Summing up

Looks like we have ways of examining the studies on mobile learning according to:
• aspects of learning (Ally)
• types of learning (Vavoula)
• intrinsic characteristics of mobile technology (Laurillard)
• affordances of mobile technology (Gibson, Kirschner)
• a theory of mobile learning (Sharples)

I find many points in these studies underlining my proposed principle of iterative negotiating in context. This very principle illustrates the sheer impossibility of separating device or didactics from context (setting). Sharples puts it this way: context is not a fixed shell surrounding the learner, but a construct that is shaped by continuously negotiated dialogue. Kirschner states: Mobile technologies offer distinctive educational affordances - they 'afford' real-time information whenever, wherever and they 'afford' a rapid access interface. These two characteristics of the artefact 'on hand' (i.e. a PDA), determine if and how a particular learning behaviour could possibly take place within a given context. And Laurillard says: mobile technology often changes the pattern of learning/work activity; the context of mobile learning is about more than time and space.

One could regard the task-artefact cycle (negotiating in context) as the next step up from the 'substitution-transition-transfer' three step. To see the context of mobile learning as merely a step forward in being able to learn anywhere, anyplace, is not going beyond that three step (that suited 'regular' e-learning). Mobile learning is also about negotiating the tool used and the pattern of learning, both process and goal. This can go on and on because the possibilities of the tool will keep changing endlessly, adapting to the need of the learning intended. In return, the learning goal will keep changing because more has become possible through the tool used. Mobility in time, space and learning context.

Which leads to one more question next to the three discussed in my last post:

4. Where does CELSTEC stand in all this? Are there studies being conducted at the time (or have there been in the past) that address these issues?

Waiting for answers - meanwhile more questions

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.