27

Is mobile learning a necessary evil?: The goodness-of-fit of mobile learning situations

Hokyoung Ryu

Centre for Mobile Computing, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

H.RYU@massey.ac.nz

Abstract. Many mobile learning (m-learning) systems have been promising that they would supersede current classroom or computer-based learning activities. This paper takes an exception to that approach, arguing that the formality of future learning experiences that m-learning can present may not ensure this vision as they stand. Instead, we see other goodness-of-fit of mobile learning as complemental learning experiences only in situated and social dimension. This paper thus suggests a practical direction of future m-learning rather than taking an approach of a solely independent learning environment.

Keywords: M-learning, situated learning, social collaboration, formal learning activity, challenges

1 Introduction

Mobile technology is at the heart of our society around the world. The advent of this technology allows us to have various types of new opportunities of “m-” neologisms (e.g., m-office, m-government, m-commerce, m-health, m-learning, and so forth). This prevalent mobile paradigm inevitably affects our lives or living experience, continuing to change the ways in which people conduct their lives. For instance, having recently been advocating and implementing policies and agendas to raise the awareness of quality-of-life, several mobile-based research projects presented possibilities to make some societal changes with mobile enlightenment programmes, e.g., anti-alcohol education [1] and HIV/AIDS education programmes in African countries1. These projects highly exploited the penetration of mobile devices in the medium of delivery, which represented an effective inclination of the future mobile learning environment.

Yet, we should be very conservative to directly apply these successful stories to other learning activities, especially formal educational experience, which means that they might be just exceptionally fortunate cases of mobile learning applications. Simply put, is it possible to be transformed by the ability of students in school to communicate simultaneously face-to-face, with their laptops, and with their mobile

1 Swedish International Development Agency starts this programme in 2002.

28

phones; is it possible for teachers to see this pedagogical way as an effective learning process for their students?

Indeed, people, institutions, and business have suffered enough from the prophecies of futurologists who promise and project the “mobile thingy” would be the virtue of everything in the near future; however, I believe that this assurance comes into minds on the basis of handful of successful cases and ill-understood developments. In this paper, I want to raise an issue to such approaches, seeing the nature of m-learning experience. Of course, this article can only give a tentative answer of the questions raised above; however at the very least, it will give an indication of the goodness-of-fit of m-learning applications in what circumstances.

2. The mobile learning: A trap of technological push

Regardless of one’s intentions, all of us are doing something of learning from daily lives, such as from museum visits or consultation with doctors. Atkins [2] coined this type learning activity as informal learning that is normally very participant-directed and more goal- and task-oriented activity, compared to the formal learning experience by every schooling institution.

One interesting aspect of this classification is that the definition of formal learning has varied over time. Indeed, we know this from the history of e-learning systems. In 1960s and 70s, when e-learning systems were firstly introduced, many of educational theorists puzzled over whether or not e-learning would be a formal learning activity [3], due to non face-to-face experience with teachers. However, as we now are well aware, e-learning systems have survived, being presently as part of formal learning activity.

Having readily adopted this historical account, one may think that m-learning can be on the same track, with piecemeal adoption of mobile technologies in pedagogical purposes. It may be partially true, in that some of m-learning applications have attracted widespread support. However, as of now, in the sense that normally every formal learning activity requires students to have high level of engagement to establish cognitive structure of their learning process [4], most of m-learning applications cannot easily fall into this formal learning activity. If so, what is m-learning good for, why do we have to praise m-learning as a Good Samaritan in the future learning environment, or is m-learning simply another technological push with too much expectation?

To answer these questions, this paper will rely on handful of available projects on this topic, whilst it may be too limited to mislead the critical trends that are transforming current learning practice. Yet, I personally believe that this approach would be a most practical modus operandi to give an indication of from where m-learning moves towards.

29

3. Motivating in different situations and context

As mobile technologies have become pervasive, many researchers have questioned whether they can enhance learning experience [5]. Simply it could be argued that m-learning is an approach to e-learning that utilises mobile devices, yet it can also be viewed as a quite different learning experience from the literature [e.g., 6].

This section summarises the learning experience in three different contexts (institutions, everyday lives, and workplaces) that most m-learning applications have been grounded on. It also presents how m-learning applications from the literature have dealt with the different situations and context to validate their usefulness. These contexts are also supported by situated learning theory [7], which indicates that unintentional learning rather than deliberate learning would be effective in some learning processes. I believe that this two-fold approach (practicality and theory) can help us see how people acquire necessary knowledge by actually engaging in mobile learning process, under legitimate participation in which learning takes place.

Fig. 1. SMS-based Classroom system, reprinted from Scornavacca et al. [8]

3.1. In institutions

Most of the institutions that conduct regular learning programmes, especially tertiary education sectors, have been mostly attracted to adopt new learning technologies. Indeed, many m-learning applications have been introduced to them grounded in best practices; for instance, Scornavacca et al. [8] developed a SMS-based classroom interaction system (see Fig. 1) that can be well applicable for a big lecturing situation in which has large numbers of students. In this very special circumstance, they noticed that students seemed to be very reluctant to ask any question to the lecturer thanks to the climate in a big lecture theatre. To resolve this, students are allowed to ask questions via SMS, so the lecturer can interactively capture the responses of the students. According to their experimental outcomes, the SMS-based classroom was so successful to attract the student’s attention, engaging them in more actively involving to the lecture session. However, notably, they found that the learning outcomes (e.g., learning performance) had not been significantly advanced by this m-learning

30

application. This means that the system may present higher level of motivation and engagement in the lecturing session, but it cannot be regarded as part of formal learning activity to enhance their cognitive structure from this learning experience.

On the contrary, Classtalk [9], which is a similar classroom interactive environment, sees a kind of formality of m-learning. It monitors student’s evolving understanding of challenging domain concept and driving their small group discussions, as a catalyst for significant classroom climate change, which clearly increases the learning performance in student learning.

Fig. 2. Massey Mobile Helper, reprinted from Ryu et al. [10]

Whilst these two m-learning applications are the classroom-situated learning experience, Ryu et al. [10] has extended whether to motivate students in campus (not in classrooms), providing them with more contextual information (see Fig. 2). Using the system, the students can get some guidance of their coursework information where they are approaching to a particular building in the campus. Experimental results revealed that the users were well motivated to take further information from current e-learning system to help themselves to organise their campus life.

Colella et al. [11] developed the participatory simulation of a disease epidemic in which the participants are high school students. One Tag starts the disease propagation and the students can observe the virus jumping from Tag to Tag. The students come together as a group after an initial period of interaction where the focus is very much on using and improving individual skills, developing an understanding of the system by exploration and discovery through interaction with other participants and the mobile devices. This application clearly attracted the students to easily capture the mechanism of disease epidemic; however, it followed a formal learning session with teachers to discuss what they had perceived from the simulation.

More recently, in the Ambient Wood project [6], a playful learning experience was developed where primary students could explore and reflect upon a physical environment that had been augmented with a medley of digital devices. It was designed to provoke students to stop, wonder and learn when moving through and interacting with aspects of the physical environment. A field trip ‘with a difference’

31

was created, where children discover, hypothesise about and experiment with ecological processes taking place within a physical environment. This project was ever developed with a great foresight of the future m-learning environment, which can provide more constructive learning outcomes with the support of mobile devices. However, it is also under the situated learning experience, which needs to follow a formal learning session with teachers to discuss what they had perceived from their field trip in a face-to-face way.

In this systematic search on m-learning applications targeted for institutions, I found that the m-learning systems mostly aimed at presenting highly situated and motivated prompts to students. Thus, one of the success factors were overarching between the prompts and the current learning experience (i.e., classroom learning experience and e-learning experience).

3.2. In everyday life

Mobile phones are perceived as essential commodities of contemporary life, because it enables us to be in contact while we are outside the reach of conventional communication spaces. This sense of communication support tends to contribute to the other possibilities of m-learning in use.

One such example is a Los Angeles company which has launched a service that can send taxi drivers a text message reminding them to move their car from a restricted zone [12]. Brugnoli et al. [13] has developed a helper system for an Italian museum to give a better exploratory experience to museum visitors using the mobile device. It can provide not only audio-visual help about exhibitions and also the local guidance to the other exhibitions. The case study revealed that the visitors had a greater museum experience with the motivated guide that led them to the different places. This narrative approach in museum experience can be seen as an important structural factor in enhancing their learning processes in the situation. A big advantage of narrative is that it can be complex and explorative. Following from Csikszentmihalyi [14], a learning environment that places narrative at the centre can help learners to reflect on what they have learned, enabling a sort of meta-learning, illuminating the very processes by which they learn and providing an organising structure for knowledge.

