Advertisement

Enabling and Evaluating Mobile Learning Scenarios with Multiple Input Channels

  • Lars Bollen
  • Sabrina C. Eimler
  • Marc Jansen
  • Jan Engler
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7493)

Abstract

Applications and research efforts in Mobile Learning constitute a growing field in the area of Technology Enhanced Learning. However, despite a permanent increase of mobile internet accessibility and availability of mobile devices over the past years, a mobile learning environment that is easy to use, widely accepted by teachers and learners, uses widespread off-the-shelf software, and that covers various application scenarios and mobile devices, is not yet available. In this paper, we address this issue by presenting an approach and technical framework called “Mobile Contributions” (“MoCo”). MoCo supports learners to create and send contributions through various channels (including third-party solutions like Twitter, SMS and Facebook), which are collected and stored in a central repository for processing, filtering and visualization on a shared display. A set of different learning and teaching scenarios that can be realized with MoCo are described along with first experiences and insights gained from qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

Keywords

mobile learning heterogeneous devices multiple input channels SMS Twitter Facebook visualization one-minute paper self-learning phases evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gerpott, T.J.: Attribute perceptions as factors explaining Mobile Internet acceptance of cellular customers in Germany – An empirical study comparing actual and potential adopters with distinct categories of access appliances. Expert Systems with Applications 38, 2148–2162 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Vavoula, G.: The genesis and development of mobile learning in Europe. In: Parsons, D. (ed.) Combining E-Learning and M-Learning: New Applications of Blended Educational Resources, pp. 151–177. Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global), Hershey (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen, Y.S., Kao, T.C., Yu, G.J., Sheu, J.P.: A Mobile Butterfly-Watching Learning System for Supporting Independent Learning. In: Proceedings of 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, pp. 11–18. IEEE Computer Society (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chizmar, J.F., Ostrosky, A.L.: The One-Minute Paper: Some Empirical Findings. Journal of Economic Education 29, 3–10 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stead, D.R.: A Review of the One-Minute Paper. Active Learning in Higher Education 6, 118–131 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, Y.S., Kao, T.C., Sheu, J.P.: A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning. J. Comput. Assist. Lear. 19, 347–359 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Giemza, A., Bollen, L., Hoppe, H.U.: LEMONADE: field-trip authoring and classroom reporting for integrated mobile learning scenarios with intelligent agent support. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation 5, 96–114 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roschelle, J.: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. J. Comput. Assist. Lear. 19, 260–272 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bollen, L., Juarez, G., Westermann, M., Hoppe, H.U.: PDAs as Input Devices in Brainstorming and Creative Discussions. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTE 2006), pp. 137–141. IEEE Computer Society (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang, Y., Wang, Q., Woo, H.L., Quek, C.L.: Using Facebook for teaching and learning: a review of the literature. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning 21, 72 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Despotovic-Zrakic, M.S., Labus, A.B., Milic, A.R.: Fostering enginering e-learning courses with social network services, 122–125 (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns. Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weinbrenner, S., Giemza, A., Hoppe, H.U.: Engineering Heterogeneous Distributed Learning Environments Using Tuple Spaces as an Architectural Platform. In: Proceedings of Seventh IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT 2007), pp. 434–436 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bollen, L., Giemza, A., Hoppe, H.U.: Flexible Analysis of User Actions in Heterogeneous Distributed Learning Environments. In: Dillenbourg, P., Specht, M. (eds.) EC-TEL 2008. LNCS, vol. 5192, pp. 62–73. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Buschmann, F., Meunier, R., Rohnert, H., Sommerlad, P., Stal, M.: Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture: A System of Patterns. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., West Sussex (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoppe, H.U., Gaßner, K.: Integrating Collaborative Concept Mapping Tools with Group Memory and Retrieval Functions. In: Proceedings of Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL 2002), pp. 716–725. International Society of the Learning Sciences (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bollen, L., Jansen, M., Eimler, S.C.: Towards a Multichannel Input Dimension in Learning Scenarios with Mobile Devices. In: Proceedings of 7th IEEE International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTW 2012), pp. 311–315. IEEE Computer Society (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Light, G., Cox, R.: Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective Professional. Paul Chapman, London (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly 13, 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science 35, 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars Bollen
    • 1
  • Sabrina C. Eimler
    • 2
  • Marc Jansen
    • 3
  • Jan Engler
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of Instructional TechnologyUniversity of TwenteThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Dept. of Computer Science and Applied Cognitive ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenGermany
  3. 3.Computer Science InstituteUniversity of Applied Sciences Ruhr WestGermany

Personalised recommendations