Models Advancing Mobile Technology Integration
This weeks provided reading assignments discuss two perspectives on the implementation of mobile learning technologies. In “Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective” Kearney et al. talk about pedagogical framework from a sociocultural perspective while Chee-Kit Looi et al. research mobile integration through “seamless learning” in “Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda”. I also chose to review the empirical research article by Looi and colleagues. It includes the overview, data collection and results of the case study referenced in our assigned reading and explores the mobilization of a third grade science curriculum used in a Singapore primary school. One thing that I appreciate about these resources is that the authors are honest and encourage the need for more research in these areas. This is a recurring theme in a lot of mobile learning case studies, theories and pedagogical research we’ve read recently. There is no “off-the-shelf” methodology for us to adopt (Looi et al, Pg. 162) at this point. However, with the information in these pieces of writing and research we have a good start as to how we might design instruction and utilize best practices when integrating mobile learning technologies.
From a pedagogical perspective Kearney et al. explore three central features of mobile learning according to their most current framework: authenticity, collaboration and personalization. They also look at mobile learning from a sociocultural perspective. This “suggests that learning is affected and modified by the tools used for learning, and that reciprocally learning tools are modified by the ways that they are used for learning. Central to this position, learning is a situated, social endeavor, facilitated and developed through social interactions and conversations between people and mediated through tool use.” (Kearney et al., Pg. 1). The current framework highlights personalization, authenticity and collaboration as the features of mobile learning additionally taking inconsideration the conception of time and space. Features of personalization include learner choice, agency and self-regulation as well as customization. Authentic tasks provide real world relevance and personal meaning to the learning and collaboration supports the idea that social interaction, conversation and dialogue are fundamental to learning from a sociocultural perspective as people engage in establishing meaning. This framework was validated using four methods. First, feedback was obtained from mobile learning researchers after presenting versions of the framework at a series of meetings. Second, intra-researcher validation was achieved through discussions amongst the designers of the framework. Third, each process of the framework was tested by using it to analyze existing mobile learning initiatives called “Mobagogy” and “Bird in the Hand”. Lastly, an expert in pedagogy from within the group was asked to critique the framework (Kearney et al., Pg. 5). The authors hope that this framework will help professionals’ “understand and analysis of unique teaching challenges in mobile learning environments and facilitate their design of mobile learning experiences and resources” (Kearney et al. Pg. 15).
Looi et al. describe seamless learning as the “continuity of learning experience across different scenarios or contexts, and emerging from the availability of one device or more per student” (Pg. 154). The challenge is to design seamless learning environments that allow learners to learn whenever and wherever they can, between informal and formal learning experiences and individual and social learning spaces. The use of mobile learning technologies facilitate communication, collaboration, sharing and learning in informal settings. Significant factors in mobile learning integration through seamless learning include the pedagogical shift from teacher-centered to student-centered learning and the distinction between formal learning and informal learning and how we can connect those learning experiences. The framework for seamless learning is based on a theory by Hollan, Hutchins and Kirsch (2001). They project three principals in which cognitive processes occur: distributed across members of the social group; distributed over time; and involve coordination between internal and external structure. The authors encourage an ethnographic approach to the research and design of seamless learning environments. While seamless learning theory has its methodological, technical, and assessment related challenges it gives us an idea yet another approach to mobile learning integration. Coincidently (before I realized it related directly to one of our assigned readings), I also chose to review the implementation of this framework in the empirical article for this research “1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: a study of learning effectiveness”. In this study they research the effectiveness of a mobilized curriculum in a primary (3rd grade) science class in Singapore. Fostering in the ideas from our class provided article they set up a study where one group of students received mobile-enhanced instruction while other groups received traditional instruction based off of the curriculum requirements. The groups of students took the same traditional assessment as the end of the 21 week case study period. “Results show that among the classes, the experimental class performed better than the other classes. With mobilized lessons students were found to learn science in personal, deep and engaging ways as well as developed positive attitudes towards mobile learning”. Teachers in the experiment also had positive experiences using the technology and methodology for seamless learning.
I felt that these two perspectives had a few main ideas in common. First was the use of mobile technologies to facilitate collaboration in learning. I’ve read quite of few learning theories that highlight the importance of working collaboratively. Advancements in technology allow students not only to work side by side on their devices but also to communicate and share information with learners all over the globe. Second, to authentic learning experiences with real world applications. Although Looi et al. don’t use the word authentic in their research I felt that the experiences that they encouraged through the mobilization of the third grade science curriculum proved this connection to be true. Especially in the activity where students were encouraged to interview a parent at home and share what they learned. I think a point can be made there for making authentic connections outside of the classroom and creating a deeper connection to learning the material. Lastly, the ability of technology to transform traditional ideas of the space and time in which learning should happen. These two frameworks discuss the idea that mobile learning technologies help to bridge the gap between formal and informal learning. This continues to be one of the more talked about challenges in mobile learning; measuring the learning that is happening outside of the formal environment and across various contexts. There is much to consider in the way of designing instruction and integrating mobile technologies. These articles where particularly helpful to me this week as I intend on focusing my final project for this course on the design of instruction and implementation of mobile technologies in the classroom.
References
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.
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
Looi, C.-K., Zhang, B., Chen, W., Seow, P., Chia, G., Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2011). 1:1 mobile inquiry learning experience for primary science students: A study of learning effectiveness. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 269-287. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00390.x
rrr45 says
Hi Hannah,
The elements of time and space were great to read from different authors. The shared idea that both have different and modern definition nowadays due to technology was something that I was nodding in agreement. Knowing that you want to develop mobile based instructions, what are your views of artifact’s roles within that topic? Looi et all factor that feature into their diagram, elaborating that technical challenges it presents.
Heidi Michelle Martin says
Hi Hannah,
You mention your appreciation that much of the research that we are reading for this course recognizes the need for more study. I also appreciate this. Mobile technology for learning is such a new area and it has great potential but it concerns me that we may not yet have a firm foundation. In my district, I have frequent conversations with our tech director about the lack of evidence that this technology is actually improving learning outcomes. As many of us are aware, the actual problem is probably more in line with testing that does not accurately assess 21st century skills, however, we need to be able to provide pedagogically sound ideas. The LDT program is definitely supporting me with this and like you, I feel as though we are making significant progress when we link the technology use to researched pedagogy.