Mobile Learning: Not Just Another Delivery Method


Published on

This paper summarizes a review of literature and a state-of-the-art assessment of instructional design principles, iterative process methodologies, and pedagogical models for mobile learning. The Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative conducted previous research on the effectiveness of mobile course delivery. The implications from that research effort have led ADL to further explore which types of mobile learning require specific pedagogical models and accompanying instructional systems design (ISD) principles. The high level steps of the ISD analysis process may be applicable for specific types of mobile learning such as mobile courses and some types of performance support. Intensive research is needed to consider the ways in which mobile applications and pedagogical approaches can help improve military readiness. Based on the findings from this research study, this paper will provide background learning theory that will ultimately lead to new considerations for supporting mobile learning. Finally, this paper will propose a new framework for supporting mobile learning content within any instructional design (ID) model, but will use the traditional ADDIE model as a starting point.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mobile Learning: Not Just Another Delivery Method

  1. 1. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012 Mobile Learning: Not Just Another Delivery Method Peter Berking Jason Haag Serco, in support of the The Tolliver Group, in support of the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Alexandria, VA Orlando, FL Thomas Archibald Marcus Birtwhistle The Tolliver Group, in support of the Katmai Support Services, in support of the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Alexandria, VA Alexandria, VA ABSTRACTThis paper summarizes a review of literature and a state-of-the-art assessment of instructional design principles,iterative process methodologies, and pedagogical models for mobile learning. The Advanced Distributed Learning(ADL) Initiative conducted previous research on the effectiveness of mobile course delivery. The implications fromthat research effort have led ADL to further explore which types of mobile learning require specific pedagogicalmodels and accompanying instructional systems design (ISD) principles. The high level steps of the ISD analysisprocess may be applicable for specific types of mobile learning such as mobile courses and some types ofperformance support. Intensive research is needed to consider the ways in which mobile applications andpedagogical approaches can help improve military readiness. Based on the findings from this research study, thispaper will provide background learning theory that will ultimately lead to new considerations for supporting mobilelearning. Finally, this paper will propose a new framework for supporting mobile learning content within anyinstructional design (ID) model, but will use the traditional ADDIE model as a starting point. ABOUT THE AUTHORSPeter Berking has more than 17 years of experience in a broad base of instructional design and developmentactivities, for products ranging from technology-driven e-learning products and performance support systems toinstructor-led courses. He is a subject matter expert in instructional design and advanced learning technologies,publishing articles for industry publications and presenting at conferences. Peter has been an Instructional Designerat the ADL Co-Lab in Alexandria, VA since 2008. He has supported ADL through papers, articles, consultations,workshops, presentations, course design, and prototypes. Formerly a K-12 educator, he is embedded on staff at ADLthrough Serco, Inc. in Rockville, MD, and has been Principal Instructional Designer at Serco since 1995. He has anM.A. in Instructional Research and Curriculum Development from U.C. Berkeley and a Professional Certificate inInstructional Design from Marymount University.Jason Haag’s interest and background is in learning systems, web technology, and standards. He spent eight yearssupporting the U.S. Navy’s eLearning program in both engineering and management roles before joining theAdvanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative. He is currently employed by The Tolliver Group, Inc. andprovides Systems Engineering and Technical Analysis (SETA) support for the ADL, sponsored by the Office of theDeputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness). He took on the duties of ADL’s Mobile Team Lead in 2012. Hisprimary focus is mobile learning, mobile device platforms & technology, and best practices for implementation.Jason’s professional affiliations include serving as chair of the DoD ADL (DADL) Working Group, member of theIEEE Education Society, and member of the eLearning Guild. Jason received his M. Ed. from the University ofWest Florida where he specialized in Education & Training Management and Instructional Technology.2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 1 of 10
