MOBILE LEARNING CONTENT AUTHORING TOOLS (MLCATs): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Raymond Mugwanya
Gary Marsden
(HPI Research School, University of Cape Town, SA)
AFRICOMM 2009 – Maputo
Dec 3 -4, 2009
BACKGROUND
qMobile and ubiquitous learning is emerging as the next generation ofeducation environments.
qThe use of authoring tools is not a simple task for academics who wishto author electronic content.
qMLCATs should empower academics to easily author content that isconsumable on mobiles.
qA variety of both Commercial and Non Commercial tools exist.
BACKGROUND…
qNumerous articles have been published in journals and conferences.
qReview MLCATs
qGoal is to:
§ Classify and summarize research relevant to MLCATs
§ Provide a framework for integration and classification of articles
§ Derive suggestions for M-Learning researchers
PROCEDURE
qWe did a literature search based on keywords i.e. ‘mobile learning and content authoring tool*’
qWe surveyed articles from 2000 to 2009.
qThis review only incorporates journal and conference papers
PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF ARTICLES
MLCAT ARTICLES BY PUBLICATION YEAR
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Publication year
CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK
qBest practices for instructional design and content development for M-Learning http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/public_deliverables/MOBIlearn_D4.2_Final.pdf
qWe identify three broad dimensions i.e.
vTechnology
vPedagogy
vUsability
CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK…
qWe further subdivide the dimensions as follows:
üTechnology (system type, authoring techniques and technologies used, tool Availability, ICTD relation, tool purpose and Multimedia support)
üPedagogy (standards and learning style support )
üUsability (existence of an intuitive graphical user interface and accessibility)
RESULTS OF CLASSIFICATION
Dim.Tool
Sys. Typ. AV. ICTD Stds. LS GUI Acc.
[29] T W ?? Yes Yes Yes ??
[46] T W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[61] A W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[37] A W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[52] T C ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[35] N ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[25] ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[36] T ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[57] T D ?? Yes Yes ?? ??
[3]T
C?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[3] T W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[3] T C ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
RESULTS OF CLASSIFICATION…
Dim.Tool
Sys. Typ. AV. ICTD Stds. LS GUI Acc.
[51] T W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[7] T W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[44] T W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[17] T ?? ?? ?? Yes ?? ??
[42] T C ?? Yes Yes Yes ??
[64] A P ?? Yes ?? ?? ??
[9] V W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[48] T ?? ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[62] V W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
[20]??
W?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[50] ?? W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??
[24] V C ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
SOME IMPLICATIONS
ØThe need for ICT4D tools to be developed within the contexts ofthe users in order for successful adoption of these technologies.
ØThe varieties of tool implementations explored are mainlytechnology driven hence the need to study and align therelationship between authoring technology, pedagogy concerns andusability.
SOME IMPLICATIONS….
ØAbility to track students progress in mobile environments, providefeedback mechanisms and improve interactivity.
ØThe need for tools that empower academics who are the domainexperts to easily create content without the need for interventionby tool experts.
OBRIGADO!!!
Top Related