Project Description

This project is meant to demonstrate the “Learning” portion of the MEd LDT degree. Constructivist principles are at the heart of all of my designs, and these blueprints were a valuable exercise in allowing theory to shape design. While teaching for understanding, problem based learning, and even seamless mobile learning may not be utilized in every course I design, these blueprints were pivotal in understanding how to translate a theoretical framework into an applicable subject matter or topic. When I refer to Grounded Design being an overall ethos of my process, it is this process to which I refer.

In first learning about constructivist, cognitivist, and behaviorist learning theories, it seemed inevitable that designers and instructors would be prompted to choose a primary theory with which to build their learning environments. As such, it was all too easy to pass judgement on the behaviorist or cognitivist structures of the past. While my designs are intended to be more of a partnership in the constructivist sense, I recognize the value in behaviorist conditioning and even cognitivist, guided pathways. In my estimation, psychomotor skills require behaviorist conditioning principles, and cognitive apprenticeship in most real-world contexts requires a mentor with cognitivist methods for its dependence on interpersonal relationships and anticipating needs and motivation.

The three blueprints presented for this project showcase my process for matching theory with material, and using that theory as a boundary to reimagine a learning environment. The Teaching for Understanding (TFU) blueprint is applying an inexact objective, “understanding”, which is inexact because it is not a demonstrable goal, to a concept which is also inherently abstract: how sensory or concrete language is used in poetry. By applying the TFU frame to poetry, it utilizes the component of “messing around” to transform and document the abstract into an artifact: a poem. Then, the public “performance” comes from sharing the poem with others, utilizing additional social learning (Perkins and Unger, 1999).

The Problem-Based Learning (PBL) Blueprint is also an exercise in identification of an appropriate topic, building a gradebook, and using the “ill-structure[d]” challenge that is building an assessment strategy with very real and pragmatic considerations. (Lu et al., 2014) Using the PBL framework, the overall goal is to elicit the learner to build their own learning strategies, which overlaps with this topic in that they must build a strategy to build a strategy, which intends to halve the work rather than double it; through the practice of creating a learning strategy for figuring out the tool itself, learners can use that experience to create a strategy for assessment in their own courses, thus deepening a habit of inquiry and efficiency.

The Seamless Mobile Learning blueprint, interestingly enough, coincided with my coursework for LDT 505, and so provided a way to engage differently with the material in that course. I also chose to design for a K12 learner to examine a different perspective than that which I normally inhabit (adult learners) which offered a new entry to integration and a breadth of new considerations. Utilizing what I knew of the affects of mobile devices on the brains of young people and how it can harm important developmental neurological connections (Pea et al., 2012) I wanted to choose a space that would counteract these effects, as well as provide a symbiotic altered state of learning. This meant using a mobile device to learn more about the natural world, and using the natural world to diminish the affect of a mobile device. When choosing the apps, I reached into the issues around access from LDT 505, as well as my work from LDT 440 and the affordances to identify a need first and then a solution, as well as identifying additional benefits which would deepen the lesson material.

---

Teaching for Understanding Blueprint: Concrete Imagery

Part One: Overview  

Higher education English courses, even the entry level courses, touch upon poetic terminology. Creative writing courses require students to have advanced levels of rhetorical and poetic skills in all modes: fiction, non-fiction, poetry, and others. The context provided here is an entry level creative writing course at a community college, which has prerequisites that include the survey literature and composition courses. In this way, the learners will have been introduced to basic concepts but not much deeper of an engagement. In a community college setting, learners will be from varied backgrounds, and varied experiences with poetic forms. It is likely that many will have a misconception about what constitutes poetic language, and will need near explicit permission to change that conception. The culture around poetry has long-standing been one of elitism, and part of the design presented here will be to ground this attitude in the benefits of exact and vivid description. 

The topic which this design targets is concrete imagery: a keystone concept in all forms of writing, but is most essential to fiction and poetry. It may be counterintuitive to link such a core concept to the forms that are arguably furthest from “reality” (as opposed to nonfiction), but it is precisely this reason why writing realistically is so crucial: there is no tether for the reader to connect with their own lives without the writer making such a choice. To say nothing of the power of fiction and poetry in shaping beliefs and attitudes, it is the descriptions which can dilute, or clarify an image or idea in the reader’s mind. The term “concrete” refers to the language used in description-is it rooted in real life? Does it speak to the senses in that experience? For example, in the book Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier, one of the primary characters has a wound he describes:

“Before it started scabbing, it spit out a number of things: a collar button and a piece of wool collar from the shirt he had been wearing when he was hit, a shard of soft grey metal as big as a quarter dollar piece, and unaccountably, something that closely resembled a peach pit.” (Frazier, p.4) 

The underlined words and phrases are examples of concrete imagery. This description of this wound contains symbolism of greater themes of the book (the trauma of war, the sins and legacy of slavery unearthed) but the concrete language depicts the scene with speficity and allows for the inference of meaning. There is an appropriate motto in many poetry workshops appropriate here: “show don’t tell.” This means in nearly every case, the role of the writer is to illustrate a scene in lieu of making explicit the why of the scene. There have been many successful writers with similar advice, and all of it centers upon understanding and executing concrete imagery. Conclusions may be drawn about the experience based on the sensual language used, however the goal is for the image to be refined in such a way that it successfully transfers to the reader, i.e. they can “picture” it. Reaching a level of skill with utilization of such language requires a large amount of meta-cognition and reflection, as well as a varied and distributed vocabulary. The second can be achieved through reading the works of others, but the first requires the active participation of the learner and an instructor, and multiple opportunities for feedback which is what this blueprint will address.

Part Two: Design Components

The learning (understanding) goals for this topic are: 

1. 1. Learners will define and identify concrete sensory language (verbs, adjectives, and adverbs) within the written works of others. This will have public aspects in it’s employment within the design: students will be responsible for adding examples to the canon. This goal is also part of a greater objective to sharpen the learners as critical readers. In this way, it will be useful in literature and creative writing courses alike. 
   2. Learners will write a sentence with concrete imagery with the criteria that it can be graphically portrayed. What the learners create will be shared with the class, and can extend into a larger community of writers and artists. Identifying is one side of the coin of arts and letters, but creation of novel language is the other. 
   3. Learners will identify and expand commonly used concrete and sensory language in their own writing. This is arguably the least public of the goals, but when utilized in a workshop setting, the improvements of their language choices will be noticed by many. This goal is central to the learner’s continuity of creativity, supporting their lifelong relationship with their own writing.

Demonstrative words are chosen here in part to build a bridge to the assessments and performance of understanding. In keeping with the nature of the topic, it felt important to execute a simple design. Using the constructivist design principle “Teachers must teach some subject matter in depth, providing many examples in which the same concept is at work and providing a firm foundation of factual knowledge” (Bransford et al, p.20) as a guide, the first part of the design is explication of the concept of “concrete imagery” involving the repetition of the definition alongside examples through lecture and reading, and the other part is discernment through activity. I will articulate the design through these two phases: 

• Phase One: defining the concept of concrete imagery and providing examples of its use (“messing around” and “guided inquiry”, Perkins and Unger, 1999)
• Phase Two: activating the concept through trial and error toward a communication goal, i.e. telling a story (“guided inquiry” and ‘performance’, Perkins and Unger, 1999)

Phase One

Step One: Addressing current understanding of poetry and storytelling

This step will focus heavily on discussion. Students will be encouraged to bring examples of poetry, criteria will be as follows: any piece of writing that uses language artfully to describe something. This is to appraise where their current understanding lies: “Students come to the classroom with preconceptions about how the world works. If their initial understanding is not engaged, they may fail to grasp the new concepts and information that are taught, or they may learn them for purposes of a test but revert to their preconceptions outside the classroom.” (Bransford et al, p. 14-15). The instructor will identify poetic imagery in the examples, identifying sensory images and how they were achieved. This satisfies the self-directed discovery, or “messing around” as well as the beginning of guided inquiry. 

Step Two: Read examples of concrete images

The instructor will curate and prepare examples of concrete imagery in various contexts (“guided inquiry”), informed by the students’ choices of writers when appropriate. Again, to quote Bransford et al: “Teachers must teach some subject matter in depth, providing many examples in which the same concept is at work and providing a firm foundation of factual knowledge” (p. 20). In utilizing writers they are already familiar with, there is an added dimension of relevancy and cultural responsiveness. There will be some formative assessment attached to this step (see below) which will begin to hone their identification of concrete language.

Phase Two

Step One: Create concrete imagery

Learners will participate in descriptive episodes, wherein they must utilize sensory, concrete language to describe a scene (performance). The scene can be any appropriate one of their own choosing, continuing the thread of relevance. This will be a trial run for their performative work in the next step, but will primarily focus on singular phrases rather than an entire composition. The learners will be given peer and instructor feedback solely on whether the scene described could be depicted. The structure for this will be an activity where the reader has to sketch what is being described to reflect the language being used. This is in part to “engage in multiple learning styles and forms of expression” (Perkins and Unger, p.105) to utilize graphic depictions as a tool for reflection for the writer, but it is also to challenge their skill as readers to pay attention to details. Learners will also begin to note their frequently used word choices in a journal, following the guidance of Bransford et al: “The teaching of metacognitive skills should be integrated into the curriculum in a variety of subject areas” (p.20). 

Step Two: Build a narrative from many concrete images

Learners will now embark on combining descriptions to create a cohesive narrative. They may choose to expand upon an image already created (which would link the concept to a greater concept of symbolic language) or they may create a narrative and imbue it with sensory description. Then the class will participate in a peer to peer workshop, where they will provide and collect feedback. This will support pattern building, as they will likely experience agreement among each other as readers and writers for the concrete imagery identified. Recognizing patterns in their own writing also further supports metacognition, which promotes a student-centric learning environment as it “can help students learn to take control of their own learning by defining learning goals and monitoring their progress in achieving them” (Bransford et al, p.19). As writers collect their feedback, they will also continue to build their journal of commonly used language. The final piece of this step is for each learner to create an alternative, concrete word choice for every commonly used word (constructed artifact).

Ongoing Assessment

As described above, learners will take part in many opportunities to receive and provide peer to peer feedback. As a facilitator, the instructor will also comment on the feedback provided (correct as needed) as well as provide their own unique feedback to the writer. There will be two sets of criteria employed, one for the writing, and one for feedback. The writing will be judged solely on the vividness and realism of the language provided, for example: 

“I felt the doorknob with my hand” vs “The metal doorknob chilled my hand as I grasped it”

The first uses the verb “felt” and the “doorknob” is not given any details. In the second, the doorknob is described as “metal” and cold, and is grasped (a specific action, distinct from just touching). This writing would prompt feedback from readers that they could not sense any details, and the instructor would provide prompting feedback in the form of investigative questions, i.e. “what did the doorknob look like?” 

Feedback will be judged based on its attention to contextual details (did they read thoroughly) and recognition of sensory language. Using the example above “I felt the doorknob with my hand” proper feedback would include similar to “there are no specific details about how it felt or how it looked.” Improper feedback would include similar to “I like this!” or “I can see the doorknob”- because when prompted they would not be able to recall what the doorknob looked like as there were no details provided (the technique of recall can be employed by the facilitator to sharpen feedback as needed). 

Works Cited

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). Learning: From Speculation to Science. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.

Perkins, D., & Unger, C. (1999). Teaching and learning for understanding. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory 3rd ed (pp. 91–114).

---

Problem Based Learning Blueprint: Build a Gradebook

Part One: Overview 

Experienced instructors teaching face to face or online are familiar with the principles and merits of grading either instinctively or from teaching their own classes term after term. Depending on the course or subject area, they may be provided total autonomy over the details of their grading structure, or they may have to adhere to certain guidelines. In providing training for instructors at the community college level that are teaching for the first time, it becomes clear that while they may be subject matter experts, very few have had to look critically at the question of quantitative assessment. There is an additional juncture at which this also requires consideration: when seasoned instructors have to transfer their existing grading structure to a software or program, such as a learning management system (LMS). It is these two groups of learners on whom this design will focus. They will hail from diverse subject matters and so while the process will be the same, the specific artifacts will likely vary drastically. The goal of the design is to elicit “learning strategies rather than teaching content knowledge” (Lu et al., p.303) so they feel empowered to make choices in the tool. This lesson will be within a course designed for certification of teachers at a community college, alongside other topics such as how to sequence topics, how to build a syllabus, and others.

