WordPress.com
BATES’S EVALUATION OF MOBILE LEARNING IN UBIQUITOUS COLLABORATIVE SETTINGS ON MOLE CONCEPT FOR NIGERIAN SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
A Ph.D. Research Proposal
By
BOLAJI, Hameed Olalekan
02/25OC635
Department of Educational Technology,
Faculty of Education,
University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria
Supervisor:
Dr. M. A. Fakomogbon
Date: 19th December, 2013
Venue: Department of Educational Technology Seminar Room
Time: 10: 00 am
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
Figures iii
Tables iv
Chapter One
Introduction
Background to the Study 2
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 18
Research Questions 19
Research hypotheses 20
Scope of the Study 21
Clarification of Terms and Variables 23
Significance of the Study 24
Chapter Two
Reviewed of Related Literature
Concept of Mobile Learning and its trends in Collaborative Learning System 27
Multimedia Principle in a Mobile Learning Environment and its Characteristics 39
Usability Evaluation Methods for Mobile Learning Applications 49
Interactivity in Handheld Devices for Learning 69
Estimating Costs and Implications for Instructional design Process 81
Definition and Meaning of Mole Concept 92
Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Mobile Learning 94
Appraisal of Reviewed Literature 107
Chapter Three
Research Methodology
Research Design 114
Sample and Sampling Techniques 115
Research Instrument 115
Validation of Research Instrument 116
Procedure for Data Collection 116
Data Analysis Techniques 11 6
Reference 117
Appendix 1 133
Appendix 2 135
List of Figures
Figure 1: Decision for Designing an Evaluation Study 10
Figure 2: Small Group Learning Framework 13
Figure 3: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning 46
Figure 4: Usability Attributes 66
Figure 5: Interaction in Online Discussion 76
Figure 6: Model for Selecting Technology 95
Figure 7: The Framework for rational Analysis for Mobile Education 97
Figure 8: Scenario Message Synchronization Evaluation Model 102
Figure 9: Proposed Model for the Study 103
List of Table
Table 1: Chemistry Students’ Performance in WASSCE 2004-2010 15
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
The educational world is experiencing an escalating transformation driven by the convergence of mobile devices and wireless communication technologies (Shih, 2005). The world of mobile and wireless computing is evolving fast and in order to fully leverage the mobile internet for learning, the electronic learning community needs to think in terms of performance and productivity (Mahmoud, 2008). In the opinion of Connelly, Hazlewood, Rogers and Tedesco (2009), mobile technologies are increasingly being promoted as tools to enhance learning. Mobile learning is rapidly becoming a critical area of knowledge to possess in the education industry for continued prominence (Quinn, 2010).
Mobile electronic learning is becoming an increasingly important topic in education (Antonis, Daradoumis, Papadakis, & Simos, 2011). As a result of the growing popularity of items such as personal digital assistant (PDA), smart phones, personal computers and other wireless communication devices, mobile learning methods are becoming a global reality, even for developing countries (Barker, Krull, & Mallinson, 2005). As an indication of the adoption of mobile learning in developing nations, particularly in Nigeria, the State of Osun Government was recognized by a United Nations-backed World Summit Award Global Congress on E-Content and Creativity as “Opon Imo” (Tablet of Knowledge), is rated as one of the top four global e-learning device across the world (Kilanko, 2013). Alsadi and AbuShawar (2009) stated that mobile devices also enable educators to deliver materials to students based on their needs and preferences. Mobile devices used for education purpose via wireless communication can provide opportunity to transmit instructions in a learning environment where teachers and student are separated by time or space or both, wherein the teacher provides course content through course management applications, multimedia resources, the internet, videoconferencing and so on.
Mobile and wireless information technologies contribute to the teaching and learning process by enabling learning to occur in settings and environments not dedicated to educational purposes (Barbosa, Reinhard, Saccol & Schlemmer, 2010). However, it is an expression of opinion that technology can fill the partnership role with the learner if a way can be found to create and sustain a language between learner and mobile device which enables shared understanding (Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2010). By clear explanatory term, it can be related that students receive the content and communicate with the teacher via the same technologies.
Mobile learning can be conceptualized around the technology component and focus on the devices and technical details of the delivery methodologies, or it can be focused around the mobility of the learner and the portability of learning across contexts (Traxler, 2007). The term mobile learning refers to the use of mobile and handheld information technology devices, such as personal digital assistant, mobile phones, laptops, tablet and personal computers in teaching and learning (Szucs, 2001). Mobile learning requires more facilitation, and instructors will need to spend more time on course-delivery with follow up to provide a rich learning resource environment for learners (Alsadi & AbuShawar, 2009). Barbosa, Reinhard, Saccol, and Schlemmer (2010) described mobile learning as learning supported by mobile technologies and involving mobility of human subjects who can be physically/ geographically far from each other and far from formal educational physical spaces, such as classrooms, training/ graduation/ qualification rooms or workplaces.
According to Evans (2008), mobile learning builds on the advantages offered by electronic learning by allowing learners to learn when and where they choose and expanding those advantages to a mobile platform user who carries it with them for learning on-the-move. Park (2011) defines mobile learning as using mobile devices for learning on the move across contexts. Traxler (2007) expresses the view that, mobile learning is based on the principles and practices of technology-enhanced learning as well as other learning principles used in the classroom and community. Mobile learning was defined by Barbosa et al. (2010) as a teaching and learning supported by mobile and wireless information technologies and involving the mobility of human subjects far from formal educational spaces or work places.
Cronje and El-Hussein (2010) extend the aspect of learning contexts in a more thought provoking definition of mobile learning for the needs of instructional designers. They include not just the mobility of the technology and learner, but also the mobility of the learning, which allows for the context of the learning to be highly individualized. As mobile content consumption continues to rise, educators need to be prepared to deliver training to mobile learners (Park, 2011). Also, with the increasing prevalence of mobile learning, educators and instructional designers need to account for the increasingly personal context of education (Cronje & El-Hussein 2010).
A new teaching and learning concept is fostering, and a new instructional design model is needed to facilitate mobile teaching and learning in education (Shih, 2005). The goal of instructional design is to help the teaching and learning process by ensuring that education experiences are optimized for particular learning goals, especially when different mix of media are used (Nichols, 2007). Some researchers argued that mobile learning will require a new approach for both teaching and learning (Ozdamli, 2011). As such, educators and instructional designers face a challenge of determining how to use these powerful new tools in learning applications (Cronje & El-Hussein, 2010).
In order to effectively support mobile education, instructional principles must be identified, which is pedagogically sound and will address the mobile learning context in terms of usability (Gu, Gu, & Lafferty, 2011). Therefore, a set of instructional principles and design model is necessary in order to apply it to learning possibilities on mobile devices that allows for ability to take training whenever, wherever and have access to “just-in-time” learning opportunity (Evans, 2008). Current instructional design models and methods were developed to design instruction for delivery on personal desktop computers that have large screens (Ally, 2005). According to Cronje and El-Hussein (2010), students learning via mobile delivery are not only remote from their instructor, they can fully control the information they choose to interact with on their device.
However, there is a trend towards the use of mobile devices to deliver learning materials, and for students to learn anytime and anywhere. The use of mobile devices for learning has implications in regard to how learning materials are designed using learning theories and instructional design principles (Dillard, 2012). Meanwhile, Sharples, Taylor and Vavoula (2010) submitted that mobile device ownership is expanding and mobile device capabilities are expanding to include features such as cameras, media players, and other functions previously only supported on multimedia computers.
Learning using the support of mobile devices can also allow learners to use a single device which can be moved between classrooms and in contexts outside of education (Quinn, 2011). Bruns, Cobcroft, Smith, and Towers (2006) asserted that mobile instructional design principles must account for how to use learning activities to engage learners, acknowledge the learning context, challenge learners, and provide opportunities for practice in order to contribute to quality learning experiences. By considering learners’ creative, collaborative, communicative and critical engagement, a framework for mobile learning can provide meaningful insight into a mobile learner’s achievement of knowledge (Dillard, 2012). Muyinda (2007) posited that mobile learning must take into account the ubiquitous use of personal and shared technology. It is therefore important to have an operational understanding of the context in developing a user interface that is both useful and flexible (Uden, 2007).
A set of mobile learning instructional design principles which enable the development of mobile learning that is usable, effective, and has a high level of learner satisfaction is of paramount importance (Kukulska-Hulme, Pachler &Vavoula, 2009). According to Park (2011), instructional designers need to learn about the concepts of mobile learning and how mobile technologies can be incorporated into their teaching and learning more effectively. In the submission of Cagiltay, Gedik, Hanci-Karademirci and Kursun (2012), mobile instruction was designed to help students review the content and practice sample questions via their cellular phones in which it will be appropriate when it contains multimedia components rather than just text, and also when the instruction is spread out over time. With reference to the fore statement, it can be concluded that instructional design team needs to consult with and receive help from the subject matter expert on content, duration, scheduling, and any changes to face-to-face instruction in order for mobile learning to be effective and add value.
Through designing an easy to navigate interface and increasing the use of multimedia over textual display, a much higher rate of efficiency will be achieved through a mobile platform (Haag, 2011). In this context, Arnedillo-Sánchez, Milrad, Sharples, and Vavoula, (2009) suggested reason to understand how people learn through mobile, pervasive, lifelong interaction of technology via understanding the implications of learning with mobile technology by accurately adopting a design model that will address all pertinent considerations or issues. If mobile learning is not applicable and designed to match the needs of the learner, the learner can choose not to interact with it (Cronje & El-Hussein, 2010). The idea of ability to use mobile devices for learning while engaging in an ongoing task in a physical environment may enhance sense-making process by enabling students to step in and out of the tasks and reflect on these transitions (Connelly, Hazlewood, Rogers & Tedesco, 2009). Additionally, the quality of the interactions will also be guided by how comfortable the instructor is able to map-out strategies for guiding a discussion that integrates the information available on the digital device.
In the explanation of Cronje and El-Hussein (2010), instructional designers often continued not to adapt their designs to consider the entire context in which a learner will use a particular mobile learning program, but instead, borrow ideas from their e-learning experiences which do not always translate well to mobile delivery. Mobile learning is not about repurposing laptop e-learning, so it fits on a smaller device which contains instructional contents that is concise, short burst of learning and performance support (Coraline, 2012). Mobile learning is also distinct from e-learning for the simple fact that, to deliver e-learning, the learner must be brought to the device while in mobile learning, the instructional material is brought to the learner (Guy, 2010). It was further expatiated that the proper design of the technologies leads to greater effectiveness of mobile learning (Coraline, 2010; Cronje & El-Hussein; Guy, 2010).
Also, designers and practitioners of education should clarify the design paradigm shifts that this mode of delivery has introduced into the world of practice in order to ensure mobile learning is effective and efficient and the continuing needs of their students are being met (Dillard, 2012). In ensuring mobile learning effectiveness and efficiency in consonant with students’ needs, evaluation of the content-user interface and other associating parameters is pertinent in the assessment system to meet the changing demands of quality assurance and quality improvement for learning resources as asserted to by Leacock and Nesbit (2007). However, Liu and Johnson (2005) are of the opinion that the accelerating quantity and complexity of online resources is focusing attention on the inconsistent in instructional content quality evaluation.
Evaluation instruments designed specifically for smaller digital resources are needed for three reasons; (a) the design of multimedia learning materials is frequently not informed by relevant research in psychology and education, (b) to mitigate the search problem and finally,(c) the quality criteria for evaluations have the potential to drive improvements in design practice (Nesbit, Belfer, & Vargo, 2002; Nesbit, Li, &Leacock, 2006; Vargo, Nesbit, Belfer, & Archambault, 2003; Shavinina & Loarer, 1999). These three major reasons can result in easy access to many ready-made learning objectives of high quality, and making the process of shifting through repositories or the web to find high-quality resources less time-consuming. The efficacy of this technique could be directly dependent on the validity of the evaluation tool used to generate the quality ratings. However, in the explanation of Shelton (2011), evaluating quality standard in online learning is a complex and difficult concept that depends on a range of factors arising from the student’s interaction, the context of curriculum, the instructional design approach and technology used for the delivery of online instruction. Shelton and Saltsman (2004) postulated that the mark of quality for an online education program is not its growth rate but the combination of retention rate, academic outcomes, and success in online student and instructor’s support.
Shelton and Isernhagen (2012) presented the following existing paradigms for evaluating the quality of online education learning: IHEP’s 24 Benchmarks for Success in Internet-Based Distance Education (2000); Bates’ ACTIONS Model of Quality (1995); WCET’s Best Practices for Electronically offered Degree and Certificate Programs (2001); Khan’s Eight Dimensions of e-Learning Framework (2001); Frydenberg’s Quality Standards in e-Learning (2002); Sloan Consortium’s Five Pillars of Quality (2002); Lee and Dziuban’s Quality Assurance Strategy (2002); Lockhart and Lacy’s Assessment Model (2002); CHEA’s Accreditation and Quality Assurance Study (2002); Osika’s Concentric Model (2004); Moore and Kearsley’s Assessment Recommendations (2005); Haroff and Valentine’s Six–Factor Solution (2006); Chaney, Eddy, Droman, Glessner, Green, and Lara-Alecio’s Quality Indicators (2009); and Shelton’s Quality scorecard for the administration of online education programs (2010).
It is clear at this point that evaluation approaches, criteria, and models are of great importance. Meanwhile, few experienced evaluators, however, pick one model and adhere to it for all of their works; they are more likely to draw upon different aspects of several models (Owston, 2008). Worthen and Saunders (1987) agreed with this statement:
The value of alternative approaches lies in their capacity to help us think, to present and provoke new ideas and techniques, and to serve as mental checklists of things we ought to consider, remember, or worry about. Their heuristic value is very high; their prescriptive value seems much less. (p. 151)
Several implications can be drawn from this discussion of evaluation models; so far, it will help in making decisions about the design of technology-based program evaluations. This is summarized schematically as follow
Figure 1: Decisions for Designing an Evaluation Study by Owston (2007).
Source: Owston (2007)
Each of these evaluation models presents a specific direction in evaluating quality of technology and instructional content as the case may be. Meanwhile, Bates’s ACTIONS model of quality online instructional content is specifically developed to evaluate instructional technologies in education; Access and flexibility, Costs, Teaching and learning, Interactivity and User-friendliness, Organizational Issues, Novelty, and Speed are the stages. This model was designed to help with the selection of instructional technologies for delivery of instructional content and it was one of the first to address cost factors which affect both the institution and the student. By this orientation goal of Bates’s Actions model as an evaluation mode of technologies for learning, it is an appropriate evaluation approach to be selected for mobile learning in this study. Mobile learning is an application of mobile computing within the education sector in which handheld devices are used by students freely to move, learn and communicate over wireless networks (Li, Guizani & Kazakos, 2006).
Students, through mobile learning platform, can work together on a task, exchange their views, experiences, opinions, discuss and negotiate strategies, actions and results (Vasiliou & Economides, 2007). These actions can provide students with opportunity to assist, explain, teach, understand, review and influence each other. By developing a learning community, it could also provide the opportunity to combine the special abilities of everyone to achieve a common goal in a collaborative means. In the submission of Vasiliou and Economides (2007), collaborative learning is a student-centered, task-based, activity-based learning approach that provides several advantages to the student. It can assists the student to enhance the skills of communication, interpersonal social relationship, cooperation of sharing and caring, openness, flexibility, adaptability, knowledge retention, higher-order of critical thinking, creativity, management, practicality, responsibility, trustworthiness of dependability, involvement, engagement of participation, commitment of persistency, motivation, confidence and self-efficacy. Meanwhile, it is an educational method in which students work together in small groups towards a common goal (Dillenbourg, Baker, Blaye & O’Malley, 1996; Hafner & Ellis, 2004). The teacher acts as a coach, mentor or facilitator of the learning process. The successful achievement of the common goal is shared among all group members.
The students take initiative and responsibility for learning and actively learn by doing, by practice and by experience. Collaborative learning occurs when we stop relying on experts and teachers to transfer their knowledge to us and instead engage together in making sense and creating meaning for ourselves (Rhea, 2010). It was elucidated that collaboration taps into the power of an inclusive and active group of learners to turn those wheels as fast as the speed of change and increasing complexity now required. Collaborative learning in an online classroom can take the form of discussion among the whole class or within smaller groups (Brindley, Walti & Blaschke, 2009). Groups in collaborative learning techniques are dynamic in the context of activities engagement as identified by Cerbin (2010).
In a training workshop organized in the Center for Advancing Teaching and Learningin 2010 at the University of Wincousin, five major collaborative learning techniques were identified; think‐pair‐share (TPS), reciprocal teaching (RT), think‐aloud pair problem solving (TAPPS), group grid (GG) and group writing assignments (GWA). Each of the identified collaborative group aforementioned has their dynamics and extent of collaboration mode. Understanding online group dynamics present excellent effective collaborative activities (Dooly, 2008). Salmon (2000) online model provide an excellent group collaborative association with incorporation of five phases; access and motivation, online socialization, information exchange, knowledge construction and construction. This model can provide exceptional opportunity for effective communication within and among the various groups taking part in a ubiquitous collaborative mobile learning environment. Jahng, Chan and Nielsen (2010) presented a schematic collaboration process within a small group as shown in figure 2;
Input (pre-learning) collaboration process (while-learning) outcomes (post-learning)
Figure 2: Small Group Learning Framework by Jahng, Chan and Nielsen (2010)
Source: Jahng, Chan and Nielsen (2010)
The small group framework shown in figure 2 explains the initiation of online collaborative learning activities. The member’s prior knowledge refers to the entry behavior of each member in a group in relation to the instructional content. Group task present an opportunity to design the necessary assignment to be carried out by the group through collaboration and then, members’ personalities connotes the individual differences identified within and among the groups. The instructor’s cognitive, managerial skill and social presence play a vital role in relation to the learning progression where learners collectively engage in learning process.
Finally, the extent of learning engagement through mental exercise, management of learning process and duration of social presence by students within the groups leads to the learning outcome (Jahng, Chan & Nielsen, 2010). This is measure via the knowledge construction, the quality of the task given and the course mark or score. In this perspective, level of interaction and communication when analyzed display the quality, quantity and share/transfer of knowledge for effective and efficient collaborative learning (Jahng, Chan and Nielsen, 2010). The can create a better understanding of difficult concepts like mole concept to student. However, students have been conceptualizing mole concept with wrong notion as asserted by Gabel & Bunce (1994) that the didactic problem is no longer limited to the students difficulties, and that its cause can rather be found in instruction because the mole is a concept devised by scientists to aid in chemical calculations, students’ erroneous or non-conceptions could hardly be called intuitive conceptions, but arise because of insufficient instruction or inappropriate teaching strategies. From the results of students’ performance in chemistry between 2004-2010 for West African Senior Secondary School Certificate, it shows that students’ performance is at lower and this can be attributed to the poor understanding of some concepts in the subject.
Table1: Chemistry Students’ Performance in WASSCE 2004-2010
|Subjects |Year of Examination |Total No of |Total Credit Pass (A1 – C6)|Total Pass |Total Fail (F9) % |
| | |Students |% |(p7 – p8) % | |
|CHEMISTRY |2004 |313322 |154914 |73385 |67412 |
| | | |(49.4%) |(23.4%) |(21.5%) |
| |2005 |349936 |178274 |65499 |95499 |
| | | |(50.9%) |(18.7%) |(27.3%) |
| |2006 |380104 |179670 |86423 |114475 |
| | | |(44.9%) |(22.7%) |(30.1%) |
| |2007 |422681 |194284 |104680 |111322 |
| | | |(45.9%) |(24.8%) |(26.3%) |
| |2008 |418423 |185949 |114020 |119260 |
| | | |(33.9%) |(24.3%) |(25.5%) |
| |2009 |468542 |204725 |114020 |119260 |
| | | |(43.7%) |(24.3%) |(25.5%) |
| |2010 |465643 |236,059 |137894 |91695 |
| | | |(50.7%) |(29.6%) |(19.6%) |
Source: Research and Statistics Unit, WAEC (2011)
Statement of the Problem
Mobile learning research in both the developed and developing world has focused on the use of handheld computers and smartphones (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005; Ally, 2009). In contrast, little research has concentrated on mobile learning for simpler devices or mobile learning capable of running on limited networks (Trifonova & Ronchetti, 2003). After a successful pilot study using simply featured phones, Gregson and Jordaan (2009) referred to the potential uses of more recent smartphone and 3G handsets for supporting a broader range of academic activity for education in Africa. Similarly, Ford and Leinonen (2009) in their paper concluded that the learner creations, actions, sharing of experiences and reactions are key factors to consider when one is designing mobile collaborative activities for learning. Spikol (2008) developed a prototype of human-computer interfaces with the intention of investigating the performance of collaboration when using multimedia resources. He proposed two main ways of collaboration for the user, synchronous and asynchronous messages, which provide means to include variety of media type like image, audio, video and text.
The presented prototype highlighted how multimedia resources increased the creativity of those involved in the collaborative learning, because of the associations between the text messages in the external world context, for example: trying to make connections between his idea and a video or a picture captured with his mobile device. In a study by Wong, Chin, Tan and Liu (2010) conducted on Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) that emphasizes learner created content and contextualized meaning making in learning Chinese idioms, students proactively used smartphones on a 1:1 basis to capture photos of the real-life contexts pertaining to the idioms, and to construct sentences with them. Subsequently, in-class or online sharing and discussions on the contexts took place, which would enhance the students' understanding of the proper usage of the idioms. The learning design is grounded in seamless learning that encompasses in-class formal learning and out-of-class informal settings, personal and social learning spaces. The analysis of the student artifacts in both product- and process-oriented aspects reveal the students’ cognitive process and learning strategies during the course of content creation. The students' on going, open-ended, personal-to-social meaning making process and artifacts have shown some indicators of seamless language learning that has the potential of transforming language learning into an authentic learning experience.
In a qualitative and quantitative research evaluation study conducted by Clarke, Svanaes and Zimmermann (2013) on the feasibility and educational impact of giving one-to-one Tablets to every child in school, four secondary schools that had chosen to give pupils one-to-one Tablets in September 2011, two schools that had introduced Tablets in autumn 2012, and three schools that were given Tablets by Tablets for Schools for Year 7s between 2012 and 2013 were involved. Results suggested that long-term use of the Tablet has a profound effect on pedagogy, and that pupil’s benefit from having access to content both at school and at home. Pupils appear to have greater engagement with learning, collaboration with peer’s increases, and teachers can monitor individual progress effectively.
The researcher has previously designed and developed a multimedia instructional package on mole concept in which mole concept is used as a dummy. The validation and evaluation results favourably support design principles and improve performance of students respectively. From the aforementioned researches, it is clear that there are no information as regard teaching through mobile learning in ubiquitous setting in Nigeria and in addition, in the science subjects perspective at secondary school level. Therefore, research is needed regarding the concerns of access and adoption rates of these new technology trends for better evaluation, justification, and adoption of technologies that can improve learning and accommodate both young and old learners. The adaptation of instructional contents in the multimedia instructional package for mobile learning is of necessity in order to find out its influence on students’ performance. Also, the introduction of electronic tablets by the University of Ilorin authority necessitated this research endeavor. Therefore, this study will design and evaluate mobile learning on a cross-platform mobile technology development using Bates’s ACTIONS evaluation model (1995) that consisted of seven steps.
Purpose of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to evaluate mobile learning on a cross-platform mobile technology development using Bates’ Actions evaluation model (1995) that consisted of seven steps. Meanwhile, the specific purpose of this study is to;
1. Determine the accessibility of technology for mobile learning
2. Find out the flexibility of available technology for mobile learning
3. Find out the cost structure of designing a mobile learning
4. Determine the unit cost of a mobile technology
5. Find out opportunity cost of mobile technology against other technology choices
6. Find out which instructional approach will be suitable for mobile learning
7. Find out the instructional content that can be adapted into mobile technology
8. Examine the learning domain that mobile learning enhance
9. Determine the extent of interactivity allowed in mobile learning
10. Find out the effectiveness of mobile technology in collaborative setting
11. Find out the extent of novelty of using mobile technology in teaching and learning activities
12. Determine the technical attributes of mobile technology for learning
13. Find out the quickness of creating and distributing instructional content in mobile technology
14. Find out the quickness of changing instructional content on mobile technology
Research Questions
In this study, answers will be sought to the following research questions;
1. How accessible is mobile technology platform for learners?
2. How flexible is the mobile technology platform for the target group?
3. What is the cost structure of the mobile technology platform for learning?
4. What is the unit cost of the mobile technology platform per student for learning?
5. What is the opportunity cost of the mobile technology platform against other technology choices for learning?
6. What instructional approach will best meet the needs of mobile technology platform for learning?
7. Can instructional content be adapted to mobile technology platform for learning?
8. What skills does the mobile technology platform develop in a learner?
9. What extent of interaction does this mobile technology platform enable?
10. How effective is mobile technology platform for learning in collaborative setting?
11. How new is the mobile technology platform in teaching and learning context?
12. What are the technical capabilities of mobile technology for learning?
13. How quickly can courses be created and distributed with mobile technology platform?
14. How quickly can materials be changed in mobile technology platform?
Research Hypotheses
The following research hypotheses will be tested at 0.05 significant level
HO1: there is no significant difference between student-mediated instruction and instructor-mediated instruction
HO2: there is no significant difference among cognitive, affective and psych motive learning skill
HO3: there is no significant difference between student-student interaction and student-instructor interaction
HO4: there is no significant difference between think-pair-share collaboration and reciprocal teaching collaboration
HO5: there is no significant difference between think-pair-share collaboration and think-aloud pair problem solving collaboration
HO6: there is no significant difference between think-aloud pair problem solving collaboration and reciprocal teaching collaboration
HO7: there is no significant difference between think-pair-share collaboration and group grid collaboration
HO8: there is no significant difference between think-pair-share collaboration and group writing assignment collaboration
HO9: there is no significance difference between reciprocal teaching collaboration and group grid collaboration
HO10: there is no significance difference between think-aloud pair problem solving collaboration and reciprocal teaching collaboration
HO11: there is no significance difference between think-aloud pair problem solving collaboration and group grid collaboration
HO12: there is no significance difference between think-aloud pair problem solving and group writing assignment collaborative
HO13: there is no significance difference between group grid collaboration and group writing assignment collaboration
HO14: there is no significance difference between group writing assignment collaboration and reciprocal teaching collaboration
Scope of the Study
Bates’s Actions evaluation model (1995) is used to assess technology for learning in the field of educational technology and it consist of seven steps namely access, cost, teaching and learning, interactivity and user friendliness, organizational issues, novelty and speed. But, with regard to this research, this model will be synergize with Salmon (2000) online collaborative model and SMSE mobile instructional design model to suit the purpose of the study. Only six of the levels will be considered in conducting evaluation on mobile learning adopting mole concept in chemistry as a dummy for the instructional content. The six levels chosen for the evaluation of mobile learning in this study are access, cost, teaching & learning, interactivity & user friendliness and novelty and are modified with Scenario Message Synchronization Evaluation (SMSE, 2005) Mobile Instructional Design Model and Salmon Online Collaborative Model (2000).
The mole concept was preferred because the researcher has designed, developed and validated a multimedia instructional package in his previous research, hence, the need to replicate this dummy in a mobile learning environment premise on a cross-platform mobile application development. The senior secondary school two (SSS II) chemistry syllabus will be used to design the instructional contents with appropriate decision in respect of the links that will contain text, audio, animation and simulation for concise understanding of the mole concept.
Scenario Message Synchronization Evaluation (SMSE, 2005) mobile instructional design model will be adapted for designing the mobile mole concept (MMC). In harnessing the instructional contents of MLMC, it will treat mole concept in the perspective of major subtopics; redox reaction, volumetric analysis, electrochemistry and stoichiometry. Each of these subtopics will be designed to be delivered through practical and theory that will utilize either of the following media; audio, video, animation and simulation. These medium will be accessed through ubiquitous collaborative mobile learning environment by students participating in the study.
Meanwhile, the collaborative learning techniques that will be adopted are the one put forward by Cerbin (2010). Collaborative learning will be categorized into five different techniques namely think-pair share, reciprocal teaching, think-aloud pair problem solving, group grid and group writing assignment. The ubiquitous mobile collaborative learning will adopt the above collaborative learning techniques by randomly selecting students to fill the five groups that will be formed. Furthermore, the selected students for this study will be in equal proportion between rural and urban environment within Kwara State. Also, the selected school will be made up of two each of all male gender school, all female gender school and mix gender school to sum it up to six schools.
Clarification of Major Terms and Variables
Mobile Learning: learning through the mobile phone that is enhanced with internet facilities and technical features that can access video, audio, flash animations and simulation for the purpose of acquiring knowledge.
Usability: is the effective functionality of graphic user interface of an instructional content design for mobile phone medium as well as the physical interface of such mobile technology as a function of capability for performing a particular operation.
Cross-Platform: is the attribute and ability of instructional contents designed for mobile learning purpose to run on any operating system of a particular mobile technology.
Evaluation: is the assessment and valuation of instructional content and the mobile technology used to transmit instructions to learners.
Collaborative Learning: is the sharing of idea and understanding of a concept taught through the mobile learning platform among users or learners involved in the exercise.
Interactivity: is the level of activities engaged in and contributions made by the learners while learning through mobile collaborative learning.
Accessibility: is the availability of mobile technology for learning by the learner and to what extent is it been used for learning purpose.
Ubiquitous: is the ability to learn anytime and anywhere through the mobile technology within and outside the classroom setting in this study.
Handheld Devices: are portable mobile devices that can be utilized for learning purposes aside its primary function of communication and other activities.
Think-Pair-Share: is collaborative learning technique where students explain answers and ideas to a fellow student in same group as a result of instructor’s question.
Reciprocal Teaching: is a collaborative learning technique where students jointly read a text and in turn teach one another within the same group.
Think-Aloud Pair Problem Solving: is a collaborative learning techniques where students work in pairs and alternate role in which one is a problem solver and the other is a listener.
Group Grid: is a collaborative technique that involves analyzing, classifying and organizing subject matter through grid or matrix based on several categories or criteria.
Group Writing Assignment: is a collaborative learning technique that culminates into a group-authored document.
Mole Concept: is a concept in chemistry that explain the constituent and composition in quantity of atoms or molecule in an element or compound.
Significance of the Study
More recently, the rapid growth of mobile phone subscriptions in Africa has sparked interest in how mobile phones in particular might enhance learning opportunities for the professional development of teachers, and support teachers in their pedagogical practices and administrative duties. Mobile learning has the potential to improve efficiency in the education sector and expand educational opportunities to underserved communities in remote area. However, there are a multitude of challenges faced when introducing and implementing mobile learning. Therefore, the study can benefit all educational institutions that is involve in the delivery of instructions.
Students would also benefit from this study by gaining knowledge of using mobile phone for learning. They would discover the power inherent in using their mobile phone for learning rather than using it for socializing via all forms of social network applications. They would also gain additional knowledge of using all these social networking applications for educational purposes. This study would also benefit instructional designers in the way of evolving instructional design models that would consider adequate, the features of mobile technology for learning and also on technical ground be able to determine the appropriate characteristics of mobile handheld phone that will be suitable for learning. In addition, this study would benefit the manufacturer of mobile phone that envisaging at the inception design and manufacturing of such considers the features that needs to be embedded in it. The study would further serve a positive purpose for the mobile phone users by providing concise information as guidance for making decision on the type of mobile phone to be bought for the purpose of learning.
Educational policy makers would also benefit in this study. Policy makers would be challenged to create, design and develop policies that would promote effective learning through mobile phones. They would also be saddled with the responsibility of providing guidelines, through the policy formulation, as framework that would enhance the transmission of instructional contents through mobile learning. Furthermore, this study could prompt the organization of conference, workshop and training on issues that could promote learning through all the tiers of educational system.
Government agencies responsible or associated with instructional content delivery would as well benefit through awareness of working towards the actualization and realization of using mobile phone for learning in our educational settings. It would also provide important detail in regard to what infrastructures needed to promote learning through mobile phone. In addition, this study would provide accurate information on how to provide conducive learning environment for mobile learning to triumph. Teachers would also benefit in this study in the way of exposing them to alternative learning opportunity different from what they are used to i.e. chalk and board method or computer-based learning medium. It would also propel their curiosity by seeing the need for more training as way of self-development in their chosen professional career.
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter focuses on the review of related literature to this study. It gives detailed information on multi-media and its synchronization with computer assisted instruction as a form of information and communication technology. The review is carried out under the following sub-headings:
1. Concept of Mobile Learning and its trends in Collaborative Learning System
2. Multimedia Principles in a Mobile Learning Environment and Its Characteristics
3. Usability Evaluation Method for Mobile Learning Applications
4. Interactivity in Handheld Devices for Learning
5. Estimating Costs and Time Implications for Instructional Design Processes
6. Definition and Meaning of Mole Concept
7. Conceptual Framework
8. Appraisal of Reviewed Literature
Concept of Mobile Learning and Its Trends in Collaborative Learning System
Mobile technologies are constantly evolving. Today’s mobile technology options include a diverse range of devices – from mobile phones and tablet computers to electronic readers (e-readers), portable audio players and handheld gaming consoles . The United Nations Educational and Socio-Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2012) explained that mobile devices are digital, easily portable and can enable or assist any number of tasks including communication, data storage, video synchronized with audio recording, global positioning, and more. Mobile phones have become a part of daily life for billions of people and it is appropriate to understand how these increasingly affordable and familiar devices can be used to support education either alone or in combination with other tools and resources (United Nations Educational and Socio-Cultural Organization {UNESCO}, 2012).
MoLeNET (2010) defined mobile learning as the exploitation of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together with wireless and mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the reach of teaching and learning. While ADL (2010) defines it as the use of handheld computing devices to provide access to learning content and information resources, Whereas Brown and Diaz (2010) explicitly references the mobility of the learner to mobile learning in any educational interaction delivered through mobile technology and accessed at student’s convenience from any location. Any activity that allows individuals to be more productive when consuming, interacting with, or creating information mediated through a compact digital portable device that the individual carries on a regular basis, has reliable connectivity, and fits in a pocket or purse is regarded as mobile learning (eLearning Guild, 2008). The following are considered to be mobile learning devices: smartphones (iPhone), netbooks, PDAs, Nintendo DS, SONY PSP, media players, iPod Touch, voting systems, specialist handhelds, cameras and headcams (DeGani, Martin, Stead & Wade, 2010).
Traxler (2009) ascertained that the use of wireless, mobile portable and handheld devices are gradually increasing and diversifying across every sector of education transverse both the developed and developing worlds. It was argued by Koole (2009) that wireless networked mobile devices can help shape culturally sensitive learning experiences and the means to cope with the growing amount of information in the world. Mobile learning is a conceptualizations of mobile education that employed technologies and its hardware, that is, it is a learning delivered or supported mainly by handheld and mobile technologies such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), smartphones or wireless laptop PCs (Traxler, 2009). Koole (2009) listed common wireless technology standards that are important for mobile learning to include WiFi, infrared, Bluetooth, GSM, GPRS and CDMA.
The term mlearning is short for mobile learning. It basically means electronic learning through a mobile device, such as mp3 player (iPod), smart cellphone portable computer, or iPad. This means that learners do not have to be in a fixed, predetermined location. A popular definition of mobile learning is education that involves the use of mobile devices to enable learning anytime and anywhere (UNESCO, 2012). This definition captures much of the essence of mobile learning but discussions on mobile learning should focus more on mobility and its unique affordances than on technology per se with questions on how mobile devices can support not only learning but also the broad objectives of educational goals.
Mobile learning relies on a device with anywhere, anytime wireless access and that it is based on the following concepts as put forward by Rosen (2010); information is available anywhere there is internet access, information is available anytime, information is available through devices that are becoming common place and will soon be affordable to most people, information can be pushed from the environment to the learners and pulled by the learners from the environment and the learning environment is fluid and adapts as the learner learns. The ability to extend educational experiences beyond classrooms and enable non-formal and informal learning can be seen as a key attribute of mobile learning and as well carries enormous potential to make learning more personalized and relevant. However, in this context, mobility could be translated to mean a chance to overcome physical constraints by having access to people and digital learning resources regardless of place and time (Kukulska-Hulme, 2010). Thus mobile learning can very much happen in the classroom as well.
Mobile learning is an extension of e-learning and has the potential to make learning even more widely available and accessible than we are used to in existing e-learning environments (Keegan, 2005). The role that communication and interaction plays in the learning process could be termed as a critical success factor. It is within this context that mobile learning can contribute to the quality of education. It can encourage opportunities for the optimization of interaction between lecturers and learners, among learners and among members of certain group. UNESCO (2012) identified that wireless and mobile technologies also make it possible to provide learning opportunities for learners that does not have access to infrastructure or for those that are continually on the move in their day-to-day activities. Mobile learning through the use of wireless mobile technology allows anyone to access information and learning materials from anywhere and at any time (Ally, 2009).
He explained further that Mobile learning, through the use of mobile technology, will allow citizens of the world to access learning materials and information from anywhere and at anytime. This implies that intending learners could look beyond the barriers of time to learn or go to a certain place to learn. Mobile learning can afford the learner the selective option of learning whenever and wherever they want. They can use the wireless mobile technology for formal and informal learning where they can access additional and personalized learning materials from the internet or from the host organization. Looking at mobile learning in a wider context, we have to recognize that mobile, personal, and wireless devices are now radically transforming societal notions of discourse and knowledge which are responsible for new forms of art, employment, language, commerce, deprivation, and crime, as well as learning (Traxler, 2009). He further stressed the fact that with increased popular access to information and knowledge anywhere and anytime, the role of education, perhaps especially formal education, is challenged and the relationships between education, society, and technology are now more dynamic than ever.
Koole (2009) asserted that mobile learning offer learner a greater access to relevant information, reduced cognitive load and increased access to other people and systems. Wagner (2005) claimed that mobile learning is on the increase as evidence by the widespread adoption in North American society of mobile wireless technology such as cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, and MP3 players, is irrefutable. Current mobile technologies (especially wireless-frequently referred to as third generation {3G}) – provide an unprecedented opportunity for inexpensive and beneficial computing power for learners (Hill & Roldan 2005; Wagner 2005). Mobile learning was defined by Keegan (2005) as the term which simply make provision of education and training on PDAs, palmtops, handhelds, smart phones and mobile phones possible.
Mobile learning has been defined as any activity that allows individuals to be more productive when consuming, interacting with, or creating information, mediated through a compact digital device that the individual carries on a regular basis, has reliable connectivity and fits in a pocket or purse (eLearning Guild, 2007). Metcalf (2006) noted that mobile learning combines the technologies of mobile computing with electronic learning and may be defined as any form of electronically delivered instruction material with an emphasis on internet or wireless based technologies. As noted in the above definitions, mobile learning is could be thought of as being associated with a mobile device that is connected to the internet. Mobile learning relies on a device with anywhere, anytime wireless access and that it is based on these concepts (Rosen, 2010).
It was further highlighted that the following explains the inherent concept of mobile learning: information is available anywhere there is internet access, information is available anytime instructional design mobile learning information is available through devices that are becoming common place and will soon be affordable to most people. In this wise, information can be pushed from the environment to the learners and pulled by the learners from the environment. The learning environment is fluid and adapts as the learner learns (e-Learning Guild, 2007). Mobile learning was first intended to deliver formal learning, such as sideshows or information; but with the rise of blogging and microblogging applications (such as Twitter or Yammer), it is now largely thought as an aid to informal learning (Pachler, Bachmair & Cook, 2009). That is, rather than delivering full courses, mobile learning is more about performance support and complimenting teaching (Clark, 2011).
Mobile learning is learning using wireless devices that can be used wherever the learner’s device can receive unbroken transmission signals and the mobile devices include not only smart phones but also devices like mobile tablets and personal digital aids (Fuxin, 2012). The definition for mobile learning contains three key components – mobility of technology, mobility of learners and mobility of learning processes as highlighted by Fuxin (2012). Mobility of technology refers to the mobile nature of installed hardware and software that enable constant wireless internet connection. Mobility of learners means learners are no longer physically attached to one or several learning sites and they can be mobile and learn at the same time as long as the mobile devices are around. Finally, mobility of learning is the result of mobility of both the technology and learners (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010).
Generally, research in mobile learning can be grouped into these following categories; games and competition in learning, classroom learning, laboratories learning, field trip learning, distance learning, informal learning, pedagogical and learning theory, learning and teaching support, mobile learning architecture, and mobile evaluation, requirements, and human interface (Goh & Kinshuk, 2006). Classroom learning could explore the use of mobile devices in the laboratory environment to support individual learning as well as collaborative learning. The major difference between mobile learning and traditional classroom lecture form of learning is that the former is learner-centered as opposed to classroom lecture form of learning which is teacher-centered. The traditional forms of learning could require learners to be present in one fixed location, whereas, with mobile learning, students can be anywhere as long as there is access to internet connectivity.
Mobile phones solve this problem and promote learning anytime and everywhere as (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). By this assertion, mobile learning could present an opportunity where learners will be privileged to achieve learning via the use of smart or handheld phones which they might consider as a great advantage. Mobile learning is a conscious effort made in delivering learning content and experiences to learners when and where they need it. It is learning that can be accessed at any time and any place to support performance (Turner, 2012). Typically, mobile learning is accessed via a mobile device that facilitates just-in-time learning and on-demand learning. Mobile learning can be formal or informal, structured or unstructured, flexible, self-paced and self-directed which is driven by the learner rather than the technology learners use to access it (Turner, 2012). He further stated that mobile learning is supported by a variety of mobile devices and technologies that facilitate the delivery of documents, presentations, multimedia, notifications, news, assignments, quizzes and educational courseware that can all contribute to m-learning. These includes smart phones e.g. iPhone, laptops, tablets (e.g. iPad), PDA (personal digital assistant), iPod, gaming devices and so on.
In his argument, Turner (2012) posited that mobile learning is different from electronic learning on a mobile device. It is a big mistake to think that mobile learning is simply electronic learning on a mobile device and an even bigger mistake and often costly one, to assume you can simply transport existing electronic learning to make it work on mobile devices. Mobile learning requires a different pedagogical approach to electronic learning for a number of reasons:
➢ Access: the way learners access mobile learning is different to how they access electronic learning (e.g. mobile phone and PDA screens can limit the amount and type of information that can be displayed versus office-based desk-top computer).
➢ Short courses: mobile learning is also best suited to short bite-sized learning courses, theory, information relay rather than long or very practical based courses. No one wants to complete an hour long learning course via a mobile phone or PDA.
➢ Less structured/less formal: mobile learning is often less structured that traditional electronic learning which often sets out specific learning objectives.
➢ On-demand: mobile learning is more about just-in-time and on-demand learning at the moment it is needed whereas traditional electronic learning is more about comprehension and retention. With electronic learning, learners are expected to learn information and retain it for a later time when they will actually apply it on the job.
➢ Assessment: mobile learning requires a whole new strategy for assessment. Traditional electronic learning often includes a final knowledge check / assessment with the initial results recorded on a learning management system but given that there is often a time delay before the learner is actually meant to put the learning into action, it can be difficult to measure and evaluate long-term behavior change and the effects on the business. The time between mobile learning taking place and the learner putting what they have learned into action is relatively short, so it can be easier to measure behavior change and impact on the business.
Mobile learning can be termed the ability to access educational resources, tools and materials at anytime from anywhere, using a mobile device. Mobile devices are primarily communication tools and many PDAs now offer several communication protocols such as GPRS and/or Wi-Fi. This connectivity can supports synchronous communication using voice, voice over internet protocol (VOIP) or instant messaging as well as asynchronous communication via email, weblogs, web forums, wikis, and virtual learning environments.
In recent years, researchers have investigated the potential of mobile handheld devices to support collaborative learning by devising educational scenarios that makes use of collaborative, interactive, and mobile capabilities (Clough, Jones, MacAndrew & Scanlon, 2009). The advancements in technological computing and wireless communication combined with rapid adoption of sophisticated mobile multimedia devices and applications have created new software tools for people to connect and interact; therefore changing the ways we communicate and collaborate (Liu & Milrad, 2010). The usage of handheld devices contributes to the creation of new patterns of interaction and classroom dynamics that may support learning in many ways: they connect the classroom to the outside world, facilitate social learning process and contextualize the learning experience ((Liu, Tao & Nee, 2008; Vavoula, Sharples, Rudman, Meek, & Lonsdale, 2009; Vogel, Spikol, Kurti, & Milrad, 2010). PDAs have been introduced into schools, both inside the classroom (DiGiano, Yarnall, Patton, Roschelle, Tatar & Manley, 2003) and outside the classroom in support of fieldwork (Chen, Kao, & Sheu, 2003). Research has also been conducted in the wider learning sphere, with the use of handhelds as interactive museum guidebooks (Hsi, 2003) and as tools to support medical students on hospital placements (Smørdal & Gregory, 2003).
Roschelle (2003) identified two forms of collaborative participation: the normal social participation in classroom discussion and the new informatics participation among connected devices. He discovered that in the classroom setting, where the learners were in the same physical space, the normal face-to-face social interaction was supplemented by the wireless interaction between the connected devices. In this context, mobile devices added a new social dimension of participation that was not otherwise available (Clough, Jones, MacAndrew & Scanlon, 2009). Given the array of evidences cited above in support for mobile learning activities, the question of collaboration in both formal and informal learning contexts arises and to what extent can learners make use of the connectivity afforded by their mobile devices to engage in collaborative learning should be a challenging endeavour?.
Collaborative learning by definition is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together (Chatti, Hamdan & Schaper, 2012). In other words, collaborative learning could be categorize as one form of social interaction during learning processes that provides an additional platform for coordination within formal and informal learning environments. According to Chatti, Hamdan & Schaper (2012), three major elements are inherent in collaborative learning which includes scales of participation, learning context and methods of collaboration. Scale of participation deals with the size of the participant which might be either in a pair, a small group, a class, or a society and the collaboration time span. Learning contexts element in collaborative learning could be within a formal context (e.g. sharing course material) or through joint problem solving where learning is a side effect measured by the improved performance of problem solving or gained knowledge. The methods of collaboration can range from asynchronous communication to synchronous or co-location collaboration and this can trigger activities such as explanation, disagreement and mutual regulation.
Meanwhile, from the conceptual definitions given above, mobile learning could be termed the union of mobile technology garnished with e-learning and three major components are synonymous with a mobile learning environment namely mobile devices, wireless technology and students/instructors (Chatti, Hamdan and Schaper, 2012). The theory of mobile learning examines how learning flows across locations, topics, times, and technologies (Bonacin and Martins, 2008). Context is a central construct of mobile learning raising a fundamental challenge on how to enable meaning making from the flow of everyday activity. Mobile learning is a new process of learning through exploration and conversation across multiple contexts amongst people and interactive technologies (Arnedello-Sanchez et al., 2009).
Mobile learning becomes interactive when used in a collaborative environment (Chatti et al., 2012). The importance of collaborative learning in both formal and informal learning could be associated to the interaction and exchange of information. Collaborative learning through mobile devices has been investigated mainly because of the availability and mobility offered by these devices (Spikol, 2008). According to Jain, Birholtz, Cutrell and Balakrishnan (2011), collaborative mobile learning is an activity that allows transparent collaboration by empowering the social negotiation space of group members, coordination between the activity states, encouraging members' mobility, possibility of mediation in interactivity, organization of the managed material and enabling students to collaborate in groups through wireless network supporting social face-to-face communication.
Collaboration is also entertaining, as it integrates a variety of mediums like video clips, instant messages, photos, music, simulations and animations which are exchanged during collaborative mobile learning sessions (Kopler, 2009). One major perspective posited by Bonacin and Martins (2008) is enriching the mobile environment with multimedia resources like video, audio, images, simulations and animations. With the use of multimedia inputs, users can employ artefact to explain their point of view quickly and easily in a context of collaborative learning.
From all the literature reviewed in this sub-heading, it can be concluded that mobile learning creates an opportunity for students to learn at anytime and anywhere in their convenience. But learning anywhere and anytime requires some basic attributes that could actually present the chances of learning within and outside the classroom environment. The basic features necessary to cause learning in the aforementioned medium are access to portable technologies, stable internet possibilities, technology enhanced with multimedia facilities and quality chunks of instructional contents. The additional option for learning within the confine mobility is collaborative means of sharing and discussing ideas. Mobile learning could support collaborative learning through the share of knowledge, group discussions, group task assignments and all other forms of pervading knowledge gain among collaborating members. Collaborative mobile learning through portable devices or smart phone could arouse, increase, motivate and sustain learner’s interest toward understanding a difficult concept in a subject area. The collaboration also provide a medium of exchange of personal information and other related attributes of participating members in an online group endeavor.
Well-structured chunks of instructional contents transmitted through mobile platform, enhanced with audio, video, simulation and animations can a difficult concept more clearly understood by the learners. The different media mix in a mobile learning instructional content creates a meaningful engagement of the learner’s intellectual capacity by through active involvement in a collaborative learning setting. The availability and accessibility of social network applications also promote individual contribution to a group task in a mobile learning endeavor, hence, initiating long term relationship in the area of discipline and profession interest among participating members in a collaborative environment. It should however be noted that the effectiveness of collaboration in mobile learning could be improved via instructor’s approach, quality of instructional content, specification of group dynamism and the appropriate links of multimedia tools to corresponding activity and task.
Multimedia Principles in a Mobile Learning Environment and Its Characteristics
Teachers must change their roles and become learning facilitators, who apply different learning strategies to design the instructional materials in different learning environments (Chen and Tsai, 2009). In the process of facilitating learning for permanent relative change in an individual’s attitude, the teacher needs to design and develop instructional materials that could actually bring about knowledge acquisition. Multimedia learning platform are those instructional technology tools that integrate media objects such as text, graphics, video, animation and sound to represent and convey information that have the potential to connect key learning objectives in a prescribed curriculum to real world contexts, integrate diverse curriculum areas, support student decision-making, and foster authentic collaboration" (Crichton & Kopp, 2006). Multimedia could be described as a computer-aided instruction (CAI) or instructional presentation that combines text, graphics, video and audio which may include interactivity options. As an instructional tool, it is important to see multimedia as one option in the vast array of instructional technology tools.
Hendler (2009) recognizes web 3.0 as the next generation of web innovations which combine the social networking capabilities of web 2.0 with semantic web data applications and concluded that educational environment for multimedia learning possess the ability to quickly and efficiently communicate using blogs, wikis, Twitter, You Tube, Google Wave, Flickr, Jing, DimDim, and other tools that presents it for educational value for practice activities, learner-content interaction and time on task for the learner. Multimedia, development languages for applications and content-authoring tools are used to develop mobile learning (Kantore, 2011). Multimedia in mobile learning are concerned with the types of media employed for the presentation of content which might include text, video, podcast, phone calls, teleconferencing, voice recognition, audio files and television broadcasting.
Development languages are used to develop software application use as part of mobile learning which include flash, WML, voice XML, HTML, XHTML, shockwaves and the likes. Content authoring tools are built to facilitate the development process of content for use on mobile devices and it supports the ability to author, design test and publish content. Therefore, multimedia relevance in education in respect of the current social networking tools could not be overemphasized. The advanced computer skills of many educators and the user-friendly technology tools available at affordable prices make it possible for a growing number of users to envision an engaging interactive learning content or even create computer-based multimedia instructional materials (Frey & Sutton, 2010).
In addition to the learning considerations, there is some evidence that multimedia instruction may be more motivating, interesting and accessible at anytime and anyplace than conventional learning methods (Zheng, 2009). Multimedia present an opportunity for the teacher to create a conducive learning environment as a way of motivating learner as asserted to by Lui, Toprac and Yuen (2009). They identified the following as factors contributing to intrinsic motivation in the quest to learn: problem solving, having fun or playing, information processing, self-control or voluntary acting and socializing.
Chen, Chen and Tsai (2011) posited that e-learning as not been effectively utilized in Taiwan universities due to the absence of incorporation of appropriate multimedia cues like texts, animated graphics, simulations, sounds and videos. They asserted that the technique can attract students’ attention through liveliness, thereby increasing their learning retention. E-learning can be viewed as an innovative approach for delivering well designed learner-centered, interactive and facilitated learning environment to anyone, anyplace, anytime by utilizing the attributes and resources of various digital technologies along with other forms of learning materials suited for open, flexible, and distributed learning environment (Khan, 2001). In this type of learning environment, i.e. e-learning environment, the instructor controls the instructional sequencing and pacing and all learners participate in the same learning activities at specified times (Rhode, 2009).
The ability to produce effective multimedia for mobile learning makes learning very appealing and mobile phones are becoming more technically sophisticated, as it can create and play multimedia content; have larger high quality colour screens; many models can now capture, edit, and play back video, audio, and photographs; many models can also run flash-based interactive applications (Bradley, Haynes, Cook, Boyle, Smith, 2009). They also have greater storage capacity, and networking connectivity with PCs the Internet with Bluetooth and WiFi. Developing dynamic instructional materials in a mobile environment by using appropriate combinations of multimedia tools such as text, animated graphics, sounds and videos will attract students’ attention through liveliness, thereby increasing their learning intention (Chen et al., 2011).
Chen, Yang, Chen, Chen and Chen (2010) explained that virtual realities, conceptual animations, symbolic representations, viewing of images, explanatory figures and other abstract representations can also be used to present materials in an appropriate way. This enables students to fully understand and internalize the materials, and thus, have meaningful learning experiences (Shyu, 2008). Effectiveness in multimedia instructional content design could be all about making the solution match the problem. The solution may combine various elements from all three categories of computer technology, or solution may use just one category combined with non-computer-based presentation formats such as a lecture, video, laser disk, overheads, and blackboard portions. It is important to understand the features of technology when making your choices for multimedia presentations.
Hendler (2009) was contemplating on whether multimedia will still be relevant in today’s web 3.0 world which is defined as the next generation of Web innovations that combine the social networking capabilities of web 2.0 with semantic web data applications or is there still a place in the online educational environment for multimedia learning?. As the ability to quickly and efficiently communicate using blogs, wikis, Twitter, You Tube, Google Wave, Flickr, Jing, DimDim, and other tools, does it really matter what multimedia can do in this whirlwind of technological advances? Despite the potential immediacy of the Web 3.0 world, engaging multimedia content continues to have educational value for practice activities, learner-content interaction, and time on task for the learner. Instructor-controlled multimedia learning objects provide a level of stability that may be lacking with third-party (Frey & Sutton, 2010). It was also stated that tools and files hosted outside of the institution may not always be accessible and when a site is down or content is lost, the responsibility to retrieve this information lies outside of the institution. The instructors’ experience and technology support could play a paramount role in solving the increasingly complexity of web applications in a multimedia environment.
The advanced computer skills of many educators and the user-friendly technology tools available at affordable prices make it possible for a growing number of users to envision engaging interactive learning content or even create technology-based multimedia instructional materials. Multimedia programs can provide authentic, safe, cost-effective practice exercises that many lecturers can seek for their learners. Frey and Sutton (2010) stated that content development tools such as Adobe Flash®, Sun’s Java, Microsoft PowerPoint®, video, audio, Captivate®, Articulate®, Softchalk® and many more applications that were once the exclusive domain of computer programmers, are now readily available for many new technology-savvy users. In addition to the learning considerations, there is some evidence that multimedia instruction may be more motivating, interesting, and accessible at anytime and anyplace than conventional learning methods (Zheng, 2009; Astleither & Hufnagl, 2003). Meanwhile, to increase active engagement as a motivational factor in multimedia instruction, Lui, Toprac, and Yuen (2009) identified the following five factors as contributing to intrinsic motivation: problem solving, having fun or playing, information processing, self-control or voluntary acting, and socializing. Clark and Mayer (2003) identified six major principles from e-learning and science of instructor in relation to multimedia design in online learning and it is presented below;
|Principle |Description |
|Multimedia |People learn more deeply from words and graphics than from words alone. |
|Contiguity |When corresponding printed words and graphics are placed close to one another on the screen or when |
| |spoken words or graphics are presented at the same time |
|Coherence |People learn more deeply from multimedia lessons when distracting stories, graphics, and sounds are |
| |eliminated. |
|Modality |People learn more deeply from multimedia lessons when graphics are explained by audio narration |
| |rather than onscreen text. |
|Redundancy |People learn more deeply from multimedia lessons when graphics are explained by audio narration alone|
| |rather than audio narration and onscreen text. |
|Personalization |People learn more deeply when the speaker uses conversational style rather than formal style. |
Interactive multimedia is engrossing because it provides the opportunity for deep involvement, which captures and holds learner interest. It is multi-sensory, incorporating sounds, images, and text, allowing users to navigate through information to build their own unique mental structures based on exploration. as it facilitates collaborative creation through project-based learning that provides opportunities for authentic collaboration (Mishra & Ramesh, 2005; Tausend, 2007). Interactive multimedia are media that uses multiple forms of information content and information processing including text, audio, graphics, animation, video, interactivity to inform or entertain the user, as well as providing several benefits for learners in an online learning that promote motivation, which accelerate learning; enable knowledge transfer through retention; and provide manipulative experiences unavailable in a normal classroom environment (Aldrich, 2005; Jackson, 2007). Another positive effect of interactive multimedia in e-learning is that learners have the opportunity to manipulate experiences (Tausend, 2007).
According to Alttaher (2006), the most prominent techniques to improve teaching and learning process is multimedia tools in an instructional content particularly the insertion of sound, images, text and film in the form of multimedia procedures. Over the last two decades, the instructional technology researchers’ interests have shifted from the environment and external stimuli to the cognitive processes that occur inside the learner so as to present content in a way similar to his mental processing of knowledge and to have the new knowledge linked with the prior knowledge (Mayer, 2010). Mayer (2001) presented a cognitive model of multimedia learning to present the human information processing system as shown below:
[pic]
Figure 3: Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (Mayer, 2001)
Source: Alttaher (2006)
The processes of multimedia in instructions occur by mental association in which the spoken word primes the image and vice versa, the right side of the working memory box represents the knowledge constructed in working memory pictorial and verbal mental models and link between them as stated in (Aldalalah, Osamah, & Ababneh, 2010). The major cognitive processing required for multimedia learning is represented by the arrows labeled selecting images, selecting sound, organizing images, organizing words, and integrating. It was further explained that pictures and words come in from the outside world through a multimedia presentation and enter sensory memory through the eyes and ears (included in the sensory memory frame). Sensory memory allows for pictures and printed text to be held as exact visual images for a very brief time period in the visual sensory memory and for spoken words and other sounds to be held as exact auditory images for a very brief time period in the auditory memory.
In a literature survey presented in Frey and Sutton (2010) paper on multimedia development model, it was stated that designing instruction can be a monumental task, and a model would provide a systematic structure for the process. In one development approach by Stoney and McMahon (1998) adapted from Gould’s (1995) model of multimedia development, the following four basic phases were identified:
1. Information design including the planning of the content and an analysis of the audience,
2. Interface design which connects the learner with the content in the most functional and intuitive way possible,
3. Navigation to connect the pages of content in a logical structure, and
4. Interaction design which determines how the program works and how the learner uses the program.
While Alessi and Trollip (2001) also identified a four-phase model which includes;
1. Presenting information,
2. Guiding the learner,
3. Practicing, and
4. Assessing learning.
In summary of the literature under multimedia principle in a mobile learning environment and its characteristics, it was proven that well integrated multimodal activities in an instruction enhanced learning performance. Mobile learning instructions are presented in chunks and as such the process of integrating multimedia tools to corresponding textual representation requires careful alignment. It was also explained in the literature above that cautious effort must be made the exercise of alignment of the multimedia tools; audio, text and visual (picture and image). An instructional must be careful not to present a multimedia that will align together with image and audio plus textual representation simultaneously. This could create confusion in the mind of the learner as both textual representation and picture appeal to the sense of sight.
In attaining a meaningful design of multimedia representation in an instructional design within a mobile learning context, certain guidelines needs to be respected in order not to accumulate and pervade the screen of mobile phone with junk instruction. The instructions in mobile phone screen should be chunks and selection of appropriate multimedia tools must align as such in order to capture and send the right information. According to Mayer (2003), the basic multimedia principle that must suffice the design and incorporation of audio, textual, graphics, animation, simulation and so on are multimedia selection, contiguity, coherence, modality and redundancy. The multimedia selection present a direction of justifying the fact that comprehending instruction through audio/textual and graphic/image representation makes student to learn effectively and deeply understanding the subject matter.
Contiguity affords the instructional designer to make the decision of selecting the best media mix to explain a concept in multimedia environment. When an audio and graphic or a text and graphics are displayed correspondingly at the same time to explain a concept, the students learn faster in that direction. Coherence as a principle of multimedia presentation eliminates all distraction which allows for in-depth knowledge of the displayed instruction. As an option of enhancing quality multimedia lesson, the explanation of a visual graphic display by an audio text goes a long way in promoting deep knowledge compare to when visual text is used instead. This action obeys the modality principle of multimedia display and finally, cautiousness must be adhering not augment a single graphic display with both audio and text to avoid redundancy.
Usability Evaluation Method for Mobile Learning Applications
Mobile devices come in different lay-out, size and capabilities. Its usability for educational activities varies, as it is determined by the features present in each. Whitehouse (2008) identified that personal digital assistant (PDA) can be used in the editing of graphic images/photographs, use interactive activity or application on web or on local drive for the purpose of education. Also, according to Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007), tablet personal computer could be used to access educational audio, video files, surf the internet and to communicate through email, short message service and multimedia message service (MMS), edit course documents, such as assignments. It as well allow for conducting of scientific research and experiments with users getting access to e-books and e-textbook.
User uses a touch screen to interact with the electronic document. They went further in explaining the educational use of ultra-mobile personal computer (UMPC) which can be used to do similar activities attributed with tablet personal computer. Mobile phones are more prevalent compared to other mobile devices, thus Whitehouse (2008) identified its functionalities for educational use as been capable to send/receive instant text messages (SMS and MMS), read/respond to discussion post, participate in synchronous text chat, add comment to someone else's blog, record learner’s assessment, scores, or other learning data to remote machine or database. Camera phones are used to take photo using built-in camera and store it remotely or to access database/form remotely (Whitehouse, 2008). Smart phones create or edit text-based document, edit spreadsheet document, edit local database or form, edit remote database or form, edit collaborative wiki or document on website (Whitehouse, 2008).
In addition, the above mentioned mobile devices, there are audio players such as iPod which can be used to record a sound using sound recorder and store to local device. Sound files, photographs stored locally can also be accessed (Whitehouse, 2008; and Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil, 2007). Hand-held audio and multimedia guide are another form of mobile audio device which could be used to orient visitors in museums and galleries and game consoles that is use to play educational games on latest gaming devices, such as PSP (Dragomir and Tascovici, 2010).
Evaluation should be an integral part of each activity of the instructional development process, including for electronic learning in its various forms. Although, designers often overlook it or leave it out. Evaluation is important because it is the most reliable tool for continuous improvement in training and instructional system design in term of quality (Bunson, 2012). In context, evaluation can provide different kinds of information to those who are directly involved with the project (the participants) and to those who otherwise invest in the project, whether by credibility, control, or other capital (the stakeholders). In more concrete explanation, evaluation could be carried out on technology to determine the utilization of a particular technology with respect to quality and accessibility as a function of usability.
According to International Standard Organization (1998), usability is the extent of product utilization in regard to effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction by the user to achieve a specified goal in a specified context of use. Therefore, usability in term of mobile learning could be expressed with regard to its hardware and its software (kantore, 2011). Two major usability attributes were identified by Chung, Shim and Kim (2007) namely graphics user interface (GUI) and physical user interface (PUI). By extension, the GUI connotes the software attribute which is display as a layer that allows for exchange of data input and output by users, while PUI is the physical attribute of a mobile phones consisting of buttons, switches, knobs and labels which allow the user to interact with the graphic user interface (GUI). Usability is achieved by catering for it in a process referred to as the user-centered design (Kantore, 2011).
He went further by explaining that the role of user interface design in mobile learning is to ensure that the interface allows for interaction with a mobile learning tool which is sufficiently well designed for learner’s enjoyment in a mobile learning application environment. Also, a good and effective user interface design assist learners in the way of intuition, easy to use, inexpensive to maintain and simplicity in user training (Amber, 2009).
Performing usability evaluation helps to increase user’s experience with mobile learning tools and it is also beneficial to the instructional designer (Kantore, 2011). This could give a mechanism feedback to measure usability during development process in order to discover the strength and weakness of the mobile learning tools in meeting user’s required objectives. According to Traxler (2009), usability evaluation is conducted from the perspective of technology, learner and extension of formal learning (Winters, 2006). Technology perspective usability evaluation laid emphasis on the fact that mobile learning is mediated by mobile devices while usability evaluation, in the perspective of learner, looks at the combination of the mobility of the learner and technological perspectives. The extension of formal learning perspective usability evaluation looks at the use of mobile learning outside classroom settings.
According to Traxler (2009), two major conceptual mobile learning schools of thought are prevalent: technology-centered and pedagogical-centered mobile learning applications. Mobile learning technology-centered application is view from the point of mobile devices used as a medium of instruction while pedagogue-centered mobile learning application is viewed from the learner’s or user’s experience in the achievement of the set goal and objectives. It also connotes that the technology-centered view mobile learning in the context of the technology used but the pedagogue-centered view mobile learning from the context of the learner, where issues such as the mobility of the learner, the mobility of the learning and the learner’s experience of learning with mobile devices are considered.
