How we’re used to doing it – the strengths of learning designHow they do it – the strengths of mobile technology “personalised, situated & authentic”, but also “opportunistic, informal & spontaneous” learning (ref Kukulska-Hulme,Traxler & Pettit 2007).Reconciling the needs of the tutor and the expectations of the learner.Where is the distinction? Continuum of formal – informal
Usually we would start from here...
And maybe extend to here...
Mobile learners start from here.This is not new, we have always done this, we just don’t define it as “learning”. Petrol cap example. Not all their mobile activities - only the bits we’re interested in.Cf.NUS/HSBC Student Experience report 2009, only 27% of students regularly used their phones as “part of their studies” (p35) – helping both students and tutors to recognise learning taking place.“Whenever a question comes up somewhere, I whip out my PDA and look it up.” Clough et al., p.365
Designing for informal learning – scaffolding/facilitating, creating opportunities for sharing/making learning visible. May be a ‘safe’/familiar space (e.g. the VLE), or may be enabling sharing from their own PLE (incl. digital literacy & ethics issues) – how would a learner bring their networked learning from Facebook, their photos from Flickr etc. into an assessable environment/format? How would learning design/scaffolding/framing/tutor guidance help them recognise learning in their informal activities, and integrate a more academic approach when appropriate?Examples: student journalism at recent demonstrations – politics, social research, digital footprint and mobile artefacts
Learning activities, cfLaurillard’s sources of theory – instructionism (transmissive), constructionism, socio-cultural/collaborative (2009). Recognising a range of staff approaches to teaching.Based on learner activities, not necessarily designed (both experiential and mediated learning)How structured these are will depend on what stage the learner is at and the aims of the learning activity (e.g. The pedagogy > andragogy > heutagogy (PAH) continuum referred to by Cochrane 2010 p226).
Other models available draw different distinctions – e.g. Naismith separates informal and lll from othersLots of crossover, not all done by one technology, in some learning designs may not involve tech at all!Combining best of pedagogy with the best of mobile – personalised, flexible, learner-controlled.
Cf.Sutton-Brady et al, ALTJ 17 (3) – overwhelming majority of students listened to ‘mobile’ podcasts at home – where they have more control over their learning environment?Also A KH & JT case study in Mobile Learning – mobile more suitable for ‘content light’ tasks requiring reflection & collaborationAims, successes/added value and challenges/barriers, tech and training requirements (skill rating?), modifications and iterations, alternatives/”redundancies” for inclusion (other ways of doing the same thing, cf A KH & JT, Mobile Learning), evaluationChallenges: Easier to capture formal than informal, whether or not to include custom builds
MALT blog can impact on all of these conversations – forum for discussing, adapting, reflecting and demonstrating practice.
Learners’ own devices? And/or provide? “ownership” & personalisation improves engagementWireless, SMS technology, mobile web, mobile VLE?Lots of examples of custom mobile learning platforms and tools – anticipate less development and more re-use as devices and web tools increase in functionalityEarly adopters > CoPs (cf Cochrane 2010)Strategic decisions will be largely determined by individual institutional resources & requirements
The MALT Project
Why mobile?<br />Demand<br />High levels of ownership<br />Recruitment in a competitive market<br />Engagement<br />
Why mobile for learning?<br />Opportunity<br /> A “convergence is occurring between the new personal and mobile technologies and the new conceptions of learning as a personally-managed lifelong activity”:<br />(Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula 2007, p.224)<br />
The challenge<br />What is the role of the institution/tutor in mobile learning?<br />Planned/designed learning<br />Learner-centred/informal learning<br />
Can(‘t) we do both?<br /> “A key opportunity is in supporting learners when they negotiate blurred boundaries between formal and informal learning, between asset sharing and learning community building, between popular journalism and academic discourse” <br />(Kukulska-Hulme, Traxler & Pettit 2007, p.61)<br />
Towards an effective MLE<br />Access services to support learning<br />Learners should be able to...<br />Access contentMobile web,Apps, SMS, local/ contextual resources<br />ProduceWrite, draw, collate, synthesise, present, create, design, model<br />Interact with contentTest, simulate, play, solve problems<br />ReflectObserve, record, analyse, adapt, modify<br />CollaborateDiscuss, network, share, peer review, co-create<br />...across contexts and devices, in ways that suit their learning needs <br />
The MALT project<br />How do we support mobile learning activities?<br />The ‘recipes’: experiential/‘best practice’ approach – what works, and also what doesn’t...<br />http://maltnorthampton.wordpress.com/<br />
Moving forward <br />So what do we need?<br />Strategic decisions<br />“scale, sustainability, accessibility, evaluation, cost-effectiveness and quality” (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005)<br />Skills<br />Staff – technology, mobile learning design<br />Students – technology, digital literacy<br />Tech <br />Hardware<br />Software/systems/infrastructure<br />Mobile content? (in-house/bought in)<br />Mobile environment? (QR codes/geotagging)<br />
References<br />Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J. (eds.) (2005). Mobile learning: a handbook for educators and trainers. Abingdon: Routledge.<br />Kukulska-Hulme, A., Traxler, J., & Pettit, J. (2007). “Designed and user-generated activity in the mobile age”. Journal of Learning Design, 2(1), 52-65. <br />Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking University teaching: a framework for the effective use of learning technologies. 2nd ed. Abingdon: RoutledgeFalmer.<br />Laurillard, D. (2007). “Pedagogical forms for mobile learning: framing research questions”. In: Pachler, N. (ed.) Mobile learning: towards a research agenda. London: WLE Centre, IoE, pp. 153-75.<br />Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). “A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age”. In R. Andrews and C. Haythornthwaite (eds.)The Sage Handbook of Elearning Research. London: Sage, pp. 221-47<br />
Image sources<br />Girl in cafeteria (slide 2):<br />http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickgage/5254405901/<br />“Mobile” student (slide 4): http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinhutton/149212769/<br />Learner with mobile (slide 10): http://www.flickr.com/photos/skokiepl/4133011417/<br />All images are re-used thanks to Creative Commons licences: http://creativecommons.org/<br />