The learning environment for this lesson will be face-to-face in a computer lab and learners will be required to create their gradebook inside of D2L Brightspace, a learning management system, during the lesson. Part of the ill-structure involves more permanent decisions, but much of it involves discussing solutions and testing them against hypothetical scenarios which will help to shape their overall grading philosophy and thus-their gradebook. This lesson is suited for PBL because it requires careful weighing of several variables to build something with “functional specifications” (Lu et al., p.304). The gradebook is necessary not just for them to fulfill their contractual obligations with the institution, but also to communicate with students about their performance of learning against relevant criteria (selected for its authenticity) and is thus a critical component of teaching and learning. However, the form which it takes is highly subjective which is why it is an ill-structured problem, and why collaboration can help flesh out solutions. 

Part Two: Design Components

Learning Goals

• Create a grade scheme (ex: “A,B,C…” or “complete/incomplete”)
• Define grade categories of activities and their weight
• Define grade items within categories and their weight
• Clarify student experience through decisions for settings
• Simulate student experience 

Problem Scenario

The problem scenario for the learners to consider is “What grading system do I want to construct?” Layered within this question are choices around assessment strategies, student motivation, communication with students about progress, among others. The learner will come prepared with their syllabus and what activities they plan to conduct-this much has been decided previous to the lesson. They will have completed a course design process generally, and will be firm in the learning objectives for their own course (though they may not be explicitly defined yet). 

Lesson Plan

The lesson plan (tutorial) will be scaffolded to begin with inactive engagement (demonstration), into varying degrees of autonomous active learning, described as a sequence of activities below. The facilitator will begin by demonstrating the grades tool in action, which is part of constructing the problem scenario as well as providing facts. This will involve gradebook examples and how the systems were achieved, varying in form and subject matter. This demonstration will include viewing the student experience for each example. Then learners will engage with their own grade system through active learning (defined by aspects of PBL in the activity heading below) within the authentic task of constructing their own functional gradebook. Among this task, the facilitator will “encourage learner-defined meaning using built-in prompts” (Land et al., p.10) which will contribute to an overall student centered, active learning environment. 

Activity One: Fact finding and/or recall of information

Learners will clarify pertinent guidelines related to their course. The institutional guidelines may be set forth by the college and/or department or a larger governing body, and will precipitate certain initial knowable parameters such as:

• Any required testing
• Required reporting structure (to the greater administration)
• What their course is a requisite for (degree/certificate/upper level)

Activity Two: Activation of prior knowledge 

After learners review their subject area’s guidelines, they will combine these with their policy as currently stipulated in their existing syllabus on a new document in their Google Drive to update their existing syllabus when next available. 

Activity Three: Collaborative learning construction, activation of prior knowledge, and theory building

Using their syllabus, they will create the grade categories (ex: discussions, exams, quizzes, assignments, etc) and will align the grades settings with their current system. This involves using the grades tool using the computer provided to them with over-the-shoulder help from the facilitator. As they do this, the tool will require the learners to describe the weight of that particular category as well as ‘category rules’ that will affect the items nested within, see the screenshot of the tool below of “distribution” at the category level:

As learners ask questions, the facilitator will pose them back to the group, aiding and adjusting answers as needed to assure proper procedure. If the learners do not ask questions, the facilitator will pose questions to individuals about their choices and prompt the group to weigh in. This is to illuminate assumptions about grading and establish “movement from inert and fragmented knowledge to a notion of knowledge as a tool for thinking and acting” (Lu et al., p.301). After the categories are created, learners will create the individual items and assign points to these items. 

