Handbook of Mobile Learning

Zane L. Berge, Lin Muilenburg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136311529
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Winner of the AECT Division of Distance Learning (DDL) Distance Education Book Award!

This handbook provides a comprehensive compendium of research in all aspects of mobile learning, one of the most significant ongoing global developments in the entire field of education. Rather than focus on specific technologies, expert authors discuss how best to utilize technology in the service of improving teaching and learning.

For more than a decade, researchers and practitioners have been exploring this area of study as the growing popularity of smartphones, tablets, and other such devices, as well as the increasingly sophisticated applications for these devices, has allowed educators to accommodate and support an increasingly mobile society. This handbook provides the first authoritative account of the theory and research that underlies mobile learning, while also exemplifying models of current and future practice.

Part I

Foundations and Future

1

A Historical Overview of M-Learning

Toward Learner-Centered Education

Helen Crompton

A consideration of all the various historical and cultural events that have led to mobile learning (m-learning) would trace back through history far beyond the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press and the influence of the Industrial Revolution. Although it needs to be acknowledged that these events have enabled the mobile age to reach where it is today, this chapter looks more specifically into recent history, starting when the mobile technological epoch began to take shape. In order to explain the history, mobile and learning have been separated, before I explicitly detail the interconnections for what has now become this young field of m-learning. The chapter will begin by explicating the philosophical, pedagogical, and conceptual underpinnings regarding learning, particularly toward learner-centered pedagogies. This will be followed by a discussion of the technology, covering the evolution of the hardware/software, its adoption into society, and how these technological advancements have led to today’s new affordances for learning.

Defining Mobile Learning

At this time, there is no definitive definition of m-learning. If terms such as distance education are any indication, there probably will not be a lasting definition of m-learning for a long time to come. In January 2005, Laouris and Eteokleous (2005) reported receiving 1,240 items when searching Google for the terms + “mobile learning” + “definition”; remarkably, when they conducted the same search in June 2005, Google provided 22,700 items. So, it appears that 2005 was the year in which m-learning became a recognized term.

In m-learning’s relatively short existence, scholars and practitioners have attempted to define it. An early definition of m-learning was simply the use of a palm as a learning device (Quinn, 2000; Soloway et al., 2001). Since then, deep debates have been ongoing as to which attributes should be included in a definition of m-learning (e.g., Laouris & Eteokleous, 2005; Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2007; Traxler, 2009), and, from a study of the literature, it appears that pedagogy, technological devices, context, and social interactions are the four central constructs. For example, O’Malley et al. (2003) defined m-learning as, “Any sort of learning that happens when the learner is not at a fixed, predetermined location, or learning that happens when the learner takes advantage of learning opportunities offered by mobile technologies.” In O’Malley et al.’s definition, the initial focus is contextual, although closely followed by pedagogies and technologies.

Traxler’s (2005) early definition, “any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices,” was a good example of a definition centered on the technology. Many early definitions were criticized for taking a technocentric approach (Traxler, 2010). One issue that is agreed upon by academics and practitioners is that further research is necessary to better understand the field of m-learning (Goh & Kinshuk, 2006), which will undoubtedly lead to many further changes to the definition of m-learning.

Sharples et al. (2007) defined m-learning as, “The process of coming to know through conversations across multiple contexts amongst people and personal interactive technologies” (Sharples et al., 2007, p. 4). Although this definition included the four central constructs of m-learning (namely, pedagogy, technological devices, context, and social interactions), the definition is somewhat confusing and ambiguous. For example, the word conversations is used early in the definition, which highlights the importance of this word to the definition, and, yet, the definition of conversation is “Oral exchange of sentiments, observations, opinions or ideas” (“Conversation,” Merriam–Webster Dictionary, 2011). Does this, then, mean that m-learning is centered round verbal communication? Sharples et al.’s definition was written for an article that highlighted conversational theory, and, although they may have intended for conversation to be interactions in general, a word has been chosen that connotes simply oral interactions.

Therefore, for the purpose of the chapter, and this book at large, the author of this chapter and the editors of this book (Crompton, Muilenburg, and Berge) have modified Sharples et al.’s (2007) definition. This new definition includes the four central constructs of m-learning, but the wording has been chosen to reduce ambiguity, and additional punctuation has also been included for clarity. Therefore, Crompton, Muilenburg, and Berge’s definition for m-learning is “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices.”

To be clear, the word “context” in this definition encompasses m-learning that is formal, self-directed, and spontaneous learning, as well as learning that is context aware and context neutral. In other words, the learning may be directed by others or by oneself, and it can be an unplanned, spontaneous learning experience; learning can happen in an academic setting, or any other non-academic setting; and the physical environment may or may not be involved in the learning experience.

Therefore, m-learning can occur inside or outside the classroom, participating in a formal lesson on a mobile device; it can be self-directed, as a person determines his or her own approach to satisfy a learning goal; or spontaneous learning, as a person can use the device to look up something that has just prompted an interest. The environment may be part of the learning experience (e.g., scanning codes to obtain further information about an exhibit in a museum), or the environment may have a neutral role in the learning experience (e.g., reading articles from the Web while traveling on the bus).

Pedagogical Shifts in Learning

Throughout history, learning has been of paramount importance in all cultures. In simple terms, learning is essential to personal and professional survival, and a culture’s pedagogical choice is often driven by social behavior, expectations, and values. For example, Western pedagogies during the 1930s did not encourage autonomy and self-direction. A student was to learn facts without question. Even into the 1950s, pedagogies typically emulated the tabula rasa approach, teaching the students as though they were empty vessels waiting for the teachers to impart knowledge.

Learners today are viewed very differently: students are encouraged to be active in their own learning, to be self-thinking and active consumers of knowledge. Historical components that form a background to this cultural and societal pedagogical shift include: reactions to behaviorism, linguistic pragmatism, minority rights movements, increased internationalism, and wider access to education (Gremmo & Riley, 1995). Shifts in educational philosophy have been led by calls for change toward active learnership. Piaget (1929) pioneered the transition from the tabula rasa view of young learners, to instead positing learners with complex cognitive structures, seeking environmental stimulation to promote intellectual development.

Building from Piaget’s (1929) position toward cognitive theories of learning, Bruner (1966) added that learners use current and past knowledge during the active learning process. Soon afterward, the learner-centered pedagogical epoch commenced.

Discovery Learning in the 1970s

Learning the heuristics of discovery through active participation was Bruner’s (1966) recipe for increasing intellectual potency. He believed students are more likely to remember concepts they deduce on their own. This philosophy led to the discovery-learning movement, with the focus on how students acquire, retain, and recall knowledge, a transition from the behaviorist stimulus–response approach. Unfortunately, technology in schools was generally lagging behind instructional pedagogies; the few schools that had computers in the 1970s utilized behavioristic computer-assisted learning programs (Lee, 2000). The World Wide Web (WWW) would have been a great learning support to discovery learning, although only a small number of people had Internet access until the 1990s.

Constructivist Learning in the 1980s

Constructivism is an epistemic belief about how students learn. Following Piaget’s (1929), Bruner’s (1966), and Jonassen’s (1999) educational philosophies, constructivists proffer that knowledge acquisition develops through interactions with the environment. During the 1980s, the development and distribution of multimedia personal computers offered such an interactive method of learning. “The computer was no longer a conduit for the presentation of information: it was a tool for the active manipulation of that information” (Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004, p. 12).

Constructionist Learning in the 1980s

Constructionism differed from constructivism, as Papert (1980) posited an additional component to constructivism: students learned best when they were actively involved in constructing social objects. Using Taylor’s (1980) tutor, tool, and tutee computer analogy, Papert’s constructionism advocates the tutee position. For example, the computer-as-tutee approach would involve students using Logo to teach the computer to draw a picture (Papert, 1980). Another technology example would be using another, slightly more advanced, microworld to teach Karel the Robot to perform various tasks.

Problem-Based Learning in the 1990s

Although problem-based learning was developed in medical education in the 1950s, the methodology was not widely used in K–12 schools until the 1990s (Wilson, 1996). Problem-based learning involves students working on tasks and activities authentic to the environment in which those particular skills would be used. Students then learn by constructing their own knowledge from thinking critically and creatively to solve problems. This pedagogical practice caused a technological dilemma, in that desktop computers could not easily be transported around from place to place. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that mobility became a desired attribute for technologies used with problem-based learning.

Learner-centered education, as the name implies, focuses on the role of the learner rather than the teacher; problem-based learning is a clear example of such a shift in the role of student and teacher. The teacher is the guide in the process, and no longer the main repository of knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). In the problem-based learning of the 1990s, students often worked in small groups of five or six to pool knowledge and resources to solve problems. This launched the start of the sociocultural revolution, focusing on learning in out-of-school contexts and the acquisition of knowledge through social interaction.

Socio-Constructivist Learning in the 1990s

The next logical step in the learner-centered evolution was toward socio-constructivist learning. Social constructivists believe that social and individual processes are interdependent in the co-construction of knowledge (Sullivan-Palincsar, 1998; Vygotsky, 1978). The tenet of socio-constructivism is that intellectual advancement occurs through interactions with a group.

The sociocultural revolution was not limited to education specifically. SixDegrees.com was the first public social-networking site, launched in 1997 (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). This initial site developed into the plethora of social-networking sites available today, including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Social networking sites provide “latent ties” (Haythornthwaite, 2005), which are those with established offline connections, and there is also the opportunity to meet online with people one may never meet face to face.

Learner-Centered Developments

Thus far, a description has been given of the main learner-centered pedagogical developments from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s. There were other pedagogies/theories of learning during this time, such as discovery learning (Anthony, 1973), inquiry learning (Papert, 1980), and experiential learning (Kolb & Fry, 1975), which are similar to those described in this part. From studying the learning pedagogies and theories, it is clear that pedagogical practice since the 1970s has continually revised the model and theories behind learner-centered pedagogies. Table 1.1 provides a visual overview of this revision process.

Table 1.1 Overview of the Revision Process in Learner-Centered Pedagogies/Theories

Learner pedagogies/theories	Decade	Main tenets of the pedagogies/theories
Discovery learning	1970s	Knowledge is discovered through active participation in the learning process
Constructivist learning	1980s	Knowledge develops through interactions with the environment
Constructionist learning	1980s	Knowledge is gained through actively creating social objects
Problem-based learning	1990s	Knowledge is developed through working on tasks and skills authentic to the environment in which those particular skills would be used
Socio-constructivist learning	1990s	Knowledge is co-constructed interdependently between the social and the individual

The common evolving attributes listed in Table 1.1 are active involvement of the learner in the knowledge-making process and learner interaction with the environment and society. This is where we arrive at the learning pedagogies of the 2000s, with m-learning and context-aware ubiquitous learning providing new affordances for learners. M-learning and context-aware ubiquitous learning will be described later in this chapter.

Looking back at the brief descriptions of the technologies connected with the learning pedagogies of that time, it appears that technologies have had to play catch-up with pedagogical trends. However, there are those who believe that it is the technology leading pedagogical practice. Sharples (2005) proposed:

Every era of technology has, to some extent, formed education in its...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• About the Authors
• Preface
• Part I Foundations and Future
• Part II Learning and Learner Support
• Part III Teaching and Instructional Design
• Part IV Policies, Administration, and Management
• Part V Cases and Perspectives
• Index