to have a Mobile Learning for Dummies book to guide us, but it also is kind of exciting to know that those of us who are working to promote mobile learning are shaping the landscape.
I think the Martin et al. study also shows some proactivity and foresight in looking to design for mobile devices. That is a key step in knowing your audience. I think often times, even for a desktop environment, resources get designed without really regarding the audience or platform of use. Actually, one of the empirical articles I reviewed this week speaks of this. In “Students and mobile devices,” John Traxler bluntly discusses that even going back to desktops, the technologies were never intended for educational use, but for “retail niches and corporate markets” and this is still the case with mobile devices. He sees this as a challenge for educational designers to develop educationally sound devices. So, the design of the educational resources certainly should be a key factor.
This makes me wonder, are there any devices designed specifically for education? Chromebooks – maybe, but just in the simplicity. The Google Suite is key to the educational value, not necessarily the actual device.
So it seems like the design of educational apps and resources should be a focus. However, I think it would get difficult to design specifically for the many differing devices