Activity Four: Cumulative reasoning and cognitive conflicts leading to conceptual change

Learners will test the alignment of their gradebook in the LMS with their policy and grading design (as established in Activities One and Two). They will do this by posing as a student (“view as student” function) in the LMS and submitting work for a grade. When they do this, they will identify which settings require adjusting to realign the system with their design, re-enter as the instructor, and update the settings as needed. This activity may be repeated multiple times. This will conclude the live session.

Activity Five: Reflection and Evaluation

After their course for which the gradebook was built is completed, the facilitator will send a survey to participants wherein they reflect on how it was built and what they may do differently moving forward. 

References

Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments: Foundations, assumptions and design. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Routledge. 

Lu, J., Bridges, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2014). Problem-Based Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 298–318). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.019

---

Seamless Mobile Learning Blueprint: Outdoor School Plant Identification

Part One: Overview

The context selected for a seamless mobile learning design is an outdoor school curriculum. The learners will be 5-15 year olds who are enrolled in a summer outdoor school, such as Trackers Earth or Straub Outdoors, though the curriculum is generalized to be appropriate for adoption for all age (even pre-K) outdoor schools with minimal customization (smaller adult to child ratio). The learning environment will be an organized group of learners gathered in a state or national park on a designated hiking trail. Autonomy and learner led inquiry are central to the use of mobile technology through the Alltrails app and Plant.id app. The Alltrails app provides the necessary safe structure to separate into smaller groups through a function (“Lifeline”) which can report a location to specific contacts. The learners will have no access to traditional tools of learning, but will instead rely entirely on their organization provided mobile device and group discourse to complete their activities.

The full course encompasses diverse topics ranging from safety and first aid, foraging, sustainability, and others. The unit on which this design focuses is about plant identification, and the lesson will be about identifying invasive species in the Pacific Northwest. Similar lessons could identify invasive species in other regions by employing this design. The lesson objectives align with the larger course objectives concerning ecology and sustainability through the “leave no trace” doctrine and familiarizing oneself with the components of healthy ecosystems, in which invasive species can play a menacing role. 

Part Two: Design Concepts

Lesson Objectives

1. Define invasive 
2. Evaluate discerning plant structure and markings
3. Identify invasive plants of the Pacific Northwest
4. Explain the prevalence of regional invasive plants using evidence gathered through direct observation

The overarching theory which informs this design is situativity (situated learning) as the learning relies upon participation in authentic tasks with the goal of transfer of understanding in order to contribute to a community of practice (Barab and Duffy, 2012). 

In addition to situativity, the design will utilize the following strategies: 

Theoretical Strategy	Mobile Technology Utilization
Experiential Learning (investigation) and Distributed Cognition (Linn et al., 2018) (Looi et al., 2010)	Learners will use the device camera for taking digital photos along the hike They will also discuss with small group and confirm specimen identities via the Plant.id app
Participation in a Community of Practice (Barab et al., 2012)	Learners will have a public contribution to the Reddit thread “Invasive Species” via the Reddit app
Seamless learning (Looi et al., 2010) Construction of artifacts (Berland et al., 2017)	Formal identification activities can transfer into informal identification activities and continued participation in CoP The recorded hike with geolocated photos via Alltrails app and the collection of identified plants stored in Plant.id app (user specific) create digital artifacts

Lesson Activities

The facilitator will provide information prior to the outing for learners to work through. This information will include lecture and reading material which describes invasive species, basic plant structure, and the examples of invasive species living in the Pacific Northwest. Once learners are gathered for the session, the facilitator will model the apps that will be used on the organization provided devices, including Plant.id, Reddit, and Alltrails. Modeling technology for learners is a key component in mobile device integration for instruction (Seilhamer et al.). The devices provided to the learners will be pre-filled with the apps, but the learners will need to log in with their information in order to make participation authentic and the knowledge resilient once the lesson and program have ended. 

Activity One: Hike and Record

“[In seamless learning] learning takes place through individual learning in private learning spaces, collaborative learning in public learning spaces, and cognitive artefacts created across time and physical or virtual spaces mediated by technology within a context” (Looi et al.)

“[Constructionism emphasizes]:

• a broader range of ways to interact easily with computational objects
• wider public access to powerful programmable tools previously limited to small, specialized communities
• broader access to supportive settings in which learners can use these tools while meeting and talking with practicing engineers and scientists who can mentor their learning” (Berland et al., p.21).

Learners will begin the chosen hike and initiate recording via the Alltrails app. As they walk along, they will observe their surroundings and locate and identify suspected invasive species. They will engage in discussion of the assumed sample, and upon agreement it is an invasive species they are required to take a photo within the Alltrails app showing the bulk of the plant body and its surroundings. In addition to this, learners will be required to take at least three additional photos using the device camera. These subsequent photos are required to show the following pieces of the plant’s anatomy close-up: leaf, petiole, stem, nodes, and internodes. This activity will continue through the duration of the hike, repeating as necessary in this order. When the hike is concluded, they will share the Alltrails report with the facilitator. The Alltrails report will show the path of the participants, and will also pinpoint the locations with corresponding photos for the invasive samples with names.

Left: a screenshot of the Alltrails app recording and how to take a photo

Right: a screenshot of the Alltrails app after the recording is finished, showing the photos and their corresponding red location dots.

Activity Two: Confirm Samples

“…autonomous inquiry with models, rather than giving step-by-step instructions, encourages learners to test their own ideas, resulting in better conceptual or mechanistic understanding of a phenomenon. Prompts for learners to engage in self-monitoring and reflection help students achieve more coherent understanding of the phenomenon being modeled” (Linn et al., p.224).

After forming their own hypothesis as to the identity of their samples, learners will upload the pictures from the device camera to the Plant.id app. The app will generate a finding, which will prompt a follow-up discussion between learners as to whether they agree with the conclusion of the app. This discussion must cite evidence from the photos they have gathered against the example photos provided in the app. Question prompts in response to the app’s conclusion include:

• Is the information about climate and location in which the plant can be found accurate to where you located your sample?
• Are there differences in the plant photos from the app and your sample photos?
• Are there additional markings or unique anatomical features noted in the app that you had not previously identified?

This discussion may expand beyond just the small group to include the larger group and the facilitator as needed until an agreement is reached as to the identity of the samples. 

Left: a screenshot of the Plant.id app with probability of identity and more information buttons (Google and “details”)
Right: a screenshot of the Plant.id app details screen for a selected plant

Activity Three: Share to Reddit

“Developing an identity as a member of a community and becoming [knowledgeable] are part of the same process, with the former motivating, shaping, and giving meaning to the latter, which it subsumes.” (Barab and Duffy referencing Lave, p.31).

Upon completion of activity two, or if an agreement is not reached among the group as whole, each small group must share their alltrails report (the app can generate a share link) and photos with the r/invasivespecies Reddit group. Their post must include a short (100-200 word) explanation including the following details:

• The name of the trail with the location (city and state)
• Specific anatomical justifications for their conclusion
• The top three potential identities of their sample along with estimated accuracy % of the Plant.id app

References and Works Cited

Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2012). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 29–65). New York, NY: Routledge.

Berland, M., Halverson, E., Wilkerson, M., & Polman., J. (2017). Expressive Construction: Enabling learners to represent powerful ideas. In Roschelle, J., Martin, W., Ahn, J. & Schank, P. (Eds.), Cyberlearning Community Report: The State of Cyberlearning and the Future of Learning With Technology. Menlo Park CA: SRI International.

Linn, McElhaney, Gerard, & Matuk. (2018). Inquiry Learning and Opportunities for Technology. In F., Fischer, C.E. Hmelo-Silver, S.r. Goldman, P., Reimann (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 221-233). New York, NY: Routledge.

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.

Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., . . . Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327-336. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1037/a0027030

Seilhamer, R., Baiyn, C., Bauer, S., Salter, A., & Bennett, L. (2018) Changing Mobile Learning Practices: A Multiyear Study 2012–2016. Educase. Retrieved June 19, 2020, from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2018/4/changing-mobile-learning-practices-a-multiyear-study-2012-2016