The presentation will be structured as follow. The talk will first provide an introduction to the theory behind the Socio-Cultural Ecology (Pachler, Bachmair and Cook, 2010) and the notion of User-generated contexts (Cook, Pachler and Bachmair, accepted), which Cook (2009) has refined into an analytical tool called a ‘typology-grid’ (see below). The talk will then demonstrate how the typology-grid has been successfully been used to analyse and learn from the ALPS and conclude by inviting a critique of the typology-grid.

1. Using Theory to Review and to Plan the Blending of Mobile
Learning into Practice
Learning Technology Research Institute and HALE,
DLD Seminar: 18 November 2010, 11am, TMG-61, North
Campus
John Cook
Learning Technology Research Institute
London Metropolitan University

2. Email: john.cook@londonmet.ac.uk
Home page: http://staffweb.londonmet.ac.uk/~cookj1/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/johnnigelcook
Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/johnnigelcook
Music wiki: http://johnnigelcook.wetpaint.com/page/Music
Johnnigelcook
or Jonni Gel Cook!

3. Jargon Buster
• MOBILE LEARNING. “Mobile learning – as we
understand it – is not about delivering content to
mobile devices but, instead, about the processes of
coming to know and being able to operate successfully
in, and across, new and ever changing contexts and
learning spaces. And, it is about understanding and
knowing how to utilise our everyday life-worlds as
learning spaces. Therefore, in case it needs to be
stated explicitly, for us mobile learning is not primarily
about technology.” (Pachler, Bachmair and Cook,
2010, p. 6)

4. Structure
• The talk will first provide an introduction to
– the theory behind the Socio-Cultural Ecology (Pachler, Bachmair
and Cook, 2010)
– the notion of User-generated contexts (Cook, Pachler and
Bachmair, accepted)
– which Cook has refined into an analytical tool called a ‘typology-
grid’
• Demonstrate how the typology-grid has been
successfully used to analyse and learn from the ALPS
CETL (Assessment and Learning in Practice Settings)
• Conclude by inviting a critique of the typology-grid

5. Framework : “Socio-Cultural Ecology” (Pachler,
Bachmair and Cook, 2010)
• Grounds readers by offering
– theoretical and conceptual models
– analytical framework for understanding the issues
• Recommendations for specialised resources
• Practical examples of mobile learning
– in formal (school) as well as informal educational
settings
• Particularly with at-risk students

7. Macro framework:
Socio-Cultural Ecology
• Structures (digital tools and media)
– educational institutions no longer define alone what learning and
knowledge are and they are certainly no longer the only, even the main
location where learning and knowledge can be accessed and takes
place.
– From push to pull, change of mass communication and media
convergence
– individualised mobile mass communication and social fragmentation into
different milieus.
• Agency (capacity to act on the world)
– formation of identity and subjectivity
– environment a potential resource for learning
– different habitus of learning and media attitudes; a new habitus of
learning is one of the characteristics of at risk-learners.
• Cultural practices (routines in stable situations)
– Institutional settings, be they school, university, the work place etc.
– Media use in everyday life (includes informal/non-formal)

8. • Although he does not use the term ‘context’ in
the way we envisage, we draw on Giddens’
(1984, p. 17) proposition that
• “social systems, as reproduced social practices,
do not have ‘structures’ but rather exhibit
‘structural properties’ and that structure exists …
only in its instantiations in such practices and as
memory traces orienting the conduct of
knowledgeable human agents”.

9. • Structure is, therefore, not simply external to human
context and action, a current context is: instantiated in
practice; is informed by experience, history, and
temporal patterns of behavior; and manifests itself in the
form of structural properties through multimodal
interaction with media.
• As a consequence of these structural changes, the
nature of learning is changing as mode of meaning
making and users are actively engage in generating their
own content and contexts for learning. We call this user-
generated contexts.

10. Micro framework: User-
Generated Contexts
• Cook et al (accepted) suggest we should
be looking at the student- or user-
generated contexts as
– Zones of Proximal Development or ZPD
(Vygotsky, 1978/1930)
– Situated Learning (Lave and Wenger (1990)
– Or conversational threads (Laurillard, 2002)

11. User-Generated Contexts
• The nature of learning is being
‘augmented’
– Citizens/users are now actively engaged in
generating their own content and contexts for
learning
– Calling this User Generated Contexts (UGC)
• UGC is a micro view of ‘context’

12. User-Generated Contexts
• Situated Learning
– learning that takes place in the same 'context' in which it is applied
– there is a link between meaning-making and situation/site of
practice
– (Lave and Wenger (1990); for discussion see Pachler, Bachmair
and Cook, 2010)
• But for me you can get
– contexts within contexts
– you can learn across contexts
– and this blurs things
• “Context” is a slippery notion

13. User-Generated Contexts
• Users of mobile digital devices are being
‘afforded’ synergies of knowledge distributed
across local, augmented and virtual:
– people
– communities
– location
– time (life-course)
– social contexts and sites of practice (like socio-
cultural milieus)
– systems, structures and media

14. User-Generated Contexts
• mobile digital devices are mediating access to
external representations of knowledge in a
manner that provides access to cultural
resources.
• This dynamic digital tool mediation of meaning-
making allows users to negotiate and construct
internal conceptualisations of knowledge and to
make social uses of knowledge in and across
specific sites or contexts of learning.