  2. 2. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012Thomas Archibald is the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Co-Lab Hub Director of Operations, under theOffice of the Secretary of Defense. In this position, Dr. Archibald is responsible for the management and executionof the ADL Co-Laboratory Hub and partnership lab projects. Dr. Archibald assists in providing direction for thedevelopment and refinement of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM®) and for the continuedexpansion of the ADL Initiative. Dr. Archibald has worked in private industry, government, and academia. Dr.Archibald also completed 8 years as a U.S. Navy Reserve Intelligence Analyst. Dr. Archibald has more than 10years of experience in the educational technology and human performance technology field working on variety oftraining, education, modeling, and simulation projects.Marcus Birtwhistle serves as a specialist and advisor on mobile technology and mobile learning for ADL’s MobileLearning Team. He provides a Certified Knowledge Manager background by way of the CASCOM KnowledgeManagement Office where he focused on integrating people, processes, and technology through mobile technologyutilization and social media. He has a particular interest in strategic alignment of organizational and systemsinfrastructure components to foster a mobile technology and enables mobile learning, mobile and distributedworkforce, and performance support in the military and government. He also applies his interest in processimprovement to promoting effective mobile development, user interface (UI), and user experience (UX) principlesto mobile learning implementations.2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 2 of 10
  3. 3. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012Mobile Learning: Not Just Another Delivery Method Peter Berking Jason Haag Serco, in support of the The Tolliver Group, in support of the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Alexandria, VA Orlando, FL Thomas Archibald Marcus Birtwhistle The Tolliver Group, in support of the Katmai Support Services, in support of the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative Alexandria, VA Alexandria, VA underlying learning theories. The inference here is that BACKGROUND a paradigm shift occurs when a community as a whole accepts and practices the changes it bringsIn 2011, one of the authors, on behalf of the ADL (Rajasingham, 2011). The paradigm shift is due notInitiative, published an I/ITSEC paper titled “From only to the unique design constraints and opportunitieseLearning to mLearning: The Effectiveness of Mobile of mobile devices, but also by the promise ofCourse Delivery.” This paper reported on findings “anywhere, anytime” learning that mobile devicesfrom a study that investigated the conversion and of an existing DoD-wide eLearning course. Mobile LearningThe primary finding was that there was a high degreeof satisfaction with the mobile course. Eighty-five ADL believes that a fixed definition of “mobilepercent of the participants said they would complete learning” could be limiting to some organizations’their annual mandatory training on mobile devices if an overall training and education strategy. Many of thealternative option were provided, and seventy percent existing definitions of mobile learning are usually tooof the participants that had previously completed the learner-focused or device-focused. A universallyeLearning course actually preferred the mobile version. accepted definition seems improbable. ADL believesThis study provided positive implications for use of that both the learner and the device should bemobile devices for delivering mandatory eLearning considered to provide a more flexible view of mobilecourses. (Haag, 2011) learning. Therefore, ADL describes mobile learning as “Leveraging ubiquitous mobile technology for theThe author of last year’s paper proposed new research adoption or augmentation of knowledge, behaviors, orinvestigating instructional design theories and models skills through education, training, or performancefor mobile content as “the development of structured support while the mobility of the learner may betraining content will undoubtedly require new independent of time, location, and space.” (ADL,approaches to address the unique design constraints 2012). It is important to note that this broad descriptionexhibited by mobile devices.” (Haag 2011) This paper is inclusive of informal learning, performance support,builds on the proposed research suggestion and focuses and other solutions outside of the concept of trainingon how learning theories and instructional design (ID) courses. Mobile learning should be viewed as a way tomodels can best support mobile learning (also augment the learner through the use of ubiquitouscommonly known as mLearning). technology that can provide access to learning content and information, anytime and anywhere. INTRODUCTION Some may believe this mobile paradigm shift requiresAs the title suggests, mobile learning does not simply ID models be significantly changed or new ID modelsamount to a different mechanism for delivering content created. Instead, ADL proposes a framework thatto learners; it represents an emergent way of thinking leaves ID models intact but augments them by injectingthat implies a paradigm shift, and at the very least concepts, considerations, decisions, and guidelinesrequires new design strategies based on sound specific to the mobile learning paradigm. The specific2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 3 of 10
  4. 4. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012concepts, considerations, decisions, and guidelines are many practical questions about what learning isdriven by the particular design strategy used in the needed, how it will be assessed, and so forth. Learningmobile learning experience and its underlying learning theories rely on epistemology and scientific research,theory, not simply by the features of the mobile device. whereas ID models rely mostly on business efficiency models (empirical data supporting the validity of IDMobile learning, in most cases, does not affect “what” models is rare (Cooper, 2011)).you do in the high-level steps of an ID model, and“when” you do them; it affects “how” you do them. If An ID model is essentially a series of steps that helpsit is determined that a mobile learning solution is an instructional systems designer (ISD) todesired, this strategy and its underlying learning theory conceptualize, choose strategies for, and validatemay populate the ID model steps with both appropriate instruction (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). IDphilosophical and practical considerations. models are not predicated on use of a particular learning technology or instructional strategy. In fact, anOur premise (emphasized by ID model authors such as ID model is the very thing that helps lead the ISD,Dick and Carey (2009)) is that robust ID models are objectively, without premature bias towards acarefully designed to be relatively agnostic of particular solution, to choosing the appropriate learninginstructional strategies, learning theories, and delivery technology and instructional strategy.methods. ID models are planning tools for makingdecisions regarding these items. Invoking a mobile There is therefore an inherent contradiction in thelearning strategy does not change the requirement for concept of an ID model for mobile learning, since, byconducting a needs analysis; however, if it is its very name, the solution is already determined beforepredetermined that you will use mobile learning, due diligence is conducted to determine the true needsadjustments may need to be made to how you conduct of the audience and stakeholders (which may actuallyyour needs analysis. For example, mobile learning rule out any kind of training solution). We recognizerequires many more questions regarding the range of however, that often the instructional strategy andend user platforms and mode of use than you would technology to be used are established at the outset ofneed to ask in a desktop WBT training solution. the project (and often for valid reasons). We have accounted for this in our proposed mobile learningWe place emphasis in our framework on making the framework (see Proposed ADL Framework section).particular learning theory underlying the mobile designstrategy explicit, and using the implications of that The approach taken in this paper is different fromtheory to guide the “hows” of accomplishing the Cooper (2011), who attempted to develop an ID modelmobile design strategy. This emphasis serves to: specifically for mobile learning, assuming that “ single instructional development [in our lexicon, • Intellectually couple learning theories more instructional design] model is well matched for all tightly and explicitly with design strategies situations…” (Gustafson & Branch, 2002). • Promote greater awareness of the philosophical, empirical, and personal biases Instead, it is our experience that robust ID models are that can significantly influence learning agnostic to particular technologies and design designs (and determine whether they are strategies. Above all, ID models are meant to be valid) planning processes, not philosophical systems that, • Stimulate production of ideas for the mobile used correctly can lead to the most rational, effective learning design through consideration of how outcome and are thus theoretically well matched for all the principles of learning theories could, and situations. This is also the position taken by authors of have been, expressed prominent ID models such as Dick and Carey (2009) and Rothwell and Kazanas (2008).Research Goals in Regards to ID Models Learning technologies and instructional strategies areIt is important to differentiate between learning determined by the ISD at a level of detail and judgmenttheories and ID models within the larger ID process. that usually goes beyond the ID model. The ID modelClarifying this differentiation will help to better leads the ISD to the doorstep of this decision, armedunderstand how mobile learning may be influenced by, with data collected during earlier phases of the processor influence, learning theories and ID models. Learning about the audience, environment, need, and content.theories are most commonly used in the ID process at The ISD must use judgment based on his or her ownthe point where instructional strategies need to be knowledge and experience with currently availabledetermined; ID models lay the groundwork for the technology and strategy options, how they are bestselection of instructional strategies, answering the used, and the particular pros and cons of using each.2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 4 of 10
