Framework for Designing Mobile Learning Environments

Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


In this chapter the RASE learning design framework is proposed as a key strategy for utilizing multiple affordances of mobile learning technology. This learning design framework is based on the premise that an effective learning environment must include and integrate at least four core components, namely: Resources, Activity, Support and Evaluation. The activity component is the most important, requiring students to engage with intellectual and knowledge-based developments. Mobile technology offers a number of affordances that support learning, including: Resources, Connectivity, Collaboration, Capture, Representation, Analytical and Administration tools. Effective use of mobile technology includes deployment of these affordances in the learning design in a way that supports different components of the RASE framework and achievement of set learning outcomes. This chapter presents and discusses concepts, arguments, and a discussion of an example of an app that integrates multiple affordances, supported by all components of the RASE learning design framework.


Mobile Device Cloud Computing Chinese Character Conceptual Knowledge Mobile Technology 
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.


  1. Anderson, P., & Blackwood, A. (2004). Mobile and PDA technologies and their future use in education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, 4(3), 3–33.Google Scholar
  2. Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies for learning. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.Google Scholar
  3. Barnes, S. (2000). What does electronic conferencing afford distance education? Distance Education, 21(2), 236–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2003). Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In E. De Corte, L. Verschaffel, N. Entwistle, & J. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Powerful learning environments: Unravelling basic components and dimensions (pp. 55–68). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Research, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Churchill, D. (2005). Learning object: An interactive representation and a mediating tool in a learning activity. Educational Media International, 42(4), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Education Technology Research and Development, 55(5), 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchill, D. (2008). Learning objects for educational applications via PDA technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  9. Churchill, D. (2013). Conceptual model design and learning uses. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(1), 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Churchill, D. (2014). Presentation design for “conceptual model” learning objects. British Journal of Education Technology, 45(1), 136–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Churchill, D., & Churchill, N. (2008). Educational affordances of PDAs: A study of a teacher’s exploration of this technology. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1439–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchill, D., & Hedberg, G. (2008). Learning object design considerations for small-screen handheld devices. Computers and Education, 50(3), 881–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Churchill, D., & Wang, T. (2014). Teacher’s use of iPads in higher education. Educational Media International, 51(3), 214–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Churchill, D., Kennedy, D. M., Flint, D., & Cotton, N. (2010). Using handhelds to support students’ outdoor educational activities. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 20(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Churchill, D., King, M., & Fox, B. (2013). Learning design for science education in the 21st century. Journal of the Institute for Educational Research, 45(2), 404–421.Google Scholar
  16. Churchill, D., Lu, J., & Chiu, K. F. T. (2014). Integrating mobile technologies, social media and learning design. Educational Media International, 51(3), 163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawson, M. R. (2004). Minds and machines: Connectionism and psychological modeling. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.Google Scholar
  19. Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of podcast revision lectures in higher education. Computers and Education, 50(2), 49–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gibbons, A. (2008). Model-centered instruction, the design and the designer. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Piarnay-Dummer, & J. M. Spector (Eds.), Understanding models for learning and instruction (pp. 161–173). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grabinger, R. S., & Dunlap, J. C. (1997). Rich environments for active learning: A definition. Research in Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 5–34.Google Scholar
  22. Gu, X., Gu, F., & Laffey, J. M. (2011). Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27(3), 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harper, B., & Hedberg, J (1997). Creating motivating interactive learning environments: A constructivist view. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 97, Retrieved from
  24. Hsieh, S. W., Jang, Y. R., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Effects of teaching and learning styles on students’ reflection levels for ubiquitous learning. Computers and Education, 57(1), 1194–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, T., & Lesh, R. (2003). A models and modeling perspective on technology-based representational media. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivisim: A models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 215–239). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  27. Jonassen, D. (2000). Towards design theory of problem solving. ETR&D, 48(4), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jonassen, D., & Churchill, D. (2004). Is there a learning orientation in learning objects? International Journal on E-Learning, 3(2), 32–41.Google Scholar
  29. Kearney, M. (2014). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers and Education.Google Scholar
  30. Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2005). Environmental detectives: The development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Retrieved from
  31. Lai, C.-H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: The interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 23(4), 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (2003). Foundations of a models and modelling perspective on mathematics teaching, learning and problem solving. In R. Lesh & H. Doerr (Eds.), Beyond constructivisim: A models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning and teaching (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Liaw, S. S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H. M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers and Education, 54(2), 446–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H. J., Chen, W.-L., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology., 41(2), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luchini, K., Quintana, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Design guidelines for learner-centered handheld tools. CHI, 6(1), 135–141.Google Scholar
  36. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 85–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. New Media Consortium. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011K-12 Education.Google Scholar
  39. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  40. Norman, D. A. (1983). Some observation on mental models. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), mental models (pp. 7–14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. Distance Education, 20(2), 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patten, B., Sánches, I. A., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing collaborative, constructivist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers and Education, 46, 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ratto, M., Shapiro, R. B, Truong, T. M., & Griswold, W. G. (2003). The active class project: Experiments in encouraging classroom participation. Retrieved from
  44. Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change CSCL. International Journal of Cognition and Technology, 1(1), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1995). Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology, 35(5), 31–38.Google Scholar
  46. Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
  47. Segall, N., Toni, L., Doolen, J., & Porter, D. (2005). A usability comparison of PDA-based quizzes and paper-and-pencil quizzes. Computers and Education, 45(4), 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Seppälä, P., & Alamäki, H. (2003). Mobile learning in teacher training. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 19, 330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers and Education, 34(3–4), 177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sharples, M., Corlett, D., & Westmancott, O. (2002). The design and implementation of a mobile learning resource. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 220–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shen, R., Wang, M., Gao, W., Novak, D., & Tang, L. (2009). Mobile learning in a large blended computer science classroom: System function, pedagogies, and their impact on learning. IEEE Transaction on Education, 52(4), 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Song, Y. (2014). “Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)” for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Computers and Education, 74, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental vocabulary testing. ReCALL, 20(3), 290–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ting, Y. L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers and Education, 60(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Someren, A., Boshuizen, P. A., de Jong, T., & Reimann, P. (1998). Introduction. In A. van Someren (Ed.), Learning with multiple representations (pp. 1–5). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  57. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vosniadou, S., De Corte, E., & Mandl, H. (1995). Technology-based learning environments. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  59. Wong, L. H., Chin, C. K., Tan, C. L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students’ personal and social meaning making in a Chinese idiom mobile learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 13(4), 15–26.Google Scholar
  60. Wong, L.-H., & Looi, C.-K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using wirelessly interconnected handheld computers. Computers and Education, 42, 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations