 |
| flickr.com/grade6kms/5103565561/ |
With
so many devices being developed and launched it is hard to keep up with
what tools are available. When thinking about including some form of
m-learning into teaching and learning, it is easy to start with the
device and ask what can be done with it. It is also easy to think about
including a device in a lesson simply to engage learners, rather than
considering whether the activity is enhanced by using a device
(Brooks-Young 2010). Fisher (2010) talks about the need to create strong
pedagogical frameworks when choosing a device or tool to use as opposed
to "..inserting it into a lesson plan in a surface level way".
Caudill
(2007) suggests that the frameworks and theories in m-learning are
essentially the same as in e-learning since both are about blending and
integrating technology into learning and teaching to enhance a broader
learning experience.
However, the Mobilearn Conference
in 2004 (Mellow 2005) discussed the idea that m-learning is in fact a
sub-set of e-learning. It suggests that m-learning should be considered
in a blended learning context since m-devices are rarely used to teach a
whole program of study or to deliver an entire course or module.
To
break down the idea of 'good' m-learning practice, Sanchez-Terrell
(2011) looks at what makes it effective, which is when learners...
- choose the content
- interact with...objects and experiences
- are moving around with the device
- are motivated to expand learning outside the classroom
- work collaboratively
Further,
Float Learning suggest that the basics of good m-learning include:
- content which is "bite-sized, train-stop sized, waiting room sized"
- "may or may not have an assessment component but is measurable"
- "easy to use..contextual"
Mellow (2005) similarly talks about the size of the learning in
that m-learning devices are often good for 'chunking' content into
'bite-sized' portions that can be accessed and completed in a relatively
short time. Mellow also discusses "'knowledge bites' that offer
flexibility of time, place and pace" (p2)
In
researching m-learning pedagogy, I came across the idea of 'Digigogy'.
Mike Fisher (2010) talks about the emergence of digigogy and explains
this is the crossover between technology and pedagogy.
"Where pedagogy is about methods to instruct, Digigogy is about those
methods, but with a technological frame. From hardware to software,
from tech ed theory to application, Digigogy is about reframing our
methods in the future of instruction. The new way of learning is a
complete tear down and rebuild of traditional teaching, where learning
is a joint effort and roles are reborn. Beyond the desks...beyond the
walls...beyond the school. The new classroom is orbital, and scenic,
and here"
The
idea of a 'digigogy' is interesting and seems relevant to the changes
taking place in education and learning. There is a shift towards
collaborative work, sharing
within learning communities, and personal project-based, practical
experiences. As these changes develop further in the future so should
our pedagogy that underpins education. A 21st Century pedagogy is
outlined below:
Finally,
since what we ask the students to do and how we allow them to do it is
changing, will the focus of our assessment change? An interesting point
discussed by Devaney (2008, cited
in Brooks-Young 2010) highlights a pilot program in Australia which,
rather than assessing the students' ability to memorise information,
looked at their ability to find it. With information all around us via
m-devices, will the future of education shift from memorising to
collating or currating?
Brooks-Young. S (ed) (2010) Teaching with the tools kids really use. Corwin Press.
Caudill. J (2007) The growth of M-learning and the Growth of Mobile
Computing: Parallel Development. International review of research in
open and distance Learning 8.2 works/bepress.com/jason-caudill/4
Sanchez-Terrell. S (2011) Effective mobile learning: 50+ quick tips and resources. http://scribd.com/mobile/documents/67369598