15. Typology-Grid
Intervention or
innovation using
networked handheld
device – the “who what
where when how”
- is it a radical (R) or
incremental (I)
Cultural
practices –
things
people do,
i.e. “stable
routines”
Structure
s – digital
media,
tech-
nologies,
and
systems
Agency
–
human
capacity
to act in
the
world
Micro
dimensi
ons
Key questions
•Which Cultural Practices does this intervention or innovations relate to, build upon,
challenge etc?
•What Structures does it utilise? Are these “standard” or “bespoke”?
•How does Agency (human capacities to act in the world) affect the intervention, or how is
the intervention dependent on Agency?

16. Assessment and Learning in Practice Settings (ALPS) ©
http://www.alps-cetl.ac.uk
Involving 16 professions across the partnership, from Audiology
to Social Work
ALPS CETL
Five Higher Education Institutions
Three Commercial Partners
Supported by

17. The ALPS Assessment
Cycle (Group A)

18. Group B

19. Using the framework for review / findings of lessons learnt (Group A)
Intervention or
innovation using
networked mobile device
– the “who what where
when how”
- is it a radical (R) or
incremental (I)
Cultural practices –
things people do, i.e.
“stable routines”
Structures – digital
media, technologies,
and systems
Agency – human
capacity to act in the
world
Micro
dimensions
e.g. User
Generated
Contexts:
active
learning,
reflection,
attention,
etc
Mobiles being taken by
students into Practice (to
use for assessment and
learning) (R)
- Project assumed
student
familiarity with
mobile
technology
(digital natives)
but students
didn’t have
experience of
Smart Phones
(in 2007).
Bodies: professional,
statutory and
regulatory bodies
(PSRBs) , Health
Trusts, Universities,
ALPS Partnerships.
Technologies:
encryption software,
mobile devices,
mobile networks,
email.
- Student experience
in using devices
(but text/calls were
normal use and
project showed that
many students were
not familiar with the
use of the smart phone
functions)
Facebook
was heavily
used but
not for
learning
(+MSN)
- BUT in
the early
mobile
pilots the
students
rejected the
use of
Facebook
for learning

20. Using the framework for planning (Group B)
Examples of issues highlighted
Intervention or innovation using networked mobile device
If intervention is radical, means more need to justify the
investment…ROI analysis of iphone project
Cultural practices
We need to bear in mind the difference between surgical and
medical wards as a barrier/factor in m-learning
Structures
*Interesting to see if there is an improvement in students search
terms over time?
Micro dimensions
Can we find out what form of conversational threads they have?
Can we find out what peer learning/ support/ evaluation of these
devices happens on facebook/ twitter/ Ning etc?

21. Explanation of why ALPS had to address
security and control issues (Group A)
Cultural practices –
things people do, i.e.
“stable routines”
- not allowing
student use of wi-fi
and PCs. Official
Trust policy.
- Official Health
Trust policy to ban
use of mobile
devices (in 2007
though this did
change over the
lifetime of the
project) BUT
(unofficially)
Consultants did use
them as did some
patients
Structures – digital
media, technologies,
and systems
Comment by team b
at plenary: are
structures seen to
only supportive or
can they be
barriers?
Bodies: PSRB,
Health Trusts,
Universities, ALPS
Partnerships.
Technologies:
encryption software,
mobile devices,
mobile networks,
email.
Agency – human
capacity to act in the
world
- Student
responsibility to
decide when and
how to use device
(appropriate use).

22. Assessment and Learning in Practice Settings (ALPS) ©
http://www.alps-cetl.ac.uk
Using the framework for
planning (Group B)
Intervention or innovation
using networked mobile
device
Cultural practices Structures Agency Micro dimensions
Using i-phones to support
students in practice through
online reference books,
reflective exercises in the
progress file and assessments
This is a radical intervention
for the student and assessor
as it changes how we do
things and encourages
immediacy of assessment and
feedback. For faculty this is a
less radical intervention as
we started the work 3 years
ago.
Dissonance between cultural
practices within NHS, HEI
etc to start with mean that
stable routines are always
threatened anyway
The culture is that mobile
phones are for personal and
social use so their use for
learning is a disruption to
routine/thinking etc
Mobile phones have been
seen as disruptive in NHS
practice and a disruption to
teaching culture
Iphones
Apple
e-portfolio
University servers
Twitter/facebook/flickr etc
The internet
e-books
Medhand
O2
OUP
Anything that allows anytime
any pace learning
Survey of pre and post test
behaviours*
How might the iphone help
students to extend their ZPD
zone? (Vygotsky)
So- customization of
feedback and assessment,
immediate information search
and delivery function, help
clinical decision making,
ability to capture evidence
and store it
Is the PDA a boundary
object? (see Coulby et al
2009)
Will all this access and self
directed learning result in the
student becoming more
accepted within the CoP?
(Lave and Wenger)
Learner opportunities-
students as critical evaluators
that can access, appraise and
apply information
Empowered learners that
have less reliance n clinical
team for the smaller things?
Assessment data
Evidence from progress file-
reflections, photos, audio
Social networks- CoP
Changes in use of iphone
over time- ie diagnosaurus
loads at start of year, more
drug ref only at end
(scaffolding and fading,
Vygotsky)

