Mobile Learning Design pp 63-82
Interactivity and Mobile Technologies: An Activity Theory Perspective
Expert teachers are pragmatic in their curricular planning and instruction through embedding the use of mobile technologies towards providing their students with meaningful learning experiences. They use technology as a cornerstone within their instructional design. This study examined how pedagogy, professional learning and mobile technologies impact a teacher’s ability to utilise a learner-centred interactive approach. Qualitative data were collected and analysed using the six-step activity theory in conjunction with a case study design were data was collected from four teacher participants through interviews, classroom observations and lesson plans. Data revealed that teaching and learning sequences involving mobile technologies were found to have varying degrees of learner–teacher interactivities, ranging from complete teacher control to total learner control. This range of interactivity can serve as a teacher guide to mobile learning design using appropriate pedagogy integrating apps in conjunction with other classroom resources to yield improved student outcomes.
- Allen, D. K., Brown, A., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). How should technology-mediated organizational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 835–854.Google Scholar
- Alyani, N., & Shirzad, S. (2011, September). Learning to innovate in distributed mobile application development: Learning episodes from Tehran and London. In Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2011 (pp. 497–504). Middlesex, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
- Banna, S. (2011). The evolving design of online health websites: An interpretive study of different users’ activities. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, University of Wollongong.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, G., & Parkinson, J. (2005). Beyond the ‘wow’ factor: developing interactivity with the interactive whiteboard. School Science Review, 86(316), 97–103.Google Scholar
- Betcher, C., & Lee, M. (2009). The interactive whiteboard revolution: Teaching with IWBs. Australian Council for Education Research.Google Scholar
- BECTA. (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5318/1/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf.
- Engestrom, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributed working intelligence. In Research Bulletin, 83. Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Bulevardi 18, SF-00120. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
- Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work-toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747.
- Griffin, P., & Woods, K. (2006). Interactive whiteboards in Victorian schools: Installation and processes of use. Parkville: Assessment Research Centre, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Haydn, T. (2010). History teaching and ICT. In D. Ian (Ed.), Debates in history teaching (pp. 236–248). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hennessy, S., Deaney, R., & Tooley, C. (2010). Using the interactive whiteboard to stimulate active learning in school science. In M. Thomas, & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 102–117). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch007.
- Hennessy, S., & London, L. (2013). Learning from international experiences with interactive whiteboards: The role of professional development in integrating the technology. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 89, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k49chbsnmls-en.
- Hedberg, J., & Freebody, K. (2007). Towards a disruptive pedagogy: Exploring classroom practices with interactive whiteboards and TLF digital content. Retrieved from http://www.ndlrn.edu.au/verve/_resources/towards_a_disruptive_pedagogy_2007.pdf.
- Halford, B. (2007). Interactive whiteboards: The future is already here. Teacher, 183, 32–35.Google Scholar
- Helfrich, J. (2011). The influence of learning object interactivity on student achievement. Idaho State University.Google Scholar
- Hooper, S., & Rieber, L. P. (1995). Teaching with technology. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 154–170). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Kirsh, D. (1997). Interactivity and Multimedia Interfaces. Instructional Sciences, 25, 79–96.Google Scholar
- Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Larsson, A. O. (2012). Interactivity on Swedish newspaper websites: What kind, how much and why? Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 18(2), 195–213. doi:10.1177/1354856511430184.
- Masek, M., Murcia, K., & Morrison, J. (2012). Getting serious with iPads: The intersection of game design and teaching principals. Australian Educational Computing, 27(2), 34–38.Google Scholar
- Maher, D. (2012). Learning in the primary school classroom using the interactive whiteboard. In J. Jiyou (Ed.), Educational stages and interactive learning: from kindergarten to workplace training: from kindergarten to workplace training (pp. 150–162). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moir, T. (2014). Getting in touch with technology without losing touch with early childhood pedagogy. Educating Young Children: Learning and Teaching in the Early Childhood Years, 20(1), 34–37.Google Scholar
- Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levaãiç, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini A., & Castle, F. (2007). The interactive whiteboards, pedagogy and pupil performance evaluation: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion (SWE). (Report No. 816). Project: London Challenge DfES, London.Google Scholar
- Miller, D., & Glover, D. (2010). Interactive whiteboards: A literature survey. In M. Thomas & E. Schmid (Eds.), Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1–19). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch001.
- Oigara, J. N., & Wallace, N. (2012). Modelling, training, and mentoring teacher candidates to use SMART board technology. Issues in Information Science and Information Technology, 9, 297–315.Google Scholar
- Owen, M. (2009). From individual learning to collaborative learning—Location, fun, and games: Place, context, and identity in mobile learning. In H. Ryu & D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 102-122). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
- Pietsch, J. R. (2005). Collaborative learning in mathematics. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Sydney, Sydney. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1088
- Roschelle, J., Kaput, J., Stroup, W., & Kahn, T. M. (1998). Scaleable integration of educational software: Exploring the promise of component architectures. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2, Art-6.Google Scholar
- Ross, P. E. (2011). Teachers and interactive whiteboards: Accessing, creating, sharing and storing resources within a school community (Masters by Coursework & Shorter thesis). Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
- Sharples, M. (2006). Big issues in mobile learning. report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope. network of excellence mobile learning initiative. < hal-00190254 >. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190254/document.
- Spikol, D., Kurti, A., & Milrad, M. (Eds.) (2008). Collaboration in context as a framework for designing innovative mobile learning activities. In H. Ryu, & D. Parsons (Eds.), Innovative mobile learning: Techniques and technologies (pp. 170–194). Hershey NJ: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
- Stein, G. (2005a). Pedagogy, practice and ICT: Snapshots of practice. Canterbury: Canterbury University.Google Scholar
- Stein, G. (2005b). Pedagogy, practice & ICT. Canterbury: Canterbury Christ Church University.Google Scholar
- Stojkovski, T. (2010). Computer-mediated learning in a social constructivist environment. Doctor of Education: University of Wollongong, New South Wales.Google Scholar
- Tanner, H., & Jones, S. (2007). How interactive is your whiteboard? Mathematics Teaching, 200, 37–41. doi:1299085551.Google Scholar