In addition, transportation, delivery and platform are a major factor in mobile learning (Kantore, 2011). Transport in mobile learning refer to the wireless technologies used to transport communication signals between devices involved in mobile learning environment and these might include among others: WiFi, GSM, 3G, Infrared, VPN, Bluetooth. Technologies used to present content to mobile devices in mobile learning through transport are refer to as delivery and the common delivery tools employed are WAP, email, SMS, MMS, HTTP and XHTML. Platform are the functional operating system and browser on the mobile devices in a mobile learning environment and these are pocket PC, window CE, Symbian, palm OS, J2ME and open wave.
McAllister (2009) asserted that mobile learning application’s platform are in varieties and choice has to be made in regard to the suitability coupled with challenges that needs to be overcome for effective mobile learning usability attainment. The following are some of the development platforms in existence as put forward by Gavalas and Economou (2011):
|Platform Name: .NET Compact Framework |
|Brief Description: A subset of .Net platform designed for mobile applications on Window Mobile. Uses C# and languages. |
|Platform Name: Android |
|Brief Description: An open source platform by Google, based on Linux which uses Java as programming language, but possesses some |
|C++ support. |
|Platform Name: Blackberry |
|Brief Description: It is designed to support Blackberry devices only and uses Java 6, HTML 5, CSS 3 and JavaScript for development |
|Platform Name: BREW |
|Brief Description: Consists of a set of APIs that allow development using C, C++ or Java for mobile phones. |
|Platform Name: Flashlite |
|Brief Description: A platform designed to allow for the creation of graphic intensive applications designed for mobile phones and |
|PDAs. |
|Platform Name: iPhone |
|Brief Description: Development platform designed to allow for the creation of applications for the iPhone device. |
|Platform Name: J2ME |
|Brief Description: Consists of a set of APIs which are supposed to allow for the creation of an application that runs on different |
|kind of devices. |
|Platform Name: PocketPC and Microsoft Smartphone |
|Brief Description: Platform designed to allow for the development of an application for Microsoft devices only. |
|Platform Name: Python |
|Brief Description: Open-source platform and runs on Windows, Linux, UNIX, Mac Os X and JAVA/ .NET virtual machine. |
|Platform Name: Symbian |
|Brief Description: It is an OS designed to run on small battery-powered devices, such as mobile phones. |
p. 45
Each of the above listed platforms possesses their guiding principles with respect to the user interface design in order to actually portray its inherent attributes (Kantore, 2011). In each of the platform, some level of requirement could be required to attain its effective usability in consonant with user interface. Economides (2008) identified the following with regard to mobile learning as user interface basic requirement and explain its attributes accordingly: usability, screen design, media, navigation and orientation, effectiveness, accessibility, help and personalization.
Usability requirements demand that user interface should be easy to understand for meaningful learning, knowledge recall and easy to use functionalities. In addition, it should be simple and convenient in operatability devoid of any distraction or cognitively overloading the learner, hence, it should attract the learner’s attention and focus. Screen-design requirements are the layout and organization of the screen. It should be simple and intuitive to use and its design should be aesthetically attractive, pleasant and fun to use. All the features of the background, menus, toolbars, buttons, icons etc. should be simple, ration and appear in a consistent and uniform way.
Media requirements objects in a user interface design should be in varieties which must not distract user attention and other necessary activities. Media varieties like text, audio, video and other immersions are expected to be of high quality and reliability appearing in the right proportional mix and position. To improve downloading quality of multimedia objects with regard to time, media files should be small in size with all necessary information needed embedded in it. Navigation requirements for learners using mobile devices need just a click in time access to information.
The use of a structure such as menu hierarchy or a split menu to represent activities is encouraged. Menu hierarchies is an application feature guiding the user when navigating within the system, which present an opportunity of going from the top menu item through to a list of items/sub-categories contained in the main category. It is advisable that the navigation tools should be easy, simple accurate, consistent and intuitive to navigate. Alternative ways of navigation, such as shortcuts, with the proper number of levels should be embedded in addition to many other navigation and orientation facilities, such as sitemap, index, next, previous, home, exit, undo, redo, history trail, prediction, save and print.
Accessibility requirements, Economides (2008) states that they should be as usable as possible by as many people as possible, regardless of their age, ability or situation. They should support various languages and modes of communication. User interface (UI) interaction styles (for example: keyboard, touch screen, stylus etc.) in any application are very important. The type of input interaction mechanism of the mobile devices that the target-user population possesses will affect the usability or how easily they use the M-learning application. Therefore, the design of the UI should take that issue into consideration. It should support persons with special needs by integrating techniques, such as screen magnification/zooming, speech-to-text and text-to-speech translation.
Help-function requirements, Economides (2008) states that the design should offer various forms and tools to support the user. The search engine should provide complete, accurate and relevant results. There should be various and useful directories and indices. There should be schedulers, dictionaries, frequently asked questions (FAQ) and such alike.
Personalization requirements involve mainly presenting content or services to a user, based on his user profile. This user profile is a collection of attributes representing user preferences with regard to aspects of the application and its usage. Economides (2008) states that one should be aware of the user and the environment; be able to predict any changes in usage habits, and keep track of user actions. The content should be tailored to the individual user. This activity should be transparent to the user, but should cater for some level of control by the user.
All of the above are some of the major requirement that needs to be considered when designing user interface applications for mobile learning. Meanwhile, and in fulfilling the requirements, usability guidelines should be put into consideration in order to make the learning exercise interesting and attractive to the user. Hence, the user interface design principles should be carefully adhered with for each of the requirements so as to bring about effective mobile learning applications. The user interface design guidelines are given below accordingly:
Usability Design Guideline
➢ The size of file, document, form and pages should be small in volume size to allow for fast and easy loading for a matter of seconds
➢ Scrolling and interactivity moment needed by the user should be at a considerable limited time in order to guide user interest and not create unnecessary frustration while performing a task.
➢ The design of user interface should be at a considerable pace for easy usability that provides good and productive experience devoid of any distraction of the user from the content.
➢ Easy access and exit link should be provided for the user, as well as a choice continue key link when the user decides to return.
(Kantore, 2011 p. 29)
Screen Design Guidelines
➢ The content structure should be in small size with relevant homogenous information chunks
➢ The content size should be in fit with the size of the screen that will motivate and encourage recognition of items than revisiting the content more than once
➢ A small chunk of information should be on a screen at a particular loading period, thus, avoiding too much of information appearing in a single screen
➢ At any loading screen display, the content should fit on to the screen with no extension to the next screen display
➢ All information displayed on the screen should be relevant to the subject matter
➢ The most relevant information should be positioned at right top corner with empty and blank spaces judiciously guided with care for ease of readability sake to prevent confusion and misleading intent
➢ User interface interactivity should be designed in such a way that the hands of a user will not be put to task at a time
➢ User interface should as well includes narratives to assist in structuring the content of screen display
➢ Each task in the screen display should be presented in its own page or form with inclusion of all necessary task related information
➢ Elements of user interface should guide the user on how to use them and their functionality
➢ Moderation of textual content should be considered whereby audio file format could replace in some instances in order to eliminate tiredness and boredom while scrolling to read to text
(Kantore, 2011 p. 30)
Media Design Guidelines
➢ Large multimedia files should contain important information and should be broken down into smaller file size for easy downloading
➢ Make provisions for audio sound link at the liberty of the user which will provide the options of turn on and off
➢ Incorporation of multimedia objects should be appropriately used with consistence coherence across the system
➢ The user interface should be bold, italics and colour cautiousness should apply when creating link
(Kantore, 2011 page 31)
Navigational Design Guidelines
➢ Long pages should be broken and segmented into smaller chunks
➢ To jump and view from one page to the other, effective mechanism should be developed at initiation of a click by the user
➢ The number of click and extensiveness of scrolling should be considered with a well thought out guidance
➢ Stimulate the learner’s interest by maintaining the pace of navigation through consistency from one screen display to the other
➢ Minimize page navigation by using hierarchies that the user is already familiar and comfortable
➢ Number of keystrokes made by user should be reduced to bearest minimum by simplifying the navigation through replacing text input with a selection list
➢ For consistence and ease of recognition, all similar information and actions should be located in the same spot link
➢ All similar functions should be performed consistently for all relevant functions within the same or different learning platform
(Kantore, 2011 p. 32-33)
Accessibility Design Guidelines
➢ Users diverseness in their population in term of background, culture and other related attributes should be considered
➢ Users characteristics like age, disabilities, nationality and familiarity with mobile learning should be considered to determine the level of guidance in the use of functions that will serve as motivation in capturing user’s interest on how to use mobile for learning
➢ Caution should be exercised in application contextual usage
➢ Do away with any user interface element that could give room to increase in user’s disorientation
(Kantore, 2011 p. 33)
Help Design Guidelines
➢ Provision for help should be in application
➢ Help topics should be organized in a one page of table of content for user’s selection interest
➢ Sufficient brief should be provided for task based help for all categories of users
➢ Navigational help topics means should be provided appropriately for users
➢ Test the help facility on the target user devices with real users
Error Message Design Guidelines
➢ Assist users to recognize, diagnose and recover from error messages
➢ Error messages should be precise with indication of problems and constructively suggesting a solution recovery
➢ Consistently and continuously notify the learner of progress through appropriate feedback within a reasonable time frame
➢ As a supplement, feedback should represent and rephrase the user’s input as an indication of what is being done with it
(Kantore, 2011 p. 34-35)
Personalization Design Guidelines
➢ Language used for the user interface should be familiar to the user population
➢ Designer should consider device capabilities of target population when designing the user interface
➢ User interface should be enabled in such a manner that the user can interfere in the extent of changing language or background colour
➢ User’s profiling capabilities should be built into the system
(Kantore, 2011 p. 35)
Evaluation of a user interface for a mobile learning application can take many forms as posited by Roto, Obrist and Väänänen-vainio-mattila, (2009). It could be formative where evaluation is done when a user interface is being developed or summative in nature where evaluation is conducted while the user interface is in use. It can concentrate on either measuring the usability of a user interface or measuring the user experience with the system. Jones and Marden (2006) identified two types of design evaluation techniques with regard to interaction design in mobile learning; techniques aimed at evaluating design ideas and techniques aimed at evaluating actual design.
Techniques for evaluating design ideas are used to discover and obtain important useful information from the user of mobile applications while they are using or interacting with it in a real mobile learning experience. Jones and Morden (2006) highlighted the medium of use for conducting and engaging in techniques for evaluating design ideas as follows:
a. Observation: This is done to watch the action in its setting and recording as many details as possible, without obstructing the experience of the subjects being studied.
b. Enquiry: This aims to complement observation, in order to get more insight into what is observed. Two techniques are used:
i) Artefact Walkthrough: The designer observes the users while they go through the process of performing an activity, and then asks questions about what is happening.
ii) Contextual Enquiry: The ethnographer tries to understand the users by interacting with them while the activities are actually being carried out.
c. Diary Studies: A self-reporting technique that helps fill in gaps when you cannot observe what is going on, such as when you cannot be with your participants.
d. Discount Methods: These are techniques that reduce the time needed to gather information or analyze it, given the short life cycle of mobile products. They include the following:
i) Ethnography Lite: This is based on a series of short and focused studies in the field, based on a selection of situations where useful information can be collected.
ii) Auto Ethnography: The subjects record observations about their experience, as in a diary study. They are also asked to make a reflection and interpret their observation themselves.
iii) Log Analysis: This uses tracking technologies to track subjects’ usage of a tool.
iv) Online Enquiry: A study done online by analyzing subjects’ actions in chat groups, bulletin boards, forums and interviewing subjects, by using modern technologies, such as email, instant messaging and bulletin boards.
e. Focus Groups: This is a technique in which a group of subjects are brought together to discuss topics related to their experience – with a tool, for example. It involves a facilitator. It is mostly used for brainstorming possibilities.
f. Creatively Engaging Methods: It is not easy to get people to express themselves on what they value when judging a proposed design (Jones and Morden, 2006). These methods aim to help subjects express themselves more freely and in a more personal manner.
i) Probes: These are tools given to participants or placed in their environment to record experiences, as they engage with themselves.
ii) Dramatization: This is a technique where participants act as if they are in a theatre – to simulate how technology should be used.
Techniques for evaluating actual design ideas contain the following elements as identified by Jones and Mordens (2006):
a. Quick and Dirty Evaluations: This is a form of ethnographic evaluation, in which designers informally get feedback from users or consultants to confirm that their ideas are in line with users’ needs and are liked. This can be done at any stage, in order to gain fast input. It involves end-users; it requires a low fidelity prototype and takes place in an informal setting. The results are anecdotal and unstructured.
b. Conceptual model extraction: This involves end-users; it requires an interface sketch, and takes place in a controlled setting. The results are qualitative. It aims to ascertain how users interpret a new interface, based on their existing mental models of how interfaces should work.
c. Direct Observation: This involves end-users; it requires an interactive prototype, and it takes place in a controlled setting. The results are qualitative. It involves watching users use an interactive prototype. Four key points have to be addressed in any observation:
i) Finding out what users are thinking without interrupting them. Two techniques are:
- Think-aloud Technique: User speaks aloud about what he is thinking throughout the evaluation.
- Constructive Interaction: Two users work on a task at the same computer simultaneously, communicating with each other.
- Recording the Observations. The following techniques can be used:
- Video: helps record what the user is doing on the screen and their emotional states; which can later be reviewed and analyzed.
- Note Taking: Use pen and paper to take notes.
- Automatic Logging: The prototype itself logs automatically all interactions by users.
- How not to Bias the Experiment: The evaluator should be as far as possible from the subject, but where he can still make an observation.
- Ensuring a Pleasant Experience during the Observation: Users are informed about the test, its aims, how it will be carried out, and the time needed. The emphasis is on the fact that users are not being tested, but the system is paramount. Users are asked to sign a consent form to ensure that they agree with taking part in the test.
d. Interviews: The researcher formulates questions about the product, based on the issues of interest. Interview representative users are then asked these questions, in order to gather desired information. This involves end-users evaluating an interactive prototype; and it takes place in a controlled setting.
e. Questionnaires: This involves end-users; it requires an interactive prototype and a questionnaire. They are conducted anywhere questionnaires are a popular technique for gathering users’ opinions after using a UI. These can be paper-based, or online web-based.
f. Heuristic Evaluation: This involves usability experts and requires an interactive prototype. It takes place in a controlled setting. It is an evaluation done by several evaluators independently, to assess an interface and come up with potential usability problem. It is applicable during the designing, coding, testing and deployment stages of a system.
g. Experimental Evaluation: This involves end-users who require an interface prototype; and it takes place in a controlled setting, which is usually laboratory-based. It applies scientific methods to the field of user interface evaluation. It is mainly aimed to produce performance measures aimed at comparing two designs during the course of their development.
The above listed point can provide quality guidance in conducting evaluation on the usability of mobile learning. Usability in mobile learning could be viewed as a methodical approach to user interface design and evaluation involving practical, systematic approaches to developing requirements, analyzing a usability problem, developing proposed solutions and testing those solutions. Usability is the measure of the quality of a user's experience when interacting with a product or system — whether a web site, a software application, mobile technology, or any user-operated device (Uehling, n.d.; Yonezawa, 2004).
According to studies conducted by Nielsen (2009) of user’s behavior on web, it revealed a low tolerance for difficult designs or slow sites. People don't want to wait and they don't want to learn how to use a home page. There's no such thing as a training class or a manual for a web site. People have to be able to grasp the functioning of the site immediately after scanning the home page for a few seconds at most. Meanwhile, Uehling (n.d.) and Yonezawa (2004) stated that usability is a combination of factors that affect the user's experience with the product or system which includes among others:
➢ Ease of learning
How fast can a user who has never seen the user interface before learn it sufficiently well to accomplish basic tasks?
➢ Efficiency of use
Once an experienced user has learned to use the system, how fast can he or she accomplish tasks?
➢ Memorability
If a user has used the system before, can he or she remember enough to use it effectively the next time or does the user have to start over again learning everything?
➢ Error frequency and Severity
How often do users make errors while using the system, how serious are these errors, and how do users recover from these errors?
➢ Subjective satisfaction
How much does the user like using the system?
[pic]
Figure 4. Usability Attributes by Nielsen (1993).
Source: Parhi (2007)
Usability of user-interface in a mobile learning environment is the bedrock to an effective learning exercise. The various challenges emanating from the design and development of a meaningful graphic user-interface portends that instructional designer needs to take into cognizance the basic requirements for high interactivity of the GUI. The explicit measures developed for system usability form a basis for usability analyses and empirical evaluation with various techniques developed for evaluating usability and other user acceptance attributes of interactive systems (Parhi, 2007). The International Standard Organization (ISO, 1998) presented the below information as a measure of usability metrics in the ISO-9241 standard of determining the evaluation paradigm for objectivity, effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction;
|Usability Objective |Effectiveness |Efficiency |Satisfaction |
|Suitability for the Task |percentage of goals achieved |time to complete a task |rating scale for satisfaction|
|Appropriate for Trained Users |number of “power features” used |relative efficiency compared |rating scale for Satisfaction|
| | |with an expert user |with “power features” |
|Learnability |percentage of functions learned |time to learn criterion |rating scale for “ease of |
| | | |learning” |
|Error Tolerance |percentage of errors corrected |time spent on correcting |rating scale for error |
| |successfully |errors |handling |
The importance attached to usability requirement is as a result of creating an interactivity of applications that will promote meaningful learning, knowledge recall and easy functionalities of operatability with exception to distractions. Attracting learner’s attention is the basic focus of usability in mobile learning because the small screen should display instructions that will not overload cognitive capability of learner and as such organizes information logically. Attractiveness, intuitiveness, pleasantness and fun to use by the learner will contribute to the aesthetic design of all the features in the UI.
The media requirement in mobile learning should be varieties, but must be cautiously selected and merged not to create any form of distraction or obstruct learner’s attention from comprehending all the cogent instructions that should be understood. The reliability of multimedia downloads within some few seconds and the selection of high quality media mix content must be effective to facilitate meaningful learning. The time requires loading and downloading this multimedia within a mobile learning environment should be relatively small.
All other requirements such as navigation and orientation, effectiveness, accessibility, help and personalization should be given concise attention while designing a mobile learning instructional content user-interface. By extension, the entire requirements listed above are doctored by a number of guidelines that provide an avenue to fulfill these entire requirements in the design and development of user-interface. These guidelines are presented in line with the usability, screen design, media, navigation and orientation, effectiveness, accessibility, help and personalization. Each of the requirements possesses guidelines to be followed in order to optimize the quality and reliability of graphic user-interface.
The optimization of these requirements that is designed through specification of guidelines arose the need to conduct evaluation in relative to whether the guidelines are succinctly adhere to in designing the graphic user-interface of a mobile learning applications. The evaluation exercise could be to assess the technology used for the mobile learning, or could be paddle towards the instructional content and as well as the applications of the user-interface interactivity. Effective evaluation exercise will justify the efficiency and quality of instructional content in an online learning approach. Adherence to design requirements, design guidelines and well-structured evaluation process has a cumulative effective on the performance of participating members. Inclusively, the outcome of evaluation provide information on whether improve on the interactivity approach or to sustain the level of interactivity students has been exposed to in the cause of exploring mobile learning.
Interactivity in Handheld Devices for Learning
An interaction is a learning activity where an individual is presented with a problem or scenario and must work to achieve a goal with a purpose that should be designed to maintain learner’s interest (Schone, 2007). Interactive learning present an opportunity to adapt a situation that will allow learner to be actively involved in processing and applying conceptual understanding to a particular task in an online environment (Bruck, 2005). To better understand the nature of online interactivity and the learning processes in a mobile learning environment, it is pertinent to analyze the instructional contents as a promising method of capturing and maintaining learner’s interest (Chi Ng & Murphy, 2005).
Students are most successful in online courses that provide ample opportunities for interaction with the instructor, other students, and the course content (Mabrito, 2002). By this statement, an interactive online course can create an engagement for students as active learners rather than as passive participants. It can also give direction on how instructors can design virtual classrooms that offer students with a variety of learning styles and preferences the greatest chance of success. Meanwhile, Chi Ng and Murphy (2005) posited that the following are issues of interaction that have generated much discussion in the context of practice of interactivity in learning among learners;
➢ What type and level of interaction is essential for effective learning.
➢ Does interaction facilitate learning and knowledge construction?
➢ Is interaction more important for certain types of learners?
➢ What balance is required between independent and interactive activities/learning media?
As an underlying principle of guidance in determining the nature and concept of interactivity in online learning, the founding categorization were given by Moore and Kearsley (1996) describing three major typology of interactivity which are student-instructor, student-student, and student-course content interaction. Another fourth type of interaction is learner-interface interaction (Hill-man, Willis, and Gunawardena, 1994). In spite of the opportunity presented by online interaction, there are some major challenges encountered in its preparation by the organizer to actually monitored instructor’s effectiveness and learner’s satisfaction in online learning environment. Hence, Fuller, Norby, Pearce and Strand (2000) identified four major challenges in online learning from the instructor’s perspective as regard interactivity which are: overcoming the faceless classroom; adapting to student centered teaching; managing time and techniques; and establishing the learning community.
Interaction, according to Moore (1989), can be defined in three ways: in relation to the content, in relation to the instructor, and in relation to other learners. Student-content interaction is the process of intellectually interacting with the content that results in changes in the learner’s understanding, the learner’s perspective, or the cognitive structures of the learner’s mind. Such interactions occur as students access the course content through the internet, video, text, audio, and/or graphic images (Hirumi, 2002). Through learner-instructor interaction, the instructor attempts to foster students’ interest in the material, and motivate the students to want to learn more.
In addition, the instructor utilizes a variety of strategies to clarify misunderstandings of course content and thereby facilitate student learning. Learner to learner interaction refers to the interaction that occurs between students in groups, or individually, with or without instructor presence (Moore, 1989). Conventional interactions might include requiring groups of students to work together to “analyze and interpret data, solve problems and share information, opinions, and insights” (Hirumi, 2002, p. 145). The focus is on building knowledge and developing specific skills. According to Ally (2010), interactivity in learning for active learner’s participation can be contextualized under the following categories:
➢ Object interactivity (proactive inquiry) - objects (buttons, people, things) are activated by using a keypad or other pointing device.
➢ Linear interactivity (reactive pacing) - the user is able to move (forwards or backwards) through a predetermined linear sequence.
