Skip to main content

Connected and Ubiquitous: a Discussion of Two Theories That Impact Future Learning Applications

TechTrends volume 60, pages 129–135 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Mobile media break down traditional barriers that have defined learning in schools because they enable constant, personalized access to media. This information-rich environment could dramatically expand learning opportunities. This article identifies and discusses two instructional design theories for mobile learning including the major differences between those theories and other online instructional design theories. It also presents a detailed argument for the use of mobile learning in a particular case study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  • Alexander, B. (2004). Going nomadic: mobile learning in higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 39(5), 28–35. Retrieved June12, 2014, from http://bit.ly/ny8u4h.

  • Anderson, P. (2007, February). What is web 2.0? Ideas, technologies, and implications for education [Tech Watch Report]. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from JISC Technology and Standards Watch website: http://bit.ly/pOzUHH.

  • Anderson-Inman, L. (2009). Thinking between the lines: literacy and learning in a connected world. On the Horizon, 17(2), 122–139. doi:10.1108/1074120910965502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astleitner, H., & Wiesner, C. (2004). An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning: A technology update and m-learning project summary. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from The Learning and Skills Development Agency website: http://bit.ly/iIIt0c.

  • Bannert, M. (2004). Designing metacognitive support for multimedia learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://bit.ly/q6qpB7.

  • Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8(4), 293–332. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from http://bit.ly/nppCTa.

  • Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: restoring the character ethic. New York: Fireside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, A. R. (2007). Learning to teach with mobile technology: A teacher educator’s journey. In M. van’t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education (pp. 127–144). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Waard, I. (2011, July 25). Explore a new learning frontier: MOOCs. Retrieved from Learning Solutions Magazine website: http://bit.ly/mSi4qa.

  • Deimann, M., & Keller, J. M. (2006). Volitional aspects of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(2), 137–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes, S. (2005). E-learning 2.0. Elearn Magazine, 10(1), 1-7.

  • Downes, S. (2006, October 16). Learning networks and connective knowledge [Web log post]. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from Instructional Technology Forum: http://bit.ly/XXfpr.

  • Downes, S. (2007, February 6). Msg 30, RE: What connectivism is [Online forum message]. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from Connectivism Conference: University of Manitoba: http://bit.ly/qSND07.

  • Dyson, L. E., Litchfield, A., Lawrence, E., Raban, R., & Leijdekkers, P. (2009). Advancing the m-learning research agenda for active, experiential learning: four case studies. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 250–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, C. L. (1989). Tools for reading and browsing hypertext. Information Processing and Management, 25(4), 407–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. S. (1989). Effects of ‘seductive details’ on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41–57. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from http://bit.ly/rrcQNF.

  • Holt, C. (2011). Emerging technologies: web 2.0. Health Information Management Journal, 40(1), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2009). Executive Summary. In Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (pp. xi-xv). Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://bit.ly/qAxorJ.

  • Johansson, F. (2006). The medici effect. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructionist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Professional Devlopment, 10(3), 2–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, J. M. (2008). An integrative theory of motivation, volition, and performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 6(2).

  • Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2009). Towards a framework for attention cueing in instructional animations: guidelines for research and design. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 113–140. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9098.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognitive-behavior-consistency. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 279–291). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. (2006a). Future-focused leadership: preparing schools, students, and communities for tomorrow’s realities. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, G. (2006b). Sixteen trends, their profound impact on our future: Implications for students, education, communities, countries, and the whole of society. Alexandria: Gary Marx and Educational Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: are we asking the right question? Educational Psychologist, 32, 1–19. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3201_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from http://bit.ly/mMTeiA.

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002a). Animations as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 14(1), 87–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002b). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 107–119.

  • Meizrow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformational theory. In J. Meizrow & Associates (Ed.), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. G. (2007). The theory of transactional distance. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 89–105). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368. Retrieved from EBSCOhost database.

  • Odom, J. D., Scott, R., & DuBose, G. H. (2008). Hidden risks of green buildings (Mini-Monograph No. 1). Washington DC: ASHRAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pescarmona, I. (2010). Complex instruction: managing professional development and school culture. Intercultural Education, 21(3), 219–227. doi:10.1080/14675981003760416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. M., & An, Y.-J. (2006). Functional contextualism: an ideal framework for theory in instructional design and technology. ETR&D, 54(1), 49–53. Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://bit.ly/nHPuaa.

  • Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. C. (2008). Chapter 1: What is instructional design? In W. J. Rothwell & H. C. Kazanas (Eds.), Mastering the instructional design process (pp. 3–16). San Francisco: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saba, F., & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(1), 36–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, Y. E. (2005). Seize teachable and learnable moments: SMSE instructional design model for mobile learning. International Association for Development of the Information Society International Conference Mobile Learning. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from http://bit.ly/pZzcSM.

  • Shih, Y. E., & Mills, D. (2007). Setting the new standard with mobile computing in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1–15. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from EBSCOhost database.

  • Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved June 16, 2014, from http://bit.ly/16THuy.

  • Siemens, G. (2006, November 12). Connectivism: Learning theory of pastime for the self-amused? [Web log post]. Retrieved August1, 2014, from elearnspace: http://bit.ly/2lT24g.

  • Snyder, M. M. (2009). Instructional-design theory to guide the creation of online learning communities for adults. TechTrends, 53(1), 48–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sung, J.-S. (2009, December). U-learning model design based on ubiquitous environment. International Journal of Science and Technology, 13, 77–88. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from EBSCOhost database.

  • Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4(4), 295–312. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from EBSCOhost database.

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: ACER Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. (2005, May 23). E-learning on the move [Web log post]. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from Guardian.co.uk: http://bit.ly/p0gDIh.

  • van’t Hooft, M., Swan, K., Cook, D., & Lin, Y. (2007). What is ubiquitous computing? In M. van’t Hooft & K. Swan (Eds.), Ubiquitous computing in education (pp. 22–40). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a more unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. Retrieved June 20, 2014, from EBSCOhost database.

  • Verhagen, P. (2006, November 11). Connectivism: A new learning theory? [Web log post]. Retrieved from Surfspace: Retrieved October 2, 2014, from: http://bit.ly/pvnYsO.

  • Weiser, M. (1991). The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American, 265(3), 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyatt, T., Krauskopf, P., Gaylord, N., Ward, A., Huffstutler-Hawkins, S., & Goodwin, L. (2010). Cooperative m-learning with nurse practitioner students. Nursing Education Perspectives, 31(2), 109–112.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Thomas University, Miami Gardens, FL, USA

    Richard A. Bair

  2. R. U. Institute, Sorrento, FL, USA

    Richard A. Bair & Timothy Stafford

Authors
  1. Richard A. Bair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy Stafford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard A. Bair.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bair, R.A., Stafford, T. Connected and Ubiquitous: a Discussion of Two Theories That Impact Future Learning Applications. TechTrends 60, 129–135 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0021-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0021-z

Keywords

  • Connectivism
  • Instructional design theory
  • m-learning
  • Mobile learning
  • Ubiquitous learning