I'm participating in a micro-MOOC called Instructional Design for
Mobile Learning (#idml13 on Twitter).
During the first official week of the course, participants were
presented with a list of six general principles on mobile instructional design
described by the University of Oregon's (n.d.) department of Applied
Information Management (AIM ). Those
principles are:
Principle #1: Develop a simple and intuitive interface design
Principle #2: Integrate interactive multi-media
Principle #3: Build short, modular lessons and activities
Principle #4: Design content that is engaging and entertaining
Principle #5: Design content that is contextual, relevant, and valuable to the learner
Principle #6: Design content for just-in-time delivery
This list of principles was developed by the AIM as a set of
recommendations stemming from a review of a range of research and literature on
effective mLearning design. I can't
argue with any of these recommendations, as they do offer sound, practical
guidance for anyone venturing into mLearning instructional design. These principles are reflective of the eight
recommendations for universal instructional design for mLearning presented by
Elias (2010, p. 147), which are summarized below:
-
equitable use;
- flexible use;
- simple and intuitive;
- perceptible information;
- tolerance for error;
- low physical and technical effort;
- community of learners and support; and
- instructional climate.
They are also reflective of the extensive list of tips provided by
Traxler and Wishart's (2011, p. 43) Mobile Learning Practitioner's Checklist
(in particular, points 8-10 under the Pedagogical Advice subheading):
Pedagogical advice:
8. Learning opportunities -
identify key ‘starter’ opportunities for students to focus on that are relevant
to subject being taught.
9. Constructivist approach -
build learning opportunities across and between authentic contexts and the
classroom.
10. Student autonomy – the
need to work with students to enable them to choose the best ways of using
their personal devices to support their learning.
Rather than debate the merits of one particular checklist over another
(as the all provide relatively similar advice), I'm using this blog post to
reflect on just how sound these tips are in terms of Koole's (2009)
theoretically-grounded Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Education
(FRAME), which is depicted graphically below:
Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Education (FRAME) (Koole, 2009)
The FRAME model is fast becoming one of the most widely referenced
frameworks for mLearning research design and evaluation. This is because of its elegant simplicity and
simultaneously comprehensiveness. FRAME draws
upon established learning theory such as Activity Theory, social interaction
theory, and Vygotsky's zone of proximal development. FRAME divides mLearning analysis into three
primary domains: the learner aspect, the social aspect, and the device
aspect. As depicted above, these aspects
overlap in mLearning design, and effective instructional design will not only
account for all three domains... it will try to integrate them as closely
together as possible. Using FRAME, we
can comfortably assess how comprehensive the six principles proposed by AIM
are:
- Principle #1: Develop a simple and intuitive interface design (Device Aspect)
- Principle #2: Integrate interactive multi-media (Device Aspect, Learner Aspect)
- Principle #3: Build short, modular lessons and activities (Learner Aspect)
- Principle #4: Design content that is engaging and entertaining (Learner Aspect)
- Principle #5: Design content that is contextual, relevant, and valuable to the learner (Learner Aspect)
- Principle #6: Design content for just-in-time delivery (Learner Aspect)
One thing that the AID principles seem to be lacking in their advice is
any mention of the Social Aspect described by FRAME. Obviously, not every learning activity is
going to be a group effort... but there must be some form of social interaction
(either with fellow learners, instructors or, in the case of MOOCs,
wayfinders). Social interaction is
critical for motivation, support, and skill scaffolding. Both Activity Theory and the zone of proximal
development (ZPD) emphasize the benefits of social interaction in learning, and
ZPD stresses that learners who more frequently engage in collaborative social
interaction in learning efforts gain the skills and confidence to achieve more
when learning independently.
The same exercise could be carried out with either of Elias's (2010) or
Traxler and Wishart's (2011) checklists, and would find that the only direct
mention of social interaction in either checklist is Elias's reference to a
"community of learners and support" (p. 147).
As part of our activities during week one of #idml13, we were asked to
reflect upon one of the principles listed by the AIM and how we could integrate
that principle into our own distance / mLearning instructional design. Rather than reflecting on one single
principle from that list, I spent several days mulling over how comprehensive
the advice is in light of FRAME and the Collaborative Situated Active mLearning
(CSAM) approach that I've been developing.
CSAM draws upon the three domains of the FRAME model and its theoretical
grounding in Activity Theory and ZPD (Impedovo, 2011; Kaptelinin & Nardi,
2006). It also draws upon Moore's (1989,
1991) Transactional Distance Theory and Flow Theory (Chaiklin, 2003; Chen, 2006;
Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Unlike FRAME
(which is designed more as an analytical tool), CSAM is designed more to act as
a pedagogical guidepost. It suggests
that mLearning design will be most effective if it includes collaborative,
situated and active elements. By
collaborative, I mean that learners need to interact in partnerships with
either their peers, their instructors, or their wayfinders in some way (FRAME's
Social Aspect and Elias's point #7). By
Situated, I mean that learning should take place in authentic contexts (which directly
encompasses principles 5-6 referenced by AIM and Traxler & Wishart's point
#9... but also encompasses AIM's principle #4 about being engaging and
entertaining). By Active, I mean that
learners must actually do something with the learning content, and not just act
as passive recipients (which could be argued to be part of AIM's principle #2
about interactive multimedia design, and is definitely reflective of Traxler
& Wishart's point #9 about incorporating constructivist approaches). Below is the poster on CSAM that I presented
last week at Mobile Learning: Gulf Perspectives in Abu Dhabi, UAE:
Now don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that mLearning designers
dismiss AIM's six principles. I try to
touch on all of them in my own instructional design, and I advise others to do
so as well. A look at the mobile RLO I developed for my recent THE2013 workshop on designing your own CSAM mobile
reusable learning objects (RLOs) will show how I presented very similar advice
(and drew upon it in my own RLO designs)... but it will also show how I tried
to integrate that critical social interaction element even into an RLO that
could be used by learners who are both geographically and temporally distant
from each other. One of the common
criticisms of both distance and mobile learning is that removing learners from
the traditional environment of peer and teacher support (the classroom) could
be detrimental to motivation, formative feedback, and achievement. This need not be the case... but ensuring
that it is not means accounting for the Social Aspect domain described by FRAME
(and central to CSAM)
___________________________________________
References:
Chen, J. (2006). Flow theory. Flow in games. Retrieved from:
http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/flowtheory.htm Clark, R.E. (1994a). Media
will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 42(2), 21-30.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow: Creativity and optimum
functioning. Excerpt from the book ‘Finding Flow.’ Psychology Today, 46(5).
Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com
Kaptelinin, V. & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting with technology:
Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A model
for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile
learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, 25-47.
Edmonton, AB: AU Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120155
Moore, M.
(1989). Three types of interaction. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
Traxler, J. & Wishart, J.
(2011). Making
mobile learning work: Case studies of practice. Bristol: UK:
ESCalate. Retrieved from http://escalate.ac.uk/8250