As a teacher/technologist/designer/builder, I wonder with so many pieces of technology available, what should my approach be?  I know some teachers are afraid of emerging tools.  But I also wonder if that fear is a barrier to student learning.  As I research the landscape of tools that teachers, school districts, and higher education institutions fear the most, mobile phones may be at the top of the list.  But should we as educators fear them?

Mobile Phone Breakdown

Mobile devices are growing at an astronomical pace.  Statistics today show that there are about 7 billion people in the world today.  Roughly 1.6 billion people are connected to the Internet via a computer (World Internet Statistics, 2009).  But about 4.3 billion people have mobile phones.  More than two-times the population has a mobile phone over a computer connected to the Internet (Murph, 2009).  These are staggering numbers considering opportunities in education.

Corporations have caught on to this trend and are capitalizing.  By providing mobile resources for their employees to access from laptops on the road or their mobile devices.  With the advent of the iPhone, many companies are rushing to create applications that allow their employees to access information from the company  (Choice Hotels, 2009).

Higher education is trying to keep up.  Duke University and Abeline Christian University are two top schools with mobile Web sites as well as iPhone applications and infrastructure delivery mechanisms, which connect their students to learning.  Recently Blackboard, Inc., the largest provider of online course development and management, released a widget to Facebook and an application for the iPhone.  This is evidence that Blackboard is trying to bridge the gap to students where they are and not force students to come to them.

The Reality of The Numbers

In K-12, however, on average, there is a large gap in the amount of computers per student in most classrooms.  Most K-12 districts do not have use for any learning management system (LMS) to connect students outside the classroom.  Technology is being encouraged, but not necessarily being resourced.  With the larger gap in the computer to student ratio, there is a smaller gap for students who have mobile phones.

Students are learning using multiple platforms.  They use their phones now more for text and productivity than they do for actual phone calling.  A mobile phone has become tool.  Education is catching up to this idea.  Most school districts as well as higher education institutions have what is commonly called an “Acceptable Use Policy” for technology.  This is a contract for students and faculty to abide by to keep technology use fair and safe.  The majority of school districts have a ban on mobile phones because of the potential distraction they present.  Some more progressive districts are moving toward a “Responsible Use Policy”, where teachers use tools students use and teach them how to use them responsibly. What this means is teachers will need to adopt new teaching strategies which leverage these newer technologies.  Instead of  wasting their energy “fighting their preferred delivery system”, teachers should be “working to ensure that (our) students extract maximum understanding and benefit from the vast amounts of cell-phone-based learning of which they will, no doubt, soon take advantage” (Prensky, 2008).

The Transition from Fear to Transformational Learning

Teachers need to begin to understand how these tools work and how they can integrate them into their teaching.  This pattern has always been in education.  There was a fear of the Internet in classrooms years ago because of the inappropriate content Online.  Now most every district and every higher education institution has a staff to manage IT and Internet traffic.  In higher ed there is still a debate on the use of laptops in the classroom for fear that students will misuse the tools.  They are too much of a distraction.  Now they are an integral part of the learning process and a standard tool for students.  Across the country the stance has been to ban the tool instead of teach appropriate use with the tool.  Today, however, laptops are commonplace in higher ed and leaking down to K-12.  Mobile devices are the next domino to fall.

Mobile learning or “M-Learning” is still in it’s infancy.  There have been several studies that support the implementation of mobile learning in the classroom and how it increases student outcomes. In a study conducted by Dr. Cathleen Norris and Dr. Elliot Soloway, student outcomes increased by 13% over students who did not use a mobile device  (Traylor, 2009).  Learning is changing, and students need to be equipped.  Dr. Norris explains:

“The way we learn and what we learn is changing, and that is really the majority of the issue around 21st Century Skills. Children need to learn how instead of what. How do I find this information? How do I determine from this Internet what is valid information? How does this fit into everything else that I’m reading? How does this merge with my textbook? It’s the how. Again, it’s helping the child take the wealth of information that’s out there, assimilate it, and determine what’s a valid source, what’s real information” (Traylor, 2009).

Many teachers look at the mobile phone the same way they look at the laptop, PA systems, or even telephones.  They interrupt learning.  Teachers need to be empowered to look beyond the immediate barrier to the educational opportunities they could have speaking the language of the digital natives.  It definitely takes time and effort.  But the payoff is when students take a turn and begin learning.  Mobile phones should be thought of just like other tools in the classroom like books, whiteboards, or even writing implements.  They are tools to help accomplish a learning objective.

Closing Thoughts

As a new teacher and educational technologist, I see tools and teachers interface.  Some well; Some not so well.  But what I’m learning is that it’s really about the student.  It’s about helping them get to the destination of what they need to learn by whatever means necessary.  If it requires laptops, I feel like it’s my job as a teacher to understand how to use and teach with the laptop.  If it’s a mobile phone, I feel like it’s my job to understand how to use that tool and leverage it to teach to my students.  Regardless of what the tool is, it’s my responsibility as both a teacher and learner to interface with my students, as well as technologies, to bridge the gap and help them learn.

References

• Choice Hotels (2009). Choice Hotels – now available through your iPhone.  Retrieved April 11, 2009, from http://www.choicehotels.com/ires/en-US/html/Mobile
• Internet World Statistics (2009).  Retrieved March 28, 2009 from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
• Murph, D. (2009). UN Report: 6 in 10 People Worldwide Use Cell Phones. Retrieved March 28, 2009, from http://www.switched.com/2009/03/03/un-report-6-in-10-people-worldwide-use-cell-phones/
• Prensky, M (2009). What Can You Learn from a Cell Phone?  Almost Anything!  Retrieved April 4, 2009, from http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83
• Traylor, S. (2009).  The Future Is In Your Hand  -  An Interview with Cathleen Norris and Elliot Soloway.  Retrieved April 4, 2009 from http://www.techlearning.com/article.aspx?id=14752#article1
  
• Download PDF of this article

Additional Resource

Visit Dr. Soloway’s and Dr. Norris’ blog on these and more topics:  http://blogs.districtadministration.com/techdisruptions/

Article Summary

M. David Merrill’s First Principles of Instruction makes an effort to identify fundamental methods that are true within all sound instruction. These methods are design principles that can be applied to instructional programs and/or practices (Merrill, 2002). Merrill’s vision for how people learn and how quality instruction is derived appears to be rooted in his component display theory (i.e., an instructional design theory). In First Principles, Merrill goes on to address effective learning environments that are facilitated when using instructional prescriptions:

• learning is facilitated when learners are engaged in solving real world tasks (task-centered principle)
• learning is promoted when learners activate prior knowledge or experience (activation principle)
• learning is facilitated when new knowledge is demonstrated/shown (demonstration principle)
• learning is facilitated when new knowledge is applied to the learner (application principle)
• learning is facilitated when learner is able to integrate their new knowledge into their everyday life (integration principle)

References

Merrill, M.D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43-59.

Article Review

Bryan Alexander’s Deepening the Chasm: Web 2.0, Gaming, and Course Management Systems (CMS) offers different ways for course management systems to connect with web 2.0 and gaming. Alexander, Director of Emerging Technologies for the National Institute for Technology and Liberal Education (NITLE  http://www.nitle.org/), addresses how course management systems can learn strategically and conceptually from Web 2.0 and gaming. The article recognizes the advances that have taken place in the digital world as well as the gaps that have surfaced in academia as a result of it not being prepared to think outside of the box. The article explains how academia has struggled with emerging technologies like gaming to stimulate student learning and enhance pedagogical substance. Alexander says that “games have emerged as learning objects in themselves, pedagogically aimed content containers (Prensky 2001, Shaffer 2007).” He goes on to illustrate how educators have used games in the past (i.e., off the shelf games) but that most educators in higher education lack the ingenuity to create their own games for their course. However, Alexander does provide examples of educators who have innovated gaming by modifying off-the-shelf games for pedagogical applications (e.g., Civilization; MIT’s Revolution, or the Arden project; see also the Arden’s project lead’s self-criticism, Alexander, 2008).

In terms of course management systems, Alexander suggests that the leading course management company within higher education, Blackboard, has done nothing with gaming. Alexander goes on to demonstrate how Blackboard’s architecture hinders the attributes of web 2.0 (e.g., it has a restrictive platform that prevents social networking and the integration of microcontent – the essence of web 2.0). Alexander ends the article by identifying how the chasm can be crossed. For example, he suggest that course management systems should not limit the open web and prevent linking or a student from adding relevant links or embedded media or microcontent.

References

Alexander, B. (2008) “Deepening the Chasm: Web 2.0, Gaming, and Course Management Systems (June 2008). Retrieved October 2008 from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no2/alexander0608.htm

Summary
“How People Learn” is a product of the National Research Council that explores pedagogically relevant research in the areas of brain-based learning theory, cognitive learning theory, socio-cultural learning theory, and more. Though originally published in 2000, the distillation of information into key findings and their potential application to teaching and learning helps this volume retain its value to educators and education researchers.

Commentary
Our discussion was restricted to chapter 1 – “Learning: From speculation to science”, and provided an opportunity for OAT staff to review the historical development of scholars’ understanding of how people learn. However, the real value of the work becomes apparent in the opening discussions on 3 key findings in learning research, which are:

1. Students come to the learning process with preconceptions which may inhibit learning, and to which they may revert if they are not exposed and examined,
2. Students need to develop a depth of factual knowledge, beyond the ability to repeat facts and trivia,
3. It is important to not only train students in metacognitive strategies, but to also integrate metacognition into our instructional practice.

These three key findings are the springboard for a number of implications for teaching, and the design of environments that nurture the learning process. The implications for teaching include:

• Teachers must draw out and work with the pre-existing understandings students bring to the learning process.
• It is important that teachers teach some subject matter in depth, providing a firm foundation of factual knowledge.
• The teaching of metacognitive skills must be integrated into the curriculum.

With an emphasis on “understanding”, the authors point out a couple interesting misconceptions. First, confusing a constructivist theory of knowledge with a theory of knowing. That is, some mistakenly assume that applying constructivist principles to teaching and learning means the teacher never tells the students anything directly. Obviously, it is critical that students explore concepts and issues. However, the need for students to develop a solid foundation of factual knowledge requires some direct instruction from the teacher. Another misconception noted in the chapter is mistaking hands-on learning for learning with understanding. The authors highlight the importance of ongoing formative assessments that help make students’ growth in understanding visible to both teacher and student. This is especially important in our role as technology mentors and coaches, given the appropriate context, to lead faculty to a better understanding of applying technology rather than merely providing a list of steps to follow.

The implications for designing classroom environments (or any learning environment) are:

1. Classrooms must be learner centered. That is to say, instructors must take pains to know their students (culture, need for scaffolding, etc.), and manage the level of difficulty in learning activities so as to keep students challenged, but not so challenging as to discourage them.
2. A learner-centered environment is knowledge-centered. That is, the goal is for students to understand, not to merely accumulate facts. According to the authors, “Knowledge-centered environments also look beyond engagement as the primary index of successful teaching” (p.24).
3. Ongoing formative assessments designed to make students’ thinking visible to both teachers and students are essential. It is important to for the teacher to accurately understand students’ preconceptions in order to know where they are in the learning process.
4. Learning is fundamentally affected by its context. Nurturing and guarding a healthy sense of community enables students to learn more effectively. The community described in this chapter is characterized by a number of characteristics such as, feeling safe in asking questions, admitting you don’t know the answer, trust, belonging, common goals and purposes, and more.

The importance of community in both the traditional and online classrooms has its own body of literature that deserves a broader hearing and application in higher education. A few key research articles on the importance of community in learning are listed below.

R. M.
oat-research-summaryrm10_30_08
Bransford, J. et. al. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

———————————————————————
Research on the impact of community on student learning and persistence

Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Social presence theory and implications for building online communities. Paper presented at the Third International Symposium on Telecommunications in Education, Albuquerque, NM.

Gunawardena, C. N. (1995) Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1, 147-166.

Gunawardena, C.N., & Zittle, F.J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26.

Kim, A.J. (2000). Community building on the web. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press.

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23.

Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Palloff, R.M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Rovai, A.P. (2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(3), 197-211.

Rovai, A. P., Cristol, D. S., & Lucking, R. (2001). Building classroom community at a distance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA, April 12, 2001. http://caret.iste.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=studySummary&studyid=401

Sarason, S. (1974). The psychological sense of community: Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wegerif, R. (1998). The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1). http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/v2n1_wegerif.asp

Woods, R., & Ebersole, S. (2003a). Social networking in the online classroom: Foundations of effective online learning. EJournal, 12-13(1). http://www.ucalgary.ca/ejournal/archive/v12-13/v12-13n1Contents.html

Woods, R., & Ebersole, S. (2003b). Using non-subject-matter-specific discussion boards to build connectedness in online learning. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 99-118.

Baird & Fisher make a compelling argument that social networking and social media can support neomillennial learning styles in both online and face to face models of education. Rooted deeply in adult and social learning theories, the concept of social networking and social media to enhance student learning has become not an emerging trend, but a necessity.

The basic theories to support these new design strategies are largely based on Knowels and Mager. They assert five learning assumptions about adult learning, which include self concept, experience, readiness to learn, orientation to learning, and a motivation to learn (p. 6). From this theory, Baird and Fisher tie pedagogy, and andragogy and learning outcomes to applications in educational technology.

Baird & Fisher use research by Gagne as a baseline to tie theory and pedagogy to educational technology. He Gagne developed “9 Types of Instructional Events” (p. 7) that is which are the lens through which learning is viewed. They note, “This is a unique way of understanding the way that external instructional events, such as social media, can lead to internal learning processes and forseeing ways that new technologies can empower improved modes for learning.” (p. 7).

Commentary

Although they get a bit too far into the weeds with when expounding on HTML code and more back-end technical specifications, they do make some great discoveries regarding the possible applications of some social media including podcasting, wikis, tagging, and blogs. One of the article’s greatest strengths is it’s its bibliography which was filled more with HTML links rather than academic journals. This is a sign that research is rare on these topics and more writing and publishing is required. A consideration that is still debated however is the concept that neomillenials are “wired” to use these tools while more adult learners are not. The jury is still out whether this is something that should be debated. Further research is definitely needed in this area to determine if age gives learners an edge when using social media.

———-

Baird, D. E., & Fisher, M. (2006). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: utilizing social networking media to support “always on” learning styles. Journal of educational technology systems. 34(1), 5.

Download PDF