23. Group A feedback on use of
framework
• Difficult to use at first.
• Helped to be able to discuss in a group.
• Structures was hardest “maybe because least interesting?”
• Cultural Practice seemed to take on the role of the practices we want to
challenge.
• Agency ended up being what we want to achieve
• Micro column came last and tended to fall out
• It did help, got a lot out of the exercise
• Engaging in what we aare planning in a deep and structured way helps
• However, you do need to know about theory to get more out of it, e.g. ZPD.
And did need JC’s talk at the beginning.
• Provides a lens for us to look at our work.
• We didn’t allow phone calls and were not really sure where that fitted in the
structure.

24. Group B feedback on use of
framework
• May be useful for planning as it provides a way for you to way in which you
can step forward.
• Cultural Practices tended to be seen as barriers
• Micro dimensions of learning looked at towards end
• Helped to analyse what happened: “being forced to break things down can
help generate an explanation as to why you took a particular course of
action, for example because this Cultural Practice stood in the way”.
• Our analysis using the framework also highlighted that we used a lot of
Information Systems services and that we incremental in that we used
traditional approaches like assessment.
• The red text tend to show things we thought would work (but didn’t?) or is
something we missed, e.g. a Cultural Practice that stopped us.

25. Overall feedback on use of
framework
• Hard at first but things that were worthwhile came out of it
• May be worth for each part to have spate columns of enabling/disabling
factors.
• Did we follow the boxes in a linear fashion? No ...
• “Really enjoyed it”.
And next day by email from Project Manager:
• “Hi John, Thank you very much indeed for the workshop yesterday. I found it
really interesting and the model was a very useful tool to use to help us to
analyse our past work and plan our future work. It was also fun! I've already
had a lot of feedback from the others saying the same thing. Viktoria (who is
moving on from ALPS to manage projects in sociology) has said that she is
interested in looking at using the model in other areas as well as she found
it very helpful.”

26. Discussion
• When using the framework for planning it
seemed that the most useful outcome was a set
of questions or issues raised by the analysis
which could then be used to help to plan the
work.
• The issues either highlighted possible barriers
that would need to be overcome (usually in the
cultural practices or structures area) or new
ways in which structures or agency (human
behaviour) could be used to help the project
itself.

27. Summary Examples of issues
highlighted
Intervention or innovation using networked mobile device
• If intervention is radical, means more need to justify the
investment…ROI analysis of iPhone project
Cultural practices
• We need to bear in mind the difference between surgical and
medical wards as a barrier/factor in m-learning
Structures
• Interesting to see if there is an improvement in students search
terms over time?
Micro dimensions
• Can we find out what form of conversational threads they have?
• Can we find out what peer learning/ support/ evaluation of these
devices happens on facebook/ twitter/ Ning etc?

28. Questions that could be used to
guide debate
• Did you discover anything new using the
typology?
• Did you find the typology easy to use and/or
helpful?
• How does it compare to any other
models/theories you have used to help analyse
or plan mobile learning?
• Have you got any questions or comments about
the typology?
• Have you got any suggestions for changes to
the typology or to the way that it is used?

29. References
Cook, J., Pachler, N. and Bachmair, B. (accepted).
Ubiquitous Mobility with Mobile Phones: A Cultural
Ecology for Mobile Learning. E-Learning and Digital
Media. Special Issue on Media: Digital, Ecological and
Epistemological.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of
the Theory of Structuration, University of California
Press. 1984. Reprint edition 1986
Laurillard, D.(2002). Rethinking University Teaching: A
Framework for the Effective Use of Learning
Technologies, 2nd ed. London: Routledge Falmer
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1990). Situated learning:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press

30. References
Pachler, N., Bachmair, B. and Cook, J. (2010). Mobile Learning:
Structures, Agency, Practices. New York: Springer.
Schütz, A. (1932) Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Eine
Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie.Wien, Verlag Julius
Springer. English translation: The phenomenology of the social
world. Northwestern University Press. Evanstone 1967
Schütz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1984) ‘Strukturen der Lebenswelt’. Band
2. 3. Auflage. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp
Vygotsky, L. (1978 / 1930). Mind in society. The development of higher
psychological processes. Edited by M. Cole et al., Cambridge, MA.
Harvard University Press.