Day 2 – my m-learning devices
I find Koole’s framework to almost be a bit naive in its scope. I would argue that the framework applies equally to all computers, mobile or not. I understand that mobile is always there, but the pervasiveness of computers is ever-present. For example, I don’t need my own mobile device to have the immediacy: I can use the person beside me’s device; I can use the device at the library; I can use the device next door, etc. For the desktop that is used at home, I think almost all of the aspects of the framework still apply. The PC is situated data gathering, personal, collaborativespontaneous, finding, just-in-time and just-for-me.
I have tried using smartphones for m-learning. I generally didn’t find the experience to be particularly authentic or collaborative, although I do think the potential for collaboration is great. The synchronous communication capabilities of smartphones is incredible. The smartphone is definitely a great device for finding information, and it is “just in time.” However, the issue that grabs me is that I think the smartphone is not necessarily contextual, and I think it can lead to very shallow (ie not meaningful) outcomes.
So, as with all things that are lacking, I feel that one of the greatest potential opportunities for m-learning ventures is to capture and enable meaningful learning. What kind of functionalities can a device have that affords this? Or, since I think it is safe to say that m-learning must focus on software rather than hardware, what kinds of software can be brought to market that enable meaningful learning?
Just to emphasize my thoughts on this, I’ll consider not only my personal experience with smartphones but also my observations from “educational apps” developed for the iPad. I have not seen an exhaustive list of iPad apps, but the ones that I have seen include very basic math skill testers and shallow coverage of scientific conceptions, with little to no regard for common misconceptions in science (which is arguably the most significant factor in science education). I find it incredibly depressing that these apps get touted as the next-gen for learning. I could say a lot about this, but suffice it to say that the wrong analysis is easily made when we rely on people that have conflicting interests, or simply a lack of knowledge in learning theories.
cheers
Doug
Posted in: Uncategorized, Week 11: Mobiles
David William Price 12:23 pm on November 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Great comment.
1. The Koole framework can be applied to other computing devices, but I don’t see how that negates its value for mobiles. Have you ever read “The Design of Everyday Things” by Norman? As simple as frameworks may be, it seems that designers don’t use them when they design. It’s fun to read reviews of mobiles and tablets coming out and see how they have amazing features, but they aren’t that usable.
2. Authenticity and collaboration are potentials for m-learning that don’t seem to be leveraged right now. It seems that imagination is required to break out of expectations that learning requires drill and kill, masses of reading, or classroom use. It seems the affordances of mobile really get lost for some reason, perhaps because it’s far easier to try to do what we’ve done before, even if the context has changed.
3. This is interesting: “However, the issue that grabs me is that I think the smartphone is not necessarily contextual, and I think it can lead to very shallow (ie not meaningful) outcomes.” Please elaborate. I;’m thinking of augmented reality being highly contextual… and GPS… and even the motion sensors in mobiles… can you explain?
4. “I could say a lot about this, but suffice it to say that the wrong analysis is easily made when we rely on people that have conflicting interests, or simply a lack of knowledge in learning theories.”
This is painfully true. Even in my domain, you can call yourself an instructional designer without having any formal training whatsoever. Designers I’ve interviewed range from former English teachers with no training, to people with certifications from a week-long course, no Masters and Ph.ds specialized in instructional design. Even within our own department, people who have gadget fetishes tend not to discuss the con-side of technology use. In the Clark (methods) vs Kozma (media) debate, I am firmly with Clark.
The issue is really how do the affordances of mobile enable more interesting methods! Not how does the new media improve engagement with the same old tired and often ineffective methods. The problem is developing good apps is extremely costly. I would like to see mobiles leveraged as a way of using the real world to teach and exemplify concepts. If you want to teach science, don’t rely on the tiny screen of a mobile to replace a textbook, a lecture, or an experiment. Instead, use the mobile to guide a learner through conducting experiments and observations and collecting data to put their learning into practice.
What do you think?
Doug Smith 3:39 pm on November 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
re: 3
I think your examples are contextual, but I’m not sure that his how m-learning often makes use of device functions, if barely at all. Most mobiles are predominately media/web utilized, this is clear. Now, that certainly doesn’t negate the framework or the potential, but at some point we do have acknowledge the reality (I’m not suggesting that you are not!). I’m certainly no expert on this, but the vast majority of m-learning uses I hear about through my PLN (anecdotal) come down to very menial tasks. There may be context, but the meaningful learning seems forgotten, or perhaps never thought of in the first place. I’m talking about tasks that probably would never be considered if it was pen and paper, all of a sudden gain traction because it can be done on a device.
In addition to the above, I do believe there are separate contextual problems. This comes down to byte-sized information given out and consumed in small chunks at a time. It’s a type of reductionism where context can easily be lost. I’m sort of thinking that context is often created through synthesis, and synthesis is lost in bit-by-bit consumption of knowledge. I’m sort of thinking of these ideas while typing, so I maybe off-base. I imagine there is some truth to what I’m saying though.
As both you and I allude to, the real issue is how to leverage the m-device for m-learning. Clearly this is through communication capabilities, as this is where our current m-devices excel. I also like your idea as a scientific data collector – I can see this taking off as wireless technologies expand and the usb port fades away into obscurity.
cheers
Doug
David William Price 9:11 pm on November 18, 2011 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I have to agree that the affordances of mobile are not used in m-learning people are talking about… but it was the same in early e-learning and there are still many people doing “page turners” instead of more interesting things like this simple but effective concept:
http://elearningexamples.com/connect-with-haji-kamal/
The byte-sized learning proposed for mobiles is about refreshing and coaching within authentic contexts for stuff already learned more thoroughly elsewhere. A mobile might guide you through heuristics to push your learning through application and evaluation and creation.
I don’t really see mobiles as a replacement for laptops and classrooms. I don’t share the excitement of gadget freaks about having every new gadget replace everything (I suspect that kind of logic is used to justify the expense for early adopters!). Instead I see mobiles as part of a set of tools, a particular tool that allows for leveraging different learning theories. As you mentioned before, you have to know the learning theories in order to understand which tools are best for which approaches!