Skip to main content
Erschienen in: TechTrends 6/2019

08.08.2019 | Original Paper

Principles Underpinning Innovative Mobile Learning: Stakeholders’ Priorities

verfasst von: Kevin Burden, Matthew Kearney, Sandy Schuck, Paul Burke

Erschienen in: TechTrends | Ausgabe 6/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

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).
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Bose, R. C. (1939). On the construction of balanced incomplete block designs. Annals of Eugenics, 9(4), 353–399.CrossRef Bose, R. C. (1939). On the construction of balanced incomplete block designs. Annals of Eugenics, 9(4), 353–399.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education. 46(2), 287–308. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016). Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education. 46(2), 287–308.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Zurück zum Zitat Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers' adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers' adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57.
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Zurück zum Zitat Law, N., Chow, Y., & Yuen, H. K. (2005). Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 38, 7–20.CrossRef Law, N., Chow, Y., & Yuen, H. K. (2005). Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 38, 7–20.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat 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. 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.
Metadaten
Titel
Principles Underpinning Innovative Mobile Learning: Stakeholders’ Priorities
verfasst von
Kevin Burden
Matthew Kearney
Sandy Schuck
Paul Burke
Publikationsdatum
08.08.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
TechTrends / Ausgabe 6/2019
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Elektronische ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00415-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2019

TechTrends 6/2019 Zur Ausgabe