strategies for improving online learning
DESCRIPTION
An examination of the essential educational learning theories, social software tools and mobile learning technologies that can contribute to an improved online learning experience.TRANSCRIPT
STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING ONLINE LEARNING:
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ESSENTIAL THEORIES, TOOLS AND
TECHNOLOGIES
by
Thomas J. Okon
B.S., Marketing & Advertising, DePaul University, 1982
A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master of Science in Education Degree
Department of Workforce Education & Development in the Graduate School
Southern Illinois University Carbondale April 2012
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iv
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Need for the Study .................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 3
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................................... 3
Research Questions................................................................................................... 4
Significance of the Study .......................................................................................... 4
Definition of Terms................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2 – RESEARCH METHOD AND
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............................................................................ 7
Overview................................................................................................................... 7
Methods and Procedures ........................................................................................... 7
Review of Related Literature .................................................................................... 9
Educational Learning Theory in Online Learning ........................................ 9
Cognitivism....................................................................................... 9
Constructivism .................................................................................. 9
Connectivism .................................................................................. 10
Andragogy....................................................................................... 11
Heutagogy ....................................................................................... 11
Paragogy ......................................................................................... 11
ii
Peeragogy........................................................................................ 12
Participatory Learning .................................................................... 13
Strategies for Using Educational Learning Theory in Online Learning ..... 14
Cognitive Strategies ........................................................................ 14
Constructivist Strategies ................................................................. 15
Learner Centered................................................................. 15
Knowledge Centered........................................................... 16
Assessment Centered .......................................................... 17
Community Centered .......................................................... 18
Connectivist Strategies.................................................................... 18
Pedagogy 2.0 Strategies .................................................................. 20
Participatory Learning Strategies.................................................... 21
Paragogy Strategies......................................................................... 22
Peeragogy Strategies....................................................................... 22
Software Applications for Online Learning................................................ 23
Learning Management Systems...................................................... 24
Social Software ............................................................................... 25
Social Software Tools ..................................................................... 28
Blogs ................................................................................... 29
Wikis ................................................................................... 29
Social Bookmarking............................................................ 30
Social Networking .............................................................. 31
Personal Learning Environments.................................................... 32
iii
Digital Technologies for Online Learning.................................................. 35
Mobile Learning.............................................................................. 36
Mobile Learning in Action.............................................................. 38
Mobile Learning Theories............................................................... 39
Mobile Device Technologies ...................................................................... 40
Mobile Devices in Action ............................................................... 41
Google Android Devices................................................................. 43
Apple Devices................................................................................. 44
Apple Device Studies...................................................................... 45
CHAPTER 3 – SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECCOMENDATIONS ............. 49
Summary of Findings.............................................................................................. 48
Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 50
Educational Learning Theory in Online Learning ..................................... 50
Software Applications for Online Learning................................................ 51
Digital Technologies for Online Learning ................................................. 52
Recommendations .................................................................................................. 55
Recommendations for Practice ................................................................... 55
Recommendations for Further Study ......................................................... 56
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 58
VITA ................................................................................................................................. 73
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1 -Using educational learning theories in an online learning environment............. 54
Figure 2 -The participants of a learning community in an online learning environment ... 55
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Need for the Study
Online learning courses have continued to gain a foothold in the worldwide
education community. Schnieders (2011) reported that over 4.6 million students are
utilizing online classes and 1 in 4 higher education students now take at least one course
online. The credibility of online learning cannot be questioned, as a 2009 study by the US
Department of Education concluded that in general, online learning is more effective than
face-to-face learning (Boston et al., 2009). The only question now is how to best utilize
the strengths of online learning and minimize the weaknesses. Kim, Liu, and Bonk
(2005) suggested that there have been concerns about the quality of e-learning based
online education. Dole and Bloom (2009) praised the increasing number of fully online
courses challenging the traditional model of teaching and learning, but they also argued
that few of these courses make significant improvements in the quality of student
learning, instead simply replicating traditional face-to-face pedagogy. Schnieders (2011)
commented that many courses are still largely text-based resources, discussion forums,
quizzes, and the occasional media object. Boston et al. (2009) questioned the
effectiveness of these types of courses in improving student learning outcomes, while
adding that retention also remains problematic for online programs.
High dropout rates have been of concern to many organizations and higher
education institutions. Park and Choi (2009) found that a higher percentage of students
participating in an online course tend to drop out compared to students in a face-to-face
2
classrooms. Sapp and Simon (2005) attributed the retention issues to higher levels of
dissatisfaction reported by online students compared to those enrolled in equivalent face-
to-face courses.
New models and methods will have to emerge in order to overcome these
problems in maintaining high quality online instruction for adults, and for all age groups.
The possible solutions thus far are merely a mix of loosely related theories. Hutchison,
Tin, and Cao (2008) declared that today’s online learners require the flexibility provided
by mobile devices that remove the barrier of a fixed time, place, and mode of learning.
New learning theories have emerged like that from Siemens (2005) who maintained that
connectivism is consistent with the needs of the twenty first century, while taking into
account the trends in learning, the use of technology and networks, and the diminishing
half-life of knowledge. Social learning is also a trending topic, due to the expansion and
growth in the use of Web 2.0 services and tools. The use of Web 2.0, and the prevalence
of user-generated content, was seen by Mcloughlin and Lee (2011) as having
implications for learning in higher education, as well as influencing pedagogical choices
and approaches.
The research mentioned in the preceding paragraph has contributed greatly to the
knowledge base for mobile learning, online learning theory, and the use of social
software in education. However, a literature search revealed that few researchers have
attempted to combine this acquired knowledge together to provide an effectual plan for
employing online learning. Koole (2009) introduced the Framework for the Rational
Analysis of Mobile Education (FRAME) which is a comprehensive model that covers
different aspects of mobile learning but does not address the impact of social software.
3
The Community of Inquiry framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer
(2001) described important components of the online learning experience including social
aspects, but their theory does not include the recent contribution of mobile technologies.
A thorough examination of prevailing and emerging learning theories, software
applications, and digital technologies is needed to clearly define the components that can
support and improve online learning. An understanding of these elements, and their
benefit to the online learning experience, will help in designing better courses and
programs for the adult student.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to contribute knowledge to the practice of developing
and implementing online learning. More specifically, the study attempts to determine the
essential components of a successful online learning experience. This study will help
online education instructors to reliably produce and deliver online learning instruction.
Statement of the Problem
In order to create effective online learning, instructors must be able to consult an
all encompassing review of literature that identifies the successful learning strategies,
useful software, and beneficial technologies that make significant improvements to the
quality of online learning.
Research Questions
1. What learning theories facilitate the development of effective online instruction?
2. What software applications are most useful in supporting online learning
activities?
3. What digital technologies are most beneficial to the online learning experience?
4
Significance of the Study
The growing popularity of online learning has led to many new studies probing
the various components of an online learning strategy. However, few studies have
attempted to determine what elements are most important in order to make online
learning successful. This study makes a significant contribution to research of online
learning by thoroughly examining literature to identify the learning theories, software
applications, and digital technologies that have exhibited success, or show significant
promise to be effective. Indentifying successful learning strategies, useful software, and
beneficial technologies that make significant improvements to the quality of student
learning will help online education instructors develop effective ways to structure and
navigate learning experiences.
Definition of Terms
E-learning: Defined as training delivered on a computer, (including DVD, CD-
ROM, Internet, Intranet and virtual classrooms) that is designed to support individual
learning or organizational performance goals. This includes e-courses developed
primarily to provide information as well as those designed to build specific job-related
skills (Clark & Mayer, 2007).
M-learning: Defined as the use of ubiquitous handheld technologies, together
with wireless and mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and extend the
reach of teaching and learning (Douch, Savill-Smith, Parker, & Attewell, 2010).
Mobile technologies/ Mobile devices: Defined as mobile phones, Smartphone’s,
PDAs, MP3/ MP4 players (e.g. iPods), handheld games devices (Sony PSP, Nintendo
5
DS), digital cameras, Ultra Mobile PCs (UMPCs), mini notebooks or netbooks, handheld
GPS or voting devices and specialist handheld technologies (Douch et al., 2010).
Online Learning: Defined as the use of the Internet to access learning materials;
to interact with the content, instructor, and other learners; and to obtain support during
the learning process, in order to acquire knowledge, to construct personal meaning, and to
grow from the learning experience (Ally, 2008)
Social Networking: Defined as a type of online tool used to establish and maintain
connection with friends and acquaintances (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace)
(Dabbagh & Reo, 2011).
Social Software: Defined as a set of applications and services that support online
social interaction and collaboration in education and facilitate collective action with rich
exchange of multimedia information and evolution of aggregate knowledge. It is a subset
of Web2.0 and a continuation of older computer-mediated communication and
collaboration tools (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011; Schroeder, Minocha, & Schneider, 2010)
Web 2.0: Defined as a term used to describe a broad range of web technologies,
services, and tools. It is also used to define a renewed pattern of web technology adoption
and innovation (Dabbagh & Reo, 2011).
6
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHOD AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Overview
The problem researched in this study was: What educational learning theories,
software applications, and digital technologies should be used to improve online
learning? A review of literature was conducted to answer the research questions stated.
The scope of the study required research in three areas: (a) educational learning theory in
online learning, (b) software applications for online learning, and (c) digital technologies
for online learning.
Methods and Procedures
In order to achieve a purposive sample of articles that would address the problem
researched through this study, a literature search was undertaken to locate as many
different sources as possible. As a result, for the first step there were very few exclusion
criteria. All types of online learning, e-learning, and mobile learning articles were
considered, as were results from searches for learning theory and social software. Two
main methods were employed for this search. The first was to search online journals and
articles using the EBSCO host, and Science Direct databases through the Morris Library
at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. The second was using Google Scholar, and
general Google searches on the Internet.
Papers were initially selected based on title and abstract. The initial wide search
yielded 378 papers. These papers were then considered more in detail and most were
excluded based on the following factors:
7
• They were not of sufficient quality. The expectation was for them to have been
accepted for a journal (paper), a conference (conference proceeding) or by a
university (thesis or public report). Chapters from books published by universities
or reputable organizations were also classified as sufficient quality.
• They were too specific to a particular population, learning type, or situation.
• They were not about adults or did not have sufficient methodology as to transfer
the findings to adults.
• They were not relevant in regard to the research questions presented.
A search of the references from the relevant articles was frequently practiced. If
accessible, those articles were read and their references were checked for relevant
sources. This process was repeated until a point of saturation was reached. Relevance
checks were then made on the 135 remaining papers to ensure coverage of the central or
pivotal articles in the online learning field. The content of the 102 remaining papers was
analyzed and quotations and statements were extracted from all papers, from the sections
abstract, result and conclusion (or equivalent). These quotations were inserted into a
database created for this purpose where they were interpreted into different categories in
regard to the research questions. Finally, the quotations were also reviewed for relevancy
and to make conclusions and recommendations for current practice and further study.
8
Review of Related Literature
This review of literature will examine studies and other relevant articles that
discuss educational learning theories in online learning and will identify the strategies to
employ in order to effectively utilize the theories when developing online learning. This
review also will explore articles on software applications used in online learning in order
to ascertain those that are most useful in supporting online learning practices. Finally this
review will discuss literature on digital technologies to pinpoint the devices that can be
used to enhance the online learning experience.
Educational Learning Theory in Online Learning
The first research question of this study asked: What learning theories facilitate
the development of effective online instruction? Ally (2008) proposed “the development
of effective online learning materials should be based on proven and sound learning
theories” (p.18). Therefore, before any learning materials can be developed, online
educators must understand the principles of learning and how students learn. There are
numerous educational learning theories that attempt to explain how students learn and the
best way to teach them. In order to answer the first research question, the major theories
of cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism will be discussed in this section, as will
other theories of learning including andragogy, heutagogy, paragogy, peeragogy, and
participatory learning. The second section: strategies for using educational learning
theory in online learning, will discuss how to use these theories to improve online
learning.
Cognitivism. Cognitive theories focus on the way in which learning was defined
and practiced in the last part of the 20th century (Anderson & Dron, 2011). Cognitive
9
theorists see learning as an internal process, and contend that the amount learned depends
on the processing capacity of the learner, the amount of effort expended during the
learning process, the depth of the processing and the learner’s existing knowledge
structure (Ally, 2008).
Constructivism. Social-constructivist pedagogies evolved later, and arose in
conjunction with the development of two-way communication technologies, which
created opportunities for both synchronous and asynchronous interactions between and
among students and teachers (Anderson & Dron, 2011). Social constructivism
emphasizes the importance of the learner being actively involved in the learning process,
as opposed to depending on the teacher to deliver knowledge while the learner passively
receives it (Minocha, 2009). Swan (2005) proposed that social constructivism serves as a
reminder that learning is essentially a social activity, and that meaning is constructed
through communication, collaborative activity, and interactions with others. (Koole,
2009) argued that social constructivism can be taken to extremes, but the impact of
interaction on human learning cannot be denied.
Connectivism. Siemens (2005) proposed a contemporary theory of learning
called connectivism that recognizes the impact of technology on society and ways of
knowing. His viewpoint was that learning in the digital age is no longer dependent on
individual knowledge acquisition, storage, and retrieval, but instead relies on the
connected learning that occurs through interaction with various sources of knowledge and
participation in communities of common interest, including social networks, and group
tasks (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009). Learning is seen as the process of building
networks of information, contacts, and resources that are applied to real problems
10
(Siemens, 2005). Connectivism also assumes that information is plentiful and that the
learner’s role is not to memorize or even understand everything, but to have the ability to
draw distinctions between important and unimportant information (Anderson & Dron,
2011). Effective learners will be able to navigate through large complex quantities of
information in order to retrieve the knowledge they seek, and will possess the skills
necessary to create and effectively participate in learning communities and social
networks (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009). According to Siemens (2005) learning is
a lifelong process, and most learning takes places outside of formal settings such as
college, so these learning communities, will help foster the ability to be lifelong learners.
Andragogy. The concept of directing your own learning and being a successful
online learner matches with concepts of the adult learning theory of andragogy made
popular by Malcolm Knowles (Hunter, 2008). According to Baird and Fisher (2005)
with andragogy, learning is organized around experiences, and students learn what is
worthwhile to apply in their own real-life. Hase and Kenyon (2000) proposed that
andragogy, and the principles of adult learning that were derived from it, transformed
face-to-face teaching and provided an argument for distance education based on the
notion of self-directedness.
Heutagogy. Hase and Kenyon (2000) also introduced heutagogy, an educational
approach where it is the learner who determines what and how learning should take
place. Luckin et al. (2011) argued that the increased use of collaborative and distributed
learning environments is blurring the boundaries between formal and non-formal learning
which requires “that we move on from these traditional, developmental, and temporally
situated understandings of what it means to learn and what it means to be a learner” (p.
11
77). Hase and Kenyon (2000) further stressed that a heutagogical approach recognizes
the need to be flexible in learning, in an environment where the teacher provides
resources, but the learner designs the actual course they might take by negotiating the
learning.
Paragogy. Corneli and Danoff (2011a) also used Knowles principles to introduce
a theory of peer-to-peer learning and teaching that they call paragogy. The theory of
paragogy was developed in the context of two online courses that ran at Peer 2 Peer
University (P2PU). The key outcome was an outline of an analytical framework that
applies to peer-to-peer or peer-based teaching-and-learning-between-equals. Corneli and
Danoff (2011a) discussed their Paragogical principles:
• Context as a decentered center. In paragogy, we recognize that we are not merely
teachers or learners, but are actually co-creating the learning context as a whole.
• Meta-learning as a font of knowledge. Here we are concerned both with efforts to
“learn how to learn”, and efforts to learn how to support others in their learning
efforts.
• Peers provide feedback that wouldn’t be there otherwise. Learners must not
simply seek confirmation of what they already know, but they must confront and
make sense of difference as part of the learning experience.
• Learning is distributed and nonlinear. Learning does not go in a straight line. In
particular, involvement in co-creating the learning context becomes an important
“strand” in the paragogical understanding of peer learning.
• Realize the dream, then wake up! Without clear goals, there will be nothing to
realize. Without critical thinking about goals (leading us to change them),
12
learning is a mostly passive game. (p. 3)
Peeragogy. Rheingold (2012) also investigated the concepts of paragogy, which
he prefers to call peeragogy to refer to any sort of self-organized peer learning. Rheingold
envisioned future online learning as that in which motivated self-learners collaborate
through various types of social media to create, deliver, and learn an agreed upon
curriculum. Rheingold explained the background to the structure of his class:
Five key ideas about learning have emerged from current research in the
cognitive sciences. This research documents that people learn by: constructing
their own understanding based on their prior knowledge, experiences, skills,
attitudes, and beliefs; following a learning cycle of exploration, concept
formation, and application; connecting and visualizing concepts and multiple
representations; discussing and interacting with others; reflecting on progress and
assessing performance. (para. 3)
Participatory learning. While considering the future of learning, Davidson and
Goldberg (2009) wrote The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age, which
introduced the concept of participatory learning. Davidson and Goldberg (2009)
proposed that:
Participatory learning includes the many ways that learners (of any age)
use new technologies to participate in virtual communities where they share ideas,
comment on one another’s projects, and plan, design, implement, advance, or
simply discuss their practices, goals, and ideas together. Participatory learning
begins from the premise that new technologies are changing how people of all
ages learn, play, socialize, exercise judgment, and engage in civic life. Learning
13
environments—peers, family, and social institutions (such as schools, community
centers, libraries, museums, even the playground, and so on)—are changing as
well. (p. 12)
Strategies for Using Educational Learning Theory in Online Learning
As evidenced by the preceding section, there are many schools of thought on
learning and abundant research on the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. There is
however, a lack of research that has compared the different theories and proclaimed one
as more effective then the others for use in online learning. This study did not set out to
directly compare the relevant theories, but instead endeavored to determine which
strategies from these educational learning theories could be used to guide the design of
online learning materials. The strategies, proposals, and frameworks from educational
learning theories that can be used to improve online learning will be discussed in this
next section.
Cognitive strategies. Cognitive psychology looks at learning from an information-
processing point of view, where the learner uses different types of memory during
learning (Ally, 2008). Cognitive based strategies allow learners to perceive and attend to
the information so that it can be transferred to working memory. Reducing extraneous
processing helps prevent learners from wasting cognitive effort on activity that is not
essential to learning the desired content (Mayer, 2008). Hiebert, Menon, Martin, & Bach
(2009) suggested that a good layout could reduce extraneous processing, because text
placed close to related graphics requires less effort to process than text separated from
graphics. Learning improves when complex information is presented in smaller chunks,
such as when a narrated animation is presented in learner-paced segments rather than
14
being presented in one continuous stream (Moore & Baer, 2010). To facilitate efficient
processing in working memory, online learning materials should present between five
and nine items on a screen (Ally, 2008). Information should be presented verbally, and
visually as an addition to text, whenever possible to facilitate processing and the transfer
to long-term memory (Mayer, 2008). Moore and Baer (2010) found that students learn
better when knowledge is presented with a conversational rather than formal narrative
style because an engaging voice creates a sense of social relationship, which makes the
learner try harder to understand. Also, learners should be given the opportunity to
complete assignments and projects that use real-life applications and information in order
to facilitate the transfer of learning (Ally, 2008).
Constructivist strategies. Anderson (2008) and Swan (2005) in their writings on
online learning theory framed their studies on the implications for constructivist theory in
online learning through the lenses of the How People Learn framework. This study will
take the same approach. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) the authors of How
People Learn contended that constructivism suggests we should be concerned with the
design of particular kinds of learning environments, namely, learning environments that
are learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment centered, and community-centered.
These four perspectives need to be kept in balance for effective learning. “They need to
be conceptualized as a system of interconnected components that mutually support one
another” (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999, p. 133).
Learner centered. Environments that are learner-centered acknowledge
constructivist views that individuals bring unique knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs
to the learning experience, and that there are many ways to structure experience and
15
many different perspectives that can be gleaned from any circumstance or concept (Swan,
2005). Online learning poses many challenges to the development of learner-centered
environments, since the majority of interactions and opportunities to discover students’
preconceptions and cultural perspectives are often limited by online constraints, which
limit the users’ view of body language and nonverbal clues (Anderson, 2008). Twigg
(2000) recommended that quality online learning should include initial assessments of
students’ knowledge and skills, individual study plans involving a variety of interactive
learning materials, and continuous assessment with immediate feedback. Anderson
(2008) found that online learning teachers should also make time at the start of their
learning interactions to provide incentive and opportunity for students to share useful
details and unique aspects about themselves. This can be accomplished through electronic
surveys or questionnaires, but virtual icebreakers or informal introductions can be more
effective. Swan (2005) proposed personalizing the experience for each individual.
Knowledge-centered. From a constructivist point of view, Knowledge –centered
learning environments focus on the kinds and structures of information and activities that
help students construct robust understandings of particular topics and disciplines
(Bransford, et al., 1999). Knowledge construction is facilitated by good online
interactivity with the instructor and other students as long as the student is willing to take
the initiative (Ally, 2008). Online education is well suited for knowledge-centered
learning, because it allows for the design and refinement of well-structured materials and
activities that support a variety of ways in which information can be presented (Swan,
2005).
16
The Internet provides many opportunities for learners to dive deep into
knowledge resources, providing an almost limitless way for them to grow their
knowledge (Anderson, 2008) The exceptional access to information and resources which
the Internet offers can be easily incorporated into course materials and activities (Swan,
2005). Ally (2008) argued that learners should be given control of the learning process to
construct their own knowledge, rather than accepting that given by the instructor.
Anderson and Dron (2011) submitted that a social-constructivist system shifts
somewhat away from the teacher, who becomes more of a guide than an instructor, while
continuing to provide the critical role of shaping the learning activities and designing the
structure in which those activities occur. Because of the overwhelming amount of
information available on the Internet, a skillful online instructor is still needed to provide
the big-picture scaffolding upon which students can grow their own knowledge
(Anderson, 2008).
Assessment-centered. Constructivist approaches to assessment emphasize the
importance of the individual’s processing of environmental feedback and on the design of
assessment-centered environments that provide ongoing meaningful feedback to learners
(Bransford, et al., 1999). Constructivism suggests that self-assessment is integral to
learning, and that it is especially important to encourage learners to continuously
construct and reconstruct their knowledge, and to evolve and change their understandings
in response to feedback (Swan, 2005). As online learners interact with the content, they
should be encouraged to apply, assess, synthesize, evaluate, and reflect on what they
learn (Ally, 2008). Regular feedback is critical for online students because of the lack of
regular face-to-face meetings (Swan, 2005). There are many opportunities for assessment
17
in online learning, those that involve the teacher, but also ones that exploit the influence
and expertise of peers and external experts (Frydenberg, 2011). Draper (2009) argued for
the use of multiple-choice questions combined with an electronic voting system to
encourage deep learning. He calls this approach “catalytic assessment,” where he means
that the “questions act as initiators either for peer interaction or directly for metacognition
which subsequently leads to conceptual learning” (p. 292).
Community-centered. Constructivist approaches towards the community-centered
concept enable the critical social component of learning to be included in online learning
designs (Anderson, 2008). Community-centered design is the degree to which a learning
environment supports the social construction of knowledge and the development of a
learning community, while also connecting students to the larger community and culture
(Swan, 2005). Participants in online communities should share a sense of belonging,
trust, expectation of learning, and commitment in order to fully participate and contribute
to the community (Anderson, 2008). Though online learning may not appear to be well-
suited to the development of community-centered learning environments because of the
value that is placed on independence of time and place, Anderson (2008) argued that
social software could be the solution to accommodate the diverse needs of learners and
teachers by allowing them to connect without placing constraints upon their
independence.
Connectivist strategies. Mcloughlin and Lee (2011) discussed connectivism and
concluded that it strives to overcome the limitations of behaviorism, cognitivism, and
constructivism, “by synthesizing the salient features and elements of several educational,
social, and technological theories and concepts to create a new and dynamic theoretical
18
construct for learning in the digital age”(p. 48). Siemens (2006) stated that a
decentralization of knowledge contributes to the enrichment of learning, giving more
control to the end-user, so that learning becomes a process of gathering, adapting, and
creating knowledge. Although Siemens described connectivism as a theory of learning,
according to Bates (2011) Siemens’ position is more of a theory or view of the nature of
knowledge rather than a theory of teaching and learning. “Thus there are hints of possible
actions to be taken, but at this stage of development, there are no clear guidelines for
teachers and learners” (Bates, 2011 p.32). Ally (2008) found that Siemens (2004) did
propose some guidelines for designing learning materials. Ally elaborated on those
guidelines:
• Because of the information explosion, learners should be allowed to
explore and research current information. Learners of the future need to be
autonomous and independent learners so that they can acquire current
information to build a valid and accurate knowledge base.
• The rapid increase of information available from a variety of sources
means that some information is not as important or genuine as other
information. As a result, the learner must be able to identify important
information from unimportant information.
• Learning and knowledge rests in a diversity of opinions. As a result,
learners must be allowed to connect with others around the world to
examine others’ opinions and to share their thinking with the world.
19
• Learning should be delivered in a multi-channel system where different
communication technologies are used to deliver the learning materials to
facilitate optimal learning
• Because of the information explosion, learners of the future must be
willing to acquire new knowledge on an ongoing basis. Online teaching
strategies must give learners the opportunity to research and locate new
information in a discipline so that they can keep up-to-date in the field (p.
36)
Pedagogy 2.0 strategies. In order to respond to the ideas of connectivism and
how Web 2.0 tools and practices are challenging and redefining education and pedagogy,
McLoughlin and Lee (2011) proposed a pedagogical framework, “Pedagogy 2.0,” that
addresses the themes of participation in networked communities, personalization of the
learning experience, and learner productivity in the form of knowledge creation and
innovation. When they discussed the participation theme, McLoughlin and Lee (2011)
advocated that a “more engaging, socially based models for teaching and learning are
needed to replace the traditional, “closed classroom” models, which place emphasis on
the institution and instructor” (p. 51). McLoughlin and Lee argued that Pedagogy 2.0 is
reflective of the participation as opposed to the acquisition model of learning, which
favors a shift toward student teacher partnerships, with teachers as co-learners in the
learning process. Huijser and Sankey (2011) echoed this sentiment when they proposed
that the role of teachers or instructors in the context of Pedagogy 2.0 becomes one of
working collaboratively with learners to review, edit, and apply quality control
20
mechanisms to student work while also drawing on input from the wider community
outside the classroom.
For the personalization aspect of Pedagogy 2.0, McLoughlin and Lee (2011)
challenged instructors to step outside the formal classroom to foster authentic learning
that is personally meaningful and relevant to learners, in order to capitalize on the widely
accepted view that learning effectiveness can be improved by giving the learner control
over, and responsibility for their own learning. Ally (2008) discussed how to personalize
online learning when he stated, “learning materials should include examples that relate to
the learners so that they can make sense of the information. Assignments and projects
should allow learners to choose meaningful activities to help them apply and personalize
the information” (p. 31).
Finally, for the learner productivity theme of Pedagogy 2.0, McLoughlin and Lee
(2011) proposed that instructors should encourage students to create new and original
ideas, concepts, and knowledge as this content is likely to be of value to the learner,
peers, and future student cohorts, not to mention a wider Internet community.
Furthermore, McLoughlin and Lee (2011) suggested that the wireless connectivity and
data gathering capabilities of mobile devices (e.g., blogging, video recording, voice
recording, texting) can be used by learners to simplify, speed up, and enhance peer-to-
peer content creation and collaboration. The concepts of collaboration and peer groups as
discussed in Pedagogy 2.0 are also important elements of participatory learning,
paragogy, and peeragogy.
Participatory learning strategies. Davidson and Goldberg (2009) argued that
participatory learning is happening now, since those coming into our educational system,
21
and adults too, rely on participatory learning by first turning to the Internet and the
wisdom of crowds and smart mobs to help them make decisions about which car they
should buy, which cell phone provider to use, and which restaurants to patronize.
Davidson and Goldberg (2009) explained how early draft of their essay used
Commentpress, the Web-based tool developed by the Institute for the Future of the Book
as a variation of the blogging software, Wordpress. Commentpress allowed an online text
to be annotated in a digital version of margin notes. In doing so, they created a shared and
interactive experience, in which they were able to engage in online conversation with
those reading and commenting on their work, which was a version of participatory
learning.
Paragogy strategies. For their theory of peer-to-peer learning and teaching that
they call paragogy, Corneli and Danoff (2011b) recommended ways to implement
paragogy:
• Establish a group consensus for expectations/goals/social contract of the
course and how each of them should be evaluated at its conclusion.
• Have learners designate learning goals that they then commit to stick with.
• Formalize a process for assisting peers (e.g. responding to questions,
giving feedback on publicly posted work).
• Develop explicit pathways for learner feedback to translate into changes to
the learning environment. (Implementing paragogy, para.1)
Peeragogy strategies. In designing his communications course, Rheingold (2012)
also investigated the concepts of paragogy, which he prefers to call peeragogy.
Rheingold explained how the class would be conducted:
22
The instructor, together with student teaching teams, invites and facilitates co-
exploration of and co-experimentation with social media theory and practice. The
texts, discussions in the classroom, and online discourse revolve around
collaborative inquiry in which students and instructor pursue questions that matter
to us about issues raised by the communication media we use in the course.
Knowledge is to be explored, interrogated, critically analyzed, played with, and
collaboratively assembled in our online collaboratory by the class as a whole. The
instructor will invite experimentation, suggest themes, model expected behaviors,
point out connections, contextualize, ask, guide, contest, participate, provide
resources, tell stories, respond to questions; but from the beginning, students are
charged as individuals and as a group with assembling and making sense of the
knowledge we harvest from these inquiries. (para. 2)
This type of peer-to-peer and collaborative learning is occurring in classrooms
like Rheingold’s, and is also popping up other places on the Internet. Websites like P2PU
enable people to work together to learn a particular topic by completing tasks, assessing
individual and group work, and providing constructive feedback. There are also websites
like: Stack Exchange which is a network of question and answer sites on diverse topics,
Open Study is described as a social learning network where students ask questions, give
help, and connect with other students studying the same things, Quora is a collection of
questions and answers created, edited, and organized by users.
Software Applications for Online Learning
The second question posed for this study was: what software applications are
most useful in supporting online learning activities? In order to provide answers, an
23
examination of current research on software used for online learning was conducted.
One type of software that many learning institutions use to mange their online learning is
a Learning Management System (LMS) (Caplan & Graham, 2008). More recently,
online instruction has turned to social software to connect with learners (Dabbagh & Reo,
2011). The pros and cons of using LMS’s and social software will be discussed in the
next section, as will the ways to use social software tools in online learning.
Learning Management Systems
A Learning Management System (LMS) is a software package used to administer
one or more courses to learners, and is typically a web-based system that allows learners
to register for classes, complete courses and take assessments (Berking & Gallagher,
2011). Some well-known examples of Learning Management Systems are Blackboard,
Moodle, and Desire2Learn (Caplan & Graham, 2008). Most universities have learning
management systems (LMS) or virtual learning environments (VLE) of some kind, and
these systems are widely regarded by university decision-makers as the preferred solution
for the task of taking universities from traditional forms of teaching to the web-based
environment (Tynan & Barnes, 2011).
Questions have arisen though as to how successful the LMS-based approach has
been. Väljataga, Pata, and Tammets (2011) said that since LMSs are usually only
accessible to students of a particular course, the possibility to engage and interact with
the outside world is rather limited. In general, students do not have a chance to choose or
go beyond the barriers imposed by the institution. They can only adjust to the provided
LMS application and its artificially created boundaries. Findings from research
synthesized by Tynan and Barnes (2011) revealed “that critics have described many
24
LMS-based course materials as shovelware, and that problems are generalizable to many
other institutions around the world” (p. 365).
As the nature of Internet users evolves, so do their demands and expectations
from e-learning, but Tynan and Barnes (2011) also found that the installation of an
institutional LMS tends not to transform pedagogies, and that teaching staff just use the
technologies they can incorporate into their teaching activity most easily, or that offer
simpler solutions for what they already do, rather than those which radically change
teaching and learning practices. Anderson (2008) stated that there have been attempts to
change teaching and learning practice by basing courses upon cohort groups of students
interacting either through real-time audio, video conferencing, or asynchronously through
text conferencing with a teacher and other students, but these have not been demonstrated
to be cost-effective. Teachers also find such models of delivery take more time than
equivalent classes delivered on campus.
Tynan and Barnes (2011) declared:
Perhaps the time has come to transfer management of the learning to academics
and students, to take it out of the hands of the LMS managers or administrators. In
truth, they probably will not miss what they never had. The growing range of Web
2.0 tools mean that most universities can probably well do without the expensive,
“one- size-fits-all” proprietary systems that have been the focus of so much effort
and expenditure. (p. 373)
Väljataga et al. (2011) argued that the need for instructors to be prepared to select
and combine the right Web 2.0 software tools and services to support individual and
collaborative tasks to enrich learning environments is becoming an educational
25
imperative. There is a need to steer academic staff towards tools that leverage the speed
and user friendliness of Web 2.0, and simplify the task of producing new forms of
teaching materials (Tynan & Barnes, 2011).
Social Software
Web 2.0 with its accompanying set of social software tools is seen to hold
considerable potential for addressing the needs of today’s diverse students who demand
flexible, ubiquitous, and media-rich learning experiences that are customized,
personalized, and provide opportunities for networking and collaboration (McLoughlin &
Lee, 2011). Downes (2005) noted that social software tools allow learning content to be
created and distributed in ways that move beyond pre-packaged course content consumed
by students. Anderson (2005) commented that social software offers a learner freedom to
engage in a learning relationship with other learners and facilitates collaboration between
individuals who are separated by location and time. This is in contrast with the more
traditional approach of individuals working in isolation and often in competition with
each other, as the interactivity of Web 2.0 social software provides two-way
communication that lends itself to co-operation and the development of a learning
community (Minocha, 2009).
In a study from Europe examining over 200 cases on the impact of social
computing for learning, Redecker (2009) found that social software: (a) can facilitate
learning processes by making study material more readily available, which in turn
supports different individual learning styles; (b) allows for an improved knowledge
exchange, which supports the individual’s personal knowledge and resource management
and contributes to the personalization of learning processes; (c) can contribute to
26
increasing the individual’s performance and academic achievement; (d) can affect the
enjoyment of learning and enhance motivation which empowers learners to actively
engage in the development of personal learning skills and competences; (e) can
contribute to the development of higher order cognitive skills like reflection and meta-
cognition, increasing self-directed learning skills and enabling individuals to better
develop and realize their personal potential.
Schroeder, Minocha, and Schneider (2010) conducted a SWOT analysis on data
from 20 social software initiatives in UK-based education institutions to identify the
experiences and concerns of students and educators. Their analysis of the case data
identified a number of strengths through which social software supported teaching and
learning. Specifically, social software can contribute to the building of social
relationships, improve learning, and enhance communication between students and
educators. Bates (2011) proposed that Web 2.0 tools could facilitate new models of
design for education and training that will better prepare teachers and learners for a
knowledge-based society. Social software tools enable learners to not only find, identify,
manipulate, and evaluate information and knowledge, but also to become active co-
producers of knowledge rather than passive consumers of content (McLoughlin & Lee,
2011). Bates (2011) however, rejected the notion that the tools by themselves will
revolutionize education and make formal institutions redundant, because many learners
require structure and guidance and the new technologies need to be integrated with a
variety of educational approaches if all learners are to be accommodated.
Schroeder et al. (2010) also saw weaknesses when using social software. Specific
weaknesses included: (a) high workload issues by students who perceived the use of
27
social software as an extra task in addition to their course requirements, so being
involved in interactions in a social software environment was regarded as having an
impact on their flexibility and independence; (b) high workload issues by educators who
described how the steps in setting up a social software initiative required a considerable
amount of time and effort; (c) perceived limitations in the quality of interaction as
students repeatedly pointed out the difficulties in maintaining proper forms of interaction
in social software environments and concerns about finding the right tone for providing
constructive feedback; (d) uncertainty about ownership and assessment since a
collaborative approach to content creation and validation creates difficulties in an
environment where assessment is often based on the achievements of individuals or pre-
defined groups.
McLoughlin and Lee (2011) also noticed issues and challenges in research that
showed many students currently lack the competencies necessary to navigate and select
relevant sources from the overabundance of information available. In an age of personal
publishing and user-generated content, digital literacy and information fluency skills are
requirements for students who need to develop expertise and confidence in finding,
evaluating, creating, and sharing ideas, which often calls for complex critical thinking
(Brown, 2005). In addition, Schroeder et al. (2010) revealed analysis showing that in
order to create a dynamic collaborative environment it is not enough to just set up social
software activities and leave it to the students to collaborate and share. It is important to
pro-actively foster the use of these tools and train students on how to communicate and
interact within these environments.
28
Social Software Tools
The term Web 2.0 or Social Software covers a wide range of software tools that
enable users to interact and share ideas with other users, primarily via the Internet.
“These digital applications include those for blogging, podcasting, collaborative content
(e.g. wikis), social networking (e.g. MySpace, Facebook), multimedia sharing (e.g.
Flickr, YouTube), social tagging (e.g. Deli.cio.us) and social gaming (e.g. Second Life)
(Redecker, 2009 p. 31).
Blogs. A blog is commentary or news on a particular subject or from a particular
perspective written as an online diary. A typical blog combines text, images, and links to
other blogs (Minocha, 2009). Blogs are online public writing environments, which
enable a single author or a group of authors to write and publicly display articles, called
posts, which are listed in reversed chronological order (Redecker, 2009). Blogging
enables unique opportunities for educators to improve communication with students,
increase depth of learning through reflection, and enable the formation of diverse
viewpoints and perspectives (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009). Commenting, one of the
main features of blogs enhances the advancement of writing constructive comments and
feedback, as well as strengthening social interaction (Väljataga, 2009).
Examples of the educational uses of blogs include: (a) a group of bloggers using
their individual blogs to build up a body of interrelated knowledge via posts and
comments (Minocha, 2009); (b) teachers using a blog to update learners on course
activities, post reflections on in class conversations, and to share articles and related
course materials (Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009); (c) students using blogs as digital
portfolios to collect and present their work (Redecker, 2009). A blog can be used as a
29
tool for publishing and for sharing both between students as well as among a larger
community. Blogs provide an opportunity to make a learning process, and learning itself
more visible to others (Väljataga, 2009).
Wikis. A wiki is a website that allows users to collaboratively add, remove and
otherwise edit and change content, usually text (Redecker, 2009). Whereas blogs allow
individual expression, wikis overwrite individuality to create a collaborative resource
(Siemens & Tittenberger, 2009). Wikis are often more collaborative than blogs and so
are regarded as true social networking tools (Minocha, 2009). Wiki software can track
changes as users make them, making it possible to revert back to an earlier version of a
page (Frydenberg, 2011).
Dabbagh, and Reo (2011) described a wiki as a shared interactive space or
platform for fostering collaborative knowledge construction, and proposed that Wikis
epitomize the social constructivist idea that knowledge derives from social interactions,
since it is a social software tool that makes it easy for multiple users to create and edit
web pages collaboratively.
Alexander (2006) considered how wikis fit into the world of higher education,
and viewed them as useful tools for a variety of needs, from student group learning to
faculty department work to staff collaborations. Alexander pictured writing exercises
based on these tools, building on the established body of collaborative composition
practice. A wiki could also involve large numbers of learners who contribute content,
provide feedback on existing content, or act as site editors to correct inaccurate content
(Dabbagh & Reo, 2011).
Social Bookmarking. A social bookmarking service allows users to record
30
(bookmark) web pages, and tag those records with significant words (tags) that describe
the pages being recorded (Redecker, 2009). Social bookmarking is a type of personal
knowledge management tool that allows users to save and categorize a personal
collection of bookmarks and share them with others while also taking bookmarks saved
by others and saving them to their own collection (Afonin, 2009). Redecker (2009)
found that the concept of tagging has been widened far beyond website bookmarking and
has been integrated in many social computing applications to allow a variety of digital
items like photos, videos, music, blog posts, and podcasts to be socially tagged. Social
bookmarking tools facilitate informal learning by permitting users to discover resources
and find people with similar interests by exploring the bookmark lists of other users
(Afonin, 2009). There are advantages to using social bookmarking sites over storing
bookmarks privately in a browser on a local computer, as a user’s bookmarks are stored
in the cloud of the Internet, so they are available from any browser when logged in to the
site (Frydenberg, 2011).
Social bookmarking sites are a useful research tool for teaching and learning
purposes. Mejias (2006) referenced the use of bookmarking in the classroom by students
who contributed articles to an important reading list for the class, thereby creating their
own research community. Students decided on the most popular news articles by voting
for them, and then the stories that received the largest number of votes appeared on the
site’s front page. Students drew upon the wisdom of crowds to assume that if many
people are tagging a particular article, it is an indication that it is probably worth reading
for information on that topic (Frydenberg, 2011). Because tags are assigned by people
rather than programs they can be a good measure of the quality of a resource, and may be
31
a more effective way of locating relevant content than a simple web search (Frydenberg,
2011).
Social Networking. Social networking services can be broadly defined as
Internet based social spaces designed to facilitate communication, collaboration and
content sharing across networks of contacts (Cachia, 2008). Examples of social
networking services include: Facebook, MySpace, and Google Plus (for social
networking/socializing), Twitter (for social networking/microblogging), LinkedIn (for
professional networking), Second Life (virtual world) and Elgg (for knowledge accrual
and learning) (Redecker, 2009). These services enable users to connect to friends and
colleagues, to send mail and messages, to blog, to meet new people and to post personal
information profiles, which may consist of blogs, photos, videos, images, and audio
content (Cachia, 2008). When integrated into education and training, social networking
invites for more creative and motivating ways of learning by strengthening the social and
explorative aspects of learning (Redecker, 2009).
Duffy (2011) proposed that Facebook could be used for teaching and learning,
with benefits arising from its ability to enable students to share information, knowledge,
and artifacts within a community linked through members’ personal profiles and the
associations between them. Duffy (2011) further argued that Facebook offers many
educational benefits by:
Allowing students to demonstrate critical thinking, take creative risks, and make
sophisticated use of language and digital literacy skills, and in doing so, the
students acquire creative, critical, communicative, and collaborative skills that are
useful in both educational and professional contexts. (p. 288)
32
Personal Learning Environments
Web 2.0 social software tools can be used for formal learning however, in
informal learning they also can be combined together to form a Personal Learning
Environment. As a reaction to institutionally controlled Learning Management Systems
(LMSs), which still have the instructor at the center of the educational experience,
Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) have become quite popular. Kop (2010a)
stressed that Web 2.0 technologies with their built-in possibilities for communication and
collaboration have enabled learners to create personalized learning experiences, and
possibly ushered in a new era of informal learning. Attwell (2007) proposed a Personal
Learning Environment based on the idea that learning will take place in different settings
and situations and will not be provided by a single learning provider.
PLEs also recognize the role of the individual in organizing his or her own
learning. Väljataga, Pata, and Tammets (2011) asserted that using a subjective,
pedagogical approach to explain a PLE offers a broader, more natural view of what
comprises a personal environment in which learning occurs. In their view, a PLE is a
knowledge network or a cognitive space that is constantly shifting. The idea of the PLE
aims to include and bring together all types of learning, including informal and formal
learning, workplace learning, learning driven by problem solving and learning motivated
by personal interest (Attwell, 2007).
Kop (2010a) explained how people would learn when using a Personal Learning
Environment by citing a model showing that most learning experiences are based on six
33
components: gathering of information, social interaction, activity, reflection, and
conceptualization and repurposing of information, though researchers disagree on which
components are most important. These elements can all be incorporated into a
technologically driven learning environment, but the challenge would be in finding the
correct interaction, as this relationship can greatly affect the quality and depth of the
learning that takes place.
A Personal Learning Environment is not an application. A PLE is comprised of all
the different tools a person uses in their everyday life for learning. Many of these tools
will be based on social software (Attwell, 2007). The features of the PLE design may be
achieved using a combination of digital technologies (laptops, mobile phones, tablets),
applications (newsreaders, email clients, browsers, calendars) and services (social
bookmarking services, weblogs, wikis) within what may be thought of as the practice of
personal learning using technology (Wilson et al., 2006). Kop (2010a) suggested that
editing and publishing tools would also be important for learners to repurpose the
information, to reflect on the information, add to it and publish it for instance, by
producing a blog or video. This will help the user to create new content and support
distribution to other sources.
Kop (2010a) also maintained that a PLE is different from other information
gathering tools as it aims to provide learners with particular information that is “centered
on the student and would constitute the student’s personal educational record, portfolio,
business and educational contacts, communications and creativity tools, library and
resource subscription management, and related services” (p. 2). In essence it would
combine all the tools and applications “a learner needs to start a learning journey with
34
recommendations of information based on earlier searches and personal profile, in
addition to feedback from others on their learning” (Kop, 2010a, p. 2)
In their work on the iCamp project, that set out to encourage innovative
educational practices within European higher education, Pata and Väljataga (2009) found
that students who want to develop a technology plan for creating personal environments
in order to support their own work and study activities need to be competent in terms of
using and managing technology. Their findings therefore suggested that putting together
a PLE including tools and services, resources and people, often requires a trial and error
approach, which in turn can help to advance the necessary skills and knowledge needed
for self-direction in education.
With an informal PLE there is no teacher or tutor to guide learners and to
challenge their ideas and beliefs or to help in making sense of the information, instead the
onus is on learners themselves to make these judgments and to verify information and
knowledge, or find knowledgeable others who can help them with this (Kop, 2010a).
Martindale and Dowdy (2010) contend that the technical hurdles for PLEs can be
considerable since they are generally comprised of several social software applications,
and the skills necessary to manage all of these applications are considerable. The
frequency at which Web 2.0 applications arrive, update, and sometimes disappear creates
a challenge to learners looking for new components for their PLEs.
Regardless of the possible complexity in fashioning a PLE, Web 2.0 tools have
proven to be effective in enhancing communication in the learning process. Kop (2010b)
found that both learners and tutors singled out Web 2.0 technologies for their
effectiveness in the facilitation of online communication. Kop (2010b) argued that “if the
35
tools are being used for what they do well, e.g. chat for socializing, wikis for group work,
blogs as reflective diaries that people can respond to, they can play a significant role in
the facilitation of a meaningful learning experience” (p. 268).
Digital Technologies for Online Learning
The third research question was: what digital technologies are most beneficial to
the online learning experience? Online learning was made possible because of digital
technology. Early computer based training that connected users to outside servers or the
Internet seemed groundbreaking at the time. The user could often engage in learning at
any time of their choosing, but the place was fixed, most often in a computer lab, or in
front of their home computer. With the advent of laptops and more sophisticated Wi-Fi
systems students gained some freedom of movement, but what did not change was the
experience of learning online. In fact Schnieders (2011) claimed that online learning
really has not changed much since 1996. New mobile technologies show promise in
bringing a new experience to online learning. McGreal and Elliot (2008) affirmed that
mobile computing is here, and that wireless devices are being chosen over desktop and
even laptop computers, not only as the preferred Internet access tool, but also for most
common computing applications. The annual Horizon Report on emerging technologies
in education identifies e-books and mobile devices as moving closer to mainstream
adoption (GSM Association, 2011a).
New innovations in mobile have emerged that Schnieders (2011) proposed, “will
result in more powerful and engaging instruction that should translate into improved
learning outcomes and retention” (p.1). Traxler (2009) asserted, “mobile devices are
changing societal discourse and knowledge” (p.10). DeWaard et al. (2011) in their study
36
of the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) format, stated: “that there are currently two
major technologies that have great influence on educational discourse, social media and
mobile technologies, both of which impact learning in a profound way” (p. 96). Current
research on existing mobile devices in education will follow this first section on mobile
learning.
Mobile Learning
With the global volume of mobile cellular subscriptions projected to grow to 5.3
billion (Kainz, 2011) and an estimated 1.2 billion people carrying Web-enabled mobile
phones (Gartner, 2010), the use of technology for learning is quickly becoming
ubiquitous. That is, people no longer see it as separate from regular learning, and it is
viewed as part of the tools that trainers, instructional designers, instructors, and others
who design or deliver instruction use to impact skills and performance (Shank, 2007).
A mobile device overcomes the limitations of access to course information and
other applications by allowing learners to disseminate information and complete other
course work even when they are away from their hard-wired Internet connections
(Motiwalla, 2007). Mobile learning or m-learning can be any form of learning that
happens when mediated through a mobile device (Herrington, Herrington, Mantei, Olney,
& Ferry, 2009). It is also defined as the use of ubiquitous handheld technologies,
together with wireless and mobile phone networks, to facilitate, support, enhance and
extend the reach of teaching and learning (Douch et al., 2010). Traxler (2009) discussed
mobile learning in this way: "Mobile learning has always implicitly meant mobile e-
learning and its history and development have to be understood as both a continuation of
37
'conventional' e-learning and a reaction to this 'conventional' e-learning and to its
perceived inadequacies and limitations." (p. 1)
The key features of using mobile technology for learning are its personalization
capability and extended reach. This has attracted more and more learners, especially
adult learners, for whom the work-life balance is critical (Motiwalla, 2007). Mobile
technology provides learners with choice over and ownership of their learning.
Combined with good planning, mobile technologies can encourage creativity and
innovation by both learners and teachers (Douch et al., 2010). Koole (2009) described
mobile learning as almost the perfect way to learn since mobile allows interaction with
learning systems anytime, anywhere, and adds social aspects that enable communication
and collaboration with multiple individuals. Griffin (2010) argued that the idea of having
learning separated by an extended period of time from when a person actually attempts to
use the learning has to be challenged. Griffin insisted that few learners today want the
information weeks and even months in advance. They actually would like to have
specific topics and refresher learning available ‘on-demand’ minutes or even seconds
before they will need to use it.
Mobile learning in action. In their report of case studies focusing on the use of
mobile technologies, Douch et al. (2010) described research by the Mobile Learning
Network (MoLeNET) who found that the use of mobile technologies in work-based and
vocational learning contexts can result in increased: engagement with learning, flexibility
of learning, learner retention and achievement and personalization of learning.
Cambridge Training and Development Ltd., an active participant in more than 20 m-
learning trials across Europe, has found success with a blended approach using mobile
38
devices, media, and other group activities (Stead, 2005). Blending mobile technologies
into the mix resulted in improvements to learning accessibility, collaboration and
flexibility (Khaddage, Lanham, & Zhou, 2009).
Qualcomm, a mobile technology company, began Project K-Nect to determine if
smartphones could play a role in enhancing student engagement and learning. There was
a positive correlation between students who actively participated in Project K-Nect and
their final algebra proficiency level along with a 30 percent increase in proficiency on a
standardized exam given by the State of North Carolina, compared to classes not in
Project K-Nect, but taught by the same teacher (GSM Association, 2011b). In their study
of MobileMOOC, DeWaard et al. (2011) found that combining mobile technologies and
the MOOC format could benefit learning communities by: connecting peers to construct
new knowledge, encouraging knowledge exchange through dialogue, and enabling
patterns of meaning to form across regions and institutions by pulling large parts of
society into the conversation.
Despite this type of evidence, higher education does not seem to be embracing m-
learning as a way of improving their student’s online experience. Peters (2007) reported
that there appears to be limited adoption even though many education providers
recognize the benefits of m-learning. Peters attributed this lack of adoption to the age
and ability of teachers, the cost of providing m-learning devices and infrastructure, and
the slow rate of change in many large educational institutions. Park (2011) noted that
instructional designers and teachers also need more guidance about how to utilize
emerging mobile technologies and integrate them into their teaching more effectively.
Mobile learning theories. Traxler (2009) pointed out that despite the many
39
forms of, and increasing services offered by mobile learning, it is still immature in terms
of its technological limitations and pedagogical considerations. Park (2011) noticed the
lack of a solid theoretical framework that can guide effective instructional design as a
serious issue faced by mobile learning. Herrington et al. (2009) argued that the current
use of mobile devices in higher education (essentially content delivery) is pedagogically
conservative and regressive. Their adoption is following a typical pattern where
educators revert to old pedagogies as they come to terms with the capabilities of new
technologies. Conventional courseware is based on behavioral and cognitive models of
learning developed in the 60s and 70s and may not apply well to the psychology of
today’s learners (Kadle, 2010). Sharples (2000) contended that advances in technology
have enabled devices to become more personalized, user-centered, mobile, ubiquitous,
and durable, which offers the possibility for m-learning to support both the social
constructive theory of learning and the conversation theory.
Motiwalla (2007) developed a framework to extend learning into a mobile
environment that supports the constructive learning and conversation theories by taking
into account the technological attributes and pedagogical affordances of mobile devices.
“From the point of view of socio-constructivist and socio-cultural approaches, mobile
technologies and especially social software provide interesting possibilities for
developing teaching and learning toward a more collaborative direction” (Vesisenaho et
al., 2010, p. 274). Belshaw (2011) argued that in mobile learning the mobility of the
technology is not as important as the mobility and flexibility of the user, and
recommended focusing on the learner in mobile learning to ensure that the emphasis is
placed upon pedagogy rather than hardware or software. Brown and Haag (2011)
40
remarked that “It’s not about devices – it’s about capabilities and it’s not about the
technology – it’s about the experience” (p. 19).
Mobile Device Technologies
There are some disadvantages and advantages of using mobile technologies for
learning. Hutchison et al. (2008) mentioned the limited storage capacity, reliance on a
battery for power, and that the small display screen on many phones still presents
problem for older learners. In addition, Hutchison et al. found that the lack of a common
platform among the various device manufacturers complicates the development of
content. Handheld mobile devices and cellular services are significantly less expensive
than PCs and laptops with fixed Internet service, (Elias, 2011) and the rapid improvement
of new mobile products with their advanced functions and numerous applications may
mean that the technical limitations of mobile devices are a temporary concern (Park,
2011).
The improvement has indeed been rapid, as there are now more capable mobile
devices, which afford a wider array of possible content delivery methods. As new
devices continue to enter the market, new features and new capabilities are appearing at
an accelerated pace. Stefan, Stanescu, Stefan and Mouzakitis (2011) remarked that the
pace of change and the short life of some products has added unwelcome complexity for
researchers, and it is not unusual to witness a particular model being replaced in the
course of a research project, which makes longitudinal studies, and replicating a study
difficult. This may be a reason for the lack of available research studies on most devices.
While reviews are common, investigations on aspects of usability or advantages to
learning are harder to find. Despite limited research into the capabilities and positive
41
impact of mobile devices, there is a growing number that are being deployed in all types
of schools.
Mobile devices in action. Douch et al. (2010) described research by the Mobile
Learning Network (MoLeNET) in testing all types of digital technologies: iPods with
work-based construction and hair and beauty learners, netbooks and mobile phones with
construction learners, Sony PSPs with electrical engineering students, Nintendo DSs with
disaffected and disengaged youths and learners. Molenet reported generally good results
while also saying that allowing learners to use their own phones in conjunction with a
netbook may be a good option for the future. Khaddage, Chonka, and Zhou (2009)
investigated these mobile phone brands: Nokia, Samsung, Sony Ericson, and the Apple
iPhone. They looked at what technologies these mobile phones support that can help
students view and retrieve learning content without any problems. The iPhone came out
on top in most of their tested criteria such as quality graphics, sound, camera capabilities
and battery life.
Google entered the education market with the launch of the new Chromebook, a
cloud-based laptop. GSM Association (2011a) viewed the Chromebook as a “potential
game changer for education because it lessens the need for 1:1 devices and offers a
different business model”(p. 9). Google leases the Chromebooks to educational
institutions for a $20 monthly fee. That fee includes tech support, and software updates
(GSM Association, 2011a). Shankland (2012) reported that despite having been
criticized for slow performance, Google has recently won over three school districts with
its Chromebook by bringing more than 27,000 of the browser-based laptops to Iowa,
42
Illinois, and South Carolina. The Chromebooks use Google Apps, Google's online suite
for word processing, e-mail, presentations, and other applications.
Seton Hall University announced in 2011 that it was the first higher education
institution in the U.S. to use Lenovo’s ThinkPad Tablet PC, distributing more than 400
tablets amongst students and faculty in the Sciences, Honors and School of Business
Leadership Programs (Fisher, 2011). Fisher (2011) also reported that the University is
making the 10.1-inch, Android 3.1 tablets a central part of its Mobile Computing
Program as well as an essential teaching device. Seton Hall students will use a variety of
the ThinkPad tablet’s pre-loaded applications, along with a University developed custom
chemistry science application that aims to expand the classroom experience by delivering
more interactive experiment processes for students (Fisher, 2011).
Google Android devices. Through the Android Educational Outreach program,
Google granted over 300 Android-powered mobile phones to 40 universities across
Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (Harper, 2012). This is the second year they have
awarded mobile phones to universities to support mobile related project work in
university teaching and research. Most universities developed proprietary applications
for use on the devices ranging from flash card apps to mapping tools (Harper, 2012).
Shanmugapriya and Tamilarasi (2012) used the Mobile Adaptive Test (MAT) on
Android based mobile devices and found “that the open-architecture, multimedia and
graphics rendering capability, rich set of user interfaces, and gesture and sensor based
controls make the Android a much preferred platform for mobile devices and highly
suitable for developing and implementing m-learning applications” (p. 161).
43
Some reviewers have found inconsistencies in the Android interface reporting
lags when scrolling in windows, pages stuttering while loading, and undesirable
performance on pinching to zoom in or out on web pages (Kendrick, 2011). Judge
(2011) saw inconsistency and unpredictability for the end user in many Android apps,
which are often more concerned with functionality then style as opposed to iOS that has
consistency across all apps. When mapping out the functionality and user-experience of
the Android platform, Ikonen (2010) found that there is a possibility that compatibility of
the Android platform can fragment as manufacturers continue to expand the platform to
meet the needs of their own devices, which may result in some applications not being
compatible with all devices. However, Tabletsatwork.com (2012) saw the Android
operating system, and Android-powered tablets gaining more advocates in schools across
the country, because of their integration with Google Apps. Tabletsatwork.com also
argued that Android tablets are more affordable, make it easier to share and store
information, and enable better application management.
Pierce (2011) reported on the Kineo, which is also built on Google’s OS. It acts
as an eBook reader with Internet access, and enables school leaders to specify the
applications that students can use on the device by locking down apps they do not want
students to use. Its messaging capabilities have been disabled to make sure students use it
for learning. Its replaceable battery can last for up to 12 hours on single charge, and is
priced at $299, which is less than Apple iPad. In May of 2011 Brainchild Corp. reported
the Kineo sold out of its initial production run of 5,000 Kineos, which were delivered in
April to school districts in ten states (Brainchild, 2011). Pickens (2011) reviewed the
device and remarked that “unfortunately Brainchild's approach is short sighted and it has
44
deliberately chosen to limit its device to an incredibly small feature set in order to
somehow ensure that students are using the Kineo only for education”(para.3). Pickens
also commented about how Brainchild removed the camera and gutted the web browser
so that children will not be able to use the Kineo for anything other then teacher allowed
content. However, Pickens did finally cite Brainchild as doing a few things right when
they made the Kineo virtually indestructible with an especially rugged display.
Apple Devices. Many schools, colleges and universities have been experimenting
with Apple devices, varying from campus-wide distributions to small-scale, single-class
pilots (GSM Association, 2011b). Rao (2012) reported that there are currently 1.5
million iPads in use in educational institutions and schools and 20,000 education and
learning applications that have been built for the iPad. Apple’s iPad has been heralded as
a device that can take personal computing to the next level and a game changer for
education (Kumar, 2010). Griffin (2010) remarked that until April 2010, the mobile
learning market was at its tipping point, but the launch of the Apple iPad has likely tipped
this market into wide-scale acceptance and growth by bringing heightened awareness in
homes and offices of what can be achieved on the move with a mobile device. GSM
Association (2011a) saw Apple’s potential to change the learning landscape, since they
manufacture devices, support content development (apps) and distribute educational
content through their App Store and iTunes U. Rao (2012) reported that iTunes U has
seen over 700 million downloads and that 1,000 university and colleges around the world
are using iTunes U, which is home to free lectures, videos, books, and podcasts from
learning institutions. GSM Association (2011a) also found that Apple has been
conducting trials, supporting educators and donating used iPads to Teach for America,
45
and has supported many pilots and successful implementations of Apple devices in the
classroom. They saw Apple devices as attractive not only to consumers and learners, but
also to the education sector due to their high levels of functionality and low levels of
training, support and maintenance.
Apple device studies. In 2010, Trinity College of Melbourne Australia launched
The ‘Step Forward’ Pilot Project, which was designed to introduce and test iPads for
August entry students, and to promote educational innovation and technological
competence among Trinity College academic staff (Jennings, Anderson, Dorset, &
Mitchell, 2011). Findings from Jennings et al. indicated overwhelming support for the
iPads by both students and staff. Other findings revealed that:
▪ iPads are effective, durable, reliable and achieve their educational aims of
going further, faster and with more fun.
▪ iPads have advantages for TCFS over other technologies such as netbooks
and laptops.
▪ iPads are not a replacement for desktop/laptop computers or other
educational technologies but are an enhancement. (Jennings et al., 2011, p.
1)
The University of San Francisco (USF) launched a six-month iPad study that
included 40 of their faculty. The intention of the study was to review, experiment and
share potential uses of the iPad in higher education (Bansavich, 2011). Findings from
Bansavich revealed the USF faculty’s desire for increased opportunities for collaboration,
ongoing support for technology innovation projects, and continued interest in monitoring
46
the iPad in support of teaching and learning, specifically in the use of electronic
textbooks and app development.
Angst and Malinowski (2010) reported on a project that was initiated with the
intent of gaining insight into how Notre Dame University could build an ecosystem to
support the creation, distribution, and consumption of ePubs and eBooks on both present
and future eReader devices. The research project measured technology acceptance,
technology value, and use of iPad devices. Findings from Angst and Malinowski
suggested the greatest value of the iPad might not be its ability to function as an eBook
reader but instead its capacity to function as a consolidator or aggregator of information.
Angst and Malinowski also found that a statistically significant proportion of students felt
the iPad: (a) makes class more interesting, (b) encourages exploration of additional
topics, (c) provides functions and tools not possible with a textbook, (d) helps students
more effectively manage their time.
Abilene Christian University (ACU) announced findings from its Connected
Mobile Learning Program, a three-year investigation and empirical research study based
on Apple's iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. In a highly-controlled scientific study, ACU
students who used an iPad to annotate text performed at a rate 25 percent higher on
questions regarding transfer of information than their counterparts who used only paper
(Gertner, 2011). ACU also found that the iPad provided increased access and
engagement for students, along with high levels of satisfaction. Graduate students in an
ACU online education program reported a 95 percent satisfaction rate using the iPad to
accomplish their online coursework, citing convenience and the device's range of
47
features. The tablet also provided ease of use in conducting research and activities that
promote higher-order thinking (Abilene Christian University, 2011).
Finally, the following statistics may demonstrate the impact that mobile devices
such as smartphones and tablets have had on consumers, who may or may not use their
devices for learning. McCraken (2011) reported that CEO Tim Cook stated that Apple
had sold 250 million iOS devices to date, including iPhones, iPod Touches, iPads.
McCraken also reported that Google CEO Larry Page stated that 190 million Android
devices had been activated (since Google does not directly sell the devices, they talk
about units in terms of activations, not sales).
In conclusion, this review of literature examined research on educational learning
theories in online learning and the strategies to employ in order to effectively utilize the
theories when developing online learning. This review also covered the software
applications that are most useful in supporting online learning and also discussed
literature on the digital technologies that are most beneficial to the online learning
experience.
48
CHAPTER 3
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings
The major educational learning theories used for online learning are cognitivism,
constructivism, and connectivism. Other theories of learning include andragogy,
heutagogy, paragogy, peeragogy, and participatory learning. Each of these theories has
aspects that can be used to develop online instruction. However to be most effective, the
instruction should be centered on the learner, and should consider what the learner
already knows, how they like to learn, and what they want to learn. Less emphasis
should be placed on the instructor. In fact the instructor should become more of a guide,
advisor or a co-learner during their participation in the learning activity. Online learning
should also be social in that it enables participation in learning with networked
communities, social groups and peers. This networked participation and the increase in
the amount of information available though, requires students and instructors to develop
effective ways to structure and navigate learning experiences.
The growing value of Web 2.0 tools has shifted the focus of online learning
software from expensive, one- size-fits-all proprietary Learning Management Systems
towards software tools and services that support individual and collaborative tasks and
simplify the chore of producing new forms of teaching materials. Web 2.0 social
software tools have been found to: facilitate learning processes, improve knowledge
exchange, increase academic achievement and the enjoyment of learning, contribute to
the building of social relationships, and enhance communication between students and
49
educators. Social software tools in the form of blogs, wikis, social bookmarking, and
social networking have proven to be effective in enhancing communication in the
learning process. In addition, a personal learning environment which is based on social
software tools has been found to bring together all types of learning, including informal
and formal learning, workplace learning, learning driven by problem solving and learning
motivated by personal interest.
Mobile technologies in the form of smart phones and tablets are becoming the
preferred choice for: retrieving ideas and information from the Internet, connecting with
peers and social contacts, producing and publishing content. The affordances of these
technologies have enabled e-learning to evolve into mobile learning. Mobile learning
allows interaction with learning systems anytime, anywhere, and adds social aspects that
enable communication and collaboration with multiple individuals. Research on mobile
learning has found that it can result in increased: engagement with learning, flexibility of
learning, learner retention and achievement and personalization of learning.
A wide array of new mobile devices continues to enter the market employing new
features and new capabilities. Despite limited research into the capabilities and positive
impact of mobile devices, there is a growing number that are being deployed in all types
of schools, with Apple and Google Android devices most predominant. Tablet devices
have shown the greatest promise for producing game changing results in studies
performed by higher education institutions. Apple’s iPad in particular has been found to
increase access and engagement for students, encourage exploration of additional topics,
provide functions and tools not possible with a textbook, and help students more
effectively manage their time.
50
Conclusions
Educational Learning Theory in Online Learning
What learning theories facilitate the development of effective online instruction?
All the major and some minor educational learning theories can play a role in designing
effective online instruction. Cognitive based strategies can be used to influence the
presentation of learning materials to a student in order for them to most effectively
process and retain the information. Constructivist strategies can be utilized to design the
environment in which a student conducts their learning. An environment that is most
importantly learner centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community
centered. Connectivist strategies can serve as a guide for designing an effective and
relevant program of learning that considers the impact of modern technologies, and
facilitates participation in communities of learning.
The adult learning theory of andragogy and the approach to learning of heutagogy
describe the essential principals that a designer of instruction should keep in mind. That
online learning instruction should be about the learner, what they want to learn, and what
is worthwhile to apply in their own real-life. How to go about designing this type of
instruction has not been clearly determined. Pedagogy 2.0 has issued the challenge for
instructors to step outside the traditional box, to foster authentic learning that is
personally meaningful and relevant to learners. Some trails have begun formally by
Rhiengold (2012) using his theory of peeragogy, and informally every day on the Internet
by learners using the wisdom of crowds, smart mobs, and crowdsourcing to obtain their
knowledge.
51
Software Applications for Online Learning
What software applications are most useful in supporting online learning
activities? Clearly, there is a need to move beyond pre-packaged online courses that are
mostly text based with only an occasional discussion forum or multi-media element
thrown in. If learning is essentially a social activity, and meaning is constructed through
communication and collaborations with others as social constructivism emphasizes, then
social software becomes the ideal conduit to facilitate that social activity. Blogging
provides exceptional opportunities for instructors to improve communication with
students, and increase depth of learning through reflection. Wikis increase self-directed
learning skills while facilitating collaboration between individuals separated by time and
space. Social bookmarking and social networks enable learners to discover many more
sources of knowledge then would ever be possible with a text book based course. The
ability to also use these tools for knowledge creation, along with the ability to share this
content almost anywhere, becomes a powerful way to improve online learning for all
students and instructors.
There are some growing pains evident however, from instructors unaccustomed to
using social software and by students who see the requirement to use these tools as
having an impact on their flexibility and independence. There also are issues of digital
literacy for both instructors and students who lack the skills necessary to navigate and
evaluate the superabundance of information available. Finding the right mix of social
software tools in an online learning course may prove difficult at first, but as students
become more proficient and instructors more accepting, the use of these powerful
instruments for communication and collaboration will become commonplace.
52
Digital Technologies for Online Learning
What digital technologies are most beneficial to the online learning experience?
Mobile learning on mobile devices has shown early success in improving the online
learning experience, with glimpses of an even greater potential to change the experience
completely. Mobile devices have the ability to enhance and extend the reach of teaching
and learning by combining together a knowledge base, a content creator, a collaboration
tool, and a communications platform. They are being used in all types of learning
situations both in schools and at work, and continue to show improvements to learning
accessibility, collaboration and flexibility.
More higher education institutions are starting to see the possibilities of mobile
learning and are providing increasing numbers of devices to their students. Many are
finding Apple devices attractive because of their high levels of functionality and low
levels of training, support and maintenance. Curriculums and strategies for using mobile
devices though show need for improvement, as many institutions are merely pushing
their traditional text based course work out to students. As more and more consumers buy
these devices and get comfortable using them for their own personal use, mobile learning
may at some point be seen as an essential part of the online learning experience.
53
Figure 1. Using educational learning theories in an online learning environment. The
intersections where the circles overlap represent how the complementary aspects of each
theory can facilitate the use of social software and mobile learning to enhance the
learning process.
54
Figure 2. The participants of a learning community in an online learning environment.
Each participant uses the process from figure 1 to enhance their knowledge through
connections with the other participants. An online learning community is formed that
benefits each participant in multiple ways.
55
Recommendations
Recommendations for Practice
• Online learning needs to be more fully implemented. It should not just be a way
for institutions to increase their enrollment, or be classified separately as a
different way of teaching. It should instead be a tool used by every instructor to
enrich learning and enhance transfer of learning. It could easily be implemented
in every course to expand on the text book, by introducing additional concepts
that students could investigate at their own pace. Online learning could also be
practiced in the classroom, with mobile devices, which will allow students the
ability to research topics while also being in discussions with classmates.
• Online learning courses need to make better use of social software. It should be an
integral part of every online course. Not just as an extra to allow students to
communicate, but to also allow them to collaborate. Social software tools can be
used to allow students to actively participate in the construction of knowledge.
The expectation that students will develop their own understandings and
meanings together should be part of the process, and a goal of the learning
objective.
• Online learning should be more focused or centered on the learner. Social
constructivism emphasizes the importance of the learner being actively involved
in the learning process, as opposed to depending on the teacher to deliver the
knowledge. When students can log on a computer and transform themselves to a
different place, immerse themselves in artificial worlds or collaborate with people
56
around the world, the idea of the teacher as the holder of knowledge is surely
antiquated.
• Learner centered would then mean that the learner is in control of all aspects of
the learning process. An online learning program could offer a menu of options
that allows the student to decide: (a) what they want to learn, the choices would
be extensive not just limited to the specialties of the resident teachers; (b) when
they want to learn, the time frame, what days or time of day; (c) how they like to
learn, reading, watching video, podcasts, wiki collaboration, blog postings; (d)
who they want to learn with, on their own if they are self directed, as a co-learner
with other students using collaborative tools, as part of a live video conferencing
class; (e) where they want to learn, on a computer at home, library, or lab, on a
mobile device anywhere using the appropriate mobile software. Online programs
with these options would be able to cater to every different type of student.
Recommendations for Further Study
• Mobile learning still requires further study. There are too many possibilities or
choices in how to use mobile devices in online learning. Instructional designers
and teachers need more guidance on how to design appropriate curriculum. The
focus should be placed on the learner and the underlying pedagogy rather than the
hardware. Social constructive theory implies that people learn best when they
have an opportunity to interact with content, instructors, and other learners, when
there’s a realistic problem that activates new knowledge, and when they have a
chance to apply new skills and reflect upon their learning. These are all
capabilities that are possible when using a mobile device in conjunction with
57
social software. Mobile learning could be consistently effective with the
development of a framework that employs social constructive learning theory and
strategies combined with social software on a user friendly but powerful mobile
device like Apple’s iPad.
• Personal Learning Environments (PLE) also require further study. PLE’s hold
many possibilities for harnessing and organizing informal learning. Possibilities
that include allowing learners to engage in an educational program of their own
choosing and design that achieves the same learning objectives as a formal
program. Further research could identify a proper structure and the appropriate
social software tools that would be most effective.
• Finally, further studies into how to best utilize peer-to-peer learning should be
conducted. The idea that future online learning could consist of motivated self-
learners collaborating through social media to create, deliver, and learn an agreed
upon curriculum is a powerful concept that could revolutionize online learning.
58
References
Abilene Christian University (2011, September 19). ACU research sheds light on
mobility in teaching, learning. Retrieved from
http://www.acu.edu/news/2011/110919-mobility-research.html
Afonin, A. (2009). Social networking: Scuttle: A social bookmarking service. In K.,
Grodecka, F., Wild, B., Kieslinger, (Eds.), How to use social software in higher
education (pp. 78-83). Retrieved from: http://www.icamp.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2009/01/icamp-handbook-web.pdf
Alexander B. (2006) Web 2.0: A New wave of innovation for teaching and learning?
Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44.
Ally, M. (2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson
(Ed), The theory and practice of online learning (pp.15-44). Retrieved from
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Anderson, T. (2005) Distance learning – Social software’s killer ap. Retrieved from
Athabascau University website:
auspace.athabascau.ca/bitstream/2149/2328/1/distance_learning.pdf
Anderson, T. (2008). Social software to support distance education learners. In T.
Anderson (Ed), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 201-220).
Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-93.
Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890
Angst, C., & Malinowski, E. (2010). Findings from e-reader project, phase 1: Use of
59
iPads in MGT40700, project management. Retrieved from University of Notre
Dame website: http://www.nd.edu/~cangst/NotreDame_iPad_Report_01-06-
11.pdf
Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments—the future of elearning? eLearning
Papers, 2(1) (pp. 1-8). Retrieved from http://www.
elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11561.pdf
Baird, D., & Fisher, M. (2005). Neomillennial user experience design strategies: Utilizing
social networking media to support” always on” learning styles. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 34(1), 5-32.
Bansavich, J. C. (2011). Ipad study at USF. Retrieved from University of San Francisco
website: ipad.wiki.usfca.edu/file/view/iPad+Study+at+USF+Report.pdf
Bates, T. (2011). Understanding Web 2.0 and its implications for e-learning. In M. J.W.
Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning: applying social
informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 21-42). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-
7.ch002
Belshaw, D. (2011). Mobile and wireless technologies review. Retrieved from JISC
website: http://mobilereview.jiscpress.org/
Berking, P., & Gallagher, S. (2011). Choosing a learning management system
(Volume2.6). Retrieved from Advanced Distributed Learning website:
http://www.adlnet.gov
Boston, W., Díaz, S. R., Gibson, A. M., Ice, P., Richardson, J., Swan, K. (October 2009).
An exploration of the relationship between indicators of the community of inquiry
60
framework and retention in online programs. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 13(3), 67-83.
Brainchild, (2011, May 16). Press release: Brainchild Kineo Tablet with GlobalSYNC,
just for schools, adopted in ten states. Retrieved from:
http://www.brainchild.com/news/brainchild-kineo-tablet-with-globalsync-just-for-
schools-adopted-in-ten-states/
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind
experience and school. Retrieved from the National Academy of Sciences web
site: http:// www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1
Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative
learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1-11. Retrieved from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/rt/printerFriendly/675/1271
Brown, T. (2005). Beyond constructivism: Exploring future learning paradigms.
Retrieved from:
www.bucks.edu/old_docs/academics/.../Beyond_constructivism.pdf
Brown, J, & Haag, J., (2011). ADL mobile learning handbook. Retrieved from Advanced
Distributed Learning website: http://www.adlnet.gov
Cachia, R. (2008). Social computing: Study on the use and impact of online social
networking. Luxembourg: European Commission. Retrieved from:
http://ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC48650.pdf
61
Caplan, D., Graham, R. (2008). The development of online courses. In T. Anderson (Ed),
The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 245-263). Retrieved at
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2007). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco,
CA: Pfeiffer
Corneli, J., & Danoff, C. J. (2011a, July). Paragogy. CEUR Workshop Proceedings Vol-
739, Berlin, Germany
Corneli, J., Danoff, C. J. (2011b). Paragogy: Synergizing individual and organizational
learning. Retrieved from: http://paragogy.net/ParagogyPaper1
Dabbagh, N., & Reo, R. (2011). Back to the future: Tracing the roots and learning
affordances of social software. In M. J.W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web
2.0-based E-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 1-20).
doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch001
Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The Future of learning institutions in a
digital age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
DeWaard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M. S., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., &
Rodriguez, O. C. (2011). Using mlearning and MOOCs to understand chaos,
emergence, and complexity in education. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 94-115. Retrieved from:
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1046
62
Dole, S., & Bloom, L. (2009). Online course design: A Case study. International Journal
for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1-11. Retrieved from:
http://www.georgiasouthern.edu/ijsotl
Douch, R., Savill-Smith, C., Parker, G, & Attewell, J. (2010) Work-based and vocational
mobile learning: Making IT work. Retrieved from LSN website:
https://crm.lsnlearning.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=100186
Downes, S. (2005, October 17). E-learning 2.0 (Web log post). Retrieved from:
http://www.downes.ca/post/31741
Draper, S. W. (2009). Catalytic assessment: Understanding how MCQs and EVS can
foster deep learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(2), 285–293.
doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2008.00920.x
Duffy, P. (2011). Facebook or faceblock: Cautionary tales exploring the rise of social
networking within tertiary education. In M. J.W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.),
Web 2.0-based E-learning: applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp.
192-148). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch010
Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for mobile learning.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 144-
156. Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/965
Fisher, P. (2011, September 15). University adds 400 lenovo thinkPad tablet PCs to
mobile technology toolkit. Retrieved from Seton Hall University website:
http://www.shu.edu/news/article/362888
Frydenberg, M. (2011). Teaching and learning information technology through the lens
of Web 2.0. In M. J.W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning:
63
applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp128-148). doi:10.4018/978-1-
60566-294-7.ch007
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking cognitive presence,
and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance
Education 15(1), 7-23. Retrieved from:
http://communityofinquiry.com/sites/communityofinquiry.com/files/CogPres_Fin
al.pdf
Gartner (2010). Gartner identifies the top 10 strategic technologies for 2011. Retrieved
from: http:// www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1454221
Gertner, R. T. (2011). The effects of multimedia technology on learning (Unpublished
masters thesis). Abilene Christian University, Dallas Texas.
Griffin, G. (2010, October 20). Mobile learning is beyond its tipping point. Learning
Solutions Magazine. Retrieved from:
http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/540/mobile-learning-is-beyond-its-
tipping-point
GSM Association (2011a). Mobile education landscape report. Retrieved from:
http://www.gsmaembeddedmobile.com/resources/reports/list.aspx
GSM Association (2011b). The mobile proposition for education. Retrieved from:
http://www.gsmaembeddedmobile.com/resources/reports/list.aspx
Harper, D. (2012, February 22). 2011 EMEA Android Educational Outreach Program
awards mobile phones to universities (Web log post). Retrieved from:
http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2012/02/2011-emea-android-educational-
outreach.html
64
Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. ultiBASE, 5(3).
Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I., & Ferry, B. (2009). Using mobile
technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. In J. Herrington, A.
Herrington, J. Mantei, I. Olney & B. Ferry (Eds), New technologies, new
pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education. (pp. 1-14). Wollongong:
University of Wollongong. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/
Hiebert, E. H., Menon, S., Martin, L. A., & Bach, K. (2009). Online scaffolds that
support adolescents’ comprehension. Seattle, WA: Apex Learning.
Huijser, H., & Sankey, M. (2011). “You can lead the horse to water, but...”: Aligning
learning and teaching in a Web 2.0 context and beyond. In M. J.W. Lee, & C.
McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning: applying social informatics for
tertiary teaching (pp. 267-283). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch014
Hunter, M. (2008). Social media for adult online learners and educators. In S. Hirtz & D.
Harper, (Eds.), Education for a digital world: Advice, guidelines, and effective
practice from around the globe (pp. 429-439). Retrieved from:
http://www.col.org/resources/crsMaterials/Pages/edDigitalWorld.aspx
Hutchison, M., Tin, T., & Cao, Y. (2008). Meeting the needs of today’s new generation
of online learners with mobile learning technology. In T. Anderson (Ed), The
theory and practice of online learning (pp. 201-220). Retrieved from:
http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Ikonen, O. P. (2010). Functionality and user-experience of Andriod platform on non-
mobile multimedia devices, (Masters thesis). Retrieved from:
http://dspace.cc.tut.fi/dpub/bitstream/handle/123456789/6646/ikonen.pdf?sequenc
65
e=3
Jennings, G., Anderson, T., Dorset, M., & Mitchell, J. (2011) Report on the step forward
ipad pilot project. Retrieved from Trinity College website:
www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/
Judge, S. (2011). Android design problem areas, (Web log post). Retrieved from:
http://mobilephonedevelopment.com/archives/1405
Kadle, A. (2010). The advent of mobile learning technology. Retrieved from Upside
Learning website:
http://www.upsidelearning.com/blog/index.php/2010/01/07/the-advent-of-mobile-
learning-technology/
Kainz, C. (2011). Mobile agility and the anytime, anywhere impact on IT. Retrieved
from: http://bb.blackboard.com/g/?id4yntdhix
Kendrick, J. (2011, October 18). After the iPhone 4S, Android just feels wrong. ZDNET
News. Retrieved from: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/after-the-iphone-
4s-android-just-feels-wrong/5068
Khaddage, F., Chonka, A., & Zhou, W. (2009). E-Learning over mobile phone
technology: Best practices and guidelines. International Journal of Interactive
Mobile Technologies, 3(3), 55-58. doi:10.3991/ijim.v3i3.950
Khaddage, F., Lanham E., & Zhou, W. (2009). A mobile learning model for universities:
Re-blending the current learning environment. International Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technologies, 3(1), 18-23. doi:10.3991/ijim.v3s1.949
Kim, K., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online
66
learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher
Education, 8(2), 335–344. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2005.09.005
Koole, M. (2009). A Model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally, (Ed.), Mobile
learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 25-47).
Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University
Kop, R. (2010a). The design and development of a personal learning environment:
Researching the learning experience. Retrieved from the National Research
Center of Canada website: http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-
cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?action=rtdoc&an=15336786&lang=en
Kop, R. (2010b). Networked connectivity and adult learning: Social media, the
knowledgeable other and distance education (Doctoral thesis, University of
Wales, Wales, United Kingdom). Retrieved from:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33459795/Rita-Kop-Thesis-May10
Kumar, S. (2010). Why the iPad is a learning tool. Learning Solutions Magazine.
Retrieved from: http://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/545/why-the-ipad-
is-a-learning-tool
Luckin, R., Clark, W., Garnet, F., Whitworth, A., Akass, J., Cook, J., Day, P.,
Ecclesfield, N., Hamilton, T., & Robertson, J. (2011). Learner-generated contexts:
A Framework to support the effective use of technology for learning. In M. J.W.
Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning: applying social
informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 70-84). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-
7.ch004
67
Martindale, T., & Dowdy, M. (2010). Personal learning environments. In G. Veletsianos
(Ed.), Emerging technologies in distance education (pp. 177–193). Retrieved
from: http://www.aupress.ca/books/120177/ebook/09_Veletsianos_2010-
Emerging_Technologies_in_Distance_Education.pdf
Mayer, R. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the
design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 760-769.
McCraken, H. (2011, November 14). iOS vs. Android: Lots of stats, little clarity. CNET
News. Retrieved from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-33200_3-57323943-290/ios-vs-
android-lots-of-stats-little-clarity/
McGreal, R., & Elliott, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In T.
Anderson (Ed), The theory and practice of online learning (pp. 143-165).
Retrieved from: http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Mcloughlin, C., & Lee, J. W. (2011). Pedagogy 2.0: critical challenges and responses to
Web 2.0 and social software in tertiary teaching. In M. J.W. Lee, & C.
McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based e-learning: applying social informatics for
tertiary teaching (pp. 43-69). doi: 10.4018/978-1-60566-294-7.ch003
Mejias U. (2006) Teaching social software with social software, Innovate: Journal of
Online Education, 2(5). Retrieved from:
http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=260
Minocha, S. (2009). Role of social software tools in education: A Literature review.
Education and Training, 51(5/6), 353–369.
68
Moore, A., & Baer, T. (2010). Research put into practice: Apex Learning curriculum &
pedagogy. Retrieved from:
www.apexlearning.com/documents/Research_Put_into_Practice.pdf
Motiwalla, L.F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers &
Education, 49, 581–596. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011
Park, J. H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out
or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.
Park, Y. (2011). A Pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational
applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 79-102.
Pata, K., & Väljataga, T. (2009). ICamp: Assumptions and requirements. In K.,
Grodecka, F., Wild, B., Kieslinger, (Eds.), How to use social software in higher
education (pp. 104-113). Retrieved from: http://www.icamp.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2009/01/icamp-handbook-web.pdf
Peters, K. (2007). M-learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 2. Retrieved
from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/350
Pickens, S. (2011, January). The Kineo: New Android tablet, reader. Good idea gone bad,
(Web log post). Retrieved from: http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/The-KINEO--
New-Android-Tablet-Reader-Good-Idea-Gone-Bad.aspx
Pierce, D. (2011, February 4). Kineo: like an iPad, but made for students, (Web log post).
Retrieved from: http://benton.org/node/49702
69
Rao, L. (2012, January 19). Apple: 20,000 education iPad apps developed; 1.5 Million
devices in use at schools, (Web log post). Retrieved from:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/19/apple-20000-education-ipad-apps-developed-1-
5-million-devices-in-use-at-schools/
Redecker, C. (2009). Review of Learning 2.0 practices: Study on the impact of Web 2.0
innovations on education and training in Europe. Luxembourg: European
Commission. Retrieved from: ftp.jrc.es/EURdoc/JRC49108.pdf
Rheingold, H. (2012). Wiki:Welcome from the instructor. Retrieved from:
http://socialmediaclassroom.com/host/vircom/lockedwiki/welcome-instructor
Sapp, D. A., & Simon, J. (2005). Comparing grades in online and face-to-face writing
courses: Interpersonal accountability and institutional commitment. Computers
and Composition, 22, 471–489. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2005.08.005
Schnieders, R. (2011). The evolution of online learning: Incorporating and building
social presence to create engaging online learning experiences. Retrieved from:
Deltak website: http://www.deltak-innovation.com/
Schroeder, A., Minocha, S., & Schneider, C. (2010). The strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education
teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26, 159–174. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x
Shank, P. (2007). Design strategies for online and blended learning. In B. Brandon (Ed),
The eLearning Guild’s Handbook of e-Learning Strategy (pp .27-41). Retrieved
from: http://www.elearningguild.com/content.cfm?selection=doc.817
70
Shankland, S. (2012, January 25). 27,000 Google Chromebooks headed to U.S. schools.
CNET News. Retrieved from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-57365703-
264/27000-google-chromebooks-headed-to-u.s-schools/?tag=cnetiosapp
Shanmugapriya, M., & Tamilarasi, A. (2012). Developing a Mobile Adaptive Test
(MAT) in an m-learning environment for Android based 3G mobile devices.
International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering (IJCSE), 4(2), 153-
161.
Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning.
Computers and Education, 34, 177–193.
Siemens, G. (2004, December 12). A learning theory for the digital age (Web log post).
Retrieved from http:/www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International
Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, January 2005,
http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/ article01.htm.
Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime for the self-amused.
Retrieved from: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-
amused.htm
Siemens, G., & Tittenberger, P. (2009). Handbook of emerging technologies for learning.
Retrieved from http://umanitoba.ca/learning_technologies/cetl/HETL.pdf
Stead, G. (2005). Moving mobile into the mainstream. Retrieved from: www.m-
learning.org/archive/docs/MLearn2005_Stead.pdf
Stefan, V., Stanescu, I. A., Stefan, A., & Mouzakitis, G. S. (2011, April). Mobile tools for
learning and social education. Conference proceedings of eLearning and
71
Software for Education, Bucharest. Retrieved from:
http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/issuedetails.aspx?issueid=e0484140-f5b8-4634-99cf-
126be9eeea9a&articleId=9d81165b-4a36-4fe6-8762-97023905ba82
Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne
& J. C. Moore (Eds), Elements of Quality Online Education: Engaging
Communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.
Tabletsatwork.com (2012, March 7). 7 Reasons why the Android OS is at the top of the
class in K-12, (Web log post). Retrieved from:
http://www.tabletsatwork.com/2012/03/7-reasons-why-the-android-os-is-at-the-
top-of-the-class-in-k-12/
Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning. In M. Ally, (Ed.), Mobile learning:
Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 9-24). Edmonton, AB:
AU Press, Athabasca University
Twigg, C. (2000). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant
difference. The Pew Learning and Technology Program, Retrieved from:
www.thencat.org/Monographs/Mono4.pdf
Tynan, B., & Barnes, C. (2011). Web 2.0 and professional development of academic
staff. In M. J.W. Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning:
applying social informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 365-379). doi: 10.4018/978-
1-60566-294-7.ch019
Väljataga, T. (2009). Publishing and sharing: Blogs. In K., Grodecka, F., Wild, B.,
Kieslinger, (Eds.), How to use social software in higher education (pp. 20-23).
72
Retrieved from: http://www.icamp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/icamp-
handbook-web.
Väljataga, T., Pata, K., & Tammets, K., (2011). Considering Students’ Perspectives on
Personal and Distributed Learning Environments in Course Design. In M. J.W.
Lee, & C. McLoughlin, (Eds.), Web 2.0-based E-learning: applying social
informatics for tertiary teaching (pp. 85-107). doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-294-
7.ch005
Vesisenaho, M., Valtonen, T., Kukkonen, J., Havu-Nuutinen, S., Hartikainen, A., &
Karkkainen, S. (2010). Blended learning with everyday technologies to activate
students’ collaborative learning. Science Education International, 21(4), 272-283.
Wilson, S., Liber, O., Johnson, M., Beauvoir, P., Sharples, P., & Milligan, C.
(2006). Personal Learning Environments: Challenging the dominant design of
educational systems. Retrieved from:
http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/bitstream/1820/727/1/sw_ectel.pdf
73
VITA
Graduate School Southern Illinois University
Thomas J. Okon Date of Birth: February 24, 1960
1841 W. Cuyler, Chicago Illinois 60613
DePaul University Bachelor of Science, Marketing & Advertising, 1982
Research Paper Title: Strategies for Improving Online Learning: An Examination of the Essential Theories, Tools and Technologies