Major problems related to mLearning - · PDF fileMajor problems related to mLearning Literature Review ... (WML) as the meta ... Instructional design common flaws in mLearning solutions

Major problems related to mLearning

Literature Review July, 2005

Authorship: Mercedes Luna Contact Email: [email protected]

1. Introduction Mobile Learning (mLearning) describes a new trend of learning that uses

innovations like wireless communication, personal digital assistants, digital

content from traditional textbooks, and other sources to provide a dynamic

learning environment and to lay the framework for uniting education and

technology together into a single consortium. Anyone involved in training a

group – students and professional office workers, for example – can benefit

from mLearning.

This review seeks to examine existing information about the documented

advantages (i.e. access to educational content anywhere at anytime) and

disadvantages (i.e. technology limitations and security issues) associated with

the use of mLearning.

The objective is to identify potential actions that can be implemented in the

instructional design of educational materials, to solve or at least mitigate some

current technological limitations. The final objective behind the instructional

design contributions is to make the learning experience through mobile devices,

meaningful, useful, and engaging for the learner.

2. Major supporting points 2.1 Definition of mlearning For the purpose of this work, the definition proposed by the American Society of

Training & Development (ASTD) that defines mLearning as the “Learning that

takes place via such wireless devices as cell phones, personal digital assistants

(PDAs), or laptop computers” will be used as a starting point. Queen (2000)

stated that mLearning is a type of eLearning and share characteristics with each

other.

Copyright ©2006 by Mercedes Luna-Rivero, all rights reserved

Page 1 of 14

2.2. Distance learning evolution The transition from ‘instructor-led training only’ to the use of blended

approaches (still using instructors but incorporating technology for distance

learning) has occurred in the past two decades.

Kiffmeyer (2004) describes the development of e-learning in the following

stages:

Before 1983 – Instructor-led training era, 1984-1993 – Multimedia Era

(Windows 3.1, Macintosh, CD-ROMs, PowerPoint), 1994-1999 – Web Infancy

(e-mail, Web browsers, HTML, media players) and 2000- current – Next

Generation Web (Java/IP network applications, better and riche streaming

media, high-bandwidth access, wireless and mobile technology).

This history helps to illustrate how the application’s time of new technologies is

close to the speed of the technology industry developments in the last years.

In this ‘classroom’ to ‘distance’ approach transformation, within the distance

education Keegan (2002) characterize the evolution as: 1) distance learning

(dLearning), 2) eLearning (through the incorporation of technology to

dLearning) and finally anticipating the next wave as 3) mLearning (as a result

of the wireless revolution of the late 1990s).

In fact, modern e-Learning is based on the Internet infrastructure, hypermedia

technology, advanced graphical user interface, sophisticated communication

and cooperation services interests (Kravcik, Kaibel, Specht & Terrenghi, 2004).

Standard formats, as the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM),

enable the plug-and-play interoperability, accessibility, and reusability of Web-

based learning, developing the content as Learning Objects. Also metadata

usually supports the searching features.

Recalling that mLearning can be conceived as a type of eLearning, many of the

characteristics above, also apply to mobile learning. According to Quinn (2000),

mLearning is the intersection of mobile computing and eLearning: accessible


Page 2 of 14

resources wherever you are, strong search capabilities, rich interaction,

powerful support for effective learning, and performance-based assessment.

2.3. Learning approaches applicable to mLearning In terms of learning approaches, the use of technology to enhance the learning

experience, are more focused on cognitivism and constructivism (Kravcik,

Kaibel, Specht & Terrenghi, 2004).

Cognitivism implies that instructional design can generate both appropriate

environmental stimuli and instructional interactions, and thereby bring about a

change in cognitive structures of the learner (Striebel, 1995 in Maschke, 2005).

Constructivism enounces that by reflecting on our experiences, we construct

our own understanding of the world we live in. Learning, therefore, is the

adjustment our mental models to accommodate ourselves in new experiences.

2.4. Advantages of mlearning Both Keegan (2002) and Strohlein and Fritsch (2003) consider that a mLearning

solution should enable the possibility to access course content and other

materials, World Wide Web (www), student support services, tutors and other

students.

With the eLearning solutions accessed through desktops the “any time access”

was one of the main benefits of that evolution in the education field. The

portable nature of devices as PDAs, laptops, tablet PCs, cell phones offer

additional benefit of accessing the contents independently of time or space

(Quinn, 2000).

In addition to mLearning, the mobile devices can also used as a performance

support tool for the learner; because mobile devices share one of the EPSS

affordance in providing information to the user when they need it (Scales &

Yang, 1993, in Scales, 1994).

One of the main advantages of m-learning, according to Chris von

Koschembahr - IBM’s Worldwide Mobile Learning Executive- , is the ability to fill

learners’ dead time (Koschembahr, in Kaplan-Leiserson, 2005).


Page 3 of 14

The aim in eLearning and therefore in mLearning too, is to provide personalized

adaptive learning in open and distributed environments, specially related to

student’s preferences, knowledge, learning styles, objectives, and interests

(Kravcik, Kaibel, Specht & Terrenghi, 2004).

2.5. Technical limitations of mobile devices for learning purposes

Kossen (2001) uses a metaphor from the automotive industry to illustrate the

path that still needs to be walked. He stated that the current mobile devices are

like the Model T in cars. In this section, we will review the main technical

limitations documented.

Connectivity

Whenever we talk about mLearning, is important to differentiate the smaller

devices from laptops. All mobile devices currently share some limitations about

connectivity, mainly related to intermittent connection (Quinn, 2000); but small

devices as cell phones and PDAs, also have additional restrictions for learning

purposes, because of their size and the current technological limitations.

Access to contents procedures

Mobile devices present some differences related to download content

procedures. Strohlein and Fritsch (2003) differentiated content from real-time

access to content from off-line access with mobile phones.

They characterized the levels of content accessed from the web server as

“mobile access” although the content was access by a cellular phone using

wireless access protocol (WAP) as the medium and Wireless Markup Language

(WML) as the meta language. If the cellular phone was used as a tool (like a

modem to a desktop computer) to connect other devices to the Internet with

Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML), the authoring language used to create

documents on the World Wide Web, as the meta language medium, it would be

called mobile off-line access.


Page 4 of 14

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/language.htm

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/document.htm

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/World_Wide_Web.htm

WML is a programming language used for handheld devices such as mobile

phones. When a mobile device is WAP-capable, it means it has a micro

browser, which interprets or understands WML.

Screen size, processing time and battery power duration

Continuing with the list of current limitations of mobile devices, Quinn (2000)

mentioned the small size of the screens, the slow processing time and the

limited storage capacity. Strohlein and Fritsch (2003) added to the technical

issues list, the problem of battery power duration, which is “too small for

convenient use”.

Security issues Security is another important issue that needs to be considered (Wagner,

2005). The security issues include not only the protection of mobile devices

against viruses but also interceptions of the shared content by unintended

recipients.

Storage capacity

Even though the storage capacity of some mobile devices has improved, for

instance back in 2001, many palm devices came with 2MB to 8MB of memory,

in 2005 – i.e. Tungsten E2 from Palm Pilot – offers 32 MB; this new capacity is

still insufficient to compete with the learning experiences when the content is

accessed through a laptop. The small memory capacity of cellular phones is an

issue as well.

Cross-platform, learning tracking and device-independent delivery issues In addition to the technical issues mentioned above, Kravcik, Kaibel, Specht

and Terrenghi (2004) documented some additional important new issues for

mobile learning:

- “Develop-once deliver-many” idea as new authoring tools for learning

content enable the authors to deliver their content in a variety of formats.

What Quinn (2000) calls “device-independent delivery”.


Page 5 of 14

- Contextualized information, delivered adapted to the current user context,

where the context may include the personal preferences, the current task,

the location, and the time (Abowd, Day, Abowd, Orr, Brotherton, 1997;

Gross, Specht, 2002)

- Direct cooperation and integration of the learning process into the learning

context (Slotta, Cheng, 2001)

The cross-platform issue, not only referring to the development of content, but

also including learning performance tracking and accuracy of the feedback

given to the learner.

As mentioned above, even though the use of mobile technology is widespread,

the characteristics of the devices itself, the cross platforms solutions and the

connectivity capabilities, still needs to be further developed to accomplish equal

what can be delivered through web based training accessed through

computers.

Quinn (2000) exemplifies this lack of maturity in the solutions to address the

cross-platform issue, with the Avantgo case. This Palm-deliverable content

solution that includes learning content, but is not connected with any Learning

Management System to track the learning experience progress and results.

The future solution seems to move from a hosted service to device-resident, for

the fact that learning should move from an organizational function to an

individual necessity. Improvements in programming languages (i.e. extensible

mark-up language, XML) are working on “information representation that

separate out the content from the format”, which will be addressing the device-

independent delivery issue (Quinn, 2000).

2.6. Instructional design common flaws in mLearning solutions Lack of technological development, accounts for the low use of mLearning in

work and life. Mistakes made during the instructional design, including

misapplication or underestimation of factors as GUI size on the small devices,

might led the learners to dislike the educational products and thus creating a

user-unfriendly experience.


Page 6 of 14

http://www.avantgo.com/

As mentioned before, the cross-platform issue affects the learning performance

tracking and therefore accuracy of the feedback given to the learner.

2.7. How Instructional design can help to increase the use of mlearning For mLearning solutions, the latest trends suggest the design of learning

objects as one of the best practices. Longmire (2000) indicates that “learning

technology standards organizations are quickly moving towards open and

industry-wide standards”. Learning objects, as defined by the IEEE's Learning

Technology Standards Committee (http://ltsc.ieee.org), are "any entity, digital or

non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology

supported learning."

As Longmire (2000) stated “The object approach can satisfy both immediate

learning needs--such as a knowledge-based or skills-based course--and current

and future learning needs that are not course-based” (pp.1)

Several actions can be implemented, to mitigate technical problems of mobile

devices through a better instructional design. Compensating the technical

limitations from the educational technology side will contribute to increase the

rate of use for mLearning.

Detect the better type of knowledge and activity to deliver through mobile devices The current trends suggest educational games and language instruction as the

areas where mLearning can play a major role (Wagner, 2005). As the rest of

technology assisted-learning, mobile devices also can become useful

performance-support and decision-support tools for learners (Wagner, 2005).

For Quinn (cited in Kaplan-Leiserson, 2005) even though the mobile devices

can carry any content, they cannot carry a lot. Quinn stated that mlearning is

closer to

performance support and that the “content delivered through mobiles devices

can and should … keeps the learning active over a long period of time with

smaller bits”


Page 7 of 14

In terms of design, it is clearly better take advantage of what the learner already

know how to use, like browsing documents through a PDA or playing games on

cell phones, to take advantage of mLearning. If the learner needs to learn how

to navigate first, the educational objective can be dissipated.

According to Bronagh McMullen, an eLearning Program Manager from Ericsson

Education Online, “Mobile games may do for the wireless Internet what e-mail

did for the wired one… A recent study by Datacomm Research and Phoenician Ventures concluded that mobile games are the wireless Internet’s killer app,

and that 3G handsets with color displays are its killer devices”

(mCommerceTimes, 2002 in McMullen 2002)

Design learning objects based on current mobile devices features As was stated in the section 2.5 of this document, several technical limitations

(i.e. screen size, connectivity, storage capacity, etc.) become instructional

design constrains to consider. If exists restriction about the mobile device

available, the selection of the activity might respect the technological limitations

of the device into the instructional design.

If several devices will be available, the selected educational activity should

consider a design that allows the learning object be used in as much devices as

possible, to address the cross platforms issues.

Some examples of ‘mLearning’ learning objects can be viewed at the following

URLs:

− Navowave -not animated- examples: http://www.navowave.com/Gallery_mobilelearning.html

− Mlearning consortium -animated- examples:

http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/college/mlearning/Note: once in the page, click on the ‘mContent objects’ in the left pane of the screen. Then click on the links called ‘quizzes’, ‘journal entries’, etc. A new window will pop up showing the interactive example. (does your professor allow footnotes? This is a good example of why you should use a footnote for elaboration.

− M-Learning (pan-European research and development programme) –animated- examples: http://learn.m-learning.net/iframe_page.htm


Page 8 of 14

http://www.navowave.com/Gallery_mobilelearning.html

http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/college/mlearning/

http://learn.m-learning.net/iframe_page.htm

Perform fast and effective prototyping and user testing The instruction of mLearning delivered through simple and specific but well

designed, prototyped and tested solutions can help to encourage the learners to

adopt mlearning.

When designing learning objects, rapid prototyping should be used to ensure

proper and sufficient learner-device interaction.

As Scharage (1996) stated “Prototypes too often confirm that what we wish for

is unrealistic or ill conceived. Conversely, prototypes can reveal that the

designer’s wishes were not sufficiently imaginative” (pp. 194).

There are cases such as Strohlein & Fritsch’s study (2003) for evaluating

courses through design, prototyping, and testing that revealed the best

technology to use (like HTML instead of WML) for devices like mobile phones,

smart phones, and PDAs.

Another important aspect in the testing of the learning object design is to verify

how useful it is for the learner in terms of knowledge acquisition or

reinforcement of existing knowledge. As Becker (2000) stated “in order to more

directly understand the consequences of high intensity computer experiences or

computer- based instruction motivated by different pedagogical objectives, we

… need a new set of assessment instruments”. As the same author explained,

while these new instruments are ready, the approaches used will be less direct,

but still provides information about the characteristics of the learning

experience.

Designing activities that includes interaction and engaging characteristics The use of mobile devices in the process of learning certainly will help in

“reciprocal teaching” defined by Curtis & Lawson (2001) as a form of

collaborative learning within the learner’s community.

Reiterating the concept of mLearning as a type of eLearning, the social and

communicative interactions teacher/student (Picciano, 2002), and the relations

of each one with peers and support elements, the differentiation between


Page 9 of 14

“presence” and “interaction” concepts in relation with learner participation, are

also present in mLearning.

When designing learning objects for mobile learning, it is important to consider

the need of creating engaging learning experiences (Kearsley & Shneiderman,

1999). One important concept to keep in mind is that the ‘ability to engage’ does

not necessarily mean technical complexity.

Experiences constructing wireless technology enhanced classrooms (WiTEC)

as explained by Liu and his/her colleagues (2003) demonstrate how in a

technologically lean solution “the teachers and students in the WiTEC

environment can use technology unobtrusively and seamlessly to reduce the

time spent in tedious tasks, engage in various types of teaching and learning

activities, and then record their process as portfolios” (pp. 378).

Apply usability principles adapted to the new GUI of mobile devices In relation to Graphic User Interface (GUI) design, even though screen sizes

vary depending on the type of the chosen mobile device, usability principles as

“the content should account for … closer to 80 percent and navigation should

kept below 20 percent …”, types of hypertext links – embedded, structural or

associative – to be used, and keep the pull-down menu and graphics for

navigation purposes only (Nielsen, 2000); are critical in order to keep the

learner focused and motivated.

Response times in navigation of content are also an issue, even though for the

cases where the access to the content is in real time – where the impact of

technology in the connectivity capabilities, is higher - can be mitigated by design

of links and information display. According to Nielsen (2000), “… one tenth of a

second is about the limit for having the user feel that the system is reacting

instantaneously; meaning that no especial feedback is necessary … one

second is about the limit for the user’s flow of thought to remain uninterrupted,

even though the user will notice the delay. Ten seconds is about the limit for

keeping the user’s attention focused on the dialogue”.


Page 10 of 14

Some attributes of a rich mobile experience (Wagner, 2005) as the following,

should be considered into de design and in the checklist for testing a prototype:

− Richness: Do pages load quickly? Do animations play in a smooth and

seamless manner? Does the streaming media (media that is consumed—

read, heard, viewed—while it is being delivered) flow at a sufficiently rapid

rate?

− Reliability: Will content be displayed in a consistent manner, regardless of

the browser, device, and screen size?

− Interactivity: Does the application allow users to interact freely with the

display and the content?

As mentioned before, is important consider new GUI dimensions (screens, key

sizes, resolution) of the mobile devices into the instructional design, relying

more in content than in visual effects.

Design learning object for well tested and ubiquitous mobile devices As instructional designers is important to be cautious and do not rely

necessarily in latest innovations (i.e. smart phones vs. regular cell phones),

improved PDAs, as the hard-drive palmtop LifeDrive manufactured by PalmOne (Pogue, 2005) or the “convergence” in technological devices (Tedeschi, 2005).

The comment of John C. Burris, Sprint's director for wireless data services,

about that “… carriers and manufacturers focused on trying to shoehorn a PC

into a phone, rather than developing applications that respect the hand-held

device on its own merits” quoted in an article for the New York Times (Schiesel,

2005) shows that still the industry itself, is working on find the balance of the

right capabilities for mobile devices. As instructional designers is better stick

with conservative choices considering ubiquity of the type and capabilities of

mobile devices to be used for educational purposes.


Page 11 of 14

3. Conclusions According to Kravcik, Kaibel, Specht and Terrenghi (2004), “it is improbable that

mLearning will soon substitute eLearning as we know it today. There is still no

real reason to omit powerful desktops with large screens. One should rather see

mobile solutions as enhancements of the current educational Technologies” (pp.

25). While the solutions to the technological issues arrives, and even though the

assessment instruments are not perfect yet, it is possible from the educational

side start to design, build, test and implement solutions in mLearning initiatives.

The use of blended approach seems to be a feasible option until technology

maturity of mobile devices - other than laptops – allows using them as the single

channel to deliver the learning objects required to accomplish the instructional

objectives of a complex learning solution. Based in current characteristics the

mobile devices, they seem to be more suitable for activities to reinforce the

learning and complement the knowledge delivered through other channels. The

lessons learned of past eLearning implementations, can be assimilated as well

to improve educational designs.

Answering questions as the follows will provide more insightful information to

instructional designers in order to create and prototype potential mLearning

contents:

− How many different mobile devices potential learners usually have

− Explore based on their backgrounds potential contents and topics to

learn trough mLearning

− Based on the GUI features of the potential learner owned mobile

devices, which one can be more suitable


Page 12 of 14

References Becker, H. J. (2000, September-October). Pedagogical Motivations for Student Computer Use That Lead to Student Engagement. Retrieved June 10,2005, from http://www.crito.uci.edu/TLC/FINDINGS/spec_rpt_pedegogical/

Curtis, D. D., & Lawson, M. J. (2001, February). Exploring Collaborative Online Learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5 (1), 21-34 Learning Circuits (ASTD’s Source for E-Learning) glossary (2005). Retrieved June 03, 2005, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.htm IEEE's Learning Technology Standards Committee website (n.d.) Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://ltsc.ieee.org Introduction to mlearning (n.d.). Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/college/mlearning/ Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2005, April) Trend: Mobile Reality (A Tale of Two Experts) . Learning Circuits (ASTD’s Source for E-Learning). Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2005/apr2005/0504_Trends.htm

Kearsley, G., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning. Retrieved June 15,2005, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm

Keegan, D. (2002, November). The Future of Learning: From eLearning to mLearning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472435).

Kiffmeyer , M. (2004, Nov 09). eLearning Software and Implementation [Msg 14]. Message posted to Knowledge Management Knowledge Base. E-Learning Select Discussion Group at http://knowledgemanagement.ittoolbox.com/groups/groups.asp?v=e-learning-select&i=588690

Kossen, J. S. (2001). When e-learning becomes m-learning. Palmpower Magazine. Retrieved June 03, 2005, from http://www.palmpowerenterprise.com/issues/issue200106/eLearning001.html Kravcik, M., Kaibel, A., Specht, M., & Terrenghi, L. (2004). Mobile Collector for Field Trips. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 7(2), 25-33. Liu, T. C., Wang, H.Y., Liang, J. K., Chan, T.W., Ko, H. W., & Yang, J. C. (2003). Wireless and mobile technologies to enhance teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 371-382. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Longmire, W. (2000, March). A Primer on Learning Objects. Learning Circuits (ASTD’s Source for E-Learning). Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://www.learningcircuits.org/2000/mar2000/Longmire.htm

McMullen, B. (2002, November). The Future is Wireless: Some trends to watch in the development of online learning. Retrieved June 30, 2005, from


Page 13 of 14

http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/project_one/presentation/bronagh2211.ppt

Maschke, K. Cognitivism (n.d.). Retrieved June 03, 2005, from http://www2.gsu.edu/~mstswh/courses/it7000/papers/newpage9.htm

Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web Usability. (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.

Picciano, A.G. (2002, July). Beyond Student Perceptions: Issues of Interaction, Presence and Performance in an Online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6 (1), 21-40.

Pogue, D., (2005, May 19) CIRCUITS; A New Spin On a Palmtop (Or Inside It). The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E5DB1739F93AA25756C0A9639C8B63

Product datasheet of Palm tungsten-e2. (n.d.). Retrieved June 28,2005, from http://www.palmone.com/us/products/handhelds/tungsten-e2/tungsten-e2_ds.pdf Quinn, C. (2000, Fall). mLearning: Mobile, Wireless, In-Your-Pocket Learning. Linezine: Learning in the New Economy. Retrieved June 03, 2005, from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm Scales, G. R. (1994). Trends in Instructional Technology: Educational Reform and Electronic Performance Support Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED373756).

Scharage, M. (1996). Cultures of Prototyping, In Winograd, T. (Ed.) Bringing Design to Software (pp.191-205). New York: ACM Press.

Schiesel, S. (2005, Jan 13) For Wireless, The Beginnings Of a Breakout. The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9406E2DE1738F930A25752C0A9639C8B63

Strohlein, G., & Fritsch, H. (2003, March). Test and Evaluation of a Course Designed for Mobile Learning. ZIFF Papiere (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479030).

Tedeschi, R., (2005, May 04) GADGETS & GLAMOUR; New Capabilities Breed New Accessories. The New York Times. Retrieved June 15, 2005, from http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9C07E7DD1630F937A35756C0A9639C8B63

Wagner, Ellen D. (2005, May/June). Enabling Mobile Learning. EDUCAUSE Review. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0532.pdf

Webopedia - online dictionary and search engine for computer and Internet technology definitions. Retrieved June 11, 2005, from http://www.webopedia.com/


Page 14 of 14

http://www.webopedia.com/

Documents

Major problems related to mLearning - · PDF fileMajor problems related to mLearning Literature Review ... (WML) as the meta ... Instructional design common flaws in mLearning solutions