Mobile Learning Design pp 27-42
Conceptualising Authentic Mobile Learning
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (in print). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education, 44(3).Google Scholar
- Collins, A. (1988). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology (Technical Report No. 6899). Cambridge, MA: BBN Labs Inc.Google Scholar
- 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
- CTGV (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt). (1990). Technology and the design of generative learning environments. Educational Technology, 31(5), 34–40.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/herrington-j.pdf.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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 http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf.
- 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
- Maina, F. W. (2004). Authentic learning: Perspectives from contemporary educators. Journal of Authentic Learning, 1(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
- 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
- Petraglia, J. (1998). Reality by design: The rhetoric and technology of authenticity in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 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
- Russell, B. (1959). The problems of philosophy (New ed.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- Wong, L. H., Milrad, M., & Specht, M. (Eds.). (2015). Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar