P-16 Partnerships for Learning with Mobile Technologies: Design, Implement and Evaluate
Advancements in mobile technologies hold promise for supporting teaching and learning in educational settings. Across the globe, primary and secondary schools join with higher education institutions to design and implement mobile learning experiences for P-12 students and seek external funding to support such initiatives. This chapter describes a framework for advancing and sustaining m-learning initiatives in a P-16 partnership using a collaborative evaluation approach. Three key premises fortify the Partnership, Evaluation, Design, and Implementation (PEDI) framework: (1) Partnership is the central driving force; (2) Stakeholders and external experts determine processes of collaborative evaluation; and (3) The relationship between the partnership, design, implementation, and evaluation needs to be both reciprocal and iterative. When evaluation moves beyond “a snapshot” of the initiative’s impact, stakeholders’ collective expertise and unique contributions are recognized. A partnership of higher education representatives, including faculty, researchers, instructional designers, and software developers, and school-based educators and personnel such as teachers, administrators, staff, and instructional technology coordinators should adopt collaboratively evaluation practices in order to promote the most effective use of m-learning solutions in P-12 schools.
KeywordsP-16 partnerships Mobile learning design Mobile learning implementation Evaluation of mobile learning
- Anthony, A.B.. 2012. Activity theory as a framework for investigating district-classroom system interactions and their influences on technology integration. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 44 (4): 331–352.Google Scholar
- Baran, E. 2014. A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society 17 (4): 17–32.Google Scholar
- Bebell, D., and L. O’Dwyer. 2010. Educational outcomes and research from 1:1 computing settings. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment 9 (1). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1606.
- Berthonnet, I., and T. Delclite. 2015. Pareto-optimality or Pareto-efficiency: Same concept, different names? An analysis over a century of economic literature. In A research annual, Research in the history of economic thought and methodology, ed. Luca Fiorito, vol. 32, 129–145. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Campilan, D. 2000. Participatory evaluation of participatory research. In Paper presented at the forum of international cooperation projects: Centering on development of human resources in the field of agriculture, at the international Cooperation Center for Agricultural Educaiton of Nagoya University, Nagoya, December 2000.Google Scholar
- Charania, A., and N.E. Davis. 2016. A smart partnership integrating educational technology for underserved children in India. Educational Technology & Society 19 (3): 99–109.Google Scholar
- Cuban, L. 1986. Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Demouy, V., K. Qian, A. Kukulska-Hulme, and A. Eardley. 2015. Exploring trends, motivations and behaviours in the use of mobile devices for language learning in a higher education distance learning setting. In Eurocall 2015. 26–29 August 2015, Padua.Google Scholar
- Eisele-Dyrli, K. 2011. Mobile goes mainstream. District Administration 47 (2): 46–55. Mobile devices at a glance. District Administration 45 (11).Google Scholar
- Ertmer, P., and A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich. 2010. Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. JRTE 42 (3): 255–284.Google Scholar
- Falloon, G. 2015. The Science for life partnerships: Does size really matter, and how can ICT help? Waikato Journal of Education Te Hautaka Matauranga o Waikato: Special 20th Anniversary Collection 2015: 207–220. (originally published Volume 16, Issue 1, 2011).Google Scholar
- Fitts, T. 2015. Teacher implementation of Mobile learning initiative at a sixth grade school: A phenomenological study. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects 1092. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/1092.
