Advertisement

Supporting Mobile Instructional Design with CSAM

  • Robert Power
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives on Rethinking and Reforming Education book series (PRRE)

Abstract

Teachers’ proficiency with emerging technologies has been identified as a cornerstone of a well-rounded modern curriculum that includes the development of students’ digital literacy skills. The central role of teachers’ technical knowledge is one of the bases of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework (Koehler & Mishra in Teachers College Record, 109(6):1017–1054, 2006, The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators. American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge, New York, pp. 3–29, 2008; TPACK.org & Koehler, n.d.; Unwin in Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 1(1):237–247, 2007). While frameworks such as TPACK have been promoted as useful tools for guiding teacher professional development initiatives, they have been criticized for failing to provide direction in exactly how technical knowledge can be promoted (Perk in Pedagogical reflections, 2009; Voogt et al. in Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2):109–121, 2012). At the same time, teachers’ lack of confidence in their technical skills has been identified as a barrier to greater integration of mobile technologies in instructional design (Ally et al. 2013; Ally, & Prieto-Blázquez in RUSC, 11(1), 142–151, 2014; Kenny et al. in 2010; Power, 2015). The Collaborative Situated Active Mobile (CSAM) learning design framework (Power in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 10(2), 2013, 2015) was developed as a tool to provide scaffolding to instructional design decisions involving mobile technologies and reusable learning objects. CSAM is grounded in prominent learning theory and reflects the instructional design practices represented in recent mobile learning literature. Through the scaffolding of mLearning decision making, CSAM can be used to boost the effectiveness of instructional design, increase teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy, and fill in gaps to compliment TPACK in the development of teacher professional development strategies. This chapter describes the components of the CSAM learning design framework, as well as its theoretical underpinnings. This chapter also highlights support for the use of CSAM in research and mobile learning literature, and describes how CSAM compliments frameworks such as TPACK to help prepare teachers and instructional designers to better integrate mobile technologies into modern curriculum.

Keywords

Collaborative situated active mobile learning design framework (CSAM) ID4ML Instructional design Micro-MOOC MOOC mRLO Reusable learning object RLO Self-efficiacy TPACK TPCK 

Notes

Glossary of Terms

CSAM

The Collaborative Situated Active Mobile learning design framework

ID4ML

Instructional Design for Mobile Learning

Micro-MOOC

A Massive Open Online Course (see MOOC) designed to be conducted over a limited time frame and with a fixed or limited number of participants (Coulter, 2014; Klassen, 2014)

MOOC

Massive Open Online Course. A MOOC is “a model for delivering learning content online to any person who wants to take a course” (Educause, 2014)

mRLO

Mobile reusable learning object

Reusable learning object

“Any digital object that can be reused to facilitate and support learning activities” (Polsani, 2003; University of Wolverhampton, 2016).

RLO

Reusable learning object

TPACK

The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge framework (TPACK.org, 2012)

TPCK

TPACK

References

  1. Ally, M. (Ed.). (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton: AU Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ally, M., Farias, G., Gitsaki, C., Jones, V., MacLeod, C., Power, R., et al. (2013). Tablet deployment in higher education: Lessons learned and best practices. In Panel Discussion at the 12th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2013), Doha, Qatar, October, 2013, pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
  3. Ally, M., & Prieto-Blázquez, J. (2014). What is the future of mobile learning in education? RUSC, 11(1), 142–151. doi http://doi.dx.org/10.7238/rusc.v11i1.2033.
  4. Benton-Borghi, B. (2006). Teaching every student in the 21st century: Teacher efficacy and technology. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  5. Cavanaugh, C., Hargis, J., Munns, A., & Kamali, T. (2013). iCelebrate teaching and learning: Sharing the iPad experience. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(2), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coulter, M. (2014, October 10). Welcome to the MOOC [Web log post]. Parkland College Blog. http://blog.parkland.edu/?tag=micro-mooc
  7. Finger, G., Jamieson-Proctor, R., Albion, P. (2010). Beyond pedagogical content knowledge: The importance of TPACK for informing preservice teacher education in Australia. In M. Turcanyis-Szabo & N. Reynolds (Eds.), Key competencies in the knowledge society (pp. 114–125). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Gur, H., & Karamete, A. (2015). A short review of TPACK for teacher education. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(7), 777–789. doi: 10.5897/ERR2014.1982.
  9. Kennedy, K. (2013, October 2). Cathy Cavanaugh: An engaged and engaging mobile learning ecosystem for K-12 online and blended learning [Web log post]. Research in Review. http://researchinreview.inacol.org/2013/10/02/cathy-cavanaugh-an-engaged-and-engaging-mobile-learning-ecosystem-for-k-12-online-and-blended-learning/
  10. Kenny, R. F., Park, C. L., Van Neste-Kenny, J. M. C., & Burton, P. A. (2010). Mobile self-efficacy in Canadian nursing education programs. In M. Montebello, V. Camilleri, & A. Dingli (Eds.), Proceedings of mLearn 2010, the 9th World Conference on Mobile Learning, Valletta, Malta.Google Scholar
  11. Klassen, T. (2014, May 5). Are micro-MOOCs the future or OERu offerings? http://oeru.org/news/are-micro-moocs-the-future-of-oeru-offerings/
  12. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 109(6), 1017–1054. Retrieved from http://punya.educ.msu.edu/publications/journal_articles/mishra-koehler-tcr2006.pdf
  13. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.), The handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 3–29). New York, NY: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education and Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Koh, J., Chai, C., & Lim, W. (2016, June 29). Teacher professional development for TPACK-21CL: Effects on teacher ICT integration and student OUTCOMES. Journal of Educational Computing Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0735633116656848.
  15. Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 25–47). Edmonton, AB: AU Press. http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120155
  16. Levy, L. (2016, May 9). 7 reasons why digital literacy in important for teachers [Web log post]. USC Rossier Online Blog. https://rossieronline.usc.edu/blog/teacher-digital-literacy/
  17. mdk12.org. (2014). Maryland teacher professional development standards. Retrieved from http://mdk12.org/instruction/professional_development/teachers_standards.html
  18. Nicholson, D. (2015, February 19). An introduction to TPACK for teachers [Web log post]. The Whiteboard Blog: Science and Technology for Teachers. http://www.whiteboardblog.co.uk/2015/02/an-introduction-to-tpack-for-teachers/
  19. Park, Y. (2014). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increasing access through mobile learning (pp. 27–48). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Commonwealth of Learning Press.Google Scholar
  20. Perk, J. (2009, September 6). Where is the learner? A TPACK framework critique [Web log post]. Pedagogical reflections. http://jperk30.edublogs.org/2009/09/06/where-is-the-learner-a-tpack-framework-critique/comment-page-1/
  21. Polsani, P. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4). http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/89/88
  22. Power, R. (2013). Collaborative situated active mobile (CSAM) learning strategies: A new perspective on effective mobile learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 10(2). http://lthe.zu.ac.ae/index.php/lthehome/article/view/137
  23. Power, R. (2015). A framework for promoting teacher self-efficacy with mobile reusable learning objects. Doctoral dissertation, Athabasca University. http://hdl.handle.net/10791/63
  24. Power, R., Cristol, D., Gimbert, B., Bartoletti, R., & Kilgore, W. (2016). Using the mTSES to evaluate and optimize mLearning professional development. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2459
  25. Quality Matters. (2012). Quality matters self-review form. Retrieved from http://www.qualitymatters.org
  26. Rogers, E. (1974). New product adoption and diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. TPACK.org. (2012). Using the TPACK image [Web page]. http://www.tpack.org
  28. TPACK.org & Koehler, M. (n.d.). What is TPACK? [Web page]. http://www.tpack.org/
  29. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001a). Teacher efficacy: Capturing and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001b). Teacher’s sense of efficacy scale. http://people.ehe.osu.edu/ahoy/files/2009/02/tses.pdf
  31. University of Wolverhampton. (2016). How to use reusable learning objects (RLO) and open educational resources (OER) [Web page]. http://www.wlv.ac.uk/about-us/internal-departments/the-college-of-learning-and-teaching-colt/academic-development/how-to-guides/how-to-use-rlos-and-oers/
  32. Unwin, A. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), a conceptual framework for an increasingly technology driven higher education? Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 1(1), 237–247. http://bjsep.org/getfile.php?id=43
  33. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja, R., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2012). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraser Health AuthoritySurreyCanada

Personalised recommendations