I'm struggling with a few questions that need to be addressed before I can go on.
1. I find that the matrix I set out to use is bound to generate ambiguous results and insufficient conclusions. The model that Frohberg, Goeth and Schwabe (2009) use, is far more detailed and so offers more space for fine-tuning – thus describing the crucial elements of each mobile learning study in a less ambiguous way. Obviously, in a master course of limited time, it is impossible to use a model like Frohberg’s but I wonder how to avoid some of that ambiguity and still get usable data from each study.
2. There are so many ways of categorizing the findings from these studies on mobile learning. One could categorize according to ‘Aspects of Mobile Learning’ (Ally, 2009), to types of learning (Vavoula), to intrinsic characteristics of mobile technology, regarding its pedagogical implications (Laurillard) - and possible more ways. Which one to use?
3. If ‘context is everything’, how will I ever be able to separate device from setting, or setting from didactics? Or setting from didactics?
Some summing up to do next.
No comments:
Post a Comment