Challenges in Evaluating Mobile Learning.
Giasemi N. Vavoula. University of Leicester, 105 Princess Road East, Leicester, LE1 7LG, UK. gv18@leicester.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 116 2523966
Mike Sharples. LSRI, University of Nottingham, Exchange Building, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK. mike.sharples@nottingham.ac.uk Tel: +44 (0) 115 9513716
Published in Proceedings of Mlearn2008.
ABSTRACT
We propose six challenges in evaluating mobile learning: capturing and analysing learning in context and across contexts, measuring mobile learning processes and outcomes, respecting learner/participant privacy, assessing mobile technology utility and usability, considering the wider organisational and socio-cultural context of learning, and assessing in/formality. A three-level framework for evaluating mobile learning is presented, comprising a micro level concerned with usability, a meso level concerned with the learning experience, and a macro level concerned with integration within existing educational and organisational contexts. The paper concludes with a discussion of how the framework meets the evaluation challenges and with suggestions for further extensions.
We now appreciate mobile learning not just as learning that is facilitated by mobile technology, but also as the processes of coming to know through conversations and explorations across multiple contexts amongst people and personal interactive technologies (Sharples et al. 2007b). Such evolving conceptions introduce numerous challenges to all aspects of mobile learning research, including evaluation. As the field matures, our frameworks and tools need to respond to these challenges.
CHALLENGE 1: CAPTURING LEARNING CONTEXT AND LEARNING ACROSS CONTEXTS
A major task for educational evaluation is to capture and analyse learning in context.
To appreciate the challenge, let us compare mobile learning contexts with traditional classroom contexts from the researcher’s perspective.
In order to establish and document the learning context, the researcher needs to know:
the location of learning and the layout of the space (where); the social setting (who, with whom, from whom); the learning objectives and outcomes (why and what); the learning method(s) and activities (how); and the learning tools (how).
CHALLENGE 2: HAS ANYONE LEARNED ANYTHING?
A second challenge that faces mobile learning evaluation is the assessment of learning processes and outcomes.
In traditional learning settings such as the classroom there are well-established and accepted methods for the assessment of learning activities, such as essay writing, multiple choice tests, open-book exams, and unseen examinations.
Distinctions have been made between formative assessment (aiming to provide students with feedback regarding their progress) and summative assessment (aiming to judge and sum up the students’ achievements) (Scriven 1967)...
CHALLENGE 3: AN ETHICAL QUESTION
Mobile learning can involve the use of mobile technology, which may also be personal technology. Tapping into a person’s mobile phone to find out how they have been using it to learn might mean invading that person’s privacy.
Although research ethics frameworks are implemented by most research institutions and organisations, mobile learning research raises profound ethical issues.
CHALLENGE 4: LET’S NOT FORGET THE TECHNOLOGY
Evaluations of mobile learning often reference inherent limitations of mobile devices, such as their small screens, short battery lives, intermittent connectivity, and associated human factors, all of which affect their usability. As the focus of research shifts from the mobility of the technology to the mobility of the learner, additional issues arise as learners move across multiple devices, possibly over short time periods in multiple locations. Assessing the usability of the mobile technology and the effectiveness of its integration with the mobile learning practice remains a high priority for evaluation.
CHALLENGE 5: SEEING THE BIGGER PICTURE
Oliver and Harvey (2002) suggest four different kinds of impact of educational technologies in Higher Education (HE): impact on students’ learning, impact on individual academics’ practice, impact on institution, and national impact.
In the same context of HE Price and Oliver (2007) identify three types of impact studies: anticipatory, ongoing and achieved.
Anticipatory studies relate to pre-intervention intentions, opinions and attitudes; ongoing studies focus on analysing processes of integration; and achieved studies are summative studies of technology no longer ‘novel’.
Riley (2007) extends this impact framework by distinguishing between minor modifications and culturally significant changes in practice, and suggesting that different kinds of change will emerge over different timescales.
Although not exclusively linked with HE contexts, mobile learning evaluation has similar questions to answer regarding impact.
CHALLENGE 6: FORMAL OR INFORMAL?
Mobile learning is often defined in terms of the technology that mediates the learning experience: if the technology is mobile, so is the learning. Mobility, however, is not an exclusive property of the technology, it also resides in the lifestyle of the learner, who in the course of everyday life moves from one context to another, switching locations, social groups, technologies and topics; and learning often takes place inconspicuously or is crammed in the short gaps between these transitions. Although this view of learning is inclusive of formal education contexts, it is particularly pertinent to everyday, informal learning.
Nevertheless, characterising a learning experience as formal or informal can be complicated. For example, is the learning of pupils visiting a museum (largely considered an informal learning setting) with their school (an irrefutably formal learning setting) a case of formal or informal learning?
REQUIREMENTS FOR MOBILE LEARNING EVALUATION
The challenges discussed in the previous sections indicate that mobile learning evaluation needs to:
• Capture and analyse learning in context with consideration of learner privacy
• Assess the usability of the technology and how it affects the learning experience
• Look beyond measurable cognitive gains into changes in the learning process and practice
• Consider organisational issues in the adoption of mobile learning practice and its integration with existing practices and understand how this integration affects attributes of in/formality
• Span the lifecycle of the mobile learning innovation that is evaluated, from conception to full deployment and beyond.
The evaluation framework of Myartspace consisted of three levels:
1. Micro level: the micro level examines the individual activities of the technology users and assesses usability and utility. In the case of Myartspace the activities included collecting objects through exhibit codes, making notes, contacting people who have collected a particular item, recording audio, and taking pictures.
2. Meso level: the meso level examines the learning experience as a whole, to identify learning breakthroughs and breakdowns; it also examines how well the learning experience integrates with other related learning experiences. In the case of Myartspace, evaluation at this level involved exploring whether there was a successful connection between learning in the museum and in the classroom as well as identifying critical incidents that reveal new patterns and forms of learning or where learning activity is impeded.
3. Macro level: the macro level examines the longer term impact of the new technology on established educational and learning practice. For Myartspace this related to the organisation of school museum visits. The evaluation at this level looked, for example, at the appropriation of the new technology by teachers, the emergence of new museum practices in supporting school visits, and how they related to the original project visions.
For Myartspace, the development comprised four phases:
(1) Requirements analysis, to establish the requirements for the socio-technical system (people and their interactions with technology) and specify how it would work, through consultation with the different stakeholder groups;
(2) Design of the user experience and interface;
(3) Implementation of the service; and
(4) Deployment of the service.
To establish the value of the service at the three levels, the evaluation framework explores the gap between expectations and reality and also unforeseen processes and outcomes.
This happened in three stages:
1. Stage 1: explores what is supposed to happen at a level. User expectations at each level can be captured through interviews with users (e.g. teachers, students, museum staff) and by analysing user documentation, training sessions and materials.
2. Stage 2: observes what actually happened at a level. The user experience is documented to establish the reality of technology use for the different users.
3. Stage 3: examines the gaps between user expectations and reality through a combination of reflective interviews with users and critical analysis of the findings from stages 1 and 2 by the evaluators.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Kjeldskov, J. & J. Stage (2004). "New Techniques for Usability Evaluation of Mobile Systems." International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60: 599-620.
Meek, J. (2006). Adopting a Lifecycle Approach to the Evaluation of Computers and Information Technology. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Electronic, Electrical and Computer Engineering, The University of Birmingham.
Vavoula, G., J. Meek, M. Sharples, P. Lonsdale & P. Rudman (2006a). A lifecycle approach to evaluating MyArtSpace. 4th International Workshop of Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technologies in Education (WMUTE 2006 ), Athens, Greece, IEEE Computer Society.
So now...I have finished reading on "Usability" from articles in UsabilityMLearnELearn_20090821 folder.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Aug 27 - Syvanen & Nokelainen, Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability
Evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
Abstract
The major goal of the multidisciplinary Digital Learning 2 project is to develop an online tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials. This paper concentrates on describing the technical and pedagogical usability criteria and how they are specified in order to take account of the special features of mobile learning materials and environments. This was done by incorporating a ‘components of mobile learning’ (CML) evaluation model, which had been previously developed and empirically tested, into the criteria, after reviewing the other earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning.
The major goal of the project is to develop a tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials and environments. In order to reach that goal, numerous concepts and models have been defined; for example, the criteria for technical and pedagogical usability and the Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model.
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility
10 feedback.
The Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model was developed for evaluation of mobile learning. The model (Ahonen et al. 2002) consists of:
1 continuity and adaptability
2 learning as a personal process
3 contextuality in learning
4 accessibility
5 support for time and learning management
6 flexible interaction.
My Comments: This paper is very relevant as a benchmark (reference point) for my PhD research. Syvanen and Nokelainen had developed a usability evaluation tool, and used a set of usability criteria (comprising technical & pedagogical usability).
The criteria for evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability have been
developed in the following stages:
# investigation of the previous research reports dealing with the characteristics of mobility and
mobile learning (2001–2002)
# development of the first version of the CML model (2002–2003; Ahonen et al. 2002)
# development and empirical testing of the criteria (2003; Syvänen et al. 2003, 2004)
# review of earlier categorisations for the evaluation of mobile learning and incorporation
into the technical and pedagogical usability criteria (2004).
