Dr. Kevin Burden outlines how the use of mobile technologies (tablets and phones) can be enhanced by the use of carefully designed and researched mobile pedagogies
8. • personal deployment of
devices = high impact
• students use technology
more frequently and
naturalistically
• classroom dynamics and
learning activities change
• alternative forms of
assessment become feasible
9. • ‘buy in’ and adoption from
teachers is straightforward
• students and teachers learn
to use tablets experientially
• collaborative activities (e.g.
peer coaching) increase
• homework morphs into
extension work
10. • parents are more engaged
in their children’s school
work
• students believe they learn
more with the device
• students assume greater
responsibility for their own
learning
• robust and extended wi-fi
connectivity is essential
11. • students are more
productive and creative
• learning is more
personalised
• formal and informal
contexts for learning are
‘bridged’ more easily
12. Rogers Technology Adoption Model
Adoption Rate
The
chasm
Early
adopters
Innovators
visionaries
enthusiasts
Want to
use technology
Early
majority
pragmatists
Late majority
conservatives
Laggards
skeptics
Want technology to provide
solutions and convenience
Time
Source: Rogers
14. ta
Da
sh
ng
ari
Co
nv
er
sat
ion
Collaboration
A pedagogical framework
for mobile learning
nte
Co
se
al i
x tu
Ag
en
cy
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012)
Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective,
Research in Learning Technology
Vol. 20, 2012
d
Customisation
Personalisation
Situated
Authenticity
15. LOW
MEDIUM
Negotiated outcomes
External control
Personalization
‘One size fits all’:
‘just in case’
HIGH
Agency
Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’
Customization
Realistic
Contrived
Authenticity
Contextualization
Embedded: real
practice
Simulated
Situated
Networked: rich
Solitary: disconnected
Collaboration
Conversational
Context sharing
Content building
Data sharing
16. LOW
MEDIUM
Negotiated outcomes
External control
Personalization
‘One size fits all’:
‘just in case’
HIGH
Agency
Tailored fit: ‘Just in time’
Customization
Realistic
Contrived
Authenticity
Contextualization
Embedded: real
practice
Simulated
Situated
Solitary: disconnected
Collaboration
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Networked: rich
Conversational
Context sharing
Content building
Data sharing
21. Educational Research Design
• to co-design, develop and evaluate specific
pedagogies associated with mobile and tablet
devices
• iterative prototyping with interested teachers
• both practical and theory building
• website and community:
40
25. Dr. Kevin Burden
The Centre for
Educational Studies
The Faculty of Education
The University of Hull
k.j.burden@hull.ac.uk
07815184477
45
Hinweis der Redaktion
Could be called: Three Models and a Challenge - Distinctive Pedagogies for Tablet Computers
As long back as ancient times physicians and doctors like Hippocrates knew that the bark of this tree (the willow) when ground down (powder) produced a compound with great analgesic powers to reliev a wide variety of minor aliment and pains including inflammation and headaches.
It continued to be used as a remedy for hundreds of years until in the 1860s it was identified as acetylsalicylic acid’
In 1899 Bayer (the US pharmaceutical company) patented this chemical as Aspirin but it was not until 1971 that John Robert Vane actually discovered the mechanism behind this drug.
Since John Vane made his discovery numerous other applications have been developed moving far beyond the original purpose which was simple pain relief - it is now used extensively to prevent heart attacks and strokes
The use of technology in general, and mobile computers and tablets devices like the ipad, in particular follows a similar pattern to that I have just described.
Given the recency of these devices (2008 for mobiles and 2010 for iPads) we have already collected considerable amounts of evidence about what works and does not work.
For example, even from the relatively small number of genuine studies which have been undertaken in the use of mobile devices and tablet devices in particular we know the following activities or pedagogical patterns appear to work very well:
The followers
The patron saint
Apple as a religion: a faith = the followers believe it will make the World a better place, even though there may be little direct prof available at the moment.
Apple experts as the evangelists or disciples of the cult
The confessional booths;desks
Stage 1 - Technology Triggers (touch screen)
* characterised by proof of concept and media stories (Need image from papers here)
* seldom a usable product exists - therefore viability is unproven
Stage 2: Peak - early publicity fuels triggers of success stories - some companies take action (most do not)
Stage 3: Trough - interest wanes as implementations and experiments fail
* producers fail or move on
*investment limited to those providers who improve their offering in the light of what early adopter wants
Stage 4: slope of enlightenment
* more successful examples begin to emerge to show real benefits
* 2nd and 3rd generation products emerge
* more funding for pilots
*conservative enterprises remain cautious (is this where we are now?)
Stage 5: Plauteau:
*mainstream adoption begins
* criteria for assessing and measuring viability and effectiveness are well established
*broad market applicability paying off
The juxtaposing of both models suggest different groups and individuals will be further along the Hype cycle than others
1. innovators have alrerady scaled the Peak experienced the trough - through the first wave of tablet PCs (i.e. pen driven)
2. they have now moved on with the next generation of devices to the slope (2nd and 3rd wave generations - e.g. iPods and iPads) and the plateu, followed now by the early adopters who are the trend setters:
3. approaching the plateau - seeking ways top meausure their success (more of this later)
This phase is characteristed by
BUT important to remember the early majority (34%) are now following them - some points to make about their adoption patterns
1. Do they need to follow the same route - i.e. false expectations dahsed: probably not (can learn from others - in school this may be through champions and sharing - e.g. TeachMeets)
2. Note this group will follow but are not natural innovators - they will do so when they see it how it fits in with their current lives and ways of working (in practice this may mean becoming familiar with the technology at home - comon in many studies now -
3. BUT - they are unlikely to want to use this technology to change the current way things are done (i.e. to be transfromational) - this needs to be driven elesewhere
By the time innovators and early adopters reach Roger’s plateau they are well versed in the technology itself and are looking to establish tools and criteria to measure or evaluate the value of these initiatives. This is where we are approaching with some individuals and schools now. How do they do this?
One way - SAMR
good to measure where you or your school are in relation to technolgy use generally
Little value as a formmative tool, however, to help you or your organisation progress
But despite all of this evidence to indicate what works and what works less well, we are still unclear about why or how these particular technologies achieve these outcomes. We do not yet undertsand the DNA code which would enable us to extend and generalise what works to new settings and indeed into new, as yet unexplored, pedagogical patterns. Partly because our research tends to be descriptive rather than explanatory or even prescriptive (as in medicine). We need to adopt a new research paradigm to achieve this. What some researchers as calling, working in Pasteur’s Quadrant. Doing this using a research approach called Educational Design Research
To support this form of research we are using a largely theoretical framework for mobile learning developed between myself and colleagues at the University of Technology, Sydney. It identifies three broad
areas to investigate and within this six strands or designs
Low = exchange of content
High = creation and sharing of contexts
Low = exchange of content
High = creation and sharing of contexts
1.Teachers are generally very capable and fluent in their pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) – i.e. they understand how different pedagogical patterns will be more/or less effective in helping students to understand particular bodies of subject knowledge. The difficulties lies in understanding how, when and under what circumstances technology is part of this equation (TPCK- Mishra and Koeller) – the personal ownership of a device like the iPad brings this equation into play in a big way and teachers have probably not been equipped or prepared for this in their training