- Fraga, L.M. 2012. Mobile learning in higher education. Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of the Universityof TexasatSanAntonioinPartialful fi llmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeofdoctor of philosophy in interdisciplinary learning and teaching.Google Scholar
- Freeman, A., S. Adams Becker, M. Cummins, A. Davis, and C. Hall Giesinger. 2017. NCM/CoSN horizon report: 2017 K-12 edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from https://cdn.nmc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017-nmc-cosn-horizon-report-K12-advance.pdf.Google Scholar
- Groff, J., and C. Mouza. 2008. A framework for addressing challenges to classroom technology use. AACE Journal 16 (1): 21–46.Google Scholar
- Hennig, N. 2016. Mobile learning trends: Accessibility, ecosystems, content creation. Library Technology Reports 52 (3): 1–38.Google Scholar
- Howard, R., and L. Schneider. 1984. Worker participation in technological change: Interests, influence, and scope. In Critical studies in organization and bureaucracy, ed. F. Fischer and C. Sirianni, 519–543. Phildelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
- Intel Corporation. 2013. Evaluating your technology integration initative. Pointers for success. Intel Education Research. Retrieved from www.intel.com/education.
- International Telecommunication Union. 2017. The World in 2017: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx.
- Johnson, L., S. Adams Becker, M. Cummins, V. Estrada, A. Freeman, and H. Ludgate. 2013. NMC horizon report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-k12.pdf.Google Scholar
- Kirkpatrick, H., and L. Cuban. 1998. Computers make kids smarter – Right? Technos 7 (2): 26–31.Google Scholar
- Kukulska-Hulme, A., and J. Traxler. 2007. Designing for Mobile and wireless learning. In Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing and delivering E-learning, ed. H. Beetham and R. Sharpe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Leahy, M., N. Davis, C. Lewin, A. Charania, H. Nordin, D. Orlic, D. Butler, and O. Lopez-Fernadez. 2016. Smart partnerships to increase equity in education. Educational Technology & Society 19 (3): 84–98.Google Scholar
- Manzo, K.K. 2010. Mobile learning seen to lack rigorous research. Technology Counts 2010: Powering up: Mobile learning seeks the spotlight in K-12 education. 29 (26). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/18/26research.h29.html
- Morrison, G.R., S.M. Ross, and J.E. Kemp. 2007. Designing effective instruction. 5th ed. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
- National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. 2009. Teacher Recruitment: Strategies for Widening the Teaching Pool in a Shrinking Economy. A Report for the U.S. Washington, DC: Department of Education.Google Scholar
- Power, R., D.S. Cristol, and B.G. Gimbert. 2014. Exploring tools to promote teacher efficacy with mLearning. In Mobile as a mainstream – Towards future challenges in mobile learning: 13th World conference on mobile and contextual learning (mLearn 2014), vol. 479, 61–68. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-13416-1.Google Scholar
- Preece, J., Y. Rogers, and H. Sharp. 2007. Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Printy, S.M., Marks, H.M., & Bowers, A.J. 2009. Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership 19: 504–532.Google Scholar
- Quinn, C. 2000. mLearning: Mobile, wireless, in-your-pocket learning. LineZine. Retrieved from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm
- Robledo, S.J. 2013. Mobile devices for learning: What you need to know. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/guides/edutopia-mobile-learning-guide.pdf.
- Sharples, M., I. Arnedillo-Sánchez, M. Milrad, and G. Vavoula. 2009. Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products, ed. N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes, and L. Montandon. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Shuler, C. 2009. Pockets of potential: Using mobile technologies to promote children’s learning. New York: The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop.Google Scholar
- Spikol, D., A. Kurti, and M. Milrad. 2008. Collaboration in context as a framework for designing innovative Mobile learning activities. In Innovative Mobile learning: Techniques and technologies, ed. H. Ryu and D. Parsons. Hershey: Idea Group Inc.Google Scholar
- Sun, J., M. Heath, E. Byrom, J. Phlegar, and K.V. Dimock. 2000. Planning into practice: Resources for planning, implementing, and integrating instructional technology. Greensboro: Southeast Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SEIR*TEC).Google Scholar
- van’t Hooft, M., and P. Vahey. 2007. Handheld computers in education: An industry perspective. Educational Technology 43 (7): 40–43.Google Scholar
- Vroom, V.H., and A.G. Jago. 1998. The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Youth Policy Institute. 2016. Year 5 annual report for mobilizing national educator talent. New York: Youth Policy Institute.Google Scholar