Nicola Beddall-Hill Previously @ LDC ESRC (prior) PhD candidate

Attached to Ensemble TLRP TEL project

Mobile methods for observing mobile learning in field trip settings Strand: New Media

Global Conference on Mobility Futures, September 4-6th 2013, at Lancaster University, UK

Mobile methods for observing mobile learning in field trip settings Strand: New Media

Global Conference on Mobility Futures, September 4-6th 2013, at Lancaster University, UK

Supervisors: Prof. S. Quinsee & Prof. P. Carmichael

The shift to ‘mobility’ has permeated a huge part of all our lives – learning, which is both life long & life wide. With the ability to move outside the classroom, learning on the ‘move’ enables spontaneous, context specific, personal or collaborative experiences using a wide range of media and interactional opportunities. These devices are highly portable and can provide access for marginalised learners such as those in 3rd world countries.

Mobile Learning

Problems with Mobile learning…

The project’s aims

Investigating learning with the aid of mobile devices on a HE field trip

Research questions:1.What happens? 2.What role does the technology play?3.How do the students use this technology alongside their learning practices?4.How can the role of technology be theorised in this setting? 5.How might these findings help other educators?

The setting and approach

X3 field trips: UK & abroad, MSc GIS students using GIS devices as part of their mini research projects for data collection & analysis through comparison with existing GIS data.

Mobile setting, moving through time & space, with sometimes difficult weather & terrain to negotiate. Used ethnographic approach and innovative mobile methods and tools.

PROJECT FINDINGS

• Common themes across field trips: Recording reality vs. digital

• Ownership, trust & appropriation are tightly coupled

• Current research now bears out the argument for personal devices & has moved towards facilitating Personal Learning Environments (PLE’s) – tools across learning

• Pen & paper - not replaceable for many

MOBILE METHODS

• Relatively new methodological development based around the suggested paradigm shift of ‘Mobilities’ (Urry, 2007) & the affordances new mobile technologies facilitate.

• Mobile methods enable ‘co-present-immersion’ (Urry & Buscher, 2009), that is the ability to stay in motion with those they are observing through different modes of movement & by using a variety of different data capture methods.

• For mobile learning research this enables the researcher to observe the rich ‘in-world’ interactions instead of evaluating the role of the technology post learning.

The head mounted Camera options

POV1.5 Action Camera (POV1)

• Fully integrated point-of-view video • Waterproof, dustproof & shock-

resistant with own editing software.• Mountable bullet camera with built-in

recorder & wireless remote.• Up to 8GB SDHC Card. • RRP £500 approx

Kodak Zx1 flip Camera & Gorilla tripod

•HD quality video •long record (limited by standard batteries).•Weather resistant & rugged design, mountable flip camera with internal (128MB) & expandable memory up to 32GB•Built-in software for editing & mono microphone•RRP £45 camera & £12 tripod.

Overall issues encountered with new technologies

-Disadvantages –-Both – Monitoring via GPS and constant video – invasion of privacy? Both participants & public? Discomfort with possible evaluation of activities. -Head camera – some embarrassment wearing! – iPhone – researcher led capture, not waterproof! Poor sound & zoom at a distance.

ANALYSIS: Storytelling & themes

1. The raw data was sorted via time-lines.2. ‘Stories’ written about each field trip to revisit

the trips features and events3. These were loosely coded & event’s marked.4. These were revisited, transcribed & recoded.5. Codes were compared across & between

field trips, global & branching themes developed.

6. Transcription & analysis of focus groups (recorded at the end of field trips)

7. Use this data to query the themes (student’s view)

8. Revisit themes, describe and use events to illustrate

9. Critic against current concepts & theories

Ethical Issues in Mobile Methods

• Constant video – invasion of privacy? Both participants & public?

• But… the strict anonymity enforced by some ethics committees might reduced data sharing possibilities.

Instead: self recording? However extra work for students & might miss the ‘interesting’ the mistakes in the learning journey.

Build sensitive & trusting with participants with clear roles for the technology being used.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

• Mobile methods are growing in popularity especially given our increasingly ‘mobile’ lifestyles & challenges researching them –

**See: Urry, J. (2007), Urry, J., & Buscher, M. (2009) & Ricketts-Hein, J., Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2008)

• New technologies are enabling this growth, but need careful consideration about their social/research roles –

**See: Beddall-Hill, N. L., Jabbar, A., & Al Shehri. S. (2011), Beddall-Hill, N. L (2010) & especially Brown, K. M., Dilley, R., & Marshall, K. (2009), Murthy, D. (2008)

• Ethical issues are emerging around these methods and tools – we need to be sensitive in their implementations –

**See: Lally, et al,. (2011) & Wishart, J. M. (2009)

• New methods of analysis needed for this type of data? Integrating geo-visualization data to map time & space…Various GIS software & ATLASti

Email: nlbh@me.comTwitter: http://twitter.com/citymobileangelWeb: http://www.ensemble.ac.uk/

Nicola Beddall-Hill

Prior ESRC PhD candidate – City University, London on the TLRP TEL project EnsembleWith thanks to the ESRC for funding the work

Now a Research Associate at The University of Leicester

REFERENCES

Beddall-Hill, N. L., Jabbar, A., & Al Shehri. S. (2011) Social Mobile Devices as Tools for Qualitative Research in Education: iPhones and iPads in Ethnography, Interviewing, and Design-Based Research. Special Learning Without Frontiers Conference issue 2011. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology. 7(1), 28-4. Retrieved September 12th 2011 from http://www.rcetj.org/index.php/rcetj/article/download/154/239

Beddall-Hill, N. L (2010) Witnessing learning in mobile settings using a head mounted camera. In E, Brown, E. (Eds.), Education in the wild: contextual and location-based mobile learning in action. A report from the STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous workshop series. (pp.39-42). University of Nottingham: Learning Sciences Research Institute (LSRI)

Brown, K. M., Dilley, R., & Marshall, K. (2009). Using a head-mounted video camera to understand social worlds and experiences, Sociological Research Online, 13(6),1. Retrieved June 15th 2009 from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/6/1.html

Lally, V., Sharples, M., Bertram, N., Masters, S., Norton, B., & Tracy, F. (2011). Researching the Ethical Dimensions of Mobile, Ubiquitous, and Immersive Technology Enhanced Learning (MUITEL) in Informal Settings: a thematic review and dialogue. (FUNDED by EPSRC/ESRC RES-139-25-0402) Submitted to Interactive Learning Environments (Special Issue).

REFERENCES CONT.

Murthy, D. (2008). Digital Ethnography: An Examination of the Use of New Technologies for Social Research, Sociology, 42(5), 837-855.

Ricketts-Hein, J., Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2008). Mobile Methodologies: Theory, Technology and Practice, Geography Compass, 2(5), 1266-1285.

Rodrigo, R. (2011) Mobile Teaching Versus Mobile Learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, available at http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/mobile-teaching-versus-mobile-learning

Urry, J. (2007) Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press

Urry, J., & Buscher, M. (2009). Mobile Methods and the Empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12, 99-117.

Wishart, J. M. (2009). Ethical considerations in implementing mobile learning in the workplace, International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(2), 76-92.