Using the revised bloom taxonomy in designing mobile apps

Using the Revised Bloom Taxonomy in Designing Mobile

Apps for Learning

Gülay EKREN, Sinop University

Nilgün ÖZDAMAR KESKİN, Anadolu University

• mobile devices have various functions (Kroski, 2008)

• mostly using like a personal assistant or a personal computer

• make learning possible

• On the other hand, using Bloom’s Taxonomy for learning provides benefits (Anderson, 2005:112)

• So, how can we combine mobile learning with Bloom’s Taxonomy?

6th International Conference on “Innovations in Learning for the Future” 2016: Next Generation 2

Intr

od

uct

ion

• In this study,

– the use of the revised Bloom Taxonomy in designing mobile learning applications was evaluated

– a few alternative models apart from revised Bloom’s Taxonomy are evaluated

– a range of mobile applications has been suggested for open and distance learners


Aim

s

Evolution of m-learning

4

Sco

pe

6th International Conference on “Innovations in Learning for the Future” 2016: Next Generation

1970s

- First mobile phone Motorola DynaTAC 8000X - First microcomputer, peripheral devices and also SmallTalk. - GUI (Graphical User Interface)

1980s

- First handheld computers (laptop) in videotape size - Desktop computers get in place over time- Networking, Social sharing

1990s

- First web browser, first digital camera - A palm pilot - Socio-constructivist learning has increased the interest to

interact with others

Evolution of m-learning

5

Sco

pe


2000s

- Structure of internet usage get changed- Mobile phones were smaller sized, more available and had

many functions - Web 2.0 tools such as Facebook, Twitter, virtual learning

environments such as Blackboard, Moodle- Apple introduced iPhone

2010s

- “Internet of things” known as “machine to machine mobile connectivity”

- Wearable technologies such as iWatch, Google Glass- Web 3.0 tools - Mobile virtual reality

Need for Mobile Pedagogy

• because of ubiquitous structure of mobile devices

• saturation of market for mobile devices

• access from worldwide to mobile devices

• interest and habits of learners to technology

• m-learning supporting educational facilities

6

Sco

pe


• Contextual parameters to characterize mobile learning against traditional approaches


Contextual parameters

Traditional approaches

Enriched approaches with mobile learning

Content Delivering Creating, sharing

Work-based processes

Learning for workLearning for work, learning at work

Social form Individual Individual, social

Formality Formal setting Formal or informal setting

Educational paradigm

Cognitive, behavioralSocio-cognitive, situated, social, cultural constructivist, multimodal

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

• cognitive, affective and psychomotordomains of learning activities

• cognitive domain can be used to illustrate mobile learning activities

• revised Bloom’s Taxonomy is used to show a particular cognitive process in learning step by step (Krathwohl, 2002)

8

Sco

pe


Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

9

Sco

pe


Alternative Models

• SOLO (Structure of Observed LearningOutcomes) Taxonomy

• Fink’s Taxonomy

• PI Model (Practical Inquiry Model of Co

(Schrire, 2004; Brabrand & Dahl, 2009; O’Neill & Murphy, 2010).

10

Sco

pe


Educational apps

11

InC

losi

ng


Conclusion

• mobile devices can be easily integratedinto activities and materials in thelearning environments

• mobile learning have been reshapingthe mobile apps and needs a differentpedagogy

12

InC

losi

ng


Recommendations

• use revised Bloom’s Taxonomy whenbuilding mobile apps for learning.

• variety of alternative models can alsobe used to design mobile apps forlearning

• In future research, there is a need tocompare different models beforebuilding learning content of mobile apps, and also open and distancelearning courses.

13

InC

losi

ng


• Akyol, Z., Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, M., Garrison, D. R., Ice, P., Richardson, J. C., & Swan, K. (2009). A response to the review of the community of inquiry framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(2), 123-136.

• Amer, A. (2006). Reflections on Bloom’s revised taxonomy. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 4(1), 213-230.

• Anderson, L. W. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of education. Studies in educational evaluation, 31(2), 102-113.

• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

• Arshavskiy M. (2016). Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Learning Objectives. Retrieved August 23, 2016 from http://www.elearninglearning.com/bloom/?open-article-id=5315409&article-title=using-bloom-s-taxonomy-to-write-learning-objectives&blog-domain=coursearc.com&blog-title=coursearc.

• Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy, structure of the observed learning outcome. London: Academic Press.

• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Vol. 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.

• Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning. McGraw-Hill.

• Brabrand, C., & Dahl, B. (2009). Using the SOLO taxonomy to analyze competence progression of university science curricula. Higher Education, 58(4), 531-549.

• Cheong, C., Bruno, V., & Cheong, F. (2012). Designing a mobile-app-based collaborative learning system. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 97-119.

• Cochrane, T. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordance of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1–14.

• Cole, H., & Stanton, D. (2003). Designing mobile technologies to support co-present collaboration. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7(6), 365-371.

• Crompton, H. (2014). A diachronic overview of technology contributing to mobile learning: A shift towards student-centred pedagogies. Increasing access, 7.


Ref

eren

ces

https://coursearc.com/author/marina/

http://www.elearninglearning.com/bloom/?open-article-id=5315409&article-title=using-bloom-s-taxonomy-to-write-learning-objectives&blog-domain=coursearc.com&blog-title=coursearc

• Duncan-Howell, J. A., & Lee, K. T. (2007). M-Learning–Innovations and Initiatives: Finding a place for mobile technologies within tertiary educational settings. Proceedings ascilite Singapore, 2007.

• Enocta (2013). Mobil Öğrenmeye başlamak için 10 Sebep. Retrieved May 24, 2016 from http://www.hrdergi.com/Upload/Data/File/Ekim2013/enocta-2.pdf.

• Fink, L. D. (2003). A self-directed guide to designing courses for significant learning. University of Oklahoma, 27, p11.

• Fisher, D. (2011). The Taxonomy Table. Retrieved May 24, 2016 from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#table.

• Freysen, J. B. (2005). M-learning: an educational perspective. Mobile learning anytime everywhere, 73.

• Govindasamy, T. (2002). Successful implementation of e-learning: Pedagogical considerations. The internet and higher education, 4(3), 287-299.

• Hamm, S. E., Drysdale, J., & Moore, D. (2014). Towards a mobile learning pedagogy. Mobile pedagogy and perspectives on teaching and learning, 1-20.

• Herrington, J., Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I. W., & Ferry, B. (2009). New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, 169-9.

• Herrington, J. , Herrington, A., Mantei, J., Olney, I. and Ferry, B. (2009b) Using mobile technologies to develop new ways of teaching and learning. In: Herrington, J., Mantei, J., Olney, I., Ferry, B. and Herrington, A., (eds.) New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile learning in higher education. University of Wollongong, Wollongong, 1-14.

• Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects–a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of computer assisted learning, 25(4), 307-331.

• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.

• Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the revision of Bloom's Taxonomy. Educational psychologist, 45(1), 64-65.

• Kroski, E. (2008). On the move with the mobile web: libraries and mobile technologies. Library technology reports, 44(5), 1-48.


Ref

eren

ces

http://www.hrdergi.com/Upload/Data/File/Ekim2013/enocta-2.pdf

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#table

• Kuo, R., Chang, M., Ying, K., & Heh, J. S. (2011). Design Electronic Botany Worksheet Generation Based on Bloom's Taxonomy for Mobile Learning. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2011 11th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 192-194). IEEE.

• Lai, C. H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: the interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326-337.

• Laouris, Y., & Eteokleous, N. (2005). We need an educationally relevant definition of mobile learning. In Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Mobile Learning, 290-294.

• O’Neill, G., & Murphy, F. (2010). Guide to taxonomies of learning. UCDTeaching and Learning/ Resources.

• Pimmer, C., & Pachler, N. (2014). Mobile learning in the workplace: Unlocking the value of mobile technology for work-based education. Increasing Access, 193.

• Roschelle, J., Sharples, M., & Chan, T. W. (2005). Introduction to the special issue on wireless and mobile technologies in education. J. Comp. Assisted Learning, 21(3), 159-161.

• Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2009). Designing learning activities with mobile technologies. IGI Global, 4-20.

• Shea, P., Gozza-Cohen, M., Uzuner, S., Mehta, R., Valtcheva, A. V., Hayes, S., & Vickers, J. (2011). The community of inquiry framework meets the SOLO taxonomy: A process‐product model of online learning. Educational Media International, 48(2), 101-113.

• Stone, A. (2004). Designing scalable, effective mobile learning for multiple technologies. In: Jill Attewell and Carol Savill-Smith (eds.) Learning with mobile devices, 145-153.

• Traxler, J. (2009). Current state of mobile learning1. Mobile Learning, 9.

• Tsai, P. S., Tsai, C. C., & Hwang, G. H. (2015). The effects of instructional methods on students' learning outcomes requiring different cognitive abilities: context-aware ubiquitous learning versus traditional instruction. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.

• Yen, J. C., Lee, C. Y., & Chen, I. (2012). The effects of image-based concept mapping on the learning outcomes and cognitive processes of mobile learners. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 307-320.


Ref

eren

ces