Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: a three-phase design-based research investigation

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This design-based research project examines three iterations of Tree Investigators, a learning environment designed to support science learning outdoors at an arboretum and nature center using mobile devices (iPads). Researchers coded videorecords and artifacts created by children and parents (n = 53) to understand how both social and technological supports influenced observations, explanations, and knowledge about trees. In Iteration 1, families used mobile devices to learn about tree characteristics and identification in an arboretum; in Iteration 2, families used our mobile app about trees’ life cycles and completed a photo-collage task documenting life cycle phases; Iteration 3 used a refined version of the Iteration 2 mobile app with children at a nature center summer camp, along with customized tools embedded into the app for documenting photographic evidence of tree life cycle phases in the forest. Findings suggested: (a) learners engaged in science talk representing observation and explanation practices (perceptual, conceptual, connecting, affective talk), and varying learning conversational patterns emerged based on refinements to design implementations; and (b) making connections between concepts introduced on the mobile app and application of them outdoors was challenging for learners without explicit social and/or technological support during identification tasks; specifically, appropriation of scientific vocabulary, noticing relevant features, and accurately identifying life cycle stages needed structured, on-demand support. Findings point to empirically-based implications for design of socio-technical supports for mobile learning outdoors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 259–304). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baytak, A., & Land, S. M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth-grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(6), 765–782. doi:10.1007/s11423-010-9184-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. S., Kao, T. C., & Sheu, J. P. (2005). Realizing outdoor independent learning with a butterfly-watching mobile learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 33(4), 395–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, K., & Jacobs, M. (2002). Building islands of expertise in everyday family activity. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning conversations in museums (pp. 333–356). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S., Pea, R., Barron, B., Engle, R., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, M., & Dede, C. (2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. In M. J. Bishop & J. Elen (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 735–745). New York: Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eberbach, C. (2009). The effect of parents’ conversational style and disciplinary knowledge on children’s observation of biological phenomena. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh.

  • Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (2000). The museum experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fender, J. G., & Crowley, K. (2007). How parent explanation changes what children learn from everyday scientific thinking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, G., & Konomi, S. (2007). Innovative socio-technical environments in support of distributed intelligence and lifelong learning. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 23, 338–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem solving using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, M. E., & Schauble, L. (2000). Parents’ assistance of their children’s scientific reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 343–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halverson, C. A. (2002). Activity theory and distributed cognition: Or what does CSCW need to DO with theories? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(1–2), 243–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2013). Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Merrienboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 641–651). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., & Land, S. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M. J., Land, S. M., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations and models. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. II). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich, J. E., & Falk, J. H. (2009). Free-choice learning and the environment. In J. H. Falk, J. E. Heimlich, & S. Foutz (Eds.), Free-choice learning and the environment (pp. 11–21). Lanhan, MD: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 203–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsi, S. (2003). A study of user experiences mediated by nomadic web content in a museum. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19(3), 308–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivarsson, J., Schoultz, J., & Säljö, R. (2002). Map reading versus mind reading. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (pp. 77–99). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (2012). Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Constructionism. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 35–46). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., Hannafin, M. J., & Oliver, K. (2012). Student-centered learning environments. In D. Jonassen & S. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S., Smith, B., Park, S., Beabout, B., & Kim, K. (2009). Supporting school-home connections through photojournaling: Capturing everyday experiences of nutrition concepts. Technology Trends, 53(6), 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., Smith, B. K., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2013). Mobile technologies as tools for augmenting observations and reflections in everyday informal environments. In J. M. Spector, B. Lockee, S. Smaldino, & M. Herring (Eds.), Learning, problem solving, and mindtools: Essays in honor of David H. Jonassen (pp. 214–228). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2003). Scaffolding reflection and articulation of scientific explanations in a data-rich, project-based learning environment: An investigation of Progress Portfolio. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S. M., & Zimmerman, H. T. (2014). Synthesizing perspectives on augmented reality and mobile learning. TechTrends, 58(1), 2–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 335–354). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G., & Crowley, K. (1998). Museum learning as conversational elaboration: A proposal to capture, code, and analyze talk in museums. Report available at http://mlc.lrdc.pitt.edu/mlc.

  • Linn, M., & Slotta, J. (2000). WISE science. Educational Leadership, 58(2), 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, T.-C., Peng, H., Wu, W.-H., & Lin, M.-S. (2009). The effects of mobile natural-science learning based on the 5E learning cycle: A case study. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 344–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckin, R. (2010). Learning contexts as ecologies of resources: A unifying approach to the interdisciplinary development of technology-rich learning activities. International Journal on Advances in Life Sciences, 2(3 and 4), 154–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next-generation technology-enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 95–108). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmquist, S., & Crowley, K. (2007). From teachers to testers: How parents talk to novice and expert children in a natural history museum. Science Education, 91(5), 783–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G. (Ed.). (2002). Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions (pp. 47–87). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R., Lindgren, R., & Rosen, J. (2008). Cognitive technologies for establishing, comparing, and sharing perspectives on video over computer networks. Social Science Information, 47, 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polman, J. L., & Miller, D. (2010). Changing stories: Trajectories of identification among African American youth in a science outreach apprenticeship. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 879–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Krajcik, J., Fretz, E., Duncan, R., et al. (2004). A scaffolding design framework for software to support science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 337–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer’s (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 168–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, Y., Price, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Fleck, R., Harris, E., Smith, H., Randell, C., Muller, H., O’Malley, C., Stanton, D., Thompson, M., & Weal, M. (2004). Ambient Wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on IDC (pp. 3–10).

  • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salman, F. H., Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2014). Collective problem solving in a technologically mediated science learning experience: A case study in a garden. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 1, 378–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W., & Bell, P. (2004). Design-based research methods for studying learning in context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 199–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M. (2010). Forward to Education in the wild. In E. Brown (Ed.), Education in the wild: Contextual and location-based mobile learning in action. Retrieved from http://oro.open.ac.uk/29885/.

  • Sharples, N., & Pea, R. D. (2014). Mobile learning. In R. K. Sawyer’s (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 1513–1573). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2005). Explaining behavior through observational investigation and theory articulation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(3), 315–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire, K., & Klopfer, E. (2007). Augmented reality simulations on handheld computers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3), 371–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Staudt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sung, H., Hwang, G., Liu, S., & Chiu, I. (2014). A prompt-based annotation approach to conducting mobile learning activities for architecture design courses. Computers and Education, 76, 80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, T. H., Liu, T. Y., & Chang, C. C. (2007). Development and evaluation of an RFID-based ubiquitous learning environment for outdoor learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscholl, M., & Lindgren, R. (2014). Empowering digital interactions with real world conversations. TechTrends, 58(1), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Matuchniak, T. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yardi, S., & Bruckman, A. (2012). Income, race, and class: exploring socioeconomic differences in family technology use. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3041–3050). ACM.

  • Zimmerman, H. T., & Bell, P. (2014). Where young people see science: Everyday activities connected to science. International Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 25–53. doi:10.1080/21548455.2012.741271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., & Land, S. M. (2014). Facilitating place-based learning in outdoor informal environments with mobile computers. TechTrends, 58(2), 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., Land, S. M., McClain, L. R., Mohney, M. R., Choi, G. W., & Salman, F. H. (2015). Tree investigators: Supporting families and youth to coordinate observations with scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 44–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., McClain, L. R., & Crowl, M. (2013). Understanding how families use magnifiers during nature center walks. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1917–1938. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9334-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., Perin, S., & Bell, P. (2010a). Parents, science, and interest: A framework to understand the role of parents in the development of youth’s interests. Museum and Social Issues, 5(1), 67–86. doi:10.1179/msi.2010.5.1.67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, H. T., Reeve, S., & Bell, P. (2010b). Family sense-making practices in science center conversations. Science Education, 94(3), 478–505. doi:10.1002/sce.20374.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by Penn State Center for Online Innovation in Learning and Penn State Education Technology Services (Teaching and Learning with Technology Unit). We acknowledge the contributions of our Augmented and Mobile Learning Research Group (http://sites.psu.edu/augmentedlearning/): Lucy R. McClain, Michael R. Mohney, Gi Woong Choi, Brian J. Seely, Jaclyn Dudek, and YongJu Jung.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Penn State University, 315 Keller Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Susan M. Land & Heather Toomey Zimmerman

Authors
  1. Susan M. Land
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Toomey Zimmerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan M. Land.

Additional information

Susan M. Land and Heather Toomey Zimmerman are Associate Professors of Education in the Learning, Design, and Technology Program at The Pennsylvania State University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Land, S.M., Zimmerman, H.T. Socio-technical dimensions of an outdoor mobile learning environment: a three-phase design-based research investigation. Education Tech Research Dev 63, 229–255 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9369-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation