Abstract
Expert teachers are pragmatic in their curricular planning and instruction through embedding the use of mobile technologies towards providing their students with meaningful learning experiences. They use technology as a cornerstone within their instructional design. This study examined how pedagogy, professional learning and mobile technologies impact a teacher’s ability to utilise a learner-centred interactive approach. Qualitative data were collected and analysed using the six-step activity theory in conjunction with a case study design were data was collected from four teacher participants through interviews, classroom observations and lesson plans. Data revealed that teaching and learning sequences involving mobile technologies were found to have varying degrees of learner–teacher interactivities, ranging from complete teacher control to total learner control. This range of interactivity can serve as a teacher guide to mobile learning design using appropriate pedagogy integrating apps in conjunction with other classroom resources to yield improved student outcomes.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allen, D., Karanasios, S., & Slavova, M. (2011). Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behavior. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 776–788. doi:10.1002/asi.21441.
Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). How should technology-mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 835–854.
Alyani, N., & Shirzad, S. (2011, September). Learning to innovate in distributed mobile application development: Learning episodes from Tehran and London. In Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2011 (pp. 497–504). Middlesex, NJ: IEEE.
Banna, S. (2011). The evolving design of online health websites: An interpretive study of different users’ activities. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Wollongong.
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2010). Interactivity in the classroom and its impact on learning. Computers & Education, 54(3), 759–766.
Beauchamp, G., & Kennewell, S. (2013). Transition in pedagogical orchestration using the interactive whiteboard. Education and Information Technologies, 18(2), 179–191.
Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97–103.
Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Australian Council for Education Research.
BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5318/1/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf.
Churchill, D., Lu, J., & Chiu, T. K. (2014). Integrating mobile technologies, social media and learning design. Educational Media International, 51(3), 163–165.
Clarke, P. A. J., & Fournillier, J. B. (2012). Action research, pedagogy, and activity theory: tools facilitating two instructors’ interpretations of the professional development of four preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 649–660.
Coursaris, C. K., & Sung, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequents of a mobile website’s interactivity. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1128–1146.
Downes, E. J., & McMillan, S. J. (2000). Defining interactivity a qualitative identification of key dimensions. New Media & Society, 2(2), 157–179.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 143–156.
Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1(3), 243–259. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(91)90006-T.
Engestrom, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence. In Research Bulletin, 83. Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Bulevardi 18, SF-00120. Helsinki, Finland.
Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2010). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findings and future challenges. Educational Research Review, 5(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.12.002.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work-toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747.
Gray, C., Hagger-Vaughan, L., Pilkington, R., & Tomkins, S. (2005). The pros and cons of interactive whiteboards in relation to the key stage 3 strategy and framework. Language Learning Journal, 32, 38–44.
Green, L. S., Hechter, R. P., Tysinger, P. D., & Chassereau, K. D. (2014). Mobile app selection for 5th through 12th grade science: The development of the MASS rubric. Computers & Education, 75, 65–71.
Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2006). Interactive whiteboards in Victorian schools: Installation and processes of use. Parkville: Assessment Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.
Haydn, T. (2010). History teaching and ICT. In D. Ian (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 236–248). New York: Routledge.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Tooley, C. (2010). Using the interactive whiteboard to stimulate active learning in school science. In M. Thomas, & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 102–117). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch007.
Hennessy, S., & London, L. (2013). Learning from international experiences with interactive whiteboards: The role of professional development in integrating the technology. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 89, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k49chbsnmls-en.
Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., Ruthven, K., & Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical strategies for using the interactive whiteboard to foster learner participation in school science. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 283–301.
Hedberg, J., & Freebody, K. (2007). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Exploring classroom practices with interactive whiteboards and TLF digital content. Retrieved from http://www.ndlrn.edu.au/verve/_resources/towards_a_disruptive_pedagogy_2007.pdf.
Haldane, M. (2007). Interactivity and the digital whiteboard: weaving the fabric of learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 257.
Halford, B. (2007). Interactive whiteboards: The future is already here. Teacher, 183, 32–35.
Helfrich, J. (2011). The influence of learning object interactivity on student achievement. Idaho State University.
Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Holzman, L. (2006). What kind of theory is activity theory? Introduction. Theory & Psychology, 16(1), 5–11. doi:10.1177/0959354306060105.
Hsu, Y. C., & Ching, Y. H. (2013). Mobile app design for teaching and learning: Educators’ experiences in an online graduate course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4), 117–139.
Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61–79.
Karanasios, S., Thakker, D., Lau, L., Allen, D., Dimitrova, V., & Norman, A. (2013). Making sense of digital traces: An activity theory driven ontological approach. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(12), 2452–2467.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Activity theory in HCI: Fundamentals and Reflections. Synthesis Lectures Human-Centered Informatics, 5(1), 1–105.
Kiousis, S. (2002). Interactivity: a concept explication. New Media & Society, 4(3), 355–383.
Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and Multimedia Interfaces. Instructional Sciences, 25, 79–96.
Koolstra, C. M., & Bos, M. J. (2009). The development of an instrument to determine different levels of interactivity. International Communication Gazette, 71(5), 373–391.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lacina, J. (2009). Interactive whiteboards: Creating higher-level, technological Thinkers? Childhood Education, 85(4), 270–272.
Larsson, A. O. (2012). Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 195–213. doi:10.1177/1354856511430184.
Masek, M., Murcia, K., & Morrison, J. (2012). Getting serious with iPads: The intersection of game design and teaching principals. Australian Educational Computing, 27(2), 34–38.
Maher, D. (2012). Learning in the primary school classroom using the interactive whiteboard. In J. Jiyou (Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: from kindergarten to workplace training: from kindergarten to workplace training (pp. 150–162). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Maher, D., Phelps, R., Urane, N., & Lee, M. (2012). Primary school teachers’ use of digital resources with interactive whiteboards: The Australian context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1), 138–158.
Marty, P. F., Mendenhall, A., Douglas, I., Southerland, S. A., Sampson, V., Kazmer, M., et al. (2013). The iterative design of a mobile learning application to support scientific inquiry. Journal of Learning Design, 6(2), 41–66.
Moir, T. (2014). Getting in touch with technology without losing touch with early childhood pedagogy. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 20(1), 34–37.
Moss, G., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Policy, pedagogy and interactive whiteboards: What lessons can be learnt from early adoption in England? In M. Thomas & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 20–36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE). (Report No. 816). Project: London Challenge DfES, London.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2007). Into the unknown: The professional development induction experience of secondary mathematics teachers using interactive whiteboard technology. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(3), 319–331. doi:10.1080/17439880701511156.
Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. In M. Thomas & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch001.
Oigara, J. N., & Wallace, N. (2012). Modelling, training, and mentoring teacher candidates to use SMART board technology. Issues in Information Science and Information Technology, 9, 297–315.
Owen, M. (2009). From individual learning to collaborative learning—Location, fun, and games: Place, context, and identity in mobile learning. In H. Ryu & D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 102-122). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
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 Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78–102.
Peña-Ayala, A., Sossa, H., & Méndez, I. (2014). Activity theory as a framework for building adaptive e-learning systems: A case to provide empirical evidence. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 131–145.
Pietsch, J. R. (2005). Collaborative learning in mathematics. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1088
Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., Stroup, W., & Kahn, T. M. (1998). Scaleable integration of educational software: Exploring the promise of component architectures. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, Art-6.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.
Ross, P. E. (2011). Teachers and interactive whiteboards: Accessing, creating, sharing and storing resources within a school community (Masters by Coursework & Shorter thesis). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.
Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2009). Designing learning activities with mobile technologies. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Sam, C. (2012). Activity theory and qualitative research in digital domains. Theory into Practice, 51(2), 83–90.
Sharples, M. (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope. network of excellence mobile learning initiative. < hal-00190254 >. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190254/document.
Smuts, A. (2009). What is interactivity? The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 43(4), 53–73.
Somyurek, S., Atasoy, B., & Ozdemir, S. (2009). Board’s IQ: What makes a board smart? Computers & Education, 53(2), 368–374.
Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (Eds.) (2008). Collaboration in context as a framework for designing innovative mobile learning activities. In H. Ryu, & D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 170–194). Hershey NJ: Information Science Reference.
Stein, G. (2005a). Pedagogy, practice and ICT: Snapshots of practice. Canterbury: Canterbury University.
Stein, G. (2005b). Pedagogy, practice & ICT. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University.
Stojkovski, T. (2010). Computer-mediated learning in a social constructivist environment. Doctor of Education: University of Wollongong, New South Wales.
Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). How interactive is your whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 200, 37–41. doi:1299085551.
Ting, Y. L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 1–13.
Toteja, R., & Kumar, S. (2012). Usefulness of m-devices in education: A survey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 538–544.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 5, 147–148.
Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827.
Wang, Q., & Woo, H. L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272–286.
Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rozario, R., Ortlieb, E., Rennie, J. (2016). Interactivity and Mobile Technologies: An Activity Theory Perspective. In: Churchill, D., Lu, J., Chiu, T., Fox, B. (eds) Mobile Learning Design. Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0027-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0027-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-0025-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-0027-0
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)