Article Review Universal Instructional Design Principles for Mobile Learning Author: Tanya Elias International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning Vol. 12.2 February – 2011 Ida M . Sadjati (3043619) Argadatta Sigit (3043631) MDDE 601B Introduction to Distance Education and Training Instructor: Dr. Krista Francis-Poscente
Th e article presents an overview on how to conduct appropriate instruction al design in DE through mobile devices, based on universal instructional design principles. It provides guidelines and recommendation on how to design a mobile course and cautions that all subjects may not be conducive to this process.
Universal Instructional Design (UID) principles are developed to create flexibility in using the instructional design and educational materials operating systems, and they may be applied to the widest range of students (Connell et al., 1997; Scott et al., 2002; Burgstahler, 2007 in Elias 2010)
Elias (2010) redefined U I D into eight principles which are particularly useful in distance education. They are equitable and flexible use, simple and intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical and technical effort, learning community and support, and instructional climate .
T he goal of UID is to maximize the learning of all students by applying universal design principles to all aspects of instruction e.g. delivery methods, physical environment, information resources, technology, personal interactions, and assessments ( Burgstahler , 2007 in Elias, 2011 ).
Based on UID principles, Elias recommended that m-learning implementation of :
Eq uitable use as deliver content in the simplest possible format and use cloud-computing file storage and sharing sites ; package content in small chunks, consider unconventional assignment options, and leave it to the learner to illustrate and animate courses.
S imple and intuitive means that keep the code simple and use open-source software.
Tolerance for error as scaffold and support situated learning methods.
Low physical and technical effort can be realized through the use of available SMS readers and other mobile-specific assistive technologies.
Learning community and support as encourage multiple methods of
communication, group learners according to technological access and/or
Instructional climate as push regular reminders, quizzes and questions to
There area variety of physical, psychological, visual, learning and hearing challenges faced by many DE students (Moisey, 2004 in Elias 2007).
Ally (2009 in Elias 2011) mentions that mobile technology has the capability to reach people in remote areas, and to enhance the opportunities in obtaining education where there are no schools, teachers, or libraries.
The implementation of mobile technology generate s a new concept in DE named m-learning , which is a personal, unobtrusive, spontaneous, ‘anytime, anywhere’ way to learn and to access educational tools. M-Learning creates new ways of learning which requires a new approach to their instructional designs (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005 in Elias 2011).
According to Elias (2011) m-learning has much in common with traditional forms of face-to-face and online learning with respect both to its pedagogy and its use of technology.
Up to now there are no available standard guidelines in developing instructional materials through mobile devices. This article is a good start to make the standard available
I n our area of interest, th e example of UID is useful since it gives an overview on how to inform such new knowledge or information to agricultural extension workers which will then pass it on to farmers.
The article has value in that it warns us not to be lulled by the glitter of future technology, instead of we have to concern ourselves with how to design appropriate mobile technology instructions and their application in the world of DE , so that the application of mobile technology in DE is not dominated and dictated by business interests .
T he example provided such as the implementation of SMS technology was just public information that was not related to any courses.
The article was not supported enough by previous research on the similar topic and best practices on the implementation of UID on developing m-learning courses.
T his article was not supplied by appropriate examples on mobile technology are already applied in field of DE.
T he instructional design of low-end handheld are mixed with the high-end ones; thus it is not clear for readers which are still novice in mobile technology to differentiate among the recommended alternatives.
T he use of cloud-computing file storage that is put under equitable usage is actually only available for students who own at least mid-class handheld.
The article provide some appropriate evidences which are t heoretically related as a concept but not as the imp l emented model. The examples which are presented, came from many conditions which might be incompatible one to the other if they are implemented as a whole packet.
There is unclear definition of mobile learning meant by the author, then it caused confusion during the presentation of examples in order to show the concept implementation.
T here are enough and convincing evidences applied in this article, eventhough some of them are incompatible, at least it can enrich our knowledge on implementing UID in mobile technology.
Elias’ article about UID for mobile learning was a model of instruction al design that appropriate to be used for distance learning. Since there appears to be a pparently mobile learning using handheld computers is developing rapidly, this suggests that the choice of appropriate instructional design for promoting distance learning using modern technologies continues to be a critical component to all instructional designs.