Table 1 Summary of the earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning
>>>summarise Technical Usability from various sources
>>>summarise Pedagogical Usability from various sources.
Table 2 Evaluation of mobile learning materials and environments
>>>summarise Questions for each Technical/Pedagogical Usability Criteria.
Conclusions
In this paper we have specified the criteria for evaluation of mobile learning material in detail
and shown how mobile learning materials and environments are evaluated with an online evaluation tool. The real-life empirical testing of the evaluation tool was difficult to conduct as at
the time, there were only a few learning materials or environments defined solely for mobile use. However, the progress of developing such materials all over the world is rapid, and thus we see the mobile evaluation criteria as a meaningful part of the evaluation tool. In the future, we intend to develop the evaluation tool through empirical testing of real-life mobile learning materials and environments.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Nokelainen P (2004). Conceptual definition of the technical and pedagogical usability criteria
for digital learning material. In Proceedings of ED–MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004(1), 4249–4254.
Antti Syvänen. antti.syvänen@uta.fi Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, FIN-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Finland.
Petri Nokelainen. petri.nokelainen@uta.fi Research Centre for Vocational Education, University of Tampere, FIN–13101 Hämeenlinna, Finland.
Attewell & Cavill-Smith (editor). Mobile Learning Anytime Everywhere. A book of papers from MLearn 2004. pg 191-185
Abstract
The major goal of the multidisciplinary Digital Learning 2 project is to develop an online tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials. This paper concentrates on describing the technical and pedagogical usability criteria and how they are specified in order to take account of the special features of mobile learning materials and environments. This was done by incorporating a ‘components of mobile learning’ (CML) evaluation model, which had been previously developed and empirically tested, into the criteria, after reviewing the other earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning.
The major goal of the project is to develop a tool to evaluate the usability of digital learning materials and environments. In order to reach that goal, numerous concepts and models have been defined; for example, the criteria for technical and pedagogical usability and the Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model.
The following components of the technical usability criteria were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 accessibility
2 ‘learnability’ and memorability
3 user control
4 help
5 graphical layout
6 reliability
7 consistency
8 efficiency
9 memory load
10 errors.
In addition, the following pedagogical usability components were specified (Nokelainen 2004):
1 learner control
2 learner activity
3 cooperative learning
4 goal orientation
5 applicability
6 effectiveness
7 motivation
8 valuation of previous knowledge
9 flexibility
10 feedback.
The Components of Mobile Learning (CML) model was developed for evaluation of mobile learning. The model (Ahonen et al. 2002) consists of:
1 continuity and adaptability
2 learning as a personal process
3 contextuality in learning
4 accessibility
5 support for time and learning management
6 flexible interaction.
My Comments: This paper is very relevant as a benchmark (reference point) for my PhD research. Syvanen and Nokelainen had developed a usability evaluation tool, and used a set of usability criteria (comprising technical & pedagogical usability).
The criteria for evaluation of the technical and pedagogical mobile usability have been
developed in the following stages:
# investigation of the previous research reports dealing with the characteristics of mobility and
mobile learning (2001–2002)
# development of the first version of the CML model (2002–2003; Ahonen et al. 2002)
# development and empirical testing of the criteria (2003; Syvänen et al. 2003, 2004)
# review of earlier categorisations for the evaluation of mobile learning and incorporation
into the technical and pedagogical usability criteria (2004).
Table 1 Summary of the earlier categorisations for evaluation of mobile learning
>>>summarise Technical Usability from various sources
>>>summarise Pedagogical Usability from various sources.
Table 2 Evaluation of mobile learning materials and environments
>>>summarise Questions for each Technical/Pedagogical Usability Criteria.
Conclusions
In this paper we have specified the criteria for evaluation of mobile learning material in detail
and shown how mobile learning materials and environments are evaluated with an online evaluation tool. The real-life empirical testing of the evaluation tool was difficult to conduct as at
the time, there were only a few learning materials or environments defined solely for mobile use. However, the progress of developing such materials all over the world is rapid, and thus we see the mobile evaluation criteria as a meaningful part of the evaluation tool. In the future, we intend to develop the evaluation tool through empirical testing of real-life mobile learning materials and environments.
References that I may want to read further in the future:
Nokelainen P (2004). Conceptual definition of the technical and pedagogical usability criteria
for digital learning material. In Proceedings of ED–MEDIA 2004: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Lugano, Switzerland, 2004(1), 4249–4254.
Aug 27 - Rigas & Alseid, Multi-Modal Aided Presentation of Learning Info: A Usability Comparative Study
MULTI-MODAL AIDED PRESENTATION OF LEARNING INFORMATION: A USABILITY COMPARATIVE STUDY.
Dimitris Rigas and Marwan Alseid. Department of Computing, School of Informatics, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, England.
IADIS International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction 2008. pg 234-238
ISBN: 978-972-8924-59-1 © 2008 IADIS
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative two-group experimental study to explore if the addition of multimodal interaction metaphors would enhance the usability of e-learning interfaces. Two independent groups of users were involved in the experiment each of which tested one of the two interface versions provided by the experimental e-learning tool. The first interface was based on textual approach in delivering learning information about class diagram notation. In the second interface, recorded speech, earcons and avatar with simple facial expressions were combined to present the same information. Efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction were considered to evaluate the usability of both interfaces. This paper reports and discusses results in regard to effectiveness only. Results of the experiment showed that users of the multimodal-based interface significantly performed more successful tasks than their counterparts who used the text-based interface. Therefore, adding audio visual interaction metaphors to the interface of e-learning applications can improve its usability.
The use of computer networks and machines in the learning process resulted in the appearance of what is called e-learning (Alexander 2001; Mikic and Anido 2006) and the continuous development of information and communication technology (ICT) caused an accelerated development in educational technology. As a result, e-learning becomes a vast area of research and technologies used in the development of e-learning applications have been increased (Hamilton, Richards et al. 2001) where mobile devices such as cell phones, PDAs and Tablet PCs were involved in mobile learning (Mikic and Anido 2006).
E-learning has many advantages. For example, a consistent presentation of the same learning materials and skills could be offered without limitations of time and location (Mikic and Anido 2006).
Conclusion
This paper reported an empirical two-group study that investigated the use of multimodal interaction metaphors for delivering learning information in the interface of e-learning applications. The aim of the study was to compare the usability between two different e-learning interfaces of the experimental tool. The first interface was non-multimodal based essentially on textual approach and tested by the control group of users, and the second one incorporated a combination of multimodal metaphors such as recorded speech, earcons along with avatar and tested by the experimental group. The results showed that the involvement of both visual and auditory metaphors as employed in the experimental interface had significantly improved the effectiveness of the e-learning interface. Therefore, it was believed that users’ ability to remember the communicated information could be enhanced when these information are presented by the aid of multimodal metaphors.
My Action: Search and read Rigas' PhD thesis as in belowmentioned References.
References that I may read further in the future:
Dix, A., G. Abowd, et al. (2004). Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall.
Govindasamy, T. (2001). "Successful implementation of e-Learning Pedagogical considerations." The Internet and Higher Education 4(3-4): 287-299.
Mikic, F. and L. Anido (2006). "Towards a Standard for Mobile E-Learning." International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies, 2006. ICN/ICONS/MCL 2006. International Conference on Networking: 217-222.
Sheth, R. (2003). "Avatar Technology: Giving a Face to the e-Learning Interface." The eLearning Developers’ Journal.
Rigas, D. and D. Hopwood (2003). "The Role of Multimedia in Interfaces for On-Line Learning." 9th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI'2003). , Thessaloniki, Greece.
Rigas, D. I. (1996). Guidelines for Auditory Interface Design: An Empirical Investigation, PhD thesis, Loughborough University of Technology.
Rigas, D. I. and J. L. Alty (1998). "Using sound to communicate program execution." Proceedings of the 24th EUROMICRO Conference 2: 625–632.
Dimitris Rigas and Marwan Alseid. Department of Computing, School of Informatics, University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, England.
IADIS International Conference Interfaces and Human Computer Interaction 2008. pg 234-238
ISBN: 978-972-8924-59-1 © 2008 IADIS
Abstract
This paper presents a comparative two-group experimental study to explore if the addition of multimodal interaction metaphors would enhance the usability of e-learning interfaces. Two independent groups of users were involved in the experiment each of which tested one of the two interface versions provided by the experimental e-learning tool. The first interface was based on textual approach in delivering learning information about class diagram notation. In the second interface, recorded speech, earcons and avatar with simple facial expressions were combined to present the same information. Efficiency, effectiveness, and user satisfaction were considered to evaluate the usability of both interfaces. This paper reports and discusses results in regard to effectiveness only. Results of the experiment showed that users of the multimodal-based interface significantly performed more successful tasks than their counterparts who used the text-based interface. Therefore, adding audio visual interaction metaphors to the interface of e-learning applications can improve its usability.
The use of computer networks and machines in the learning process resulted in the appearance of what is called e-learning (Alexander 2001; Mikic and Anido 2006) and the continuous development of information and communication technology (ICT) caused an accelerated development in educational technology. As a result, e-learning becomes a vast area of research and technologies used in the development of e-learning applications have been increased (Hamilton, Richards et al. 2001) where mobile devices such as cell phones, PDAs and Tablet PCs were involved in mobile learning (Mikic and Anido 2006).
E-learning has many advantages. For example, a consistent presentation of the same learning materials and skills could be offered without limitations of time and location (Mikic and Anido 2006).
Conclusion
This paper reported an empirical two-group study that investigated the use of multimodal interaction metaphors for delivering learning information in the interface of e-learning applications. The aim of the study was to compare the usability between two different e-learning interfaces of the experimental tool. The first interface was non-multimodal based essentially on textual approach and tested by the control group of users, and the second one incorporated a combination of multimodal metaphors such as recorded speech, earcons along with avatar and tested by the experimental group. The results showed that the involvement of both visual and auditory metaphors as employed in the experimental interface had significantly improved the effectiveness of the e-learning interface. Therefore, it was believed that users’ ability to remember the communicated information could be enhanced when these information are presented by the aid of multimodal metaphors.
My Action: Search and read Rigas' PhD thesis as in belowmentioned References.
References that I may read further in the future:
Dix, A., G. Abowd, et al. (2004). Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall.
Govindasamy, T. (2001). "Successful implementation of e-Learning Pedagogical considerations." The Internet and Higher Education 4(3-4): 287-299.
Mikic, F. and L. Anido (2006). "Towards a Standard for Mobile E-Learning." International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies, 2006. ICN/ICONS/MCL 2006. International Conference on Networking: 217-222.
Sheth, R. (2003). "Avatar Technology: Giving a Face to the e-Learning Interface." The eLearning Developers’ Journal.
Rigas, D. and D. Hopwood (2003). "The Role of Multimedia in Interfaces for On-Line Learning." 9th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics (PCI'2003). , Thessaloniki, Greece.
Rigas, D. I. (1996). Guidelines for Auditory Interface Design: An Empirical Investigation, PhD thesis, Loughborough University of Technology.
Rigas, D. I. and J. L. Alty (1998). "Using sound to communicate program execution." Proceedings of the 24th EUROMICRO Conference 2: 625–632.
Aug 27 - Mostakhdemin-Hosseini & Tuimala, Mobile Learning Framework
MOBILE LEARNING FRAMEWORK.
Ali Mostakhdemin-Hosseini. Helsinki University of Technology, konemiehentie 2, Espoo Finland.
Jarno Tuimala. Innoforss Research &/ Development Center, Wanherinkatu 11 3 krs., 30100 Forssa, Finland.
Mobile learning is not learning through mobiles phones or learning over a wireless connection even though the capabilities of running multimedia features has increased in recent years. But mobile learning is the evolution of elearning, which completes the missing component of an e-learning solution. Mobile learning most suits for those mobile parties in education institutes. So, utilizing mobile devices in education is mainly considered as enhanced tools.
Unlike PC, mobile devices have some restriction for displaying content e.g. screen size and resolution. When designing user interface for mobile devices, especially for heterogeneous environments, we have to consider the special user requirements, as well as, the capabilities of the devices (Calvary et al. 2001) and (Roth et al. 2000). As (McClard et. Al. 2000) have stated, the portable devices are not a replacement for the PC.
There has been extensive progress in m learning since this study was initiated. Basically, the term has been defined more precisely (Brown, 2003).
1. Ubiquitous Computing- all members of the academic community have appropriate and timely access to the Internet, usually via a computer they own. Access may be either by desktop or laptop or handheld.
2. Portable Computing- same as #1 except computer must be laptop
3. Mobile Computing- same as #2 except laptop must be wireless
4. Very mobile Computing- same as #3 (i.e. wireless) except that the computer is a Palm Pilot, Blackberry or Equivalent.
Based on the users study conducted at Helsinki University of Technology and analyzed the gathered data (Mostakhdemin-Hosseini et.al, 2004) this study defined the framework of the mobile learning system. The Mobile learning system development is based on three main domains, Mobile usability, wireless technology and e-learning system.
Mobile usability is the main domain in the mobile learning system.
Issues, which involve mobile devices’ usability, are as such as mobile device type, mobile device features and mobile content design methods.
The contributions of mobile usability research to this study assists to identify the requirements of each mobile device capability to offer services in a usable manner. Providing services for mobile devices without considering the usability issues is a useless effort. Users utilize the mobile devices and use the services if they feel that services are usable and do not consume extra time. The main issue, which should be study carefully when developing education services for mobile devices, is the content of the mobile services, the services types, requirement of each service and the service limitations.
The second essential element of mobile learning system is the network connection, especially wireless network technology. Issues, which are related to the wireless networks which directly influence the mobile learning systems, are network infrastructure and operators rolls.
The unique feature of the m- learning system is the mobility. The users utilize the mobile devices if the network provides fast, secure and reliable network connections. Also the users are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for the services they receive.
The final domain, which affects the mobile learning system, is the existing e-learning concept. The mobile devices were enhanced to the existing e-learning systems. Issues related to e-learning, which affects the mobile learning system, is the requirements of the e- learning system and the type of utilized e-learning platform.
...mobile learning system’s developer has to consider the following issues for developing the mobile learning system.
• Define the education components and services, required by the mobile learning system. These
components and services depend to the type of course.
• Identify the existing wireless network capabilities and boundaries. If there are different networks, select the one, which is most appropriate for the education components and mobile devices capabilities.
• Determine the types of mobile devices, which are intended to be utilized in the system.
• Distribute the education components and services based on network capabilities and usability requirements of each mobile device.
• Write scenarios, which express the mobile learning system. In the scenarios all the components are distributed to appropriate devices with consideration of their capabilities and the usability
requirements.
• Design prototype based on the scenarios. It is important to follow the usability guideline for each device very carefully.
• Test and validate the concept and service distributions to different devices.
Ali Mostakhdemin-Hosseini. Helsinki University of Technology, konemiehentie 2, Espoo Finland.
Jarno Tuimala. Innoforss Research &/ Development Center, Wanherinkatu 11 3 krs., 30100 Forssa, Finland.
Mobile learning is not learning through mobiles phones or learning over a wireless connection even though the capabilities of running multimedia features has increased in recent years. But mobile learning is the evolution of elearning, which completes the missing component of an e-learning solution. Mobile learning most suits for those mobile parties in education institutes. So, utilizing mobile devices in education is mainly considered as enhanced tools.
Unlike PC, mobile devices have some restriction for displaying content e.g. screen size and resolution. When designing user interface for mobile devices, especially for heterogeneous environments, we have to consider the special user requirements, as well as, the capabilities of the devices (Calvary et al. 2001) and (Roth et al. 2000). As (McClard et. Al. 2000) have stated, the portable devices are not a replacement for the PC.
There has been extensive progress in m learning since this study was initiated. Basically, the term has been defined more precisely (Brown, 2003).
1. Ubiquitous Computing- all members of the academic community have appropriate and timely access to the Internet, usually via a computer they own. Access may be either by desktop or laptop or handheld.
2. Portable Computing- same as #1 except computer must be laptop
3. Mobile Computing- same as #2 except laptop must be wireless
4. Very mobile Computing- same as #3 (i.e. wireless) except that the computer is a Palm Pilot, Blackberry or Equivalent.
Based on the users study conducted at Helsinki University of Technology and analyzed the gathered data (Mostakhdemin-Hosseini et.al, 2004) this study defined the framework of the mobile learning system. The Mobile learning system development is based on three main domains, Mobile usability, wireless technology and e-learning system.
Mobile usability is the main domain in the mobile learning system.
Issues, which involve mobile devices’ usability, are as such as mobile device type, mobile device features and mobile content design methods.
The contributions of mobile usability research to this study assists to identify the requirements of each mobile device capability to offer services in a usable manner. Providing services for mobile devices without considering the usability issues is a useless effort. Users utilize the mobile devices and use the services if they feel that services are usable and do not consume extra time. The main issue, which should be study carefully when developing education services for mobile devices, is the content of the mobile services, the services types, requirement of each service and the service limitations.
The second essential element of mobile learning system is the network connection, especially wireless network technology. Issues, which are related to the wireless networks which directly influence the mobile learning systems, are network infrastructure and operators rolls.
The unique feature of the m- learning system is the mobility. The users utilize the mobile devices if the network provides fast, secure and reliable network connections. Also the users are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for the services they receive.
The final domain, which affects the mobile learning system, is the existing e-learning concept. The mobile devices were enhanced to the existing e-learning systems. Issues related to e-learning, which affects the mobile learning system, is the requirements of the e- learning system and the type of utilized e-learning platform.
...mobile learning system’s developer has to consider the following issues for developing the mobile learning system.
• Define the education components and services, required by the mobile learning system. These
components and services depend to the type of course.
• Identify the existing wireless network capabilities and boundaries. If there are different networks, select the one, which is most appropriate for the education components and mobile devices capabilities.
• Determine the types of mobile devices, which are intended to be utilized in the system.
• Distribute the education components and services based on network capabilities and usability requirements of each mobile device.
• Write scenarios, which express the mobile learning system. In the scenarios all the components are distributed to appropriate devices with consideration of their capabilities and the usability
requirements.
• Design prototype based on the scenarios. It is important to follow the usability guideline for each device very carefully.
• Test and validate the concept and service distributions to different devices.
References that I may read further in the future:
Mostakhdemin-Hosseini Ali, Mustajärvi, Jari “Steps Required Developing Mobile Learning Services” , International association for development of Information Society, IADIS July 17-19th, 2004, Avila, Spain
Mostakhdemin-Hosseini Ali, Mustajärvi, Jari “Evaluation of Mobile Learning System Prototype”, International association for development of Information Society, IADIS February 23-25th, 2005, Algarve, Portugal
Mostakhdemin-Hosseini Ali, Mustajärvi, Jari “Evaluation of Mobile Learning System Prototype”, International association for development of Information Society, IADIS February 23-25th, 2005, Algarve, Portugal
Aug 27 - Laine & Suhonen, Establishing a mobile blog system in a distance education environment
Yesterday, I had finished reading on "Usability" from all relevant articles in MobileLearningUsability folder. Today, I would reading on "Usability from UsabilityMLearnELearn_20090821 folder.
Establishing a mobile blog system in a distance education environment.
Teemu H. Laine* and Jarkko Suhonen. Department of Computer Science and Statistics, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: teemu.laine@cs.joensuu.fi E-mail: jarkko.suhonen@cs.joensuu.fi *Corresponding author
Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2008. pg 149-165
Virtual Studies of Computer Science (ViSCoS). ViSCoS Mobile is an m-learning extension to ViSCoS that frees students to study anywhere and anytime. We present the first design, implementation and evaluation of a mobile blog system Advanced Postman for ViSCoS. Preliminary testing of the system indicated that moblogs can be used successfully as a reporting tool on a programming project course.
In Section 5, we evaluate Advanced Postman through preliminary usage test and
reflections on usability and technical issues.
ViSCoS Mobile as a concept was first introduced by Laine et al. (2005). The goal of ViSCoS Mobile is to develop necessary mobile learning environment and learning tools, which can be used by ViSCoS students to learn via mobile devices, thus enriching the learning experience.
Mobile technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it offers high portability, instant access, flexible solutions and affordable price.
On the other hand, however, small screen and lack of proper input method makes usability of mobile devices very poor when compared with desktop or laptop computers.
According to Smith (2003), unstable data storage and security of personal information are also issues affecting the design of the ViSCoS Mobile. Contents of the ViSCoS courses are not optimised for mobile phones and even though the HTML content is theoretically readable by any web browser, presentation of large HTML structures on a small screen is very frustrating to browse.
One of the main challenges to support services in ViSCoS Mobile is to motivate students to study from a tiny screen. The usage of mobile technologies alone can be a good motivator at least for the technologically oriented students (Attewell, 2005; Perry, 2003).
...to boost the motivation and to create and support a new kind of learning community: a mobile learning community. The student support services may include reminders, calendar and other information helping everyday life of an online student. Space- and time-agnostic queries, quizzes and even examinations are also possible to be organised with current mobile technologies. Internet telephony and conversation tools on mobile devices offer instant interaction between members of the learning community, thus creating a stronger atmosphere of togetherness. One of the most promising technologies for student support services is a mobile blog in which students are able to reflect their learning and discuss with peers from any location at any time.
As any distance-learning program, ViSCoS has also met problems related to students’ motivation and performance. In this paper, we provided an overview of the latest branch of ViSCoS, ViSCoS Mobile, which has a clear focus on bringing ViSCoS studies into mobile devices. One of the three development threads of ViSCoS Mobile is student support services and within this thread we recognised the potential of mobile blogs as a learning tool.
Based on literature review, we concluded that blogs have been used successfully in education. Mobile blogs have also been used in educational arena, but not nearly as much as regular blogs. The advantage of using mobile blogs over regular blogs is that the author is able to post new entries spontaneously at any location and at any time.
References of note:
Attewell, J. (2005) Mobile Technologies and Learning: A Technology Update and M-Learning Project Summary, Learning and Skills Development Agency, London, http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/041923RS.pdf (Retrieved March 12, 2006).
Prensky, M. (2005) ‘What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything!’, Innovate – Journal of Online Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, June–July, http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83
Establishing a mobile blog system in a distance education environment.
Teemu H. Laine* and Jarkko Suhonen. Department of Computer Science and Statistics, University of Joensuu, P.O. Box 111, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: teemu.laine@cs.joensuu.fi E-mail: jarkko.suhonen@cs.joensuu.fi *Corresponding author
Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organisation, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2008. pg 149-165
Virtual Studies of Computer Science (ViSCoS). ViSCoS Mobile is an m-learning extension to ViSCoS that frees students to study anywhere and anytime. We present the first design, implementation and evaluation of a mobile blog system Advanced Postman for ViSCoS. Preliminary testing of the system indicated that moblogs can be used successfully as a reporting tool on a programming project course.
In Section 5, we evaluate Advanced Postman through preliminary usage test and
reflections on usability and technical issues.
ViSCoS Mobile as a concept was first introduced by Laine et al. (2005). The goal of ViSCoS Mobile is to develop necessary mobile learning environment and learning tools, which can be used by ViSCoS students to learn via mobile devices, thus enriching the learning experience.
Mobile technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it offers high portability, instant access, flexible solutions and affordable price.
On the other hand, however, small screen and lack of proper input method makes usability of mobile devices very poor when compared with desktop or laptop computers.
According to Smith (2003), unstable data storage and security of personal information are also issues affecting the design of the ViSCoS Mobile. Contents of the ViSCoS courses are not optimised for mobile phones and even though the HTML content is theoretically readable by any web browser, presentation of large HTML structures on a small screen is very frustrating to browse.
One of the main challenges to support services in ViSCoS Mobile is to motivate students to study from a tiny screen. The usage of mobile technologies alone can be a good motivator at least for the technologically oriented students (Attewell, 2005; Perry, 2003).
...to boost the motivation and to create and support a new kind of learning community: a mobile learning community. The student support services may include reminders, calendar and other information helping everyday life of an online student. Space- and time-agnostic queries, quizzes and even examinations are also possible to be organised with current mobile technologies. Internet telephony and conversation tools on mobile devices offer instant interaction between members of the learning community, thus creating a stronger atmosphere of togetherness. One of the most promising technologies for student support services is a mobile blog in which students are able to reflect their learning and discuss with peers from any location at any time.
As any distance-learning program, ViSCoS has also met problems related to students’ motivation and performance. In this paper, we provided an overview of the latest branch of ViSCoS, ViSCoS Mobile, which has a clear focus on bringing ViSCoS studies into mobile devices. One of the three development threads of ViSCoS Mobile is student support services and within this thread we recognised the potential of mobile blogs as a learning tool.
Based on literature review, we concluded that blogs have been used successfully in education. Mobile blogs have also been used in educational arena, but not nearly as much as regular blogs. The advantage of using mobile blogs over regular blogs is that the author is able to post new entries spontaneously at any location and at any time.
References of note:
Attewell, J. (2005) Mobile Technologies and Learning: A Technology Update and M-Learning Project Summary, Learning and Skills Development Agency, London, http://www.lsda.org.uk/files/PDF/041923RS.pdf (Retrieved March 12, 2006).
Prensky, M. (2005) ‘What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything!’, Innovate – Journal of Online Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, June–July, http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=83
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Aug 27 - Invited Davie & Cheryl to my Facebook
A risky thing to do...I invited Cheryl and Davie to my Facebook. If either of them accept the invitation, Shanying will soon be able to see me because of "mutual friend" of Facebook.
Just take a risk!
Just do it!
Be courageous!
Just take a risk!
Just do it!
Be courageous!
Aug 26 - Definition of Usability
Usefulness is defined as the ability to achieve a goal by using the system. Usefulness can be divided into utility and usability. Utility refers to the functionality of a system, and usability to the ability to make use of that functionality (Nielsen 1995).
The usability of a system is determined by the usability of both the underlying system engineand the contents and structure of the information base. Usability has been associated with fiveattributes: ease of learning, efficiency, easy to remember, consistency (few errors) and pleasantness of use (Nielsen 1995).
A critical approach to an adaptive user interface design.Teija Vainio. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: teija.vainio@uta.fi
Mikko Ahonen. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Learning With Mobile Devices: Reserch and Development. a book of papers, edited by Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith. Learning and Skills Development Agency, Regent Arcade House19–25 Argyll Street, London W1F 7LS. pg 189-192
Nielsen J (1995). Multimedia and hypertext. the internet and beyond. Boston: AP Professional, 280–281.
The usability of a system is determined by the usability of both the underlying system engineand the contents and structure of the information base. Usability has been associated with fiveattributes: ease of learning, efficiency, easy to remember, consistency (few errors) and pleasantness of use (Nielsen 1995).
A critical approach to an adaptive user interface design.Teija Vainio. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: teija.vainio@uta.fi
Mikko Ahonen. Hypermedia Laboratory, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Finland. E-mail: mikko.ahonen@uta.fi
Learning With Mobile Devices: Reserch and Development. a book of papers, edited by Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith. Learning and Skills Development Agency, Regent Arcade House19–25 Argyll Street, London W1F 7LS. pg 189-192
Nielsen J (1995). Multimedia and hypertext. the internet and beyond. Boston: AP Professional, 280–281.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