➢ Support interactivity (reactive inquiry) - generalized and context-sensitive support (help messages and tutorial supports).
➢ Update Interactivity - individual application components or events in which a dialogue is initiated between the learner and mobile-generated content (practice with feedback)
➢ Construct Interactivity - the creation of an instructional environment in which the learner is required to manipulate component objects to achieve specific goals (assemble an apparatus).
➢ Reflective Interactivity - text responses to prompts or questions where learners can reflect on their response and make their own judgment as to its accuracy or correctness.
➢ Simulation Interactivity - extends the role of the learner to that of controller or operator, where individual selections determine the learning sequence.
➢ Hyperlinked Interactivity (proactive navigation) - the learner has access to a wealth of information, and may "travel" at will through that knowledge base.
➢ Non-Immersive Contextual Interactivity - extends the various interactive levels into a complete virtual learning environment (mutual elaboration) in which the learner is able to work in a meaningful, job-related context.
➢ Immersive Virtual Interactivity - provides an interactive environment in which the learner is projected into a complete mobile-generated world which responds to individual movement and actions. (Slide 4-7)
Also, Bruck (2005) identified that to elicit interactive behavior in learners for effective and meaningful learning to take place, major content design considerations that should be kept in mind is FIRM; focused, interactive, relevant and managed. Focused are one of the first and most important lessons that should be learnt in creating hundreds of online learning programs; online learning interaction has to be focused. The thread of discussions can be one of the most effective tools for interaction, but only if requests were specific and time-limited. For instance, after presenting a case using flash or simple text, it was found ineffective to ask learners to discuss it for the next lesson in a threaded discussion. Using flash or simple text tools, however, can be extremely effective to create several discussion items (threads) each of which asks a focused question with specific requirements.
Interactivity are the primary medium of “interaction” used in e-learning. If everyone posts at once in threaded discussion boards, you get rich interactions. If everyone talks at once in a web meeting, you get cacophony. Since only one person can talk at a time, you often get a “democracy of the loudest” where only 5 out of 25 people speak at all. Second, a lecture-hall metaphor is replicated, where one person uploads a PowerPoint ahead of time and naturally lead into a lecture — with 10 minutes saved at the end for question and answer, ensure that your program is interactive. First, weave asynchronous and synchronous media together — use threaded discussions as well as web meetings. Second, use trained facilitators, not subject matter experts, to lead web meetings, and ensure that breakouts are planned as a way to get everyone talking. Third, consider using web meetings for simple questions and answer rather than presentations.
Relevant connotes that interaction is not limited to open discussion. Consider embedding coached work samples, planners and report-outs, round tables around learner-selected cases and private mentoring over time. The interactive components, if designed well, can be the most relevant portions of a program. Managed, often the most critical success factor in a blended learning program is the effectiveness of the coaches. Instructors who don’t do their job or give feedback can kill a program’s effectiveness, while instructors who make a learner think and take their skills to the next level create a memorable and high impact learning experience. Select collaboration tools that allow you to track instructors’ performance as well as that of learners.
When developing attitude on interactions in an online learning, focus should be more on designing experience and instruction that will improve learner’s rather than the technology itself (Schone, 2007). Studies suggested that students who succeed in an online course do so because the course allows them to be active participants (Verneil & Berge, 2000). In a situation where some students perceive a course to be highly interactive, there is certainty that they will derive more satisfaction from the instruction than students who perceive the course to be less interactive. Commonly, methods for creating learning objects have centered on mining existing information to construct learning objects autonomously to build interaction (Rajendra, Singh, Bernard & Gardler, 2004). The inherent appeal of this process is its ability to capitalize on the large volumes of semantic data present on the web and create educational material whilst requiring a minimum of involvement from educators. Some semantically-annotated sources (Auer, Bizer, Lehmann, Kobilarov, Cyganiak & Ives, 2007), are particularly appealing sources of educational material to encourage interactivity in online situation.
Validation of data from such a source remains a key concern, although these repositories are drawing increased attention as the veracity of peer-created data sources on the web is increasingly shown (Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2007; Wang, Zhu, Qu, Spaniol, & Weikum, 2010). Participatory techniques have also been used for learning objectives creation. These build upon the use of the creation process itself as a means for learning, instilling learners with increased engagement as a result of deeper engagement within the educational process (Abad, 2008). However, the composability of these learning objects may prove a concern, as students are not best placed to act as pedagogic designers thus requiring the resulting learning objects careful validation and development to ensure quality interaction within online setting. Dark, York, Popescu and Nita-Rotaru (2007) posited that sense of presence can be achieved if the system is interactive and highly responsive in a many-to-many context communication as interactivity is viewed as one of the dimensions of presence. Therefore, interaction and presence intertwine in technology-based learning. The evaluators used four major categories: student-to-student; student-to instructor, student-to-content, and student-to-technology interactive mode.
A recent meta-analysis of online interaction confirmed that increasing interaction positively affects student achievement (Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski, Wade, Tamin, Surkes & Bethel, 2009). Similarly, McLoughlin and Mynard (2009) acknowledged that the presence of a clear instructor prompt was responsible for promoting higher level thinking in the discussion area, student accountability, a rubric detailing the grading criteria, and imposed time limits were also contributing factors to the heightened level of discussion. Suggestions to increase interaction could include prompt instructor feedback, clear explanations of assignments and expectations, and the use of strategies to promote student collaboration and the formation of an online community. Moreover, An, Sunghee and Lim (2009) noted that the discussion forums with limited instructor intervention tended to encourage students to openly express their opinions. Interaction also improved when a group facilitator was present in the discussions, and when there was some face to face interaction among students (Ikpeze, 2007).
In a later study of three online discussion formats, Mitchem, Fitzgerald, Hollingsead, Koury, Miller and Tsai (2008) remarked that the highest level of interaction occurred when the discussion format was open and students could apply their learning to real teaching situations. The interactions between students and their fellow online learners, as well as students with their instructor, through creative engagement will increase their learning experience and academic achievement. The interactions between students and their fellow online learners, as well as students with their instructor, through creative engagement will increase their learning experience and academic achievement (Bishop & Hong, 2010). Lin and Overbaugh (2007) established that student satisfaction increased when they are given a choice of online discussion formats. The ability to create an online community of learners and engage students through meaningful and relevant interactions must be central in the learning forum.
Research also shows that this sense of community enhances critical thinking, learning outcomes and student satisfaction by improving information flow, learning support, group commitment and collaboration (Dede, 1996; Wellman, 1999). The most common way to achieve interactivity in online courses is through the use of asynchronous discussions or conferences. Freeman (n.d.) presented the schematic diagram of interaction in online discussion as shown below;
[pic]
Figure 5: Interaction in Online Discussions
Source: Lin and Overbaugh (2007)
The responsibilities of the discussion facilitator can be summarized as nine distinct roles, as identified by Berge (2000):
➢ Facilitator (posts initial questions or topics; keeps discussion “on track” and redirects as necessary; functions as group leader)
➢ Manager (organizes and archives posts and threads as needed; answers administrative questions)
➢ Filter (evaluates posts; deletes posts as necessary)
➢ Expert (answers content-related questions)
➢ Editor (functions as text editor; formats posts)
➢ Promoter (encourages “lurking” students to post)
➢ Marketer (promotes/explains discussion objectives)
➢ Helper (encourages students via private email if necessary)
➢ Fireman (provides rules of netiquette; removes “flames” or other negative posts)
In order to fulfill these roles, the successful online discussion facilitator must:
➢ Make his/her presence felt but doesn’t dominate the conversation. Enter the discussion when a question is directed specifically to you, and make sure students understand how often you will respond to postings. Otherwise, enter the discussion only to redirect the conversation when information is incorrect or off-topic, to ask follow up questions or to summarize the discussion thread.
➢ Encourage students to respond to each other. If a posted question doesn’t specifically ask for a response from you, let it “sit” for a day or so to encourage other students to reply first.
➢ Immediately stops inappropriate, rude or hostile postings. Negative posts can spark defensive and hostile responses from others. After deleting an inappropriate posting, immediately inform the student of what happened to his/her message and why via private email.
➢ Promote critical thinking with thought-provoking questions. Post follow-up questions and introduce real-world applications of discussion topics whenever possible. Encourage students to provide feedback to their peers and to assess their own contribution to the discussion.
➢ Make expectations clear. Detailed instructions are crucial in an online course. Carefully delineate each step of the discussion assignment, and provide your students with examples and an explanation of the types of postings you expect. Ask students who post exemplary responses if you can use them as examples in future classes.
➢ Function as a “gatekeeper”. Consider opening and closing discussion topics in a “just in time” manner to keep students’ attention focused on the current topic. Encourage and motivate your students to participate by asking specific questions and addressing them by name, if necessary. Makes objectives clear to students. Knowing precisely what is to be accomplished in a discussion usually results in improved learning outcomes and greater satisfaction for both the students and the facilitator; students need to understand why and how to focus their posts, and how the assignment relates to the learning objectives of the course. P.93
Effective online discussions in interaction mode share several characteristics; it supports the learning objectives of the course through careful planning and presentation, and they generate and maintain student interest by motivation through the use of provocative questions that facilitate critical thinking, not just the facts (Freeman, n.d.). Simulations and modeling tools are the best examples of complex, meaningful interactivity as such applications model a real or theoretical system, allowing users to manipulate input variables to change the system behaviour and view the results (Thomas & Calder, 2001). With such applications, learners can construct and test hypotheses and receive feedback as a result of their actions. There are great benefits to the learner if a static image such as a diagram in a text book is replaced with a simulation “Simulations and visualization tools make it possible for students to bridge experience and abstraction helping to deepen understanding of ambiguous or challenging content.” (Web-Based Education Commission, 2000, p.3).
The United States Department of Defence developed definitions for four major levels of interactivity within online learning which are passive, limited interaction, complex interaction and real-time interaction. The passive level allows the learner to act merely as an information receiver in which learners may read text on screen as well as view graphics, illustrations and chart thereby interact simply by using navigational buttons to move forward or backward through the package. The limited interaction level creates an opportunity for learners to make simple responses to instructional cues by adding an application of scenario-based multiple choices and column matching related to the text and graphic presentation. Some application simulations may exist that do not require learner to enter field data, but merely follow a process or procedure, as well as some interactive animations where the learner has the ability to investigate.
The third level of interaction in online learning as identified by Department of Defence (DoD, n.d.) is complex interaction. The learner makes multiple and varied responses to cues with text entry boxes and manipulation of graphic objects to test the assessment of the information presented. Techniques for engagement in a complex interaction include complex simulations where the learner must enter actual data into fields and experience consequence for errors and faulty data. In addition, scenario-based branching logic is introduced where learners will experience some kind of difficulty for incorrect responses and their progress is determined by their decision. Finally, real-time interaction level creates a training session that involves a life-like set of complex cues and responses in this last level. Learners engaged in a simulation that exactly mirror the real work situation, thereby real-time learning and assessment takes place. Meanwhile, the session is most likely held in collaborative environment with other learners and facilitators.
According to Schone (2007), based on the interaction level and knowledge type to be learnt, there are twenty-five ways in which interaction can be integrated into online learning and are listed thus; scattered steps, myth or fact, interactive timelines, acronyms or alphabet fill-Ins, order of importance, find the mismatched/stand-out item, story-based questions, simple game-based interactions, exploring a complex process or procedure, a customer’s perspective, incomplete stories, what’s wrong with this picture?, before and after or old way versus new way, teach-back (train the new person), using an agent or character, scavenger hunt, read/watch and reflect, fix it, did I do this correctly, story-based adventure, branching stories, challenge and response, interactive spreadsheets, virtual product/virtual lab and solving a mystery/investigating scenario. Whichever ways of interaction that is preferred, team collaboration using wiki, sharing of information and resources via social bookmaking, using blog to communicate and share ideas, and using RSS readers to receive information that is highly relevant to the learner, it allows leaner to contribute their knowledge on specific theme, design problem or subject area while also benefiting from the knowledge of their peers.
The mode of interaction in online learning setting within a collaborative means association can create a last long impact on participating students’ performance. Therefore, concrete attention need to be given to the ways those interactions are built and integrated into learning experience within online communication platform. Interaction encourages and motivates learners in the way of controlling and monitoring the pace at which they carry out a particular task within online learning environment. The level and extent of interaction freedom granted to participating members in online learning actually promote group communication and makes student to develop a sense of belonging in being responsible for their knowledge construction and application. Engaging students in interactive mood prompt interest of wanting to learn and as well serves as motivation to continue to attempt a task, until it is achieved with clear definition by the instructor or facilitator.
Estimating Costs and Time Implications for Instructional Design Processes
The introduction of mobile learning offers a chance for a fundamental paradigm shift in the instructional design approach for educational purposes (Dillard, 2012). Barbosa, Reinhard, Saccol, and Schlemmer (2010) described mobile learning as learning supported by mobile technologies and involving mobility of human subjects who can be physically or geographically far from each other and far from formal educational physical spaces, such as classrooms, training, graduation, qualification rooms or workplaces. In Evans (2008) conceptualized submission, mobile learning builds on the advantage of electronic learning by providing opportunities to learners to learn when and where they choose through expansion of its benefit on a mobile learning platform. Mobile learning employed the use of mobile devices for learning on the move, which is not about delivery method alone, but includes learning across context in an individualized instructional approach (Cronje and El-Hussein, 2010).
The mobile learning context present advantages and challenges that must be considered when developing an effective set of instructional design principles for guiding mobile content development (Battan, 2012). He further stressed that understanding the differences between the mobile learning context and other learning contexts can offer significant advantages to instructors and learners. Dillard (2012) presented the following as advantage associated with mobile learning context with its related challenges:
|Mobile Learning Context Advantage |Related Context Challenge |
|Learning is context-sensitive |Learning may be fragmented |
|Learning can be personalized |Lack of instructor training and control |
|Delivery of learning is more flexible |Technology also presents constraints |
|Learning is learner-centric |Varying levels of digital fluency |
|Learning in nontraditional environments |Impact of external distractions |
|Learning is immediately useable |Facilitates life-long learning p. 97 |
The mobile learning environment offers instructional designers an opportunity to re-envision education and to redefine the relationship between instructor and learners (Battan, 2012). He went further to identified and recommended the following six instructional design principles as a framework for mobile instructional design:
(a) Develop a simple and intuitive interface
(b) Integrate interactivity and multi-media;
(c) Build short, modular lessons and activities;
(d) Design activities that are engaging and entertaining;
(e) Design content that is contextual, relevant, and valuable to the learner; and
(f) Consider just-in-time delivery. P.75
In explaining the six principles, the usability should be simple and consistent to enable learners to quickly and easily learn how to use the interface. Much advantage should be taking in the area of multimedia formats (audio and video) over text, due to the small-screen display of most mobile devices. Design consideration of small chunks for easier integration into busy schedules and to successfully compete against other distractions should be encouraged. Activities designed to engage students should be applicable, entertaining, and suited to every day needs. Because mobile learning can be context-sensitive, utilize the ability to gather and respond to real or simulated data unique to the current location, environment, and time. Just-in-time delivery improves efficiency by providing support and information for the learner’s immediate priorities. So, before implementing a mobile learning model for education purpose, it must be ensured that every kid or adult will benefit from the gadgetry at hand (Trends, 2012). One of the first questions asked by anyone looking to start an online program is how much will it cost in term of the start-up cost, and running costs to determine the costs management of the program within a provisional budget in order to yield adequate return on investment (Schechter, 2009).
According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2012), the cost of usage for mobile devices is an important issue that determines to what extent people can utilize the technology for educational purposes. Reed and McCullagh (2007) asserted that regardless of the drivers behind the development and inclusion of technology-enhanced learning (TEL), such as increasing student flexibility or enabling better student support, the costs associated with the planning, development, delivery and maintenance of mobile learning are often given less regard than they deserve. The Study Center for Technology Trend (STT) of Netherlands and Grosskurth (2010) revealed in their findings that Europeans spend just over 1% of their average monthly income on mobile communication while the average African spends 17%. In a report titled The Futures of Technology in Africa published by the STT (2010), it was noted that despite the very high number of mobile phones in Africa, most of these are very cheap or second-hand devices, which hardly ever have usable airtime loaded on them. The primary purpose is to be reachable and not to be able to call others.
The Total Cost of Mobile Ownership (TCMO), which includes the price of the handset as well as connectivity, rental and usage costs, is simply too high in many countries (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2012). The result is that people either cannot use mobile devices to their full capacity, or that they spend too much on mobile communications to the detriment of other needs, such as food, health care or education (Heeks, 2008). Therefore, from a policy perspective it is necessary to remove the barrier of high cost so that as many people as possible can enjoy the educational benefits of mobile technologies (UNESCO, 2012). This implies that the lower the cost, the greater the opportunities for teaching, learning and administrative support. Trends (2012) stated that discounts and grants do make mobile learning a more accessible option for many classrooms but the budgets provisions is not enough to incorporate smartphones, MP3 players, laptops, and other mobile devices into the hands of every student, or in so many cases, even one or two per course.
UNESCO (2012) suggested that governments should compare their TCMO indicators to other countries with the aim of reducing costs where appropriate and it was clearly identified that taxation on mobile devices and usage as well as monopolies in the telecommunications sector are two key major factors that accounted for high mobile usage costs. Costs can be lowered by reducing mobile taxes, increasing competition between mobile providers and subsidizing access costs for educational purposes, whether directly or in partnership with mobile network operators. Governments can also supply direct funding for mobile learning programmes or provide support to partner organizations, such as universities, to encourage mobile learning research and initiatives. When allocating funding for mobile learning, governments should safeguard project sustainability by considering both the initial purchasing costs and the long-term operational costs, which often outweigh start-up expenses (UNESCO, 2012).
Deloitte and Global Service Mobile Association (GSMA and Kearney, 2011) noted that when Kenya exempted mobile handsets from value added tax (VAT), mobile penetration rose from 50% to 70% in three years, also leading to higher service tax revenue and more industry jobs. Luxury taxes on mobile phones were conceived at a time when mobile telephony was rare and accessible only to wealthy people (UNESCO, 2012). Now that mobile communication is widespread, these tax policies are outdated and stifle the use of mobile technology for education, especially in poor communities. It could then be critical that governments need to review their tax treatments of telecommunications goods and services and reduce the costs borne by consumers. This can enable consumers to make full use of basic mobile services – such as voice calls and SMS – and transition to more advanced services such as internet access. While the revision of tax policies is not the domain of education policy-makers, these stakeholders should, where possible, leverage their influence with their respective governments to ultimately ensure that mobile learning opportunities are as affordable as possible (UNESCO, 2012).
This step will be helpful according to Rumble (2001) because different stakeholders, including academics, managers and learning technologists, approach cost comparisons between the various delivery methods from different perspectives:
“Individual teachers may be content to find out whether teaching online, for example, takes them more or less time than teaching face-to-face, but departmental heads will want to know whether they can teach more courses and/or more students per course, and what the effect will be on their expenditure and their income. Institutional heads will be concerned with all the above questions, but will also want to know what the impact is on administrative costs, while institutional heads and national educational planners may want to know whether teaching online is cheaper or more expensive than teaching face-to-face or by some other distance teaching methodology. Students will want to know whether taking a course online adds to their costs, or saves them money and/or time (p. ).”
In paper published by University of Reading written by Reed and McCullagh (2007) titled Raising Awareness of the Cost of E-Learning, a question raised was why consider costs and benefit of e-learning in which the following major points were explained thus;
➢ Awareness of costs and benefits of e-learning is arguably underdeveloped, and therefore we need to increase awareness regarding both risks and benefits of the use of learning technologies. Raising awareness can help to clarify and identify priorities, and thus inform planning.
➢ The higher education authority benchmarking exercise and Pathfinder project embody expectations of more strategic embedding of e-learning. This implies faculty heads and department managers needing to engage with the costs of e-learning to a greater extent, e.g. understanding its demands upon staff time, allocating resources and balancing the pressures of research with those of learning and teaching.
➢ Whilst e-learning increasingly becomes integrated as part of the overall teaching and learning canvas in universities, academic staff who incorporate a blended learning approach might argue that their aim is to explore new approaches, motivate their students, and improve the quality of teaching, rather than specifically to save costs. This is laudable, but it still incurs a cost.
➢ Some staff is more interested in seeing potential benefits for students as well as potential time savings in the long term. Others remain unconvinced that a blended learning approach brings anything different to the learning experience, and are cautious about the time required to either learn the necessary skills or adapt their course delivery. Greater understanding about the costs and benefits of a blended learning approach would thus help to clarify for tutors some of these issues, which at the moment might act as barriers to successful uptake. P.145
The economics of e-learning which could also be translated to mean m-learning are directly dependant on the number of learners involved, and the costs associated to e-learning or m-learning courses are less significant as the number of students increase (Bassi, 2011). Muir (2012) identified that the most difficult obstacle to overcome for mobile learning is the cost of connecting to the internet. And another cost to consider is the cost of the course itself (content). There is not only a cost on the school’s end to pay instructors, overhead costs, fees for eBooks and technology, but there is a cost of the student’s end for paying for the course (if required) and the loss of income they might experience while being in school. The development cost of e-learning/m-learning may be high, but costs associated with maintaining and re-versioning are very low (Weller 2004). Bishop (2000) in a Master’s of Bachelor in Administration proposal included an analysis of cost recovery over a five-year period, which projected a net loss in Year one, with a modest profit gain in Year two. The envisioned projection showed a continued increase in the net profit margin over the remaining three years (Bishop 2000).
Schechter (2009) supported this view when he said the question of start-up versus ongoing costs can best be answered if the program scope can be defined for the first two or three years. First-year costs are high, while ongoing costs are typically lower. Return on the time and money invested are typically realized toward the end of the first year, while the second-year returns are higher as more courses are offered and the subscriber base expands. Bates (1995) stated that research has also shown that courses with a high degree of online communication demonstrate costs increase proportionally as student numbers increase. The costs in these instances are primarily related to tutor time – if courses relying on communication are to be effective, the number of instructors increases with the number of students, for example, one tutor to every 20 students. Also, expenses include the software applications used to create the online presence, establish management functions, create the courses, and enable their delivery because Course creation costs and maintenance are ongoing expenses associated with student support (Schechter, 2009).
Reed and McCullagh (2007) also suggested costing methods in e-learning platform and it can also be implied to m-learning activities for cost operation implementation as follows; activity-based costing (ABC), return on investment (ROI), cost- benefiting analysis (CBA), benefit-oriented cost (BOC) and program in course redesign (PCR) course planning tool. Activity Based Costing (ABC) is costing approach based on the premise that there is a cost to all activities carried out within a university, and activity costs should be distributed to staff/students in relation to their use. ABC was developed in 1998 at the Harvard Business School during research into product costing in the manufacturing industry. This approach requires a long-term view and involves the creation of an ‘activity dictionary’ and the detailed analysis of staff time.
Return on Investment (ROI) measures or compares the efficiency of an investment, and is popularly seen as versatile and simple. However, calculations can be easily manipulated to suit the user's purposes, and the result can be expressed in many different ways. Marengo and Marengo (2005) built upon ROI through their concept of ‘Yield Index’, which attempts to evaluate the implementation of e-learning methodologies into campus based environments. These methods appear to be evaluative i.e. post-implementation, and therefore less valuable in predicting needs for investment. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) weighs the costs of an activity against the benefits that activity brings. CBA is usually carried out prior to developments, and outcomes are dependent upon the accuracy of cost and benefit estimations.
Weller (2004) refers to the cost benefits related to the development of e-learning courses not being as great as they were earlier envisaged, but supports Fielden and Orubeonodo’s claim (2002) that the cost of online instruction is more than the cost of traditional instruction, if development time is fully costed, the full extra cost will be substantial. Benefits-Oriented Costs (MBOC) for technology enhanced learning is a model generated by Laurillard (2007), which works along similar lines to the National Center for Academic Transformation PCR Course Planning Tool designed to help clarify thinking and raise awareness, rather than to pin down exact costs. The model includes an excel spreadsheet tool to improve understanding of the relationship between expected learning benefits and likely teaching costs of technology enhanced learning. Laurillard (2007) offers a benefits-oriented costs (BOC) model which takes a comparative approach, measuring traditional forms of delivery against an e-learning embedded model whereby personalized learning i.e. putting the student at the center of learning and teaching is the long term goal.
Like other costing models (e.g. NCAT’s PCR Course Planning Tool) this makes an assumption that the basic e-infrastructure is already in place, and instead looks in detail at how teachers and learners spend their time. Program in Course Redesign (PCR) Course Planning Tool generated by the National Center for Academic Transformation Pew Grant Program in Course Redesign on program for course redesign (PCR) conducted between 1999 and 2003. It demonstrates how higher education institutions in the USA redesigned their teaching and learning approaches using technology to both reduce costs and improve quality. It was reported in a finding by Twigg (2002) that costs cannot be cut simply by introducing an online component to face-to-face courses, and that course redesign is necessary to improve quality and reduce costs. Each institution completed a detailed cost analysis of both their traditional and redesigned course formats, using a spreadsheet-based course-planning tool developed by the Centre for Academic Transformation. Like the Laurillard (2007) model, the course planning tool assumes that an e-infrastructure is already in place and so neither transitional nor developmental costs are included.
Bells (2013) is of the opinion that it can be difficult to agree upon how mobile learning should be evaluated because there is an increasing consensus that learners should bring their own devices (BYOD) is backed up with the following rationale: smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices are expensive, mobile devices become outdated and are perceived to be obsolete more quickly than other equipment used for learning, students are increasingly likely to have a mobile device that contain functionality that can be used for learning. The statement were corroborated by Frith (n.d.) on YouTube presentation when he said “I think in the future we’ll concentrate on providing content to the students because most students already have some form of iPhone or BlackBerry anyway.”
The need to consider cost efficiency and effectiveness could be a propelling factor that will make mobile learning a successful endeavor in its utilization learning. The major approach explained above was extracted from the ideas and ideal of e-learning activities, which could be the adapted to mobile learning because it is seen and outgrowth of e-learning. One importance similarity between me-learning and m-learning s that both are platform that creates an opportunity for students to learning in virtual environment away from the face-to-face familiarities. Also, it provide opportunity to learners to choose when, what and how to learn wherever they might be surpassing the physical barriers that are usually experienced within the four walls of classroom. But, instructional contents in m-learning are precise and direct presented in chunks due the screen size the mobile devices compared to the screen of a monitor screen in computer.
The selection of mobile device for a mobile learning and the design issues need to be cost effectively planned in order to determine the durability and consistency of the project. The cost effectiveness could be viewed from the cost of instructional content design, the cost of selected mobile technology, the overall cost of the mobile devices and the cost of sustainability and maintenance of the project of mobile learning. There are various models of costing style that are adopted for distance learning among which are activity-based costing (ABC), return on investment (ROI), cost- benefiting analysis (CBA), benefit-oriented cost (BOC) and program in course redesign (PCR) course planning tool. These costing models could be used to determine the costing operations and effectiveness of mobile learning as well.
Meanwhile, aside from the cost models, there is need for government and telecommunication companies to work out a system that will reduce the cost of using mobile devices for learning. Government should be able review the tax regime system such that a form of waver should be granted on some tax that needs to be paid while importing mobile devices gadgetry into the country. The telecommunication will then has the opportunity of reviewing their pricing methods on data services such as SMS, MMS and using the GPRS internet service to access the web or other social media network for education purposes. All these done will provide a step in the right direction of achieving a successful mobile learning experience.
Definition and Meaning of Mole Concept
The term moles is a Latin word meaning “a large mass” and was first introduced into chemistry by the German chemist, August Wilhelm Hofmann (Jensen, 2009). It is the mass in grams directly reflecting the mass of its constituent molecules, A mole (Symbol mol.) is defined as the quantity of given substance that contains as many molecules or formula units as the no of atoms in exactly 12gm of C–12 (Shailendra, n. d.). The number of atoms in a 12gm sample of C–12 is called Avogadro’s number (NA).
Based on IUPAC (The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) adoption in 1965, a mole is an amount of substance of specified chemical formula, containing the same number of formula units (atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, quanta, or other entities) as there are in 12 grams (exactly) of the pure nuclide 12C. (Guggenheim, 1986 p.3).
The mole is the amount of substance of a system which contains as many elementary entities as there are atoms in 0.012 kilogram of carbon-12. When the mole is used, the elementary entities must be specified and may be atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, other particles, or specified groups of such particles. Recent measurement of this number gives the value 6.0221367 ×1023, which to three significant figures is 6.02 × 1023. Therefore, mole can be viewed from three perspectives; in terms of number, in terms of mass and in terms of volume. Mole in terms of number can be viewed as a unit of chemists to count atoms, molecules, ions, electrons, protons, neutrons, Chemical bond etc. and one mole of any thing is equal to 6.022×1023 pieces or particle of that thing. Mole in terms of mass is the one gram atom of an element or one gram molecule of a substance or one gram ion of an ion is known as one mole of that element or substance or ion respectively. Then, in terms of volume, it is one mole of any gas contains 22.4 liters at N.T.P or S.T.P. (0°C & 760 mm of Hg), the volume is called molar volume of standard molar volume of often called gram molecular volume.
The importance of the concepts of ’amount of substance’ and ’mole’ is supported by the abundance in the last decade of research papers on the problem of the teaching and learning of these concepts (Furio, Azcona & Guisasola, 2002). This is why it is necessary to introduce the amount of substance as a quantity that makes it possible to count at the macroscopic level the elementary entities from the masses (or the volumes in the case of gases) of the reacting substances. However, students have been conceptualizing mole concept with wrong notion as asserted by Gabel & Bunce (1994) that the didactic problem is no longer limited to the students difficulties, and that its cause can rather be found in instruction because the mole is a concept devised by scientists to aid in chemical calculations, students’ erroneous or non-conceptions could hardly be called intuitive conceptions, but arise because of insufficient instruction or inappropriate teaching strategies. Hence, the need to seek alternative instructional delivery for better understanding of mole concept in chemistry by students.
Conceptual Framework for Evaluating Mobile Learning
This study is premise on evaluation of mobile learning in a ubiquitous collaborative setting in which Bates (1995) evaluation model will be adapted in order to assess the appropriateness and quality of mobile technology for learning. The model contains seven stages with the acronym ACTIONS meaning access, cost, teaching & learning, interactivity & user-friendliness, organizational issues, novelty and speed. The model is developed to assist and present a guiding principle for selecting appropriate technology for distance learning; hence, it was used to evaluate existing programmes from the perspective of consumers of instructions. But in this study, the ACTIONS model will be used from both the perspective of the consumer and producer of instructions for teaching learning purpose and above all, through mobile learning endeavor. The selection of the right technology for educational reasons is emphasized by this model and it is also corroborated by the EITIMI (1999) model element for selecting technology for educational purposes which is presented in a schematic representation below;
Figure 6: Model for Selecting Technology
Source: Sadik (n. d.)
The model (EITIMI, 1999) provided an approach of functions to consider while attempting using technology for learning which can be related to some stages in the adapted evaluation model (Bates, 1995) for this study. Clearly identifying ACTIONS model in the perspective of EITIMI (1999), teaching & learning, interactivity & user-friendliness and novelty relates to educational issues which tend to explain the consideration of what should form quality instructional content for teaching-learning activities. In the adapted evaluation model, teaching & learning refer to the instructional approaches that will best suite and meet instructional needs of students. It as well relates to the possibility of adapting instructional contents to the selected (mobile) technology and determine the skill such technology can develop in learner.
The technological issue in EITIMI (1999) portends the kind of technology that can enhance and allow learning to take place. This is in line with novelty in the adapted model of evaluation in that it considers the newness of a selected technology with attention given to the technical capabilities for delivery of instruction. And finally on EITIMI relevance to the adopted model is the management issues which sought to find out what could serve as logistical constraints in using a particular technology for learning. This rightly pointed to the matter of organizational issues and cost in Bates (1995) evaluation model as it attempt to determine the management requirement for stability and support towards the adoption of technology for learning. It also considers the barriers that could hinder the successful integration of technology for learning and putting into perspective, changes that needs to be carried out within the organization in order to incorporate the technology.
The issues of cost also relates to management issues in EITIMI (1999) because the financial structure of designing instructional content and selecting appropriate technology for its delivery are determined by the management. It is at this stage that the cost structure per technology selected is determined, what the unit cost will be on each participating student and comparing the opportunity cost structure of the selected technology to alternative technological choices. It provides an avenue to make a decision on whether to seek for alternative technological choices or out rightly selecting mobile technology for learning because of its cost effectiveness and efficiency. Meanwhile, Koole (2009) presented a model for framing mobile learning with three major aspects identified as shown in the Venn diagram below comprising of device aspect, learner aspect and social aspect;
[pic]
Figure 7: The Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Education (FRAME) Model
Source: Koole (2009)
The FRAME model is intended to answer some basic questions in relation to the utilization of mobile devices for learning, taking into cognizance the peculiarity of the mobile device itself, the learner and the social activities that will midwife a meaningful and successful mobile learning. These questions as highlighted by Koole (2009) are stated accordingly below;
How can such a learner take full advantage of the mobile experience?
How can practitioners design materials and activities appropriate for mobile access?
How can mobile learning be effectively implemented in both formal and informal learning?
It was based on the above questions that Koole (2009) designed and developed the framework for the rational analysis of mobile education (FRAME) model to offer some insights into these issues as related to mobile device, learner and social aspects in a mobile learning environment of information context. Clearly analyzing the contents of the FRAME model in its three major aspects, a synergy of information was detected in relation to ACTIONS model. It is important to note that the three circles represent the device (D), learner (L) and social (S) aspects in FRAME model and the intersections where two circles overlap contain attributes that belong to both aspects. Cost is one of the new dimensions Bates model introduced to evaluation practice, hence, the intersections between attributes of the device usability (DL) and social technology (DS) described the affordances of mobile technology for learning endeavor. The intersection labeled interaction learning (LS) contains instructional and learning theories with an emphasis on social constructivism which closely explain the teaching &learning, interactivity & user-friendliness, novelty and speed in ACTIONS (1995) model.
Hypothetically, the central intersection of the convergence of all three aspects, defines an ideal mobile learning situation through which assessing the degree of all areas of the FRAME model are utilized within a mobile learning situation, by aiding the design of more effective mobile learning experiences. Therefore, the FRAME model provides step by step activities to be carried out in the design and development of mobile learning situation for effective evaluation of the process to take place. The device aspect in FRAME model refers to the physical, technical and functional characteristics of a mobile device as identified by ACTIONS model in teaching & learning, novelty and speed. The physical characteristics according to Koole (2009) include input and output capabilities as well as processes internal to the technology such as storage capabilities, power, processor speed, compatibility, and expandability. These characteristics result from the hardware and software design of the devices and have a significant impact on the physical and psychological comfort levels of the users. It is important to assess these characteristics because mobile learning devices provide the interface between the mobile learner and the learning task(s). The issue of teaching & learning in ACTIONS model clearly relates to the adaptation of a technology for learning with appropriate instructional approaches that could promote certain skill in learners.
The novelty also correlates to the compatibility and capability of a technology in regard to the newness of such technology for learning in a mobile situation. While, the speed in ACTIONS model accurately measures the quickness in course creation, distribution and changing content as at when the need is determined as a matter of urgency. This clearly attempt in considering the processor speed and expandability of the technology feature as regard to the editing activities of instructional contents. In particular, input and output capabilities must be suited to human perception and motor functions and similarly, the capacity and speed of the device memory, processor, file storage, and file exchange require error-free response rates appropriately timed to the human user’s needs and expectations. The learner aspect (L) takes into account an individual’s cognitive abilities, memory, prior knowledge, emotions, and possible motivations by describing how learners use what they already know and how they encode, store and transfer information.
The transfer of information within a mobile learning information context could be drawn from prior knowledge as it will play a major role in influencing learning with the support of learner’s environment. Therefore, designing an appropriate mobile learning environment will go a long way in promoting socialization, information exchange and knowledge construction. Salmon (2000) online collaboration model described the online socialization stage as a very important collaborative means that makes group members feel comfortable with each other. It defined the group dynamism and empathy through careful interaction among member by working against stereotyping behavior. He sees information exchange in the perspective of tasks negotiation, information sharing and designing collaborative culture and finally, knowledge construction is based on sharing personal knowledge with opinions in order to contribute knowledge.
Mobile learning may help to enhance encoding, recall and transfer of information by allowing learners to access content in multiple formats and highlighting the contexts and uses of the information. The social aspect takes into account the processes of social interaction and cooperation in which individuals must follow the rules of cooperation to communicate; thereby enabling them to exchange information, acquire knowledge and sustain cultural practices. Rules of cooperation can be determined by a learner’s culture or the culture in which an interaction take place. In mobile learning, this culture may be physical or virtual (Koole, 2009). This explanations buttress the Salmon (2000) online collaborative model in the context of access & motivation, online socialization, information exchange, knowledge construction and construction. The last stage of Salmon (2000) online collaborative model gives credence to leaner’s feelings to be responsible for their own learning and work by completing their roles within the group.
The issue of access in ACTIONS model play a central role in the evaluation process because without availability of technology for mobile learning and its accessibility to learners to explore instructional content, there will be no need to create and distribute instructional content. Salmon (2000) online collaboration identified access & motivation as the first stage that should be considered before any activity of online learning. In his submission, accessibility to technology provide students their first opportunity of contact in being familiar with online tools that will be used for the exploration of possible problems and solutions. Access in ACTIONS model envisaged the availability of a particular technology to a target group of learner and the extent of its familiarization in terms of usability features as relate to flexibility of adopting it for learning. Each of the highlighted issues is expected to be evaluated from which Bates’s ACTIONS model intends to carry out in this study.
Proposed Model for this Study
The primary focus of this study is to conduct an evaluation exercise by adopting Bates’s ACTIONS (1995) evaluation model synergized with Salmon (2000) online collaborative model and SMSE mobile learning instructional design model. The Bates’s model consisted of seven stages namely access, cost, teaching & learning, interactivity & user-friendliness, organizational issues, novelty and speed, but, organizational issue will not be looked into in this study, simply because, management issues is a bogus exercise as it relates to policies and governmental interventions. Therefore, the researcher intends to research into policies that promotes instructional packages and other technology-related learning platform in the nearest future, however, it could also serve as recommendation for other researchers. The other six stages of ACTIONS model will be used to conduct evaluation of mobile learning in a ubiquitous collaborative learning setting.
Consequence upon this, an instructional design model that will be synergized is the scenario message synchronization evaluation (SMSE) developed by Shih (2005) for mobile learning experience. The model was presented at a conference organized by International Association for the Development of Information Society (IADIS) on Mobile Learning in 2005 and it won an award, and as such, it is adjudged one of the best ID model for mobile learning platform. The SMSE model schematic depiction is presented below;
[pic]
Figure 8: Scenario Message Synchronization Evaluation Model (2005)
Source: Shih (2005)
Because the Bates model is being used from the perspective of producer and consumer, the instructional contents for the mobile learning will need to be designed with the adoption of an instructional design model so as to incorporate all necessary activities that depicts online collaborative characteristics. Furthermore, the interaction between students and instructors will need to be well spelt out in the design process which necessitates the integration of Salmon (2000) online model. For clearity purpose, it should be stated that the SMSE (2005) ID model is a guide to maximize the effectiveness of mobile learning outcomes by providing a workable approach that deals with the constraints of mobile technologies (Shih, 2005). Therefore, each of the four steps in SMSE model subsumes so many activities as shown in the proposed model for this study below;
[pic]
Figure 9: Proposed Model for the Study
Scenario provides intent direction in creating suitable teaching materials that are appropriate for mobile learning activities and can be processed efficiently by mobile communication devices. It also motivates students by learning anytime and anywhere. Message gives room for notifying students through instant messaging with brief text content, and instructs them by audio and/or video messaging. Messaging also enables interactive and collaborative learning activities among students. The synchronization aspect allows students to harmonize mobile learning engagement with their existing learning activities in the face to face or online course room.
Synchronizing also promotes self-reflective and transformative learning for students. And finally, evaluation present an avenue to assess effectiveness of mobile learning materials, activities and students' learning outcomes in the mobile learning environment. It as well encourages the chance to improve the scenario design to cope with mobile learners with a diversity of mobile devices. Evaluation focuses on mobile learning activities which can create authentic learning and knowledge construction.
With the above explanation of activities involve in the stages of SMSE ID model for mobile learning, it is clear that the scenario only serves as an approach in designing the instructional content for mobile learning. Therefore, a basic instructional design model that gives concise activities involve in the process of designing an instructional content for learning is necessary for adoption in order to fulfill the intent of SMSE ID model for mobile learning purpose. Meanwhile, it should be noted that there are a number of instructional design models but with clear x-ray of these ID models, differences are minor in the steps evolving from these ID models (Cohen, 2006). Therefore, the major and necessary peculiar levels in instructional design are analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. This is so, because, most professional instructional designers rarely refer to instructional design models but rather introduce many variations to the execution of the instructional design process and as appropriate may eliminate, substantially alter or merge one or more phases of the process described by different models (Cohen, 2006).
According to Quinn (2002), the requirements are to emphasize standard-based design, lean content, and clever use of media to communicate, carefully constrained writing, and focused use of interactive to achieve important learning outcomes. The SMSE instructional design model is responsive to instructor needs to maximize effectiveness of mobile learning applications, integration of mobile learning into existing learning activities, and increased online learning outcomes for students in technology-based education (Shih, 2005). Hence, to fulfill the intent of the scenario in SMSE ID model mobile learning, analysis, design, development and implementation will be employed because these four activities are synonymous and important to any instructional design model.
In brief explanation, analysis is carried out to determine the need for assessment on every ramifications pertaining to the learning objectives to justify the need for design process. The result of the analysis is then use as guide to design a prototype for the instructional content to accommodate all parameters in reference to the learner and the learning process. If there are corrections, then the actual development of the prototype instructional content takes place by following all the specified guidelines before the actual implementation. The implementation exercise allows the target audience to interact with the instructional content and documentation is made to measure the performance of the learner in consonant with the quality of instructional content.
Message stage of SMSE ID model for mobile learning provides a forum for communication between instructor-learner, learner-learner and instructor-learner-technology interaction and collaboration. It creates a platform approach on how to determine the communication mode and channel. The communication mode could be audio, text, video or multimedia, while the channel refers to the type or variety of technology platform that the communication mode used to establish an interactive relationship in a collaborative ubiquitous environment. Mobile technology lends itself to online learning materials that are designed in small coherent segments and split into multi-step job tasks. The objective is to effectively interface with the mobile technology and learning environment to provide a sequentially enhanced learning experience (Shih, 2005).
Synchronization in SMSE ID model is an interface provided to allow learners through collaborative and self-learning to draw meaning out of what has been learnt via mobile learning and create a knowledge construct of new knowledge to the existing knowledge acquired through face-to-face classroom setting. Both message and synchronization stage of SMSE needs a measure to guide the collaborative style, knowledge sharing and communication pattern. To provide an easy to understand method to guide the aforementioned attributes, Salmon’s model (2000) of online learning pattern will be adopted. It consisted of five major stages namely access and motivation, online socialization, information exchange, knowledge construction and construction. The first three will be associated with message while the last two will be associated with synchronization.
Salmon’s model (2000) is an excellent dimension of online learning in collaborative environment with five stages in which online group must go through in order to be assured of efficient and effective interaction (Dooly, 2008). Access and motivation allow students to initiate first contact, become familiar with online tools that will be used and explore possible problems and solutions. In online socialization, members of a collaborative work group should get to know each other as it is an important factor that will make them be at ease with each other in carrying out group task and sharing information. Members in a collaborative work group should find out about each other’s individual differences, similarities, cultural and other relevant personal attributes as this will build a good group dynamism and empathy.
Information exchange is the stage of collaboration on a particular project assigned to a group in online learning. It is at this point that activities and real collaborative learning begins. Members in a collaborative group start to negotiate tasks, share information, determine and design the strategy to adopt in carrying out group assignment. Issues involve at this stage might include volume of task, deadlines to solve problems, agenda to be followed and so forth. This will give them clear understanding of how to use online learning materials and the online tools constructively as much as possible. The fourth stage is knowledge construction which has to do with moving beyond information exchange to collective knowledge construct. Personal view and acquired knowledge understanding through the exploration of online materials should be shared within the group in order to contribute to knowledge.
The last stage of Salmon’s (2000) model is construction. Having attained the knowledge construct stage, members of a group in online learning will develop self-confidence and feel responsible for their own learning and will be prompted to work towards completing their roles in the work group. It should be noted that the five stages can continue through the period of the online collaborative learning exercise. The last level of the SMSE ID model for mobile learning is evaluation and the Bates’s ACTIONS model will be adapted for this stage as earlier stated.
Appraisal of Reviewed Literature
The concept of mobile learning could be view from the perspective of any activity that allows individuals to be more productive when consuming, interacting with, or creating information mediated through a compact digital portable device that the individual carries on a regular basis, has reliable connectivity, and fits in a pocket or purse (eLearning Guild, 2008; Traxler, 2009). The use of wireless, mobile portable and handheld devices are gradually increasing and diversifying across every sector of education across both the developed and developing world by experiencing an escalating transformation driven by the convergence of mobile devices and wireless communication technologies (Shih, 2005; Traxler, 2009).
Koole (2009) and Rosen (2010) listed common wireless technology standards that are important for mobile learning to include WiFi, infrared, Bluetooth, GSM, and CDMA that make sure information is available anywhere there is internet access, information is available anytime, information is available through devices that are becoming commonplace and will soon be affordable to most people, information can be pushed from the environment to the learners and pulled by the learners from the environment and the learning environment is fluid and adapts as the learner learns.
He explained further that mobile learning, through the use of mobile technology, will allow citizens of the world to access learning materials and information from anywhere and at anytime (Ally, 2009). It is now largely thought as an aid to informal learning and serves as medium to offer the delivery of full courses with emphasis on performance support and complimenting teaching-learning activities (Clark, 2011; Pachler, Bachmair and Cook, 2009). Many researches has been conducted to find out the effectiveness of mobile learning in relation to a number of learning variables and instructional design processes (Brown, 2010, Brown, 2011; Cohen, 2006; Dillard, 2012; Hoskyns-Long, 2009; Keegan, 2005; Mahmoud, 2008; Nickols, 2007; Shih, 2005; Zawack-Richter, Brown and Delport, 2008).
A research was carried out on the topic seize teachable and learnable moments: SMSE instructional design model for mobile learning by Shih (2005) to determine and explain the mobile learning environment and its challenges, to show the fundamental importance of the SMSE model to instructional design for mobile learning and to illustrate the application of the SMSE model through mClass, a mobile learning website developed by the author. Therefore, in the conclusion remark, it affirmed that mobile learning through mClass was efficient and provides opportunity for student anywhere and anytime. In Hoskyns-Long (2009) study on the topic trends of mobile learning: a study of the adoption of podcasting as a learning tool at a community college revealed that majority of educators were slow to adopt podcasting as a learning tool.
Overall, the instructors had only a general awareness of podcasting and are interested in learning more about the possibilities of using podcasting as a learning tool. The study used a quantitative methodological approach and utilized descriptive statistics to discover and identify relationships among different academic disciplines and concerns of faculty members regarding the adoption of podcasting as an educational tool. The target population for the study was the full-time faculty (lecturer) from a large community college in the state of Michigan. A total of 290 lecturers were sampled and only fifty seven of them responded resulting to 20% response rate.
In another study carried out to investigate collaborative learning outside the classroom setting by vasiliou and economides (2007) on the title mobile collaborative learning using multicast, three educational scenarios were held outdoors and are analyzed. In the first scenario, students investigated the ancient architecture, archaeological artifacts and historical location at an archaeological site. In the second scenario, students investigated the environmental and natural resource management, endangered species and flora at a national forest. The third scenario describes collaborative game-based learning at outdoors setting. Mobile Ad hoc Networks (MANETs) are employed to support students’ communication and collaboration. Simulation results show the feasibility of multicast MANETs to support students’ communication and collaboration during these three outdoor educational scenarios. Current instructional design models and methods were developed to design instruction for delivery on personal desktop computers that have large screen; however, there is a trend towards the use of mobile devices to deliver learning materials, and for students to learn anytime and anywhere (Ally, 2005).
The use of mobile devices for learning has implications as to how learning materials are designed using learning theories and instructional design principles. He conducted research on using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices. The findings revealed that mobile learning principles need to take advantage of cognitive learning instructional theories which state; learning involves the use of memory, motivation, thinking, and reflection. It also argues that information must be organized or “chunked” appropriately in order to facilitate the learning process.
According to the article for mobile learning, 5-9 units per course are thought to be appropriate in order to compensate for short-term memory limitations. It presents the idea that mobile learning should be organized into a concept map or network rather than textual and also take advantage of multimedia formats such as audio, video, and greater use of video due to the small screen form factor of most mobile devices. Learners should be allowed to take the units in groups and orders that make sense to them in order to retain the information. Designing instructionally sound mobile learning units will require a change in writing style by course developers (instructional designers) who currently tend to focus on text-heavy design methodologies.
A production research was also carried by Hemabala and Suresh (2012) on the frame work design of mobile learning management system. A case study method is utilized and the science club with 46 fourth grade students is selected in this study as the sample. The effect of learning activities on the students’ performance of learning aquatic plants was examined. Besides, a set of quantitative and qualitative data were collected from the case study to document the learning effects and the students’ perceptions of the learning activities, and to discuss factors underlying these effects and students perceptions. The results indicated that the learning activities can enhance students’ scientific performances, including both knowledge and understanding levels. This study identifies two factors that are prominent in the positive effects; student’s engaging in ‘mobile technology supported’ observation during their scientific inquiry; and students’ engaging in ‘mobile technology supported’ manipulation during their scientific inquiry.
In a review study on the add-on impact of mobile applications in learning strategies by Jeng, Wu, Huang, Tan, and Yang (2010), essential characteristics of mobile learning were identified and discussed with emphasis laid on the add-on impact of mobile learning and elaborated mobile learning model in learning strategies. The survey was done on recent researches including context awareness, pedagogical strategy-enhanced learning scenarios, as well as collaborative and socially networked mobile learning. In their conclusions, it was stated that mobile learning model emphasized on mobile users, learning strategies, situated environments, and virtual group awareness.
The advance of mobile technology assists the development of “situated classroom” which is an augmented knowledge context environment pertaining to learners’ daily life. The situated classroom is able to convey information between learners and instructors while the learning strategies are deployed. With the enhanced pedagogical learning strategies, learners obtain skill and knowledge in situated classroom. Many currently available mobile learning applications highlight the mobility, ubiquitous computing, and portability features to facilitate learning process by utilizing those features. Nevertheless, a more important issue is to rationalize the customized mobile learning applications in the proposed pedagogical learning strategies.
Mobile technology does not aim to complicate learning process but facilitate mobile learners’ learning process. To create new innovative learning opportunities, one needs to take into account the usability and the rationality. We believe that the appropriate application of mobile devices is to be developed in the combination of appropriate use of mobile technology and enhanced educational underpinning. Future studies with the support of mobile technology could be directed towards the integration of learning strategies and emerging mobile sensor technology. More and more mobile devices in the future will be equipped with sensors and accelerometers which mean the track of mobile learners will be more precise. Combine the personal learning portfolio with physical learning behavior would bring new issues in the field of mobile learning.
Wong, Chin, Tan, and Liu (2010) worked on students' personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment presented a design research study in mobile assisted language learning (MALL) that emphasizes learner created content and contextualized meaning making. In learning Chinese idioms, students proactively used smartphones on a 1:1 basis to capture photos of the real-life contexts pertaining to the idioms, and to construct sentences with them. Subsequently, in-class or online sharing and discussions on the contexts took place, which would enhance the students' understanding of the proper usage of the idioms.
The learning design is grounded in seamless learning that encompasses in-class formal learning and out-of-class informal settings, and personal and social learning spaces. The analysis of the student artifacts in both product- and process-oriented aspects revealed the students’ cognitive process and learning strategies during the course of content creation. The students' ongoing, open-ended, personal-to-social meaning making process and artifacts have shown some indicators of seamless language learning that has the potential of transforming language learning into an authentic learning experience.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter will explain methods to be adopted in carrying out this research and will be discussed under the following sub-headings: Research Design, Research Type, Sample and Sampling Procedure, Research Instrument, Validation of Research Instrument, Procedure for Data Collection and Data Analysis Techniques.
Research Design
This study is an intra-media experimental research of one group pretest-posttest design type of development and evaluation. It involves the evaluation of mobile learning on mole concept in a ubiquitous environment which will embroil the design and development of an instructional content transmitted through mobile technology (phone). Five groups of students will be engaged comprising of samples drawn from different schools within Kwara State and the groups are independent of one another. Samples will be randomly assigned to the five groups and the name tags for the groups are think-pair-share (TPS), reciprocal teaching (RP), think-aloud pair problem solving (TAPPS), group grid (GG) and group writing assignment (GWA) based on Cerbin (2010) collaborative learning techniques classification. The experimental design symbol for each group will be:
TPS Group O1 X O2
RT Group O3 X O4
TAPPS Group O5 X O6
GG Group O7 X O8
GWA Group O9 X O10
The instructional content for the mobile learning will be adapted from the previous multimedia instructional package designed, developed, validated and evaluated by the researcher.
Sample and Sampling Techniques
The population for this study will be the senior secondary school two (S.S.S. II) chemistry students in Nigeria. Chemistry students will be purposively selected from the schools chosen for this study; in which students that own a mobile phone that possess the application to access the mobile instructional contents will be selected. Students will be randomly assigned a group.
Research Instrument
Three research instruments will be used to gather data in this study which are treatment instrument (mobile learning mole concept, MLMC), test instrument (pretest-posttest) and researcher-designed questionnaires. The first instrument is mobile learning mole concept (MLMC) instructional contents and will also double as the mobile instructional product designed to teach mole concept to SSS II chemistry students in Kwara State via mobile phone in ubiquitous settings. The second research instrument is the result of pretest and posttest of participating students in each collaborative group, while the last instrument is a researcher-designed questionnaires for both experts (subject matter teachers, educational technologist and computer application professionals) and students to validate and evaluate the MLMC appropriateness and its quality for learning respectively using Bates’s ACTIONS evaluation model.
Validation of Research Instrument
The mobile learning mole concept (MLMC) as an instrument will be validated by the following experts: subject matter experts, educational technologist and computer application professionals while the questionnaires will be validated by three test and measurement experts from the University of Ilorin.
Procedure for Data Collection
The techniques to be adopted for data collection will be in two folds; the first fold will be through questionnaires that will be designed by the researcher to examine the selected samples and will be collected after respondents must have provided answers to the items. While the second fold will be the scores from the pretest and posttest conducted on the selected samples before and after they might have been exposed to the treatment instrument (MLMC). The scores from both tests will serve as the data that will be downloaded through the mobile learning response medium of interaction for further analysis.
Data Analysis Techniques
The statistical methods to be employed in conducting data analysis will be descriptive and inferential statistics because the data will be both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Research questions will be analyzed using percentage and mean, while chi-square will be used to test the fourteen hypotheses raised in this study.
REFERENCE
Abad, C.L. (2008). Learning through creating learning objects: experiences with a class project in a distributed systems course. 13th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Ccience Education. ACM: 255-259.
Advanced Distributed Learning (2010). Mobile learning. Retrieved from on December, 20th, 2012.
Aldalalah, M., Osamah, S-F-F., & Ababneh, W.Z. (2010). Effects of multimedia- based instructional designs for Arabic language learning among pupils of different achievement levels. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 39
Alessi, S. M. & Trollip, S. R. (1991). Computer-based instruction. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
Ally, M. (2005). Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices. Learning and Skills Development Agency, Mobile learning anytime everywhere. A Book of Papers From MLEARN 2004, Retrieved from s.pdf#page=14
Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Ally, M. (2010). Technical and design issues in implementation. A PowerPoint Presentation in New Zealand in January 2010 Monday, May 06, 2013, 11:35:50 PM
Alsadi, J., & AbuShawar, B. (2009). M-learning: The usage of WAP technology in e- learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 3(3), 10– 16. doi:10.3991/ijim.v3i3.808
Alttaher, A. (2006). The relationship between spatial composition of images of fixed and animated multimedia programs and educational attainment. Unpublished master dissertation, Helwan University, Egypt
Amber, S. W. (2009). User interface design tips, techniques, and principles. Retrieved November 23, from Ambysoft:
An, H., Sunghee, S., & Lim, K. (2009). The effects of instructor facilitation approaches on students' interactions during asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education, 53, 749-760
Antonis, K., Daradoumis, T., Papadakis, S., & Simos, C. (2011). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a web-based learning design for adult computer science courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 54(3), 374–380. DOI:10.1109/TE.2010.2060263
Arnedillo- Sánchez, I., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Milrad, M., Sharples, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Innovation in mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 13–35. DOI:10.4018/jmbl.2009010102
Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., Sharples, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning. Technology-Enhanced Learning, 233–249. DOI:10.1007/978
Auer, S., Bizer, C., Lehmann, J., Kobilarov, G., Cyganiak, R., & Ives, Z. (2007). DBpedia: a nucleus for a web of open data. 6th semantic web conference. Springer-Verlag: 722-735
Barbosa, J., Reinhard, N., Saccol, A., & Schlemmer, E. (2010). M-learning in practice: A training experience with IT professionals. Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 7(2), 261–280. DOI: 10.4301/S1807- 17752010000200002
Barker, A., Krull, G., & Mallinson, B. (2005). A proposed theoretical model for m- learning adoption in developing countries. An Unpublished Dissertation, Rhodes University, Department of Information Systems, South Africa.
Bassi, R. (2011). ICTs in Education (ICT4E): Policies and Plans worldwide, Version 8/Aug/11. Nairobi, Global e-Schools and Communities Initiative (GESCI).
Bates, T. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education, A. W. New York, NY: Routledge,
Battan, J. (2012). Mobile instructional design principles for adult learners. ... 2/14/2013 7:14 PM
Bells, P. (2013). Cost-benefit. 9/12/2013 11:56 AM
Belotti, V. & Bly, S. 1996. Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. A Proceeding of Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Work, ACM Press.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P.C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C.A., Tamin, R.M., Surkes, M.A., & Bethel, E.C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243-1289.
Berge, Z. (2000). The role of the moderator in a scholarly discussion group (SDG).[Online]. Available at:
Bishop, M. J. (2000). The systematic use of sound in multimedia instruction to enhance learning. (Doctoral Dissertation, Lehigh University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International.(UMI No. 9980921)
Bishop, C, & Hong, R. (2010). Building community: Effective strategies to increase interaction in online learning. Biola University: USA
Bradley, C., Haynes, R., Cook, J., Boyle, T., & Smith, C. (2009). Design and development of multimedia learning objects for mobile phones. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, (pp. 157182). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. A. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-12
Brown, J. (2010). 2010 forecasts: mlearnopedia blog. retrieved from http:// mlearnopedia.2010/01/2010-forecasts.html on May 27, 2010.
Brown, T. (2004) Exploring future learning paradigms. Will m-learning survive? MLEARN 2004 Conference, Bracciano, Italy.
Bruck, B. (2005). Building interactivity into e-learning. Article reprinted from ELearning! Magazine, 1-3
Brown, M., & Diaz, V. (2010). Mobile learning: Context and prospect. A Report on the ELI Focus Session. EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivs 3.0 License.
Bruns, A., Cobcroft, R., Smith, J., & Towers, S. (2006). Mobile learning in review: Opportunities and challenges for learners, teachers, and institutions. A Paper Presented at the Online Learning and Teaching (OLT) Conference 2006, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. Retrieved from
Bunson, S. (2012). How to evaluate instruction, including elearning. ... 1/8/2013 12:08 PM
Buxton, W. (2001). Less is More (More or Less). In P. Denning (Ed.), The invisible future: the seamless integration of technology in everyday life, (145–179). New York: McGraw Hill,
Cagiltay, K, Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademirci, A., & Kursun, E. (2012). Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based mobile learning project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149–1159. DOI:10.1016/pedu.2011.12.002
Chatti, M. A., Hamdan, N. A., & Schaper, H. (2012). Collaboration in mobile learning seminar. Mobile Learning 2011/2012 Computer-Supported Learning Research Group Conference.
Cerbin, B. (2010). Collaborative learning techniques workshop handouts. Collaborative Learning Techniques Workshop, presented by Bill Cerbin, April 23, 2010 Center for Advancing Teaching & Learning, UW‐La Crosse
Chen1, Y-T., Chen, T-J., & Tsai, L-Y (2011). Development and evaluation of multimedia reciprocal representation instructional materials. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 6(6), 1431-1439,
Chen, Y., Kao, T., & Sheu, J. (2003). A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19 (3), 347-359.
Chen Y-T, Tsai L-Y (2009). The impact of information technology on learning performance. Journal of Tainan University of Technology, 28, 217-235.
Chen C-Y, Yang Y-F, Chen C-W, Chen L-T, Chen T-H (2010). Linking the balanced scorecard (BSC) to business management performance: A preliminary concept of fit theory for navigation science and management. International Journal of Physical Science, 5(8), 1296-1305
Chi Ng, K., & Murphy, D. (2005). Evaluating interactivity and learning in computer conferencing using content analysis techniques. Distance Education, 26(1), 89–109
Chung, S., Shim, J. H., & Kim, C. (2007). Display button: a marriage of GUI and PUI. In J. Jacko (Ed.), Human - computer interaction. (pp. 1086-1095). SpringerLink.
Clark, Q. (2011). Designing mlearning: Tapping into the mobile revolution for organizational performance. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Clough, G., Jones, A. C., McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2008). Informal learning with pdas and smartphones.
Cohen, D. E. (2006). The online resource selection instructional design script (ORSIDS). A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University
Conelly, R. Hazlewood, K., Rogers, W., & Tedesco, Y., L. (2009). Enhancing learning: A of how mobile devices can facilitate sense making. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14(2), 111–124. DOI:10.1007/s00779-009-0250-7
Crichton, S. & Kopp, G. (2006). Multimedia technologies, multiple intelligences, and teacher professional development in an international education project. Innovative Online, 2 (3),
Dark, M. J., York, C. S., Popescu, V., & Nita-Rotaru, C. (2007). Evaluating interactivity and presence in an online distance learning system. 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference held on October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI
Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of distance education: Emerging technologies and distributed learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(2), 4−36.
DeGani, A. Martin, G. Stead, G & Wade, F. (2010): E-learning standards for an m- learning world. Archived paper at centre/research
Dillard, A. (2012). Mobile instructional design principles for adult learners. Presented to the Interdisciplinary Studies Program: Applied Information Management and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A. & O’Malley, C. (1996) ‘The evolution of research on collaborative learning’. In E. Spada and P. Reiman (Eds), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science, (pp.189–211). Oxford: Elsevier.
DiGiano, C., Yarnall, L., Patton, C, Roschelle, J, Tatar, D & Manley, M. (2003). Conceptual tools for planning for the wireless classroom. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19 (3), 284-297.
Dooly, M. (2008). Constructing knowledge together. In M. Dooly (2008). Telecollaborative language learning. A guidebook to moderating intercultural collaboration online. Bern: Peter Lang. pp. 21-45
Dragomir, R. G. & Tascovici, D. E. (2010). Modern learning devices used in m- learning. The 6th International Scientific Conference: e-learning and software for education. Bucharest. Retrieved on July, 12, 2010 from: 8f95759d87fa7d49&articleId=963b3da5-7761-4005-901e-7ddbcd9a95db
Economides, A.A. & Nikolaou, N. (2008). Evaluation of handheld devices for mobile learning. International Journal of Engineering Education. 1-21
Educause. (2005). 7 things you should know about podcasting. Educause Learning Initiative. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from
Elias, T. (2010). Universal instructional design principles for moodle. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(2). Retrieved from
ELearning Guide, (2007). 360 mobile learning research reports. Santa Rosa: CA.
ELearning Guild (2008) Mobile Learning: What it is, why it matters, and how to incorporate it into your learning strategy. (360o Report). Santa Rosa: The e- learning Guild).
El-Hussein, M. O. M., & Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 12–21.
Evans, M. (2009). Mobility, games, and education. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education, (pp. 96-110). New York: NIG Publishing.
Fielden, T, & Orubeondo, A., (2002). J2ME and wap: together forever?. >
Ford, M., & Leinonen , T. (2009). MobilED—mobile tools and services platform for formal and informal learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, (pp.195–214). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
Freeman, J. (n. d.). Using discussions in online courses: The importance of interactivity. Course Development, UT TeleCampus
Frey, B.A. & Lightcap, J.M. (2008). Multimedia projects: Build it right and they will come. Sloan-C International Conference on Online Learning, Orlando, FL.
Frey, B. A & Sutton, J. M. (2010). A model for developing multimedia learning projects MERLOT. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).
Fuller, D., Norby, R.F., Pearce, K., & Strand, S. (2000). Internet teaching by style: Profiling the online professor. Educational Technology and Society, 3(2), 75- 89.
Furio, C., Azcona, R., & Guisasola, J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concept, amount of substance and mole: A review of the literature. Research and Practice in Europe, 3(3), 277-292
Fuxin, A. Y. (2012). Mobile/smart phone use in higher education. University of Central Arkansas 201 Donaghey Ave PO# 5871 Conway, AR 501-358- 8677 yufuxin123@
Gabel, D.L. & Bunce, D.M. (1994). Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Research on problem solving: Chemistry. New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Gagne, R. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gagné, R., Briggs, L & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of Instructional design. Fort Worth, Texas. HBJ College Publishers
Gagne, R., Wager, W., Golas, K., & Keller, J. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Gavalas, D. & Economou, D. (2011). Development platforms for mobile applications: Status and trends. IEEE SOFTWARE//softwa r e
Giertz, T. (2010). Evaluating e-learning investments with cost-effectiveness analysis.
Goh, T., & Kinshuk, (2006). Getting ready for mobile learning -- adaptation perspective. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(2), 175-198. .
Gould, J. D. & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28 (3), 300-311
Gregson, J., & Jordaan, D. (2009). Exploring the challenges and opportunities of m- learning within an international distance education programme. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, (pp. 215–246). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.
GSMA & A.T. Kearney. 2011. African Mobile Observatory 2011: Driving Economic and Social Development through Mobile Services. London, GSMA. Full_Report_2011.pdf
Gu, X., Gu, F., & Laffey, J. (2011). Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 204–215. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00391.x
Guggenheim, E. A. (1986) Thermodynamics. An advanced treatment for chemists and physicists. Amsterdam: North Holland Physics Publishing).
Guy, R. (2010). Mobile learning: Pilot projects and initiatives. Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science.
Haag, J. (2010). Scorm implementation Strategies for m-learning. Retrieved from jhaag75/scorm-implementation-strategies-for-mobile- 4630923 on July 28, 2013 at 12:27AM.
Hafner, W. & Ellis, T.J. (2004). ‘Project-based, asynchronous collaborative learning’, Paper presented in the Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Heeks, R. 2008. Mobiles for Impoverishment?ICTs for Development, 27 December 2008. impoverishment/
Hemabala, J. & Suresh, E.S.M. (2012). The frame work design of mobile learning management system. International Journal of Computer and Information Technology (01), 02, 179-184
Hendler, J. (2009). Web 3.0 emerging, Computer, 42 (1), 111-113.
Hillman, D.C.A., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42.
Hirumi, A. (2002). A framework for analyzing, designing, and sequencing planned elearning interactions. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 141-160.
Hoskyns-Long, G.E. (2009). Trends in mobile learning: A study of the adoption of podcasting as a learning tool at a community college
Hsi, H. (2003). A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19 (3), 308-319.
Ikpeze, C. (2007). Small group collaboration in peer-led electronic discourse: An analysis of group dynamics and interactions involving preservice and inservice teachers. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 388-407.
International Standard (ISO-9241-11, 1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability. ISO/TC159/SC4.
International Standard ISO/IEC 9126-1:2001. Software engineering -- Product quality -- Part 1: Quality model. Available at: mber=22749
International Telecommunication Union. (2010). ITU estimates two billion people online by end 2010. Retrieved from November 21, 2012.
Jain, M., Birnholtz, J. Cutrell, E. & Balakrishnan, R. (2011). Exploring display techniques for mobile collaborative learning in developing regions.
Jeng, Y.-L., Wu, T.-T., Huang, Y.-M., Tan,Q., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). The add-on impact of mobile applications in learning strategies: A review study. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (3), 3–11
Jensen, W. S. (2009). The origin of the mole concept. Department of Chemistry, University of Cincinnati.
Jones, M. & Marsden, G. (2006). Mobile interaction design. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Kantore, A. (2011). User-interface evaluation metrics for a typical m-learning application
Keegan, D. (2005). Mobile learning: the next generation of learning. Distance Education International
Kendall, J., Kendall, K. E., Baskerville, R. & Barnes, R. 1996. An empirical comparison of a hypertext-based systems analysis case with conventional cases and role-playing. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 27(1): 58-77.
Khan, B. (2001). Managing e-learning strategies: design, delivery, implementation and evaluation, Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Inc.
Klopfer, E. (2008). Augmented learning: Research and design of mobile educational games.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Koole, M.L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In Ally, M. (ed.), Mobile learning: transforming the delivery of education and training, Edmonton, 2009,
Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning in developing countries. Vancouver, BC: Commonwealth of Learning. Retrieved from mobileLearning.aspx.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Pachler, N., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Researching mobile learning: Frameworks, tools and research designs. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2010). Mobile learning as a catalyst for change. Open learning. The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(3), 181–185. London, Routledge.
Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London, Routledge.
Laurillard, Diana (2007), “Modelling benefits-oriented costs for technology enhanced learning”. Higher Education, Vol. 54, pp. 21–39
Leacock, T. L., & Nesbit, J. C. (2007). A Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Multimedia Learning Resources. Educational Technology & Society, 10 (2), 44- 59.
Li, N. Chang, L. Gu, Y. X. & Duh, H. B.-L. (2011). Sociality of mobile collaborative learning: Augmenting a dual-problem space for social interaction in collaborative social learning.
Li, W., Guizani, M. & Kazakos, D. (2006) ‘Quality of service in mobile adhoc networks’, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, pp.1–3, Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
Liu, C.-C., & Milrad, M. (2010). Guest editorial – one-to-one learning in the mobile and ubiquitous computing age. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 1– 3.
Liu, C. C., Tao, S. Y., & Nee, J. Y. (2008). Bridging the gap between students and computers: supporting activity awareness for network collaborative learning with GSM network. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27 (2), 127-137.
Liu, G., & Hwang, G. (2010). A key step to understanding paradigm shifts in e- learning: towards context-aware ubiquitous learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), E1-E9. DOI: doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2009.00976. 13 11:31 AM
Liu, L. & Johnson, D. L. (2005). Web-based resources and applications: Quality and influence. Computers in the Schools, 21, 131–146.
Liu, M., Toprac, P., & Yuen, T. (2009). What factors make a multimedia learning environment engaging. A case study. In R. Zheng, (Ed.) Cognitive effects of multimedia learning, (pp. 173-192). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.
Mabrito, M. (2004). Guidelines for establishing interactivity in online courses. Innovate, 1(2). Retrieved April 15, 2012, from Interactivity_in_Online_Courses.pdf
Mahmoud, S. S. (2008). A proposed model for distributing e-courses content through mobile technology architectures. A proceedings of world academy of science, engineering and technology volume 27. ISSN: 1307-6884 (279-289)
Margaryan, A. & Littlejohn, A. (2007). Community dimensions of learning object repositories. World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications
Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
Mayer, R.E. (2002) ‘Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction’. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 89, pp.55–71.
Mayer, R. E. (2010). Merlin c. Wittrock’s enduring contributions to the science of learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 46–50.
McLoughlin, D., & Mynard, J. (2009). An analysis of higher order thinking in online discussions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(2), 147-160.
Metcalf, D. (2006). M-Learning: mobile e-learning. Amherst, MA: HRD Press, Inc.
McLoughlin, C. (2007). Adapting e-Learningacross cultural boundaries: A framework for quality learning, pedagogy, and interaction. In A. Edmundson (Ed.), Globalized e-learning cultural challenges (pp.223-238). London: Information Science Publishing
Mobile Learning Network (MoLeNET, 2010). Modernising education and training. Mobilizing technology for learning, Retrieved from
Mitchem, K., Fitzgerald, G., Hollingsead, C., Koury, K., Miller, K., & Tsai, H.H. (2008). Enhancing case-based learning in teacher education through online discussions: Structure and facilitation. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(2), 331-349
Mishra, S. & Ramesh, S.C. (2005). Interactive multimedia in education and training.Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Moore, M.G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth.
Muir, D. J. (2012). An international perspective on mobile learning. World Virtual School, Davenport, IA, USA,
Muyinda, P. (2007). MLearning: Pedagogical, technical and organizational hypes and realities. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 24(2), 97–104. DOI:10.1108/10650740710742709
Naismith, L. Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G. & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning.
Naismith L. &, Smith, M.P. (2009). Using mobile technologies for multimedia tours in a traditional museum setting. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca: AU Press.
Nesbit, J. C., Li, J., & Leacock, T. L. (2006). Web-based tools for collaborative evaluation of learning resources. Retrieved November 9, 2006, from .
Nichols, M. (2007). Designing for e-learning. E-Primer Series
Niegemann, H. M., Hessel, S., & Domagk, S. (2004). Pedagogical design patterns for e-learning: a new approach to instructional design theory. International Conference on Computers in Education 2004 p. 679-683
Nielsen, J. (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press: San Diego, CA.
Nielsen, (2009) How teens use media. A Nielsen Report on the Myths and Realities of Teen Media Trends
Nielsen, W., Chan, E. K. H., & Jahng (2010). Collaborative learning in an online course: A comparison of communication patterns in small and whole group activities. The Journal of Distance Learning, 24(2), 39-58.
Kilanko, M (2013, October 27). World summit awards recognizes Osun’s opon imo; makes top 4 global e-learning products. Osun Defender Newspaper. Retrieved from on 19th November, 2013.
Owston, R. D. (2007). Contextual factors that sustain innovative pedagogical practice using technology: An international study. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 61–77.
Ozdamli, F. (2011). Pedagogical framework of m-learning. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31(0), 927–931. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.171
Pachler, N. (2007). Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda. London, Elanders Hindson. Retrieved from wlecentre.ac.uk/cms/files/occasionalpapers/mobilelearningpachler2007. pdf. on July 28, 2013 at 12:42AM
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2009). Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer.
Papanikolaou, K. & Mavromoustakos, S. (2006). Critical success factors for the development of Mobile learning applications.
Parhi, P. (2007). Two case studies in the design and evaluation of a mobile interactive system. An Unpublished Diploma Thesis of Department of Electrical and Information Engineering, University of Oulu.
Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78– 102.
Quinn, C. (2010). Predictions for 2010. Learnlets blog. Retrieved from on May 27, 2013.
Quinn, C. N. (2011). Designing mlearning: Tapping into the mobile revolution for organizational performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Rajendra G., Singh, R.G., Bernard, M., & Gardler, R. (2004). Creating sharable learning objects from existing digital course content. 31st International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ACM: 8
Reed, P. & McCullagh, C. (2007). Raising awareness of the costs of e-learning. costingmetrics.
Rhea, M. (2010). The power of collaborative learning for associations. . 6/28/2013 11:20 am
Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1).
Roschelle. J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 12 (3), 260-272.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19 (3), 260-272.
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Understanding the igeneration and the way they learn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roto, V., Obrist, M. & Väänänen-vainio-mattila, K. (2009). User experience evaluation methods in academic and industrial contexts. Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Boston. Retrieved on December, 23, 2009 from:
Rumble, G. (2001). The costs and costing of networked learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 75-96
Sadik, A. (n. d.). Evaluation in educational technology (TECH4102). A PowerPoint Presentation. January 04, 2013, 2:39:02 AM
Salmon, G. (2000). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online. London: Kogan Page.
Shailendra, K.R. (n. d.). Physical chemistry: Mole concept theory. Retrieved from Physical Chemistry database on 10-12-2013
Schone, B. J. (2007). Engaging interaction for e-learning; 25 ways to keep learners awake and intrigue. Monday, July 08, 2013, 8:45:56 PM
Sharples, M. (2007). Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative. Feb 2009. URL:
Sharples, M. Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., Milrad, M. & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile Learning.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age (pp. 87–99). Retrieved from 4_6
Shavinina, L. V. & Loarer, E. (1999). Psychological evaluation of educational multimedia applications. European Psychologist, 4(1), 33–44.
Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2004). The dotcom bust: A postmortem lesson for online education. Distance Learning, 1(1), 19-24.
Shelton, K. (2011). A Review of Paradigms for Evaluating the Quality of Online Education Programs. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, IV(I), Spring 2011 University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center
Shelton, K., & Isernhagen, J. (2012) Examining elements of quality within online education programs in higher education_ connexions module (m42272). Retrieved from . y
Shih, E. Y. (2005). Seize teachable and learnable moments: SMSE Instructional design model for mobile Learning. A Paper Presented at the IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning.
Sims, R. (n. d.). Beyond instructional design: making learning design a reality. Journal of Learning Design
Smørdal, O., & J. Gregory. (2003). Personal digital assistants in medical education and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 320-29.
Spikol, D. (2008). Playing and learning across location: Identifying factors for the design of collaborative mobile learning.
Stewart, J. Bederson, B., & Druin, A. (1999). Single display groupware: A model for co-present collaboration.
Stoney, S. & McMahon, M. (1998). An alternative model of multimedia development: Small projects within an academic environment. ED-MEDIA/ED-TELECOM 98 World Conference on Educational Telecommunications Proceedings, Freiburg, Germany. ED 428727
STT Netherlands Study Centre for Technology Trends and Grosskurth, J. (2010). Futures of technology in Africa. The Hague, Netherlands, STT.
Szucs Werner, L. J. (2009). Analysis of online learning and community. Retrieved from id=7&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
Tausend, J. Y. (2007). Effects of interactive multimedia in e-learning on learners and developers. Ithaca College
Thomas, B. H., & Calder, P. (2001). Applying cartoon animation techniques to graphical user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 8(3), 198–222
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having written. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). Retrieved from
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1–12.
Traxler, J. (2011). The ‘learner experience’ of mobiles, mobility and connectedness. Archived article on MobiMooc site (archived)
Trends, J. D. (2012). 10 big (but never discussed) problems with mobile , abic Language Learning among
the e-learning cost dilemm. A Publication of Tennesse Board Regents; "Education on Demand within Your Hands".
Trifanova, A. Knapp, J., Ronchetti, . M., & Gamper, J. (2004). Mobile eldit: Challenges in the transitions from an e-learning to an m-learning system.
Trifonova, A., & Ronchetti, M. (2006), “Mobile Learning: Is Anytime Anywhere = Always Online?” A Proceeding of Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp.702-706
Turner, N (2012). What is MLearning? Retrieved from .files.2012/03/mobile-devices1.jpg on March, 20, 2013 at 4:43PM
Twigg, C (2002). “Quality, cost and access: The case for redesign.” The Wired Tower. Ed. Matthew Serbin Pittinsky.
Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 1(1), 81. DOI:10.1504/IJMLO.2007.011190
Uehling, D. L. (n. d.). Web usability basics. A PowerPoint Presentation on the Course Computing Environments & Technology Branch (code 585)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2005). Mobile learning for expanding educational opportunity. Workshop Report International Workshop on Mobile Learning for Expanding Educational Opportunities 16 -20 May 2005, Tokyo, Japan
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2012). Mobile learning and ISSN 2227-5029 Authored for UNESCO by: Steven Vosloo Coordinating editors: Mark West and Steven Vosloo Editing and graphic design: Rebecca Kraut Cover design: Aurélia Mazoyer
Vargo, J., Nesbit, J. C., Belfer, K., & Archambault, A. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computer mediated collaboration and inter-rater reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25(3), 198–205.
Vasiliou, A. & Economides, A. A. (2007). Mobile collaborative learning using multicast MANETs. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 5(4), 423-444
Vavoula, G. (2004). KLeOS: A knowledge and learning organization system in support of lifelong learning. An Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Birmingham.
Vavoula, G., Sharples, M., Rudman, P., Meek, J., & Lonsdale, P. (2009). Myartspace: Design and evaluation of support for learning with multimedia phones between classrooms and museums. Computers & Education, 53 (2), 286-299.
Verneil, M., and Z. Berge. (2000). Going online: Guidelines for faculty in higher education. Educational Technology Review, 6 (3), 13-18.
Vogel, B., Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (2010). Integrating mobile, web, and sensory technologies to support inquiry-based science learning. A Proceedings of the 6th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 65-72.
Wagner, E. D. (2 005). Enabling mobile learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(3), 4 0- 53.
Wang, Y., Wu, M., & Wang, H. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92-118. DOI: doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2007.00809.x
Wang Y., Zhu M., Qu L., Spaniol M. & Weikum, G. (2010). Timely YAGO: harvesting, querying, and visualizing temporal knowledge from Wikipedia. 13th International Conference on Extending Database Technology, ACM: 697-700
Web-Based Education Commission. (2000). The Power of the internet for learning. Report of the Web-Based Education Commission to the President and Congress of the United States. (19.12.00)
Weller, M. (2004). Learning objects and the e-learning cost dilemma. Open Learning, 19(3).
Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: An introduction to networks in the global village. In Wellman, B. (Ed.) Networks in the Global Village, (pp.1- 48). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Whitehouse, I. (2008). M-learning standards review report: background, discussion and reasoning behind standards recommendations. Australian Flexible Learning Framework, Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved on: September, 07, 2009 from: report-v2-0.pdf.
Wong, L.-H., Chin, C.-K., Tan, C.-L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students' personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 13 (4), 15–26.
Worthen, B. L. and Sanders, J. R. (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York: Longman.
Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8 (1), 1-16.
Zawacki-Richter, O., Brown, T. & Delport, R. (2008). Mobile learning: From single project status into the mainstream? 2 007 /03 /2 7 /texasinstruments-demos-mobile-phone-projector/ in July 2013
APPENDIX I
STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ON MOBILE LEARNING MOLE CONCEPT
ACCESS
|SN |ITEM |YES |NO |
|1 |I used my personal mobile phone for this class | | |
|2 |My mobile phone possess internet connectivity access | | |
|3 |My mobile phone was able to use multimedia applications | | |
|4 |The signal strength and internet connectivity of my network is stable | | |
|5 |I access the internet with my mobile phone anytime the need arises | | |
TEACHING AND LEARNING
|SN |ITEM |SA |A |SD |D |
|1 |I learnt mole concept through mobile phone effectively | | | | |
| |I learnt mole concept through mobile phone understandably | | | | |
|2 |Students in my group work in collaboration to complete task | | | | |
|4 |I collaborate with my peers through mobile learning to contribute to | | | | |
| |instructional activities | | | | |
| |I collaborate with my peers through mobile learning to coordinate | | | | |
| |instructional activities | | | | |
|5 |Using technology enhanced the quality of instructional contents | | | | |
|6 |Do the multimedia applications accurately explain the concept taught | | | | |
|7 |Non-interference of instructor makes mobile learning more interesting | | | | |
INTERACTIVITY AND USER-FRIENDLINESS
|SN |ITEM |SA |A |SD |D |
|1 |I enjoy interacting with my fellow collaborators during mobile learning | | | | |
| |exercise | | | | |
|2 |Sharing and discussing assignments before final submission promote healthy | | | | |
| |collaboration | | | | |
|3 |Absence of instructor’s input during discussion of assignments is a good | | | | |
| |approach | | | | |
|4 |The medium of sending instructions is adequate | | | | |
|5 |The level of interaction between collaborators and instructor is friendly | | | | |
|6 |Student-student interaction is enhanced through the creation of | | | | |
| |collaborative group | | | | |
|7 |Students-mobile user-interface is adequate and simple | | | | |
|8 |Learning through mobile phone also improve interactivity among collaborators| | | | |
NOVELTY
|SN |ITEM |SA |A |SD |D |
|1 |I am using the mobile phone to learn for the first time | | | | |
|2 |It is not difficult to learn mole concept through mobile phone | | | | |
|3 |It was easy to learn by collaborative means through mobile phone | | | | |
|4 |I share information easily with my fellow collaborators through the mobile | | | | |
| |phone | | | | |
|5 |The newness of using mobile phone to learn does not affect my performance in| | | | |
| |the group collaborations | | | | |
|6 |My mobile phone capabilities also enhance the quality of my contribution in | | | | |
| |the collaborative group | | | | |
|7 |My mobile phone capabilities enhance me to have effective learning | | | | |
APPENDIX II
EXPERTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE ON MOBILE LEARNING MOLE CONCEPT
SECTION A: CONTENT MATTER EXPERT
TEACHING AND LEARNING
|SN |ITEM |SA |A |SD |D |
|1 |The content of mobile learning mole concept adequately cover the subject | | | | |
| |area | | | | |
|2 |The content of mobile learning mole concept is adequate | | | | |
|3 |Students can learn and understand mole concept through mobile learning | | | | |
| |medium | | | | |
|4 |The examples and reference point provided in the content of mobile learning| | | | |
| |mole concept is adequate | | | | |
|5 |The multimedia applications described the relevant sections correctly | | | | |
|6 |The assignments is relevant to the content of mole concept | | | | |
SECTION B: E-LEARNING AND EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXPERT
INTERACTIVITY AND USER-FRIENDLINESS
|SN |ITEM |SA |A |SD |D |
|1 |Do images have appropriate text descriptions? | | | | |
|2 |Do pages have a consistent look? | | | | |
|3 |Does text have enough colour intensity? | | | | |
|4 |Do pages include headings? | | | | |
| |Do pages include landmarks? | | | | |
|5 |Do form controls have labels? | | | | |
| |Do form widgets have labels? | | | | |
|6 |When styling and layout are removed, is the document understandable? | | | | |
|7 |Does audio content have transcripts for an alternative understandable option| | | | |
| |for clarity? | | | | |
|8 |Do other multimedia applications appropriately explain the concept being | | | | |
| |taught? | | | | |
SPEED
|SN |ITEM |SA |A |SD |D |
|1 |The chunk of instructional content will make it easy to be created | | | | |
|2 |The chunk representation of instruction will make it easy for distribution | | | | |
| |through mobile phone | | | | |
|3 |The file size of multimedia applications is simple and appropriate for easy | | | | |
| |visibility | | | | |
|4 |The chunk nature of instructional content will make editing easy for the | | | | |
| |instructor | | | | |
|5 |The chunk nature of instructional content will also promote quickness in | | | | |
| |creating information for .mobile learning | | | | |
-----------------------
Purpose of Evaluation
Needs of Audience
Evaluation Design?
Qualitative
Experimental
Random Assignment
Non-Random Assignment
Data Source?
Dissemination strategy?
Inputs
Member’s Prior Knowledge
Group Task
Members’ Personalities
Learning Outcomes
Knowledge construction
Task quality
Course Marks
Cognitive
Managerial
Teaching/Facilitating Process
Social Presence
Cognitive
Managerial
Learning Process
Social Presence
Usability
Learnability
Satisfaction
Errors
Memorability
Educational Issues
What makes quality teaching and learning?
Management Issue
What are the logistical constraints?
Technology Issues
What technologies enable learning?
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- wordpress passing data between pages
- wordpress business templates
- wordpress rss feed not working
- wordpress jquery is not defined
- create wordpress blog
- wordpress roles editor
- wordpress full rss feed
- wordpress rss feed settings
- wordpress rss feed plugin
- wordpress display rss feed
- wordpress rss feed link
- wordpress rss feed to post