Framework for Designing Mobile Learning Environments
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.
- 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
- Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies for learning. London, UK: Learning and Skills Development Agency.Google Scholar
- 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
- Churchill, D. (2008). Learning objects for educational applications via PDA technology. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 19(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
- 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
- Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.Google Scholar
- 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
- Harper, B., & Hedberg, J (1997). Creating motivating interactive learning environments: A constructivist view. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 97, Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth97/papers/Harper/Harper.html.
- 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
- 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
- Jonassen, D., & Churchill, D. (2004). Is there a learning orientation in learning objects? International Journal on E-Learning, 3(2), 32–41.Google Scholar
- Kearney, M. (2014). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers and Education.Google Scholar
- Klopfer, E., & Squire, K. (2005). Environmental detectives: The development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Retrieved from http://website.education.wisc.edu/kdsquire/manuscripts/ETRD-handheld-Draft.doc.
- 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
- Luchini, K., Quintana, C., & Soloway, E. (2004). Design guidelines for learner-centered handheld tools. CHI, 6(1), 135–141.Google Scholar
- New Media Consortium. (2011). The NMC Horizon Report: 2011K-12 Education.Google Scholar
- Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- 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
- Ratto, M., Shapiro, R. B, Truong, T. M., & Griswold, W. G. (2003). The active class project: Experiments in encouraging classroom participation. Retrieved from http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/~wgg/Abstracts/activeclass-cscl03.pdf.
- 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
- Seel, N. M. (2003). Model-centered learning and instruction. Technology Instruction Cognition and Learning, 1(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
- 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
- Vosniadou, S., De Corte, E., & Mandl, H. (1995). Technology-based learning environments. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- 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