Table of Contents - davidparsons.ac.nz Learning Theory... · 39 The Customized xLearning Environment Model: Meeting the Needs and Expectations of Students; Anabela Mesquita, Polytechnic

The International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design is indexed or listed in the following: ACM Digital Library; Bacon’s Media Directory; Cabell’s Directories; DBLP; Google Scholar; INSPEC; JournalTOCs; MediaFinder; ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Journals; ProQuest Computer Science Journals; ProQuest Education Journals; ProQuest Illustrata: Technology; ProQuest SciTech Journals; ProQuest Technology Journals; The Index of Information Systems Journals; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

Research Articles

1 ATestSheetOptimizationApproachtoSupportingWeb-basedLearningDiagnosisUsingGroupTestingMethods;

Chu-Fu Wang, National Pingtung University, Department of Computer Science, Pingtung, Taiwan

Chih-Lung Lin, National Pingtung University, Department of Computer Science, Pingtung, Taiwan

Gwo-Jen Hwang, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, Taipei City, Taiwan

Sheng-Pin Kung, National Pingtung University, Department of Computer Science, Pingtung, Taiwan

Shin-Feng Chen, National Pingtung University, Department of Education, Pingtung, Taiwan

24 ALearningTheoryRubricforEvaluatingMobileLearningActivities;

David Parsons, The Mind Lab by Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand

Kathryn MacCallum, Eastern Institute of Technology, Napier, New Zealand

39 TheCustomizedxLearningEnvironmentModel:MeetingtheNeedsandExpectationsofStudents;

Anabela Mesquita, Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal & Algorithm RC, Portugal

Fernando Moreira, IJP, REMIT, University Portucalense, Porto, Portugal & IEETA, University Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Paula Peres, CICE-ISCAP / IPP, Porto, Portugal

53 CollaborativeGame-BasedLearningwithMotion-SensingTechnology:AnalyzingStudents’Motivation,Attention,andRelaxationLevels;

Cheng-Yu Hung, National Chiao Tung University, Institute of Education, Hsinchu, Taiwan

Yu-Ren Lin, Central China Normal University, School of Educational Information Technology, Wuhan, China

Kai-Yi Huang, National Chiao Tung University, Institute of Education, Hsinchu, Taiwan

Pao-Ta Yu, National Chung Cheng University, Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Chiayi, Taiwan

Jerry Chih-Yuan Sun, National Chiao Tung University, Institute of Education, Hsinchu, Taiwan

65 ImplementingService-LearningThroughanOnlineGraduateCourseinInstructionalDesign;

Jesús H. Trespalacios, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

Tera Armstrong, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

Cynthia Goodwill, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

CopyRightThe International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD) (ISSN 2155-6873; eISSN 2155-6881), Copyright © 2017 IGI Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this journal may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher, except for noncommercial, educational use including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company names used in this journal are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. The views expressed in this journal are those of the authors but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Volume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December-2017 • ISSN: 2155-6873 • eISSN: 2155-6881An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association

InternationalJournalofOnlinePedagogyandCourseDesign

TableofContents

jtravers

Highlight

DOI: 10.4018/IJOPCD.2017100102

International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course DesignVolume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017

Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

A Learning Theory Rubric for Evaluating Mobile Learning ActivitiesDavid Parsons, The Mind Lab by Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand

Kathryn MacCallum, Eastern Institute of Technology, Napier, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Learningtheoriesunderpintheexpectationsofmeaningfuloutcomesthatanygivenlearningtaskshouldhave.However,educators’understandingandapplicationofsuchtheoriesislikelytovarywiththeirownexperienceandcontext.Inthisarticle,weexplorethepotentialvalueofarubricforthedesignofmobilelearningactivitiesthatisbasedonacoresetofsixlearningtheories,whichwehaveidentifiedfromtheliteratureasbeinghighlyrelevanttothecontextofmobilelearning.Thekeyconceptsofthesetheorieshavebeenusedtocreatetheevaluationrubric,whichsupportstheanalysisoflearningactivitydesignfromtheperspectiveofeachofthechosenlearningtheories.Theapplicationofthisrubricisexploredfromtwoperspectives.First,weapplyittoanexistingmobilelearningactivitytoevaluatetowhatextenttheactivityembodiesthetheorieswithintherubric.Thenweproposearedesignedactivitybyusingtherubricasaguidingframeworkforimprovingthetaskdesign.Thisprocessdemonstratesthepotentialvalueofapplyingsucharubrictodesigningmobilelearningactivities,toensurethattheyadequatelyleveragethecomponentsofoneormorerelevanttheories.

KEywORDSLearning Activity Design, Learning Theory, Learning Theory and Mobile Learning, Mobile Learning, Rubric

INTRODUCTION

A learning theory can be described as a conceptual framework used to understand and framehow information is absorbed, processed, and retainedduring learning (Luis&D’Cunha, 2014).Consideringhowrelevant theoryunderpins learningactivities is important toensureappropriatepedagogicalpractice.Thisisespeciallyimportantwhenadoptingemergingtechnologies,suchasmobiletechnology,toensurethatthelearning,notthetool,isthedriveroftheactivity.Sincemobilelearningisprimarilya21stcenturyphenomenon,therehasbeenconsiderabledebateaboutwhetheritissignificantlydifferentfrommoretraditionalformsoflearningtowarrantitsownuniquetheory,orwhetheritissimplyunderpinnedbyarangeofexistingtheories.Harasim(2012)notesthehistoricalcontextof20thcenturylearningtheoriesandquestionswhethernewcontextsandtechnologiesrequirenewlearningtheories.Inaddressingwhetherweneedanewtheoryoflearningforthemobileage,Sharples,TaylorandVavoula(2010) identified thecriteria thatshouldunderpinmobile learningtheoryanddifferentiateitfromotherexistinglearningtheories.Mostcruciallytheystatedthatatheoryofmobilelearningshouldaccountforthemobilityoflearnersandshouldanalyselearningasapersonalandsituatedactivitymediatedbytechnology.Itisnotthefocusofthisarticletoconsideranynew theoryofmobile learning.Rather, it considerswhichpre-existing learning theoriesareimportantforthedesignofmobilelearningactivities,sincewebelievethatmanytheoriesthatpre-

24


25

datemobilelearningareneverthelesscongruentwiththecriteriaabove.AsHarasim(2012)notes,thereisanintrinsiclinkbetweentheoryandteachingpracticeevenifthisisimplicit,thustheory,oldornew,iswhatweoperationaliseinourpedagogy.Theassertionofthisarticleisthatconsciouslymappingappropriatelearningtheoriestoagivenactivitycanhelpeducatorstounderstandandapplyappropriatemobilelearningandteachingpractices.

Therearemanylearningtheories,mostofwhichhavebeendevelopedoverthelastcenturyorso.Therearealsomanycategorizationsthatmaybeappliedtothesetheories,butwemightmakeadistinctionbetweenthosethatlookatintrinsicfactors,suchasthecognitiveprocessingthatgoesoninsidethebrain,andthosethatlookatextrinsicfactors,suchascontext,socialinteractionand(increasinglydigital)learningtools.Sometheoriesaregroundedinexperimentalmethods,suchasclassicalandinstrumentalconditioning,whileothersarelessrigorouslyvalidatedandopentomoreinterpretation(e.gconnectivism).Somefamiliesoftheoryaresobroadastoembracetheworkofmanyresearchersandincludeamultiplicityofconcepts(e.g.constructivism).

HerringtonandHerrington(2007)statethatguidelinesforlearningwithmobiletechnologiesshouldbetheory-informed.Aclearunderstandingwhatlearningtheoriesunderpinalearningactivitywillhelpinformandensureeffectivepedagogy.Laurillard(2009),havingearliermappedmobilelearning toherconversational framework(Laurillard,2007),outlinedhowanumberofdifferenttheoriesunderlietheframework,emphasisinginstructionism(i.e.behaviourism),constructionism,socialconstructivismandcollaborativelearning(or‘socialconstructionism’).However,thefocusandcontextofalearningactivitywillleadtodifferentlevelsofeachelementaseachoneisappropriatelyapplied.Mobiletechnologieslendthemselvestocertainactivities,andtheymightbeonlyoneelementofalargerlearningexperience;mobileactivitiesareoftenintegratedaspartofblendedlearningcontexts,includingfacetofaceclassroominteractions.Therefore,itisimportanttoclearlyunderstandhowagivenlearningactivityinteractsbothwithitscontextandwithrelevanttheory.

Whichtheoriesapplymostdirectlytomobilelearningmay,perhaps,beanalysedthroughthelensofaffordances.Inanearlierarticle(MacCallum&Parsons,2016)weusedananalysisofaffordancestoselectasubsetofsixtheoriesthatwebelievearefundamentaltomobilelearning,namely;behaviorism,constructivism,experientiallearning,situatedcognition,communitiesofpracticeandconnectivism.Theseareoutlinedinthefollowingsection.Ineachcase,thereisabriefoutlineofhowtheuseofmobiledevicescansupporteachtypeoflearning.

Six Theories of Mobile LearningEarly learning theories tended to focusonaspectsofbehaviouralconditioning, suchasPavlov’sclassicalconditioning,wherestimulusleadstoresponse,andSkinner’sinstrumentalconditioning,wherebehaviourleadstoreinforcement(Olsen&Hergenhahn,2013).Whilesuchapproachesmightseemsomewhatmechanistic,theconceptsofrapidfeedbackembodiedwithinthemareimportantinhelpinglearnerstoworkattheirownpace.TheideaofpositivereinforcementwasoutlinedbyThorndike,whoemphasisedhow‘satisfaction’couldreinforcepositivebehaviours(Tapp,1969),whileSkinner(citedinSobel,1990)notedthattheidealofbehaviorismistoeliminatecoercion,toapplycontrolsbychangingtheenvironmentinsuchawayastoreinforcethekindofbehaviorthatbenefitseveryone.Behavioristprinciplesarecommonlyseeninmobilelearningtoolsthatenablequizzes,in-classpolling,discussion,andquestionandanswer,aswellasforskills-basedlearningsuchasmobileassisted language learning.Reinforcement through immediate feedback isacorefeatureofthesetypesoftools.

Notalloftheearlylearningtheoristswereexperimentalbehaviorists.Dewey(1933)stressedthevalueofoutdooreducationandhands-on,experientiallearning,whileVygotsky(1978)emphasized


26

thesocialroleoflearning,withthehelpof‘moreknowledgeableothers’(whichmightthesedaysincludedigital sources) in thezoneofproximaldevelopment.Other theorists also lookedat thelearner’sinteractionwiththeirenvironment,forexamplePiaget,whostatedthatknowledgewasbuilt,nottransferred(Glaserfeld,1982),andBruner(1961),whobelievedthateducationalenvironmentsshouldprovidetheopportunityfordiscoverylearning.Thesetheoristsaregenerallyreferredtoasconstructivists,sincetheyfocusonthelearnerbeingabletoconstructtheirownknowledge.Mobiledevicesoffermanyopportunities forworkingwithphysicalor conceptualmaterials toconstructnewartefactsandknowledge,suchastoolsforrecording,mixinganddisseminatingvarioustypesofmultimediacontent.

Experientiallearningisdevelopedfrommanyotherlearningtheories,inparticularDewey’sworkonexperience(Beard&Wilson,2013).Thekeyaspectofthistheoryisthatknowledgeiscreatedthroughthetransformationofexperience(Kolb,1984).Thevalueofmobiledevicesforexperientiallearningisthattheycanassistinthecaptureofexperienceandprovidethematerialsforlaterreflection,andtransformationintoknowledge.Devicescanbeusedtocaptureevidencefromanexperienceandsubsequentlytocommunicate,analyseandvisualisetheknowledgegainedfromthatevidence.

Brown,CollinsandDuguid(1989)assertedthatlearningisembeddedintheactivity,contextandcultureinwhichitislearned.Theirconceptofsituatedcognitionresonateswellwithexperientiallearning,butgoesfurthertostresstheintegralnatureofthesituationinwhichthelearningactivitytakesplace,thus“situationsmightbesaidtoco-produceknowledgethroughactivity”(Brown,Collins&Duguid,1989,p.32).Thevalueofmobiledevicesinrelationtothistheoryisthattheirportabilityenablesthemtobetakenintodifferentcontexts.Learningactivitiescantakeplaceoutsidetheclassroomandacrossmultiplespaces.Mobiledevicefeaturessuchaslocationawareness,communicationtoolsandsensorscanbeveryvaluableinthistypeoflearningexperience.

Theimportanceoflearningwithothersiscentraltothecommunityofpractice(Wenger,2000)whichsimilarlyemphasizescontextandculturebutalsoregardstheauthenticdomainofthelearningcommunityasimportant.Acommunityofpracticeisasociallearningsystem,whichcanusefullybesupportedbymobiledevices.Therichsetofmessagingandsocialmediatoolsthatareavailableonmobiledevicesprovidearangeofoptionsforlearnersinanycontexttocollaborateandlearnwiththeircommunity.

Whilemostlearningtheoriesaregroundedin20thcenturythinking,inthe21stcenturywehaveseentheriseofnewtheoriessuchasconnectivism(Siemens,2004),whichhasbeenproposedas‘alearningtheoryforthedigitalage.’TheconceptofconnectivismisbasedontheideathatInternettechnologieshavecreatednewopportunitiesforpeopletolearnandshareinformationacrossnetworks.Theconnectivistapproachtolearningisthat“theconnectionsthatenableustolearnmorearemoreimportantthanourcurrentstateofknowing.”(Siemens,2004,para21).Connectivistlearnerswillshareandcommunicatedynamicknowledgecreationthroughnetworkedinteractionwithmachinesandotherpeople.Thecommunicationtoolsinmobiledevices,coupledwiththeresourcesavailablethroughInternetconnectivity,makeconnectivismanimportanttheoryformobilelearning.

In the next section, we take these six learning theories and use them as the basis for thedevelopmentofanevaluationrubricformobilelearningactivities.

An Evaluation Rubric for Mobile Learning ActivitiesWhendesigningamobilelearningactivity,itisimportanttounderstandhowtheoryunderpinsthelearningdesign.Anappropriateandconsideredpedagogicalapproachwillhelpensurethatlearningistheprimaryandmainconcernandthatthetechnologyisnotusedfortechnology’ssake.Multiplelearningapproachesmaybeadoptedwithinoneextendedactivity,soitisimportanttoconceptuallyframethelearningwithinthetargetedlearningoutcomesthatonewouldexpectfromoperationalisingoneormore learning theories.Wehaveaddressed thisneed tobeable toassess therelationshipbetweentheoryanddesignbycreatinganevaluationrubric.Thisrubricisbasedonthesixpreviously


27

identifiedlearningtheories;behaviorism,constructivism,experientiallearning,situatedcognition,communitiesofpracticeandconnectivism.

Thecreationoftherubricwasunderpinnedbyasetofcriteriaidentifiedinapreviouspaperby the authors (MacCallum & Parsons, 2016), where an analysis of the literature identified theprincipleswhichframelearningdesignwithinthesixidentifiedlearningtheories.Fromlearningdesignliterature,fivecriteriaweredrawnoutthatoperationalisedeachlearningtheory.Withinthepreviouspaperthesecriteriawerethenusedtomapandanalysetwodifferentlearningactivities.Therubricoutlinedinthisarticleexpandsontheoriginalconcepttofurtherrefineandclarifytherolethateachcriterionplayswithintherelevantlearningtheory.Itacknowledgesthatthereareimportantcoreaspectsthatarefundamentalandthusoperationalisetheessenceofeachlearningtheory.Thesekeyfeaturesthereforeshouldbepresentwhenleveragingaparticulartheory.Sincethisprioritisationmaybeoverlookedwhensimplyusingachecklistofcriteriainisolation,ascaledrubrichasbeendeveloped,whichisusedinthisarticle.

This latest version refines the original criteria, identified in the earlier paper, and includesadditionalkeysourceswhichwereusedtodeveloptherubricforthefollowingtheories;Behaviourism(Ertmer&Newby,2013;Ally,2004),constructivism(Ally,2004),experiential learning(Weller,2006;Beard&Wilson,2013)situatedcognition(Brown,Collins&Duguid,1989;Herrington&Oliver,1995),communitiesofpractice(Wenger,2000;Lai,Pratt,Anderson&Stigter,2006)andconnectivism(Siemens,2004;Armatas,Spratt&Vincent,2013;Kizito,2016).

Table1showstherubricforallsixlearningtheories,therubrichas6levels,wherelevelzeroindicatesacompleteabsenceofanyevidenceofthislearningtheoryinagivenactivity,whilelevel5indicatesthattheactivityfullyoperationalisesthatparticularlearningtheory.Levels4and5bothindicateadesignintent,whereaslevels1,2and3suggestthatcertaincomponentsoflearningtheoriesmaybepresentbutmaynotbeanintegralpartofthelearningdesign.Therubrichassynthesizedandassimilatedthemajoraspectsofeachidentifiedcriteriatoembodythekeyaspectsofeachtheoryintoaformthatgivesevaluativestructuretoobservations(Brookhart,2013).

Itshouldbenotedthatthisisnotintendedasacumulativerubricofperformanceskills,asisevidentinsomerubricssuchasthosepublishedbyITLResearch(2012).Inthosecases,individualcriteriaareidentifiedthataccumulateinaspecificsequence,makingitpossibletocreatealogicalflowchartofeachevaluationstep.Weacknowledgethatthecomponentsofagivenlearningtheoryaregenerallytoodiverseandinterdependentforsuchadiscreteseparationofstagestobeidentified.Nevertheless,wehaveattemptedtobeconsistentinourapproachtotherubricsuchthateachtheoryisexpressedinasimilarway.Indoingsowehaveattemptedtoidentifythemostfundamentalcomponentsofeachlearningtheorysothateventhelowestlevelsoftherubricabovezeroacknowledgethesefundamentals.Forexample,level1ofexperientiallearningrequiresacycleofexperience,sincethisisfundamentaltoallotheraspectsofexperientiallearning.Wealsoacknowledgethatthecomponentsofvariouslearningtheoriesarenotnecessarilyexclusive.Forexample,fouroftheselearningtheoriesincludeanacknowledgementofcollaborationasanimportantpartoflearning.Similarly,thecreationofknowledgeisexplicitlynotedinmorethanonelearningtheory.Thus,anygivenlearningactivitywouldbeexpectedtoexhibitarangeoffeaturesthatcouldleadtothatactivitybeingassociatedwithaspectsofmultiplelearningtheories.

Itisnotourcontentionthatasuccessfullearningactivitydesignshouldmeetthehighestlevelsoftherubricforeachlearningtheory.Indeed,attemptingtodosowouldseemtobelikelytoleadtoacontrivedandover-complexlearningactivity.Ontheotherhand,itwouldseemtobealmostimpossibletocreateanykindoflearningactivitythatscoredzeroforallsixtheories.Anydesignthatregisteredatthislevelwouldhardlydeservetobecalledalearningactivity.Wesuggest,however,thatforalearningactivitytobewelldesigneditshouldscorehighly(level4or5)onatleastoneofthesectionsoftherubric.Ourargumentforthisproposalisthatiflearningtheorieshavevalue(whichwebelievethattheydo)thenweshouldendeavouraseducatorstofullyunderstandandutilisethesetheoriesin


28

Table 1. Learning theory rubric

Learning Theory: Behaviourism

Level0 Themobileactivitydoes not involvemeasurableoutcomes,testing,sequencedmaterials,feedbackorreinforcement.

Level1 Themobileactivityinvolves at least one componentofmeasurableoutcomes,testing,sequencedmaterials,feedbackorreinforcement.

Level2 Themobileactivityinvolves measurable outcomes and sequenced materials,andinclude aspectsoftesting,feedbackorreinforcement.

Level3 Themobileactivityinvolves measurable outcomes and sequenced materials,andalsoincludes significant aspectsoftesting,feedbackorreinforcement.

Level4 Themobileactivityislargely designedaroundmeasurableoutcomes,testing,sequencedmaterials,feedbackand/orreinforcement.

Level5 Themobileactivityiswholly designedaroundmeasurableoutcomes,testing,sequencedmaterials,feedbackandreinforcement.

Learning Theory: Constructivism

Level0 Themobileactivitydoes not involve(inter)activeconstructionofknowledgebylearners.Learnersdonothavecontrolofthelearningprocessnortimeoropportunitytoreflectanddeveloppersonalmeaning

Level1 Themobileactivityinvolves (inter)active construction of knowledgebylearners.Itmayincludeat least one componentofcollaborationandcooperation,learnershavingcontrolofthelearningprocess,andtimeandopportunitytoreflectanddeveloppersonalmeaning.

Level2 Themobileactivityinvolves (inter)active construction of knowledgebylearners.Itincludes aspectsofcollaborationandcooperation,learnershavingcontrolofthelearningprocess,andtimeandopportunitytoreflectanddeveloppersonalmeaning.

Level3 Themobileactivityinvolves (inter)active construction of knowledgebylearnersusingcollaborationandcooperation,andalsoincludes significant aspectsoflearnershavingcontrolofthelearningprocess,andtimeandopportunitytoreflectanddeveloppersonalmeaning.

Level4 Themobileactivityislargely designedaround(inter)activeconstructionofknowledgebylearnersusingcollaborationandcooperation.Learnershavecontrolofthelearningprocessandtimeandopportunitytoreflectanddeveloppersonalmeaning

Level5 Themobileactivityiswholly designedaround(inter)activeconstructionofknowledgebylearnersusingcollaborationandcooperation.Learnershavecontrolofthelearningprocessandtimeandopportunitytoreflectanddeveloppersonalmeaning

Learning Theory: Experiential Learning

Level0 Themobileactivitydoes not involveanycycleofexperience,observation,conceptualizationorexperimentation.Thereisnotransformationthroughreflectionintonewknowledge

Level1 Themobileactivityinvolves a cycle of experience.Itmayincludeat least one componentofobservation,conceptualization,and/orexperimentation.

Level2 Themobileactivityinvolves a cycle of experience.Itincludes aspectsofobservation,conceptualization,and/orexperimentation,withsubsequentreflection.

Level3 Themobileactivityinvolves a cycle of experience.Itincludes significant aspects ofobservation,conceptualization,andexperimentation,withsubsequentreflection.

Level4 Themobileactivityislargely designedaroundacycleofexperience,observation,conceptualization,andexperimentation,transformedthroughreflectionintonewknowledge

Level5 Themobileactivityiswholly designedaroundacycleofexperience,observation,conceptualization,andexperimentation,transformedthroughreflectionintonewknowledge

Learning Theory: Situated Cognition

Level0 Themobileactivitydoes not involveanauthenticcontextoractivitiesthatreflectreal-lifeapplication.Thereisnocollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingorreflection

continued on following page


29

ourteachingandlearningdesign.Toonlyhalf-heartedlyembraceaparticularlearningtheorywouldseemtobedeliberatelymissingoutonitspotentialvaluetoourstudents.Wewouldalsosuggestthattheexerciseofassessinglearningactivitydesignsagainstthisrubricwouldbeanopportunitytoreflectonpotentialmodificationsthatcouldbemadetotheseactivitiestomorefullyleveragethemostrelevantlearningtheoriesandconsiderwhatotheraspectsofotherlearningtheoriescouldbe

Level1 Themobileactivityinvolves an authentic context.Itmayincludeat least one componentofreal-lifeapplicationorcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingandreflection.

Level2 Themobileactivityinvolves an authentic contextandactivitiesthatreflectreal-lifeapplication.Itincludes aspectsofcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingandreflection.

Level3 Themobileactivityinvolves an authentic contextandactivitiesthatreflectreal-lifeapplication.Italsoincludes significant aspectsofcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingandreflection.

Level4 Themobileactivityislargely designedaroundanauthenticcontextandactivitiesthatreflectreal-lifeapplicationandsupportcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingandreflection.

Level5 Themobileactivityiswholly designedaroundanauthenticcontextandactivitiesthatreflectreal-lifeapplicationandsupportcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingandreflection.

Learning Theory: Communities of Practice

Level0 Themobileactivitydoes not involveacommunityofpractice.Thereisnosharedlearningandnosocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation

Level1 Themobileactivityinvolves a unifying community of practice.Itmayincludeat least one componentofsharedlearningaccompanyingasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation.

Level2 Themobileactivityinvolves a diverse, unifying community of practice.Itincludes aspectsofsharedlearningaccompanyingasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation.

Level3 Themobileactivityinvolves a diverse, unifying community of practiceandalsoincludes significant aspectsofsharedlearningaccompanyingasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation.

Level4 Themobileactivityislargely designedaroundadiverse,unifyingcommunityofpracticewheresharedlearningaccompaniesasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation

Level5 Themobileactivityiswholly designedaroundadiverse,unifyingcommunityofpracticewheresharedlearningaccompaniesasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation

Learning Theory: Connectivism

Level0 Themobileactivitydoes not involvethecreationorcriticalevaluationofartefactsinlearningnetworks.Itusesnocollaborativetechnologies,diverseinformationsourcesortransferablesocialmediaskills

Level1 Themobileactivityinvolves at least one componentofcreationorcriticalevaluationofartefactsinlearningnetworks,collaborativetechnologies,diverseinformationsourcesortransferablesocialmediaskills

Level2 Themobileactivityinvolves the creation and critical evaluation of artefactsinlearningnetworks,andincludes aspectsofusingcollaborativetechnologies,diverseinformationsourcesandtransferablesocialmediaskills

Level3 Themobileactivityinvolves the creation and critical evaluation of artefactsinlearningnetworks,andalsoincludes significant aspectsofusingcollaborativetechnologies,diverseinformationsourcesandtransferablesocialmediaskills

Level4 Themobileactivityislargely designedaroundthecreationandcriticalevaluationofartefactsinlearningnetworksusingcollaborativetechnologies,diverseinformationsourcesandtransferablesocialmediaskills

Level5 Themobileactivityiswholly designedaroundthecreationandcriticalevaluationofartefactsinlearningnetworksusingcollaborativetechnologies,diverseinformationsourcesandtransferablesocialmediaskills

Table 1. Continued


30

integratedtomakeamoreenrichedlearningactivity.Thiscouldsuggestalternativestrategiesthatcouldmodifytheactivity,ortheneedtoincorporateadditionalfeaturesthatcouldfurtherenhancetheactivity,forexampleonemightconsiderenablingstudentstotestideas(behaviourism)orhavemorecontroloverthelearningprocess(constructivism).

Mapping the Rubric to an Indicative Mobile Learning ActivityToexploretherelationshipbetweenactivitydesignandtheidentifiedcriteriaofappropriatelearningtheories,wetakeanexampleofamobilelearningactivitythatwasoriginallydesignedforaprofessionaldevelopmentworkshoptoberunforteacherstoexploresomespecificaspectsofmobiledeviceuseforlearning.Thisparticularactivitywassomewhattechnologycentric,asitsoriginalintentwastoexposeagroupofteacherstothepotentialofcertainhardwareandsoftwarefeaturesofmobiledevices.

Thereasonforchoosingthisparticularactivityforanalysiswasthatitwasdesignedwithgoodpedagogyinmindandageneralawarenessoflearningtheory,butwasnotexplicitlydesignedusingthedetailedanalysisoflearningtheorythatweapplyinthispaper.Thus,webelieveitprovidesahelpfulexampleofthetypeoflearningactivitythateducatorsmightdevelopwithgeneralideasaboutwhatconstituteseffectivelearning,butonethatisinherentlyweakduetoalackofexplicitanalysisintermsofthetheoreticalunderpinningsoftheactivity.

First,weanalysethislearningactivityfromtheperspectiveofitsembodiedlearningtheories.Next,wereconsiderthedesignofthelearningactivityfromtheperspectiveoflearningtheory,andexploresomeoptionsfortaskredesignthatwouldmaximisethepedagogicalrichnessoftheactivity.

Original Task DesignTheactivitywhichisthefocusofthisarticlewasbasedonalargegroupofteachersinvolvedinatwo-hourprofessionaldevelopmentworkshoprunacrossanumberofdifferentsitesoverseveraldays.Theactivityfocusedontheteachersexploringthepotentialaffordancesofmobiletechnologyandhowitcouldbeincorporatedintotheirownclasses.Theactivitywastoundertakeageolocatedoutdoor learning task where the specific application to be used was created in advance by theworkshopfacilitator.ThetoolusedinthisworkshopwasARIS(https://arisgames.org/),whichallowsthecreationofgeolocatedactivitiesusingawebbaseddesigntool,withthecreatedappsdeployabletoiOSdevices.Theapplicationincludedaseriesofoutdoorwaypoints,towhichthestudentsweredirected in teamsby themobileapp.Ateach location, the teamswereasked to recordwhateverenvironmentalreadingstheywereabletogatherusingtheirmobiledevices.Theseweremeasurescommonlyavailablethroughdevicesensors,suchaslightlevel,soundlevel,elevation,humidityetc.Duringtheactivity,theywereaskedtorecordthesereadingsonasharedcloud-basedspreadsheet,andattheendoftheactivitytheywereaskedtotaketheshareddatasourceandanalyseittolookforanyinterestingsimilaritiesordifferencesthatmightoccuracrossvarioustimesandlocationsacrossthecountry.FurtherdetailaboutthisactivitycanbefoundinParsons,Thomas&Inkila(2016).

Analysing the Original Task Against the RubricWhenanalysingthislearningactivitywiththelearningtheoryrubric,wenotedthatitresonatedwithseveraltheoriesbutdidnoteffectivelyaddressanysingleoneinadequatedepth.Despiteitsobviousaffinitywithsituatedcognition(beingawaypointbasedactivityinspecificoutdoorlocations)andwithexperientiallearning(giventheexposuretonewmobilelearningexperiences),theactivityfailedtoachieveahighlevelofalignmentwiththerubriceveninthesetwoareasoftheory.Thefollowingsectionsaddresseachofthelearningtheoriesinturn,assessingthelearningactivityagainsttherubric.

Theactivityrevealedfewbehaviouristcharacteristics.Giventheopen-endednatureofthetasktherewasnospecificreinforcement.Theonlyevidentfeaturesthatrelatedtobehavioristlearningtheorywere thesequencingofactivities through theapplication(which led thestudents throughaseriesofwaypointsandgaveinstructionsateachstep)andsomelimitedfeedback(e.g.theapp


31

indicatedwhensufficientreadingshadbeentaken).Asaresult,weassessedtheactivityatlevel1againstthebehaviourismrubric.

Intermsofconstructivism,theconstructionofknowledgewaspresenttosomeextentbutwasinsufficientlyscaffoldedtoadequatelycreateazoneofproximaldevelopment.Thelearningwasactive,butperhapsthemeaningwasnotmadeexplicitenoughtoguidethelearnersinconstructingknowledge.Theactivitywasteambased,andalsoinvolvedthesharingofgathereddata,sowascollaborativeandcooperative.Inparticular,studentswouldbesharingdevicestofindlocationsandcollectthedataandwouldthenbeworkingtogetheronthedatasheets.Learnersweregivensomecontrolofthelearningprocess,butonthewholetheprocesswasdictatedbytheapp,anddatagatheringoptionswereconstrainedbythedevicesthatthelearnershadavailabletothem.Anopportunitytoreflectwasprovidedinthedataanalysisphase,butwastootimeconstrainedandinsufficientlyguidedtoreachmeaningfuloutcomes.Interactiontookplacebutwassporadicandvariablebetweengroupsbecausetheactivitydidnotprovideenoughcuestotriggerinteractionsexplicitly.Giventhesevariousweaknessesintheactivitydesign,weassesseditatlevel1againsttheconstructivismrubric.

Perhapsthemostimportantlearningtheorythatappliestothistypeofopen-endeddiscoveryactivity is experiential learning. The learning context was designed to provide an experience ofusingmobiledevicesinunfamiliarwaysandthereforetoprovidenewlearningexperiencesforthestudents.Thetaskdesignwas,atleastinprinciple,basedonacycleofconcreteexperience,reflectiveobservation,abstractconceptualizationandactiveexperimentation.However,thelackofopportunityfortruereflectionlimitedthescopeforthecreationofnewknowledgethroughthetransformationof experience. Nevertheless, because the activity did involve observation, conceptualization andexperimentation,withsubsequentreflection,weassesseditatlevel3intherubric.Unfortunately,there was insufficient evidence gathered from the activity to assert with any certainty that thisreflectiontransformedtheexperienceintonewknowledge(level4),thoughitmayhavedoneforsomeparticipants.

Inprinciple,situatedcognitionwouldalsoseemtobeahighlyrelevanttheoryinthiscontext,sincethekeypremiseofusingthemobileappwasthatenvironmentalmeasureswouldbetakenfromspecificsituatedcontexts,andthattheseconceptswouldbeimportantincollaborativelyanalysingthedata.However,whenanalysingtheactivityfromtheperspectiveofthistheoryitwasclearthatonlytheauthenticcontextwasdirectlysupportiveofthelearningand,asnotedabove,therewasinsufficientcoachingandscaffolding.Again,asnotedearlier,therewasalsoinsufficientopportunityforreflection.Nevertheless,sincethecontextualactivitiesreflectedreal-lifeapplication,andfosteredcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionandatleastsomereflection,weassessedthisactivityatlevel2onthesituatedcognitionrubric.

Intermsofcommunityofpractice,thiswaspresentbutmostlybecausetheparticipantswerealreadymembersofacommunityofpracticeandthisactivityoperatedinsidethislargercommunity.Ifweconsidertheactivityonitsown,itdidnotcreateanyfurthercomponentsofacommunityofpractice.Therewassomeinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation,andsharedlearning,astheteamsdiscussedtheirdevicesandtheenvironmentalsensorsthattheyhadavailable,andanalysedtheshareddataset.Itwasalsohopedthatlearningwouldbeanincidentaloutcomeofthesocialprocessembeddedintheactivity.Unfortunately,thiswasnotparticularlyevidentinpractice.Giventhattheactivityleveragedanexistingcommunityofpractice,butdidnoteffectivelydevelopitfurther,weassesseditatlevel1ontherubric.

Therewerealsosomeelementsofconnectivismintheactivitythroughtheuseofashareddataset.However,interactionsthroughthedatasetwerelimited.Althoughitwasintendedthattheactivitywouldbeastimulatingandmotivatinglearningactivity,thesingleartefactthatwascreatedwasnotlinkedtobroadersocialnetworks,someaningfuldialogueandcollaborationwasnotencouragedbythetoolsused,toolswhichalsofailedtoprovidemuchinthewayoftransferableskillsacrosslearningnetworks.Thelearnersdidusediverseinformationsourcesofflineandonline(forexampleonhowtousetheirdevicestocaptureandinterpretthedata),butperhapsthelackofscaffoldingherelimitedtheirscope.


32

Onceagain,theactivityfailedtoprovideadequateopportunityforcriticalevaluationandsynthesisofconcepts,opinionsandperspectives.Nevertheless,despitetheselimitations,weassessedtheactivityatlevel2ontheconnectivismrubric,sinceanartefactwascreatedandcriticallyevaluated(atleasttosomeextent)andthestudentsusedcollaborativetechnologiesanddiverseinformationsources.

Figure1showsaradarchartoftheactivity,asevaluatedagainsttherubric.Itcanbeseenfromthisfigurethatthelearningactivityfailedtocomprehensivelyaddressanyofthesixlearningtheoriesrepresentedintherubric.Theareasofrelativestrengthareexperientiallearningandsituatedcognition,buteveninthesemeasuresimportantcomponentsoflearningasoutlinedinthesetheoriesaremissing,soinneithercasecouldweassessthemasreachingthelevelofdesignintent(4or5).Overall,then,thisparticularlearningactivitydesignisseentobesomewhatlackinginitsoperationalisationoflearningtheory.

Applying the Rubric to Task DesignIn this sectionof the articlewemoveon fromanalysinganexistingmobile learningactivity toconsideringthedesignofamodifiedlearningexperience.Thissectionattemptstotakeintoaccountthetheoreticalweaknessesoftheoriginaltaskdesignandthepotentialforchangesuggestedbythecomponentsoftheevaluationrubric.Asindicatedearlier,therearesomevaluableaspectsoflearningtheoryalreadyembeddedintheoriginaltask,soitwasimportantthattheseshouldberetainedandbuiltuponwherepossible,whileatthesametimeconsideringamajortaskredesigntoensurethattherewassometheory-baseddesignintent,basedontherubric.

In analysing the weaknesses of the original activity, a number of elements were clearlyproblematic.Oneofthesewasthelackoftimeallowedforreflection,whichhadnotbeenadequatelycateredforintheoriginalactivity.Yettimeconstraintsareanunavoidableaspectofmostlearningenvironments,soweneedtodesignwiththeseconstraintsinmind.Anotherlimitationwasalackofevidenceofoutcomes,alongwithalackofuseofappropriatesocialmediachannelsfordisseminationoflearning.Anotherevidentlimitationtotheactivitywasthatalthoughtherewassomeconstructivistactivityinthecreationofthedataartefact,thiswasminimal.Theapplicationusedwascreatedby

Figure 1. Radar chart of the first learning activity


33

theteachingstaff,aswasthedesignofthedataspreadsheet.Thus,opportunitiesforstudentagencyintheconstructionofartefactswereverylimited.Withtheselimitationsinmind,andguidedbytherubric,weundertookamajorredesignofthelearningactivityinanattempttorenderitamorevaluablelearningexperienceforthestudents.

Asindicatedearlierinthisarticle,itisnotourcontentionthatlearningactivitydesignshouldbebasedonattemptingtoreachthemaximumlevelofeverypartoftherubric,sincethiswouldbetousetherubricassomekindofoverallmetricwhere‘moreisbetter’,whichitisnotintendedtobe.Theroleoftherubricis,firstofall,toenableustohighlightthemostrelevantlearningtheoriesinanactivity,andthentopotentiallyfocusonthosepartsoftherubricwhererelevantimprovementscouldbemade.Aswehavenotedpreviously,therearesomecomponentsthatappearinmultiplepartsoftherubric,soaddressingtheseparticularfeaturesmayimpactonmorethanoneelementoftheoverallprocess.However,webelieveitishelpfultoaddresseachlearningtheoryinturnandmakeajudgementastowhichpartsoftherubricaremostappropriatetopayattentiontofromadesignperspective.

Identifying Potential Improvements to the Original TaskOuroriginaldesignscoredlowonthebehaviourismrubric.However,wedidnotperceivethistobeaproblem,sincewehadnotintendedtodesignanactivitythatfocusedonbehaviouristprinciples.Rather,thisparticularlearningprocesswasbasedaroundanopenendedexploratoryexperienceforthestudents.Therefore,wedidnotfeelitnecessarytoaddressthebehaviouristaspectoftherubricintheredesign.However,fromaconstructivistperspectiveitwasclearthatouroriginaltaskdidnotprovidethestudentswithanopportunitytoconstructtheirownartefactsandknowledge,nordiditgivethemenoughtimetoadequatelyreflect,ormaketheactivitypersonallymeaningful.Wethereforefelttheneedtolookforopportunitiestoaddresstheconstructivistrubrictoagreaterdegree.

Althoughouroriginalactivityscoredreasonablywellontheexperientiallearningcomponentoftherubric,itwaslackinginthefacilityforthestudentstoclearlydemonstratethattheyhadtransformedtheirexperiencethroughreflectionintonewknowledge.Therefore,intheredesignedactivitywehopedtoaddressthisshortcoming,atleasttosomedegree.Theoriginalactivityalsoscoredreasonablywellintermsofsituatedcognition,butwasnotstructuredeffectivelytoallowcollaborativeknowledgeconstructionthroughcoaching,expertperformances,processmodellingandreflection.Itwashopethattheredesignmightaddressthisparticularaspectoftherubricmoreeffectively.

Althoughouractivitywasleveraginganexistingcommunityofpractice,therewerealsoareaswherewecouldimprovethevalueofthiscontext.Inparticular,weneededtoensurethattherewasasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation.Finally,inlookingattheconnectivistaspectoftherubric,itwasclearthatthestudentscouldbenefitfromthecreationofnetworkedartefactsandexerciseandbuildsocialmediaskills.

Insummary,itwasfeltthattherewereanumberofareaswheretheactivitycouldbeimproved.Inthenextsection,wedescribehowtheredesignedtaskwascreatedandanalysedagainsttherubric.

The Redesigned TaskGiven the issues identified above, the redesigned task was intended to address a number ofshortcomingsintheoriginaldesignsuchthatanumberofaspectsofappropriatelearningtheoriescouldbebetterintegratedintothelearningprocess.Onesignificantissueidentifiedwasthelackoftimeforreflection.Giventhatthereweretimeconstraintsintheoriginalactivity,itwasfeltthatthetaskshouldbecompletelyrescheduledbyreducingthenumberofactivities,andmaximizingtheopportunitiesforreflection.Inaddition,itwasclearthattheoriginaltaskgavelittleopportunityfortheconstructivistbuildingofartefactsandrelatedknowledge.Asaresult,thereviseddesignallowedthestudentstocreatetheirownmobilelearningactivityratherthansimplyparticipateinonethatwasalreadybuilt.Itwasalsoclearthatwewerenottakingenoughadvantageofanexistingcommunity


34

ofpractice,whichwasalreadyenabledonlineusingsocialmediatools,sothenewactivityaimedtoembracetheseopportunities.

Theredesignedtaskrequiredthestudents tocreatetheirownGPSenabledoutdoorlearningactivityusingasuitabletool.Thismeantwehadtore-thinkouruseofARIS,sinceitsrichfeaturesetmakesithardertocreateanactivitywithoutpreviousexperience.Asaresult,wechoseActionBound(https://en.actionbound.com/). Although there are a number of other similar tools available, weselectedthistoolbasedontheeaseandspeedwithwhichamobilelearningactivitycanbecreatedanddeployed.

Thestudentschosetheirownauthenticcontextwithinwhichtocreatetheirownmobilelearningimplementations, and were initially given appropriate modelling through an instructional video,whichtheyworkedthroughattheirownpace.Theythencollaborativelydesignedtheirownlearningactivitiesandimplementedthemusingtherecommendedtool.Oncethedesignshadbeenimplemented,theywereabletotesttheseoutinpractice,thensharetheirartefactsandreflectionsonsocialmedia,usingtheonlinecommunityalreadyestablishedwithinthegroup.Toensurethattherewasadequatetimeforeachstageofthetask,itwasnecessarytoremovesomefeaturesfromtheoriginalactivity,inparticulartheuseofsensorsandthepoolingandanalysisofshareddata.Wechosetomakethisanentirelyseparateactivityatadifferenttimetoensurethatthestudentswereabletoreflectontheconstructivistprocessofdesigning,building,testing,andevaluatingameaningfulproductinasuitableexperientiallearningcycle.

Whenanalysingtheredesignedactivityagainsttherubric,itwasclearthatthemodificationshadaddressedmanyoftheweaknessesofouroriginaldesign.Wedidnotchoosetoexplicitlyaddressanyaspectsofthebehaviourismrubricandtherevisedactivitywasstillassessedatlevel1.However,intermsofconstructivismweassessedtheactivityatlevel4becausethelearnershadmuchgreatercontroloverthelearningprocess,wheretheycouldcreateanartefactthatwaspersonallymeaningfulto them,and theyweregiven theopportunity to reflectwithin theircommunityofpractice.Theoriginalactivityhadbeenreasonablystronginexperientiallearning,butwebelievethattherevisedactivitywasfurtherenhancedtolevel4oftherubric,giventheopportunitiesthatstudentshadtotransformtheirreflectionsintonewknowledge,whichwereevidencedbytheirpostingsonsocialmedia.Althoughwedidnotformallyassesstheoutcomes,wenotedthatgamedesignspostedonsocialmediaduringtheclassincludedadiverserangeofimaginativeideas,includingexploringanewschool,alocalculturewalk,aninvestigationofcheckinprocessesatanairportandafamilyversionoftheTVseries“TheAmazingRace”.

Weassessedtherevisedactivityatlevel3onthesituatedcognitionrubric.Thereasonfornotassessingithigherwasthatthelevelsofcoaching,expertperformancesandprocessmodellingweresomewhatlimited,beingconfinedtoasingleinstructionalvideo.Againstthecommunityofpracticerubric,wejudgedtherevisedactivityatlevel3.Althoughsharedlearningdidaccompanyasocialprocessofinformationexchangeandknowledgecreation,itwouldbesomewhatexcessivetoclaimthattheactivityhadbeendesignedwiththisatitscore.Fromaconnectivistperspective,theactivityremainedatlevel2.Althoughitembracedtransferablesocialmediaskillsitalsolostsomeoftheconnectivistaspectsoftheoriginalactivity,sooverallremainedarelativelylowleveltaskintermsofconnectivism.

Figure2showsaradarchartof theactivity,asevaluatedagainst therubric.ComparedwithFigure1,itisclearthattherevisedactivityismuchmoretheory-informedthantheoriginalversion.

Assessing the Revised TaskEarlier in thisarticlewemadesomestatementsabout therubric,whichwewillbrieflyreiteratehere,beforeassessing theoutcomesofour redesign.Levelzero indicatesacompleteabsenceofanyevidenceofagivenlearningtheoryinanactivity,whilelevel5indicatesthattheactivityfullyoperationalisesthatparticularlearningtheory.Levels4and5bothindicateadesignintent,whereaslevels1,2and3suggestthatcertaincomponentsoflearningtheoriesmaybepresentbutmaynotbe


35

anintegralpartofthelearningdesign.Itisoursuggestion,however,thatforalearningactivitytobewelldesigneditshouldscoreatthe‘designintent’levels(4or5)onatleastonesectionoftherubric.

How,then,mightweinterprettheradarchartinFigure2,whichevaluatestherevisedlearningactivityagainsttherubric?Wenotethattheactivityrevealsdesignintentforbothconstructivismandexperientiallearning,althoughneitherofthesearefullyoperationalised.Doesthismatter?Wewouldsuggestthatitdoesnot.Thevalueoftherubricisinprovidinginsightsintolearningactivitydesign,andgivingusopportunitiestorethinkhowweintegratelearningtheoriesintoourpedagogy.Likeallrubrics,itisopentointerpretation.Wesuggestthatitsvalueisdemonstratedinthisparticularexamplebygivingustheabilitytotakeamobilelearningactivity,re-evaluateitthroughthelensoflearningtheory,andbeguidedtowardsamodifiedactivitythatbetterembodiesthefeaturesofrelevantlearningtheory.Itisalsoworthbearinginmindthatrefinementoflearningactivitiesisanongoingprocess.Wewouldexpecttocontinuouslyre-thinkandredesignourpedagogyovertime.Onecycleofreflectionandrevisionisjustonestepinanongoingprocessofcontinuousimprovement.

CONCLUSION

Inthisarticle,wehavedescribedarubricforassessingthedesignofmobilelearningactivitiesthatisbasedonacoresetoflearningtheoriesthathavepreviouslybeenidentifiedasbeingparticularlyrelevant to theexperienceofmobile learning.Wehaveapplied this rubric toa learningactivitythatwasoriginallydesignedwithoutthisrubricinmind.Therubricrevealedthatthisactivitywasfailingtoincorporatethemajorcomponentsofanyparticularlearningtheory,althoughitutilisedsome components of several relevant theories. On reflection, this was partly a consequence oftryingtodotoomanythingsintooshortatime.Theanalysishelpedustorealisethatweneededtofocusmoreclearlyonfewerobjectivesinordertoimprovetheactivity.Basedonanassumptionthatoperationalisinglearningtheorycanimprovelearningexperiences,weredesignedtheactivityusingtherubricasakindofdesignframework.Wethenassessedthisrevisedactivityagainsttherubric,

Figure 2. Radar chart of the modified learning activity


36

whichrevealeddesignintentbasedontwoofthelearningtheoriesandstrongerlinkstoothers.Fromthisexercise,weconcludedthatthelearningtheoryrubriccouldbeausefulguidetothedesignorredesignofmobilelearningactivities.

There are a number of limitations to this study. Not least, there is no empirical analysis ofoutcomesfromtaskredesign.Asyet,wehavenoempiricaldatatosuggestthatthemodifiedlearningactivityleadstoanygreaterlearningoutcomesthantheoriginalversion.However,rubricsingeneraldonotassessoutcomes,onlyperformance,andtheirprimaryroleistogivestructuretoobservations(Brookhart,2013).Wehavealsoconfinedthenumberoflearningtheoriesconsideredtosix,andthekeycomponentsofeachtheoryhavebeensummariseddowntoafewkeypoints.Bothofthesefactorsmightleadstoaccusationsthatwehaveoversimplifiedtheinterpretationoftheory.However,theserepresentationshavebeentheresultofaseriesofstagesofresearch,andarestronglygroundedintheliterature.

Futureworkmightinvolvefurtheruseoftherubricasadesigntool,withempiricalevaluationofoutcomesfromthesedesigns,refinementoftherubricitself,orthedevelopmentofalternativerubricsthattakeadifferentviewofwhichlearningtheoriesshouldbeincludedandhowtheyshouldberepresentedasevaluativecriteria.


37

REFERENCES

Ally,M.(2004).Foundationsofeducationaltheoryforonlinelearning.Theory and practice of online learning, 2,15-44.

Armatas,C.,Spratt,C.,&Vincent,A.(2013,July).Operationalizingconnectivistprinciplesinonlinetertiarycoursedesign.Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Communication Technologies in Education,Crete.Retrievedfromhttp://www.icicte.org/Proceedings2013/Papers%202013/03-4-Armatas.pdf

Beard,C.,&Wilson,J.(2013).Experiential Learning: A handbook for education, training and coaching(3rded.).London:KoganPage.

Brookhart,S.M.(2013).How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading.Alexandria,VA:ASCD.

Brown,J.S.,Collins,A.,&Duguid,P.(1989).SituatedCognitionandtheCultureofLearning.Educational Researcher,18(1),32–42.doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032

Bruner,J.S.(1961).Theactofdiscovery.Harvard Educational Review,31(1),21–32.

Dewey,J.(1933).How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educational process.Lexington,MA:Heath.

Ertmer,P.A.&Newby,T.J.(1993).Behaviorism,cognitivism,constructivism:Comparingcriticalfeaturesfromaninstructionaldesignperspective.Performance improvement quarterly, 6(4),50-72.

Harasim,L.(2012).Learning Theory and Online Technologies.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Herrington,A.,&Herrington,J.(2007).Authenticmobilelearninginhighereducation.Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Freemantle(pp.1-9).Retrievedfromhttp://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/her07131.pdf

Herrington,J.,&Oliver,R.(1995,December).Criticalcharacteristicsofsituatedlearning:Implicationsfortheinstructionaldesignofmultimedia.Paper presented at the ASCILITE95 conference,Melbourne,Australia.Retrievedfromhttp://www.ascilite.org/conferences/melbourne95/smtu/papers/herrington.pdf

Kizito,R.N.(2016).Connectivisminlearningactivitydesign:Implicationsforpedagogically-basedtechnologyadoptioninAfricanHigherEducationcontexts.The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,17(2).doi:10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2217

Kolb,D.A.(1984).Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Lai,K.W.,Pratt,K.,Anderson,M.,&Stigter,J.(2006).Literaturereviewandsynthesis:Onlinecommunitiesofpractice.NewZealand:MinistryofEducation.Retrievedfromhttps://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/curriculum/5795

Laurillard,D.(2007).Pedagogicalformsformobilelearning:framingresearchquestions.InN.Pachler(Ed.),Mobile learning: Towards a research agenda.London:WLECentre,InstituteofEducation.

Laurillard, D. (2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,4(1),5–20.doi:10.1007/s11412-008-9056-2

Luis,R.,&D’Cunha,T.(2014).Therole,essenceandcontributionsofeducationalpsychologytothefieldofeducation.International Journal of Education and Management Studies,4(4),370–372.

MacCallum,K.,&Parsons,D.(2016,October).ATheory-ologyofMobileLearning:OperationalizingLearningTheorieswithMobileActivities.ProceedingsoftheWorldConferenceonMobileandContextualLearning(mLearn2016),Sydney(pp.173-182).Retrievedfromhttp://iamlearn.org/wp-content/uploads/Proceedings_MLearn2016Final.pdf

Olsen,M.,&Hergenhahn,B.(2013).An Introduction to Theories of Learning(9thed.).Boston,Mass.:Pearson.

Parsons,D.,Thomas,H.,&Inkila,M.(2016,October).AMobileSensorActivityforAd-HocGroups.Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2016), Sydney (pp. 210-213).Retrievedfromhttp://iamlearn.org/wp-content/uploads/Proceedings_MLearn2016Final.pdf


38

Research,I.T.L.(2012).21st Century Learning Design Rubrics.Retrievedfromhttps://education.microsoft.com/GetTrained/ITL-Research

Sharples,M.,Taylor,J.,&Vavoula,G.(2010).ATheoryofLearningfortheMobileAge:LearningthroughConversationandExplorationAcrossContexts.InB.Bachmair(Ed.),Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften(pp.87–99).doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92133-4_6

Siemens,G.(2004).Connectivism:ALearningTheoryfortheDigitalAge.elearnspace.Retrievedfromhttp://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Sobel,D.(1990,August20).B.F.Skinner,theChampionofBehaviorism,IsDeadat86.New York Times.

Tapp,J.(Ed.).(1969).Reinforcement and Behavior.NewYork,NY:AcademicPress.

vonGlaserfeld,E.(1982).AnInterpretationofPiaget’sConstructivism.Revue Internationale de Philosophie,36(4),612–635.

Vygotsky,L.S.(1978).Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Weller,M.(2006).DeliveringLearningontheNet:Thewhy,whatandhowofonlineeducation.InG.Conole&M.Oliver (Eds.),Contemporary Perspectives in E-Learning Research: Themes, Methods and Impact on practice.London:KoganPage.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246.doi:10.1177/135050840072002

Please recommend this Publication to your librarianFor a convenient easy-to-use library recommendation form, please visit:http://www.igi-global.com/IJOPCD

Volume 7 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017 • ISSN: 2155-6873 • eISSN: 2155-6881An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association

all inquiries regarding iJoPcd should be directed to the attention of:Chia-Wen Tsai, Editor-in-Chief • [email protected]

all manuscriPt submissions to iJoPcd should be sent through the online submission system:http://www.igi-global.com/authorseditors/titlesubmission/newproject.aspx

Adoption of e-learning • Best practices in computing education • Best practices in science education • Blended Learning • Computer-mediated communication • E-Learning • Emerging technologies • Evaluation of learning technology systems • Evaluation of online learning effects • Learning management systems • Multimedia and interactive learning systems • Online course design • Online learners’ behavior • Pedagogy and teaching with technology • Virtual reality environments • Web-based teaching methods

Coverage and major topiCsThe topics of interest in this journal include, but are not limited to:

The mission of the International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design (IJOPCD) is to provide a platform for the latest research, analysis, and development of online education, effective online teaching methods, and course design. IJOPCD covers the pedagogical design aspects of science education and computing education, as well as courses supported by educational technologies. Targeting academic researchers and educators who work in the field, this journal focuses on the importance of developments in online course design and teaching methods to improve teachers’ teaching and students’ learning. Researchers are encouraged to submit cross-disciplinary, high-quality syntheses that are interesting, beneficial, and apprehensible to all those interested in or teaching science and related disciplines.

mission

IDeas FOr sPeCIal Theme Issues may be submITTeD TO The eDITOr(s)-In-ChIeF

international Journal of online Pedagogy and course design

call for articles

Documents

Table of Contents - davidparsons.ac.nz Learning Theory... · 39 The Customized xLearning Environment Model: Meeting the Needs and Expectations of Students; Anabela Mesquita, Polytechnic