  5. 5. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012What we present here is a framework that allows ISDs LEARNING THEORIESand other planners to both use the capabilities andparadigm of mobile learning to drive the generation of As stated earlier, learning theories are central to ourideas for design strategies and understand and leverage purposes in this paper because they directly informthe learning theory assumptions behind these strategies. choice of learning strategies for mobile learning and, toIt does not interfere with the high-level activities some extent, influence other steps in the ID process.specified within an ID model and the flow of these They are organizing principles of our framework.activities; it merely plugs a framework of mobilelearning-centric principles into the appropriate parts of Naismith (2005) discusses ways that mobilethe ID model, to expose considerations for mobile technologies support instruction based on theories oflearning projects. learning, including: • Behaviorist LITERATURE REVIEW • Constructivist • SituatedMost of the literature that appears in web searches on • CollaborativeID in regards to mobile learning focuses on rationales • Informal and Lifelongfor specific functional features and interface design • Learning and Teaching Supportbest practices (Elias, 2011, Tillett and Woodill, 2011),not high level approaches or models for designing These seem appropriate for describing the types ofinstructional strategies. There have been few attempts learning experiences that the mobile paradigm discern or invent appropriate ID models for mobile However, some of these are not truly learning theorieslearning strategies. Quinn (2011), Metcalf (2006), Shih but rather categories of instruction, and should not beand Mills (2007), and Parsons et al. (2007), though confused with the major learning theories developedfocused at a higher level than “how to” guides, still over many years by psychologists and others involvedmainly focused on identifying taxonomies of design in learning science. Learning professionals (Dick andprinciples, appropriate types of learning (remedial, Carey, 2009) think of learning theories in terms ofinformal, etc.), and practical considerations, not basically three major categories:integrated, systematic ID models. • BehavioristThere have been even fewer attempts to identify how • Cognitivistparticular learning theories underlie or result in • Constructivistparticular instructional strategies for mobile learning,partly because there isn’t a universally accepted This paper will not discuss these learning theories, butdefinition for mobile learning. Two notable examples plentiful information can be found on each. For a moreare Cooper (2011) and Uden (2007). Cooper focused detailed treatment of them, see Learning theoryonly on certain aspects of learning theory (learning (education) (2012, April 14).style, instructional and information processingpreferences), which we determined were too limited for Performance Supportour focus in this study. Uden (2007) based her Performance support is the discipline that harnessesproposed ID model on Activity Theory (Vygotsky, informal learning and makes it intentional (Gottfredson1978), which relies exclusively on a single learning & Mosher, 2011). Quinn (2011) describes three typestheory, constructivism, and is thus limited. of performance support for mobile (termedPark’s Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning “performance augmentation”):(2011) presents a categorization scheme for mobile • Media capability – user generated contentlearning that is based on Transactional Distance Theory (using camera, etc.)(Moore, 2007). His framework has value in providing • Data and processing ability – calculators,the foundation for a principled method for making decision trees, etc.decisions and stimulating ideas about design strategies, • Communication – ways to connect with otherbut it does not directly address the central question of ID model: “What steps should I follow in designingmobile learning?” An important design principle in performance support is to use the principles of performance-centered design; that is, designing the application around the way that mobile performers do their work, not based on the2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 5 of 10
  6. 6. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012inherent organization of the domain of knowledge used PROPOSED ADL FRAMEWORKfor learning applications. As described earlier, this framework is meant to injectPerformance support can be designed for use before, concepts, considerations, decisions, and guidelinesduring, or after performance. Rossett and Schafer specific to mobile learning into appropriate points in(2007) describe these differential design considerations the ID model. We use the ADDIE model here only asfor each. Performance support solutions can also stand- frame of reference because it is the most generic,alone and are often provided at any of the five universal, and simple ID model; the tradeoff is that IDmoments of learning need: planning activities with it are quite loosely defined. The intent here is for instructional designers to apply 1. When learning for the first time our conceptual framework to their own ID model or 2. When wanting to learn more strategy through the generic steps of ADDIE. (ADDIE 3. When applying and remembering is an acronym referring to the five major phases that 4. When things go wrong comprise the generic ISD process.) We recognize that 5. When things change some of the ADDIE steps will not be applicable to every type of mobile learning project. Our intent with(Gottfredson & Mosher, 2011). Mobile performance this conceptual framework is to simply use ADDIE assupport and mobile learning are related, but they are an example “interchange format” that could map tonot the same. Mobile performance support solutions some or all of the steps of other ID models, agilecan be part of a larger mobile learning strategy that approaches, or strategies.may or may not include instruction. Many of the bestexamples of learning implementations on mobile Instructional models are not static but are continuallydevices today are actually mobile performance support. being adapted to align with changes in society and technology. Figure 1 below shows the framework. ACombining Learning Theories in Instructional distinction is made between instructionalStrategies macrostrategies and microstrategies. Dick and Carey (2009) define a macrostrategy as the completeDick and Carey (2009), whose planning framework instructional plan that includes everything theand recommendations for instructional strategies has an instructor or instructional designer does to bring aboutadmitted cognitivist slant, nevertheless advocate using learning, including learning objectives, assessmentconstructivist learning environments (CLEs) within strategy, motivating components, content presentation,their ID model when discovery, inquiry-based, or practice activities, etc. It includes what is traditionallyproblem-based instructional strategy elements are termed the “delivery method.”called for. They cite researchers such as Dede (2008)who suggest that certain types of learners and learning Microstrategies are the particular learning activitiesoutcomes call for a combination of “top down” and designed learning experiences within the(cognitive) and “bottom up” (constructivist) learning macrostrategy. These microstrategies are usuallystrategies. We suggest that behaviorist learning theories mixed, either in a sequence or concurrently, within acan be combined with either of these or both for some single instructional event. Mobile learning is antypes of mobile learning content. important enabler for these microstrategies. We maintain that mobile learning is a macrostrategy inWe have proposed that a robust ID model should be itself, especially since it includes many uniquelearning theory agnostic (and we contend that most microstrategies that could not easily be achieved usingare). More than the other two learning theories, any other technological medium or “delivery method.”however, constructivism can be seen to interfere withthe learning theory neutrality of ID models, since the In many cases, a mobile solution is desired for reasonsorientation of the design phases of a typical ID model other than purely how well it enables or fits with theare somewhat different (generally less ISD planning- microstrategy. For instance, it may simply be that thecentric and more learner-centric). Dick and Carey users are mobile most of the time and need to use their(2009) address this in their textbook, showing how mobile device as their main access point to learningconstructivist instructional strategies can be combined information and resources. This is sometimes obviousinto their model. at the outset of a project and may precede answering the questions in the “Analysis” decision node at the top of the diagram. Our framework also accounts for performance support solutions as part of a blended or independent2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 6 of 10
  7. 7. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012approaches, since, as stated earlier, they are not usually microstrategies. (mLearning is used in the diagram forbased solely on a measurable learning strategy but can brevity.)be part of one. As explained earlier, learning theoriesare accounted for prominently in this framework, The question you may ask at this point is: what are thebecause they can have a great impact on the kind of considerations represented by the dotted line ovalsmobile strategies chosen. It may be that an ISD would within the ADDIE phases? It is beyond the scope ofarrive at the same mobile learning microstrategies this paper to enumerate them fully, but the bullet listwhether the learning theories behind them are after the diagram provides examples that the reader isconsidered or not. However, we present the invited to build upon. We hope that our framework“mLearning microstrategies” node in our diagram as an serves as a starting point and organizing principle forexplicit step to provide an intellectual framework that collecting best practices, guidelines, principles,may be helpful in organizing thinking about these questions to ask, etc. related to each of the five phases. Figure 1. ADL Mobile Learning Framework2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 7 of 10
  8. 8. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012 This is a sample list of considerations that can be usedFigure 1 description to help make the decision in the “mLearning Macrostrategy” decision node.The phases of ADDIE may be followed in a linearorder, but in fact are highly interrelated and typically • Learning needs to be accessible due tonot performed in a linear but in an iterative and cyclic learners’ mobility or requirements of thefashion. Performance solutions outside of learning learning environmentwould require a completely different model from • Learners are to make field observations as partADDIE (Human Performance Technology (HPT) or of the learning activitiesthe like) and are thus not included in this framework or • In a case where learning may need to changediagram. depending on the actual location (i.e., leveraging “location awareness” ofDuring the Analysis phase, if a mobile learning smartphones)solution is determined (“YES” line coming out of a), • Where learners do not have time to takehe or she determines a macrostrategy that includes learning modules during their work schedule,education or training elements, performance support and instead prefer to take it during “on theelements, or combination thereof. He or she also fly” and/or “offline” momentsconsiders the affordances of mobile devices to supportthe desired learning, in terms of macrostrategy Example Mobile Learning Considerations for Eachcomponents such as assessment method, motivation of the Five ADDIE Phasesenhancement, and opportunities for practice. This is a sample list of mobile learning-relatedAfter determining the mLearning macrostrategy, the questions to ask for each of the five phases of ADDIE.designer (during the Design phase) determines the As described earlier, we use the ADDIE model hereappropriate learning theory given the objectives, only because it is the most generic, universallearning domain, learning environment, and learning representation of ID models. Some other genericaudience (c). The microstrategies are then determined models, including agile or rapid prototyping, are often(d). These microstrategies describe the learning thought of as separate models, although, as shown inactivities and how learners will interact with content on Figure 1, they can be subsumed within the ADDIEthe mobile device, based on the learning theory chosen. model.Once the decision is made that an mLearning approach The following are only a few example questionsis appropriate (a), the designer injects the appropriate adapted from the ADL Mobile Handbook atmobile learning considerations (ideally a “ready to go” that the designer has developed through experienceand research) into the steps of ADDIE (shown by the • Analysis - Are there sufficient resources for adotted line “mLearning Considerations” objects). The mobile project?designer and team leverages these considerations as • Design - What will the user interface lookthey encounter them in all phases of the ADDIE like?process. • Development - Are you going to develop a native app or a web app?If the designer determines that a mobile approach is not • Implementation - How will availability of thecalled for (“NO” line coming out of a), he or she mobile learning application be marketed?continues through the Analysis phase and the rest of • Evaluation - How will you track how thethe ADDIE process steps as he or she normally would mobile learning application is being used?(i.e., ignoring the dotted line “mLearningConsiderations” boxes and the callouts on the right). CONCLUSIONThe cyclical arrows between steps indicates that thephases of ADDIE do not have to be sequential. Phases Our literature review uncovered the fact that very fewor tasks within phases can and are often done actual ID models for mobile learning exist. One thatconcurrently. This is further emphasized by the Rapid perhaps comes close only accounts for particularPrototype (Agile) box on the left. constructivist mobile learning activities (Uden, 2007).Guidelines for Determining Whether a Mobile Instead of creating a new ID model, we have presentedLearning Strategy is Appropriate a framework that can be used to incorporate mobile learning considerations into existing ID models (which2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 8 of 10
  9. 9. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012theoretically are neutral) and agile approaches, to REFERENCESoptimize them for the paradigm of “anywhere,anytime” mobile learning. ADDIE Model. (2012, March 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 16:40, April 19, 2012,Rather than focus on lists of specific design fromconsiderations for mobile (which are now commonly, we created a framework that provides an Model&oldid=483068855.organizing principle for these design considerations. ADL Co-lab (2012) Mobile Learning Handbook to the title of this paper, we believe that mobile Cooper, V.T. (2011), An Instructional Developmentlearning has the potential to be influenced by every Framework for Mobile Learning, Capella University:aspect of the ISD process, not just a delivery method PhD Dissertation.that is a small “piece of the puzzle.” Within our Dede, C. (2008), How Web 2.0 tools are transformingframework, we explicitly call out the learning theory learning and knowledge, Orlando, FL: Paperthat underlies the mobile learning strategy as an presented at the annual Florida Educationalimportant determinant of considerations for a new or Technology Conference.existing ID model. Ideally, instructional designers Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J.O. (2009), Theshould now consider focusing on new opportunities for Systematic Design of Instruction Columbus, OH:improving performance and augmenting skills, not just Merrill Books.on knowledge transfer. The flexible approach proposed Elias, T. (2011), Universal Instructional Designby our framework takes both instruction and Principles for Mobile Learning International Reviewperformance support into consideration for the mobile of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol.learning task or challenge at hand. 12(2). Retrieved June 19, 2012 from 65/1675 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Gottfredson, C., Mosher, B. (2011), InnovativeFurther research efforts, both as design research and Performance Support: Strategies and Practices forliterature reviews, could focus on the following: Learning in the Workflow. McGraw-Hill Gustafson and Branch (2002). Survey of instructional • Appropriate specific low-level considerations development models (4th Eds.). Syracuse, NY: ERIC and best practices that can be injected into the Clearinghouse on Information and Technology. ADDIE model as well as considerations for (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. other models and methodologies ED477517). • The detailed decision tree for determining that Haag, J. (2011). From eLearning to mLearning: The mobile is the best solution (the decision Effectiveness of Mobile Course Delivery. Paper diamond titled “mLearning macrostrategy?” in presented at I/ITSEC 2011 conference. Figure 1) Learning theory (education). (2012, April 14). In • A comprehensive list of mobile learning Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:32, microstrategies (the “Determine mLearning April 20, 2012, from microstrategies” step in Figure 1) and how they influence or translate into considerations heory_(education)&oldid=487353780 that are injected into each of the ADDIE steps. Metcalf, D. S. (2006). mLearning: Mobile learning and • The creation of an ID model for mobile performance in the palm of your hand. Amherst, learning MA: HRD Press, Inc. • Considerations for creating mobile learning Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional content materials that may be used for various distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of types of informal learning Distance Education pp. 89-105. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Naismith L., Lonsdale P., Vavoula G., Sharples M. (2005). Report 11: Literature Review in Mobile ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Technologies and Learning. University of Birmingham, UK, Nesta Futurelab ReportThe authors wish to thank Heather Walls for editing Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobilethis paper, and Judy Brown and Dr. Shane Gallagher learning: Categorizing educational applications offor their invaluable insights on mobile learning and mobile technologies into four types. InternationalISD. Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 9 of 10
  10. 10. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2012 vol. 12(2). Retrieved April 9, 2012 from Rothwell, W. and Kazanas, H. (2008). Mastering the Instructional Design Process: A Systematic 91/1699 Approach San Francisco: Pfeiffer PublishingParsons, D., Ryu, H., & Cranshaw, M. (2007). A Shih, Y. & Mills, D. (2007). Setting the New Standard design requirement framework for mobile learning with Mobile Computing in Online Learning. The environments. Journal of Computers, Vol. 2(4), pp. International Review of Research in Open and 1-8, Retrieved April 8, 2012 from Distance Learning, Vol. 8(2). Retrieved April 16, 2012 from p02040108.pdf., C. (2011) Designing mLearning: Tapping into 61/929 the Mobile Revolution for Organizational Tillet, J. and Woodill, G. (2011) Instructional Design Performance San Francisco: Pfeiffer Books and Mobile Learning: A Conversation. WebinarRajasingham, L. (2010). Will Mobile Learning Bring a given by Float Mobile Learning. Retrieved June 19, Higher Education? Education Research 2012 from International, Vol. 2011(2011). Retrieved April, 2012 from design-and-mobile-learning Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobileRossett, A. and Schafer, L. (2007) Job Aids and learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning Performance Support San Francisco: Pfeiffer and Organisation, Vol. 1(1), pp.81–102. Publishing Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.2012 Paper No. 12079 Page 10 of 10