Pass the SoLT

I came across this article by Park (2011) on mobile learning a couple of weeks ago. At the time I made a note to read the article more closely as it outlines an interesting pedagogical framework which adapts and builds on transactional theory of distance education. Having taken a closer look I think the proposed framework has considerable value in helping to understand the affordances and educational potential of mobile learning.

I have to admit that until I started seriously using my iPhone I was somewhat skeptical of the claims made about this latest area of techno-hype. But history has already shown the impact the iPhone and more recently the iPad have had on patterns of learning, especially in informal settings. About a year ago at least three colleagues reported to me how their new iPhone (could have been any type of smart phone) had changed their life. Their comments still resonate with me and since then I have taken more notice of the literature in this area.

That said, I have yet to find well documented research on the use of m-learning in the design and delivery of distance education. Although the paper does not fill this gap, its major contribution is an interesting description of four types of mobile learning for DE with relevant examples:

1) high transactional distance socialized m-learning
2) high transactional distance individualized m-learning
3) low transactional distance socialized m-learning, and
4) low transactional distance individualized m-learning.

Because the paper is published in an open access journal (IRRODL), I'll leave it for you to read the full description of each type and to judge the relative merits of the proposed framework. All I can say from my limited analysis of the literature is that I concur with Park that a robust and insightful theoretical framework in which to understand the diverse opportunities mobile learning makes possible in the context of distance education has been lacking. And this paper helps to move the conversation forward in a thought-proking pedagogical manner.

Reference

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types . The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12 (2), Available from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/791/1699

I spent more hours than I would like to admit over the Xmas break exploring the features of my new iPhone. I don't think I'm close to the 90 apps that a colleague has downloaded on his phone, but I do have an impressive variety of applications. They range from 'Quick Office', which gives me full Office functionality, to TwitBird Pro to read and publish tweets, the 2009 OECD Factbook and an assortment of games, including several versions of Solitaire.

However, it hasn't been all play and I have to confess to downloading several ebooks on my iPhone, such as John Kotter's Learning Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail and Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. I've yet to download one of Michael Fullan's seminal works on educational change to balance the business speak of my current ebook selection.

Since acquiring my iPhone, I've been reflecting on the impact it has had on my life and work patterns. More to the point, the iPhone has renewed my interest in the potential of m-Learning and reminded me how important it is to have access to technology in order to truly evaluate its potential. Basically it's a hen and egg situation in that if you don't have access to the latest gadget, then you don't know what you don't know.

With this point in mind, I attended a full-day workshop today hosted at Massey University by Professor Mohamed Ally on the topic of m-Learning. Mohamed is the Director of the Centre for Distance Education at Athabasca University in Canada. He's also the author and editor of an open access book on m-Learning, entitled Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training, published by Athabasca Press.

The workshop provided some interesting examples of initiatives underway around the world and discussed how many developing countries appear to have embraced the potential of m-Learning, and in so doing jumped a generation of desktop and laptop technology. However, there is a sense of technological determinism in this observation as John Pilger reminds us that despite huge advancements in technology over the last 50 years, the wealth gap between developed and developing countries has more than doubled. Can we really expect m-Learning to solve some of the deeper structural injustices of the global economy?

There is also a sense in which thinking about mobile technology is ahead of deeper considerations of how to exploit its pedagogical potential. This point was evident in a number of examples. Nevertheless, the workshop was successful in revealing some of the challenges facing tertiary and higher education providers, especially in New Zealand where broadband and wireless access is underdeveloped.

That said, pragmatically, we can assume that future learners will have greater access to mobile technology and will expect to make regular use of their personal digital assistants for information gathering and learning. Although my own iPhone experience leans towards the value of mobile technology for informal and non-formal learning, formal education providers need to start planning for, and supporting the use of, such devices in all future technology enhanced learning initiatives.

We have a professional responsibility to learners to pilot and explore the potential. In this regard, in New Zealand we can learn from our Australian colleagues where a number projects have been undertaken supported by the Australian Teaching and Learning Council. Some of the more interesting initiatives were reported in 2009 in an open access book, New Technologies, New Pedagogies: Mobile Learning in Higher Education, edited by a team in the Faculty of Education at the University of Wollongong.

Finally, for people who couldn't attend the presentation, the slides from Professor Ally's workshop will be available in due course on the Ako Aotearoa website. Notably, Ako Aotearoa was one of the key sponsors of the workshop series and a special m-Learning interest group is likely to be established as a community on the Ako Website for people with a particular interest. I would expect a reasonable number of people to join this community based on the level of interest and attendance at today's workshop.

At the end of July, I presented a discussion paper at the joint University Council/Senior Leadership Team retreat. My brief was to look over the technology horizon and consider the implications for Massey University.

In preparing the paper, I drew on a number of seminal reports, including the Australia and New Zealand edition of the Horizon Report. I was also grateful for the assistance received from two groups of staff: (i) an expert group with strong interests in the use of new technologies in higher education, and (ii) recently formed Think Tank of Massey teaching award winners (TE@M).

The paper had two parts. Part one provided a brief review of progress on implementing Stream (Moodle) at Massey and described a number of forthcoming initiatives. To keep the paper manageable, the second part identified five major technology developments on the horizon with important implications for Massey. The five major trends are summarised below:

• Open Educational Resources - a new paradigm of open content is emerging (e.g., Wikieducator) which may erode the status and value of traditional study materials.

• Personal Learning Environments - universities have embraced Learning Management Systems (LMS) but a major gap exists between institutional spaces and online social places.

• Mobile Learning – although campuses are awash with mobile technologies they remain hidden in students’ pockets or reinforce conservative and regressive pedagogies.

• eBook Readers – a dynamic market of new digital reading technology is rapidly emerging with potential to transform the way students receive and interact with learning resources.

• Cloud Computing and New Cloudscapes – using cloud-computing efforts are underway to build systems that adapt to the learner providing ‘just in time’, ‘just enough’, ‘just in case’ and ‘just for me’ learning.

The list of major trends is not exhaustive but they collectively pose a number of critical challenges. One such challenge is managing the tension between supporting innovations in technology-enhanced learning at the same time as expecting staff to improve their research productivity.

After describing a number of additional challenges, I concluded by identifying three enduring principles: (i) the fluid nature of the technology landscape, (ii) there is no single super-technology that has all the answers, and (iii) the need to maintain focus on the end user, especially your learners’ needs and what you want them to learn—however unpopular that stance may become.

My central thesis and the key message for the SLT/Council was that a world-class centre of tertiary learning requires great people and great technology. This point acknowledges that the real value of technology is highly dependent on people and the instructional context. In this regard, we need to ask some of the following questions:

• Does our technology support the type of pedagogy and curriculum we want to promote?
• What pedagogical assumptions underpin the technology?
• What conditions are required for technology to augment an exceptional and distinctive learning experience—for all students?
• How easy is it for staff and students to use? Will staff be able to innovate more effectively? Is it scaleable and cost effective?
• Does it make us more responsive to our students?
• Does the technology allow us to grow? Are we able to achieve core functions more effectively?

Such questions recognise that universities will stand out for their quality of blended learning and distance education not because of the technology they have available, but the way they use it. Importantly, there are multiple uses of etools and Sfard (1998) shows no single pedagogy or ‘one size fits all’ model of learning exists. The key thing is to engage staff in serious and ongoing ‘quality conversations’ about the best learning designs and delivery blends for specific courses and programmes.

Finally, any prediction of the future requires a word of caution. The lesson from the past is that we should expect the unexpected and yet to be invented. When it comes to technology there are many forks, twists and potentially blind alleys.