In this handful of m-learning applications in everyday life context, I found that the m-learning systems designed to present information triggered by their surroundings, so they were mostly concerned about location awareness to elicit appropriate information.

3.3. In workplaces

A profound transformation is under way in the processes of work because mobile communication allows for coordination among co-workers at a distance. In the past, the collaboration has normally done by face-to-face communication or over telephone. Yet, with the help of wireless technology, a mobile worker can keep in

32

constant contact with his or her headquarters, while working anywhere that has communication coverage.This is a key development because, while members of staff are away from the office, contextual constraints become unpredictable. In that case, the use of mobile technology connects the different contexts into an extensive work environment which shares a common network logic.

As the examples of this workplace-based learning, Mackay [15] implemented a nurse-support system based on SMS (short text messages), which can straightforwardly extend their actual work environment. The nurses can communicate between one after another, sharing some important issues of their treatments through this system.

Interestingly, this type of m-learning applications in workplace is not so much about situated learning that the previous two contexts indicated, rather they are more concerned about developing appropriate social skills and assisting them to build in reaching joint learning objectives. Therefore, the main consideration of these applications was communication support to afford the possibility of perpetual contact.

4. Challenges of m-learning as formal learning experience

This position paper discussed three contexts in which the current mobile-learning applications have been proposed. It incorporated best practices from the literature in a “cherry-picking” way, but representing a different angle to see the usefulness of the applications in that contexts, i.e., situated (in institutions and everyday lives) and communication support (in workplaces).

Perhaps, m-learning still needs to combine with traditional learning processes, but it is all of certain that motivation and social communication support wherever the opportunity arise to learners outside a classroom is a really good quality of m-learning. In this somewhat double-sided vein, some may think that m-learning is too naïve while others may find it favourable. Educators can thus take advantage of the benefits of m-learning while avoiding its limitations by keeping the following guidelines:

• Substantial content and learning outcomes must be conceived before m-learning is utilised.

• Approach to that substantial content must respect basic intellectual norms, at least advocate its stance

• Advocate interactive exploration for further study

In effect, for m-learning to be a formal learning activity in the near future, we may suggest that

• Construct active learning that focuses on thinking, teamwork, and transcendence

• Promote interactions of teachers, students and experts • Get student engaged cognitively, physically, and socially • Provide a universe to collect, connect, and create

33

References

1. Demirjian, A., David, B.: Learning medical and dental sciences through interactive multi-media. Medinfo 8 (1995) 1705 2. Atkins, C.: Adult education and social reform. Lecture notes in the distant lifelong education of the University of Nottingham, Hong Kong (2005) 3. Peters, O.: Distance Education at Universities and Higher Education Institutions: Didactical Structure and Comparative Analysis - A Contribution to the Theory of Distance Teaching, Weinheim, Beltz (1967) 4. Prensky, M.: Digital Game-based Learning. McGraw-Hill (2000) 5. Liu, T., Wang, H., Liang, J., Chan, T., Ko, H.: Wireless and mobile technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 19 (2003) 371-381 6. Rogers, Y., Price, S., Randell, C., Fraser, D.S., Weal, M., Fizpatrick, G.: Ubi-learning integrates indoor and outdoor experiences. Communications of the ACM 48 (2005) 55-59 7. Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, . University of Cambridge Press. , Cambridge (1991) 8. Scornavacca, E., Huff, S.L., Marshall, S.: Developing a SMS-based classroom interaction. Mobile Learning Technologies and Applications, Auckland, New Zealand (2007) 9. Abrahamson, A.L.: An Overview of Teaching and Learning Research with Classroom Communication Systems.: International Conference of Teaching of Mathematics, Village of Pythagorion, Samos, Greece. (1998) 10. Ryu, H., Brown, R.: Mobile Helper. OzCHI, Sydney, Austrailia (2006) 11. Colella, V.: Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through immersive dynamic modeling. The Journal of the Learning Science 9 (2000) 471-500 12. Miller, V.: Parking violators can get help. Iowa City Press-Citizen (2003) 13. Brugnoli, M.C., Morabito, F., Bo, G., Murelli, E.: Augmented itineries: Mobile services differentiating what museum has to offer. PsychNology 4 (2007) 311-335 14. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. HarperCollins, New York (1990) 15. Mackay, B.: M-support for nursing students in primary health care nursing. Mobile Learning Technology and Applications, Auckland, New Zealand (2007)