Conceptualising Authentic Mobile Learning

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


Conventional accounts of authentic learning focus on contextual factors: tasks, processes, how situated the learning is and the extent to which learners engage in simulated or participative real-world activities. This paper theorises how ubiquitous mobile technologies are fracturing the boundaries that demarcate traditional accounts of authentic learning affording new opportunities to reconceptualise what authenticity means for learners when they use a boundary object such as a mobile device. Whilst some of this has been captured previously with terms like ‘seamless’, ‘contextualised’ and ‘agile’ learning, this paper argues that the concept of authentic mobile learning is a highly fluid construct which will continue to change as the technologies develop and as the pedagogical affordances become better understood by educators and end-users. The paper offers a three-dimensional model of authentic mobile learning and argues that further empirical research is required to understand what is authentic mobile learning from the perception of learners.


Mobile Device Learning Activity Augmented Reality Mobile Technology Mobile Learning 
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. Banas, J., & York, C. (2014). Authentic learning exercises as a means to influence preservice teachers’ technology integration self-efficacy and intentions to integrate technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6).Google Scholar
  2. Barab, S. A., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: An emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1–3. doi: 10.1007/s10956-007-9043-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barab, S. A. & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Jonassen & S.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burden, K., Aubusson, P & Schuck, S. (2010). Ethical professional mobile learning for teaching and nursing workplaces, Chapter 12. In N. Pachler, C. Pimmer & J. Seipold (Eds.), Work-based mobile learning: Concepts and cases. A handbook for academics and practitioners (pp. 277–305). Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (in print). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education, 44(3).Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical Report No. 6899). Cambridge, MA: BBN Labs Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–494). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. CTGV (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt). (1990). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
  11. Ebner, M. (2009). Introducing live microblogging: How single presentations can be enhanced by the mass. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 2(1), 91–100.Google Scholar
  12. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foley, B. J., & Reveles, J. M. (2014). Pedagogy for the connected science classroom: Computer supported collaborative science and the next generation science standards. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 401–418.Google Scholar
  14. Gwee, S., Chee, Y. S., & Tan, E. M. (2010). Game play-time and learning outcomes of boys and girls in a social studies mobile game-based learning curriculum. In M. Montebello, V. Camilleri & A. Dingli (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Mobile Learning (pp. 16–23). Valletta, Malta: University of Malta.Google Scholar
  15. Heath, S. B., & Mclaughlin, M. W. (1994). Learning for anything everyday. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(5), 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Herrington, J., & Kervin, L. (2007). Authentic learning supported by technology: Ten suggestions and cases of integration in classrooms. Educational Media International, 44(3), 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herrington, J., Mantei, J., Herrington, A,. Olney I., & Ferry, B. (2008). New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile technologies and new ways of teaching and learning. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. Retrieved from
  18. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: the case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herodotou, C., Villasclaras-Fernández, E., & Sharples, M. (2014). The design and evaluation of a sensor-based mobile application for citizen inquiry science investigations. In Open learning and teaching in educational communities (pp. 434–439). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computers and Education, 61, 21–32.Google Scholar
  22. Kamarainen, A. M., Metcalf, S., Grotzer, T., Browne, A., Mazzuca, D., Tutwiler, M. S., & Dede, C. (2013). EcoMOBILE: Integrating augmented reality and probeware with environmental education field trips. Computers and Education, 68, 545–556.Google Scholar
  23. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers and Education, 80, 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20, 14406. doi: 10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406.
  25. Klopfer, E., Yoon, S., & Rivas, L. (2004). Comparative analysis of Palm and wearable computers for participatory simulations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 347–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00094.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial Labour. In M. Hardt & P. Virno (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential politics (pp. 133–147). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st Century: An overview. Educause Learning Initiative Report No. 1, Boulder, CO, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved from
  29. Looi, C.-K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H.-J., Chen, W., & Wong, L.-H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 154–169. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00912.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lui, M., Kuhn, A., Acosta, A., Niño-Soto, M. I., Quintana, C., & Slotta, J. D. (2014). Using mobile tools in immersive environments to support science inquiry. In CHI’14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 403–406). ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Maina, F. W. (2004). Authentic learning: Perspectives from contemporary educators. Journal of Authentic Learning, 1(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  32. Meyers, N., & Nulty, D. (2009). How to use (five) curriculum design principles to align authentic learning environments, assessment, students’ approaches to thinking and learning outcomes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(5), 565–577. doi: 10.1080/02602930802226502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E., & Gomez, L. (2001). Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Renzulli, J. S., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. M. (2004). A time and a place for authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 62(1), 73–77.Google Scholar
  36. Russell, B. (1959). The problems of philosophy (New ed.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Scanlon, E., Woods, W., & Clow, D. (2014). Informal participation in science in the UK: Identification, location and mobility with iSpot. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17(2), 58–71.Google Scholar
  38. Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Snoek, M. (2013). From splendid isolation to crossed boundaries? The future of teacher education in the light of activity theory. Teacher Development, 17(3), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein, S. J., Isaacs, G., & Andrews, T. (2004). Incorporating authentic learning experiences within a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 29(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toh, Y., So, H. J., Seow, P., Chen, W., & Looi, C. K. (2013). Seamless learning in the mobile age: A theoretical and methodological discussion on using cooperative inquiry to study digital kids on-the-move. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams, R., Karousou, R., & Mackness, J. (2011). Emergent learning and learning ecologies in Web 2.0. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3) np.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Wong, L. H., Milrad, M., & Specht, M. (Eds.). (2015). Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of HullKingston-upon-HullUK
  2. 2.University of Technology Sydney (UTS)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations