Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Principles Underpinning Innovative Mobile Learning: Stakeholders’ Priorities

  • Kevin BurdenEmail author
  • Matthew Kearney
  • Sandy Schuck
  • Paul Burke
Original Paper

Abstract

This article discusses the results of a survey that measured school teachers’ and mobile learning (m-learning) experts’ perceptions of the relative importance and effectiveness of various pedagogical principles underpinning m-learning designs. A scan of relevant literature produced a set of articles describing effective innovative m-learning. Principles underpinning the learning activities in these articles were identified. These principles were then provided to respondents so that they could identify the most important ones relative to the others for designing effective and innovative m-learning tasks. A rigorous Best/Worst Scaling (BWS) survey was used to collect these data. This is the first time that a BWS has been conducted with regard to mobile pedagogical principles. Findings showed that principles related to authenticity were rated most important relative to other principles by the m-learning experts and principles related to personalisation and customisation were rated most important by practising teachers. Other principles that have been used in innovative m-learning designs, such as gamification and intergenerational learning, were seen as least important by all respondents. The findings will inform design of professional development activities, in particular, those pertaining to an app being developed in an Erasmus + project, Developing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies (DEIMP).

Keywords

Effective mobile learning Pedagogical principles Best/worse scaling Innovative mobile practice Teacher beliefs M-learning activities Mobile technologies School-aged learners Practitioner teachers, Delphi panel, DEIMP 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study is part of a larger project led by Prof. Burden from University of Hull, UK, titled Designing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies – DEIMP. The project is funded by the European Union under the Erasmus+ funding stream (2017-1-UK01-KA201-036781).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University of Hull (approval no. No. 20162017009) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Bose, R. C. (1939). On the construction of balanced incomplete block designs. Annals of Eugenics, 9(4), 353–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education. 46(2), 287–308.Google Scholar
  3. Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Hall, T. (2019). Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 138, 83–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.008
  4. Burke, P. F., Schuck, S., Aubusson, A., Buchanan, J., Louviere, J., & Prescott, A. (2013). Why do early career teachers choose to remain in the profession? The use of best–worst scaling to quantify key factors. International Journal of Educational Research 62, 259–268.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, P. F., Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., Palmer, T. A., Pressick-Kilborn, K., & Ng, W. (2017). Barriers to effective teaching in primary Science and Technology. A study using Best-Worst Scaling. Association of Independent Schools New South Wales (AISNSW), Sydney: Australia.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, P.F., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Kearney, M., & Frischknecht, B. (2018). Exploring teacher pedagogy, stages of concern and accessibility as determinants of technology adoption, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(2), 149–163.Google Scholar
  7. Finn, A., & Louviere, J. J. (1992). Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: The case of food safety. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 11(2), 12–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joan, R. (2013). A study on mobile learning as a learning style in modern research practice. Journal on School Educational Technology, 8(4), 29–37.Google Scholar
  9. Kee, C. L., & Samsudin, Z. (2014). Mobile devices: Toys or learning tools for 21st century teenagers? Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3), 107–122.Google Scholar
  10. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers' adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57.Google Scholar
  11. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Schuck, S. (2019). Disrupting education using smart mobile pedagogies. In L. Daniela (ed), Didactics of Smart Pedagogy: Smart pedagogy for technology-enhanced learning (pp. 139-157) Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Law, N., Chow, Y., & Yuen, H. K. (2005). Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 38, 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Marley, A. A., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best/worst choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(6), 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Palmer, T. A., Burke, P. F., & Aubusson, P. (2017). Why school students choose and reject science: a study of the factors that students consider when selecting subjects. International Journal of Science Education, 39(6), 645–662.Google Scholar
  16. Royle, K., Stager, S., & Traxler, J. (2014). Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative critical factors. Prospects, 44, 29.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-013-9292-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017). Exploring mobile learning in the Third Space. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 121–137.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1230555

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Arts, Cultures and EducationThe University of HullHullUK
  2. 2.STEM Education Futures Research CentreUniversity of Technology Sydney (UTS)SydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Business Intelligence and Data Analytics (BIDA) Research Centre, UTS Business SchoolUniversity of Technology Sydney (UTS)SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations