Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers & Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based mobile learning project
Nuray Gedik a, *, Arzu Hanci-Karademirci b, Engin Kursun c, Kursat Cagiltay d
a
Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Akdeniz University, 07058, Antalya, Turkey
Central Bank of Republic of Turkey, Ankara, Turkey
c
Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Ataturk University, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey
d
Department of Computer Education & Instructional Technology, Middle East Technical University, 06800 Ankara, Turkey
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 5 September 2011
Received in revised form
27 November 2011
Accepted 5 December 2011
Adding flexibility to the learning process, mobile learning offers great opportunities for education,
especially for teenagers, who show great attentiveness to mobile technologies. Thus, the need to focus on
design aspects of such learning is growing. This study aims to reveal critical issues in designing mobile
learning based on a program for 11th graders and to unfold students’ perceptions about reasons for
participation, satisfaction, implementation processes, and specific content representation types. Reflections on insights gleaned from the instructional design process of the project and students’ perceptions
are presented with related recommendations.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Pedagogical issues
Interactive learning environments
Secondary education
Teaching /learning strategies
1. Introduction
Mobile technologies can be regarded as the most widely used information and communication technologies of today’s world. More and
more individuals tend to own at least one mobile device and use the advanced multimedia capabilities of their devices in their social lives.
The World in 2010 Report remarks that 90% of the world population has available access to mobile networks, with 80% in rural areas
(International Telecommunication Union, 2010). In this context, using mobile technologies in learning environments can offer diverse
opportunities for educators and learners. They offer control over learning, mobility in terms of time and place, and wide communication and
interaction (Jones, Issroff, Scanlon, Clough, & McAndrew, 2006; Schwabe & Göth, 2005; Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo, & Vavoula, 2009; Traxler,
2009). These advantages have the potential to be even more significant in developing countries where mass mobile technologies may
exceed their educational qualities. The term, mobile learning (m-learning), has emerged in line with such concerns and characterizes the use
of mobile technologies in education.
A study on American teen mobile phone usage by the Pew Research Center showed that, as of 2010, some 75% of 12–17 year-olds owned cell
phones, a high increase from 45% in 2004. The other key findings of the study revealed that 87% of teens owning a cell phone used text messaging
at least occasionally and they typically sent and received 60 text messages a day. The Pew Research Group (2010) indicates that the most popular
uses include taking (83%) and sharing (64%) pictures, playing music (60%), playing games (46%), exchanging videos (32%) and instant messages
(31%), going online for general purposes (27%), and accessing social network sites (23%). This increasing use of mobiles by American teens has
a global parallel (e.g., Livingstone, Haddon, Görzig, & Ólafsson, 2010; Livingstone & Helsper, 2007; Samkange-Zeeb & Blettner, 2009). As of June
2010, mobile penetration in EU counties had increased to 126% from 85% in 2004 (Information and Communication Technologies Authority, 2011).
Similarly, the use of mobile phones has also increased in Turkey. As of March 2011, mobile penetration rate in the country was 84% (61.7
million users), which was calculated to be 49% in 2004 (Information and Communication Technologies Authority, 2011). When Internet
technologies used in households are examined, the ratio for connection over mobile phones with WAP and GPRS technologies is 23.8% and the
connection over mobile phones with 3G technology is 5.6%. Mobile connection over 3G modems is 2.3% (State Planning Organization, 2011). The
total number of mobile Internet users has increased to 1.863 million as of first quarter of 2011, up from 640,580 in first quarter of 2010, a 190%
growth rate with the highest rate among other Internet users. The total number of 3G users as of first quarter of 2011 was 21.4 milliondthis
number was only 7.1 million in 2009 when 3G was first introduced (Information and Communication Technologies Authority, 2011). A survey on
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ90 242 310 2083; fax: þ90 242 226 1953.
E-mail addresses: ngedik@akdeniz.edu.tr (N. Gedik), ahanci@gmail.com (A. Hanci-Karademirci), enginkursun@gmail.com (E. Kursun), kursat@metu.edu.tr (K. Cagiltay).
0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.002
1150
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
computer and Internet use by age groups in early 2010 revealed that almost 65% of people aged 16–24 use the Internet (Turkish Statistical
Institute, 2010). This rate is likely higher for younger ages. Considering the 16,137,436 students in formal education and 7,062,429 students
in non-formal education as of 2009–2010 (MoNE, 2010), use of mobile technologies for learning presents great potential for both environments.
Despite a proliferation of studies on m-learning projects and applications, no consensus has been reached on the definition and design of
m-learning environments (Peng, Su, Chou, & Tsai, 2009), as the literature emphasizes different aspects. Some scholars see m-learning as
a subset of e-learning (Chinnery, 2006), whereas others define it by focusing on mobile technologies (Aderinoye, Ojokheta, & Olojede, 2007;
Clarke III & Flaherty, 2002; Quinn, 2000). Still others highlight location and type of activity (Hsu, Ke, & Yang, 2006; Traxler, 2007) in their
definitions. Traxler (2007) criticizes explicit definitions of mobile learning because they “are constraining, techno-centric and tied to current
technological instantiations” (p. 4). In their simplest and most common forms, learning mediated through mobile technologies can be
characterized as mobile learning (Winters, 2006). Mobility, portability, connectivity, and situated context are critical features of mobile
learning (Jeng, Wu, Huang, Tan, & Yang, 2010; Kakihara & Sorensen, 2002; Kukulska-Hulme, Sharples, Milrad, Arnedillo-Sánchez, & Vavoula,
2009; Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2005; Traxler, 2007).
When designing m-learning, the major focus needs to be on the highly contextualized nature of the learning environment (Divitini &
Morken, 2007; Gregson & Jordaan, 2009; Sharples et al., 2009). Characterized by more conversations and interactions across context
compared to traditional learning (Sharples, 2006), m-learning places an emphasis on design considerations for contextual and unstable
deliverables and components. That is, the design of mobile learning is a complex venture that requires rethinking the role and relationships
between organizations, pedagogy, technology, and learners.
M-learning applications offer diverse benefits for education at all levels (Frohberg, Göth, & Schwabe, 2009). This manuscript aims to
present the critical instructional design issues and challenges found in developing a cellular phone-based mobile learning covering the
excretory system for an 11th grade biology program and to investigate students’ perceptions pertaining to content representations, reasons
for participation, implementation processes, and satisfaction. Reflections on insights gleaned from the instructional design (ID) process of
the project are provided below with related recommendations. Two research questions guided the study:
1. What are the major issues and challenges in designing m-learning instruction?
2. What are students’ perceptions on m-learning instruction pertaining to content representations, reasons for participation, implementation processes, and satisfaction?
2. Background of the project
M-learning can offer important learning potential for high school students keen on using cellular phone-based mobile devices. Therefore,
the researchers designed this project with the notion that lessons learned from an actual implementation of an m-learning project would
shed light on future projects in this field.
The project was conducted in a private tutoring institution known as a dershane, a common institution in Turkey where students study
for the university entrance exam. The major reason for this context was that the target audience of 17 and 18 year-olds regularly use mobile
devices. Also, they face great stress preparing for the exam while attending both school and dershane.
The project was carried out under the supervision of an expert Instructional Designer (IDer). The team was composed of three IDers, one
of whom was experienced in preparing multimedia elements. The project underwent the following phases: (a) an analysis period in which
the ID team visited the dershane to determine the context of the project and conducted meetings with students and their teachers and
mentors to define needs, (b) a design and development period where instructional materials were designed and developed, (c) an
implementation period with face-to-face (f2f) and mobile pilot testing, followed by application, and (d) an evaluation period. During the ID
process, iterations occurred within all stages; hence, the steps often overlapped. The timeline of the project is shown in Fig. 1. Analysis,
design and development, and implementation are described in the following sections. The evaluation period includes both within process
(i.e., formative) and end of process evaluations (i.e., summative), which are documented in the findings section.
In this study, instruction takes an eclectic approach rooted in three psychological foundations: behaviorism, cognitivism, and
constructivism. More specifically, multiple choice questions apply to the drill and practice strategy of behaviorism, a multimedia learning
approach indicates cognitivism, and open-ended questions represent the scaffolds of constructivist learning. Learning Object (LO) and ARCS
motivation model components (Keller, 1987)dattention, relevance, confidence and satisfactiondwere used to integrate these theoretical
foundations to mobile instruction.
2.1. The analysis period
As an initial step, the project team visited the dershane to determine needs and context in terms of students’ workload, student-mentorteacher relationships, and major issues concerning the administration, participant teachers, and students. In these visits, an initial
Fig. 1. The timeline of the instructional design process of the project.
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
1151
questionnaire was used to gather information about students’ cellular phone usage habits, brands of phones, GSM operator’s names, and
students’ mobile learning preferences with regards to content, method, and time. A total of 34 students filled out this initial questionnaire.
However, due to limitations such as managerial issues (e.g., students must be from the same class of biology) and technical requirements
(i.e., necessity of having GPRS or 3G), only 10 students participated, others with older phones did not. These students participated
voluntarily and their cellular phones were included regardless of their brands or operators but with the only criteria of having GPRS or 3G
connection. The cellular phone brands that the ten students had are shown in Table 1.
During these visits, students were presented with potential values of mobile technologies, a project overview, and incentives for
participation. After analysis, the content of the project was selected as biology, in specific the excretory system of vertebrates. Consequently,
the team members analyzed the learners, the content, and the context in terms of learning environment, technologies, and instructional
approaches.
A survey was administered to collect information about students’ cellular phone types and capacities as well as their usage patterns and
preferences on mobile learning with regards to content, method, and time. The results of the questionnaire and informal interviews guided
the team on the selection of content segments and constructing a timeline. The technology analysis included three dimensions: (a) the
mobile learning platform of the GSM company, (b) characteristics of students’ phones, and (c) authoring tools for content development. The
analysis of instructional strategies centered on student motivation and learning enhancement, which were critical project components. In
this regard, researchers analyzed the Learning Objects (LOs) approach, motivation theories, and other pedagogical approaches for mobile
learning projects.
2.2. The design & development period
The basic design consideration centered on ensuring the content was consistent with the f2f sessions and supported the learning process
with additional explanations, examples, and interpretive and multiple choice questions. Since the students of dershane expressed concern
on having no motivation for reviewing and practicing the biology content at home (i.e., they found books dull and uninteresting to study),
the mobile instruction was designed to help students review the content and practice sample questions via their cellular phones. The
content was developed based on the high school curriculum and dershane textbooks, and the content and open-ended questions were
discussed with the biology teachers in both dershane and high school. Changes were made based on feedback about the accuracy and
appropriateness of content to student levels. A sample visual design sketch is given in Fig. 2.
2.3. Sequencing and scheduling of the instruction
Mobile instruction dates were selected according to f2f course flow in dershane, with LOs being sent to students after topics were
covered in class. The content was developed as support for the f2f phase of instruction. For each day, one or two major LOs were covered,
each one including attention, relevance, motivation, confidence, instruction, feedback, assessment, and satisfaction components.
2.4. LOs and ARCS
At the beginning of the design phase, the researchers determined the learning objectives of the topic, dividing them into meaningful and
consistent sub-topics. These sub-topics were designed as LOs in parallel to Keller’s ARCS motivation model (Keller, 1987). LOs were classified
as minor and major. Minor LOs were meaningful pieces of easy-to-assemble information comprised of text, audio, video, and images. Major
LOs consisted of the components of the ARCS model (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) and instruction and assessment
components shaped by certain sub-topics. One major LO is presented in Table 2.
2.5. Feedback and assessment
The project utilized three type of feedback. First, feedback was given to open-ended questions at the beginning of instruction. Feedback
was also given after each group of multiple choice questions. After each student answered all the questions, a feedback screen including the
questions, correct answers, and students’ performances appeared. Finally, daily performance feedback was sent to students showing total
points. The top three scoring students earned rewards (i.e., t-shirts and mugs).
Assessment was based on open-ended questions from the beginning of each LO, and multiple choice questions were posed after the
instructional component. At the end of each day, total points were calculated for each student, and these points were announced to the
whole group through SMS.
2.6. Content development and delivery platforms
To develop content and deliver the mobile instruction, EduMob, a mobile learning platform offered by Turkcell, one of Turkey’s leading
GSM operators, and a php-based platform, OLLE, were used, which required GPRS or 3G access on the user side. EduMob delivered
multimedia-based content, multiple choice questions, and group SMSs (open-ended questions, informative SMSs), while OLLE was used to
retrieve the answers of open-ended questions. Delivery platforms are shown in Fig. 3.
Table 1
Brands of students’ cellular phones.
Brands
Frequency
Nokia
Samsung
Sony Ericsson
6
2
2
1152
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
Fig. 2. A sample visual design sketch.
The text-based content and multiple choice questions were developed in EduMob; for video and image editing, Macromedia Fireworks 8,
Adobe Photoshop CS3, and Moyea Flv Editor Lite were used. OLLE was used to retrieve answers to open-ended questions through WAPbased technology (Fig. 4). Figs. 5 and 6 show sample screenshots of the content in the EduMob platform.
2.7. The implementation period
The mobile instruction was delivered before the subject matter (excretory system in the vertebrates) was discussed in the class environment in dershane. SMSs that directed learners to content URLs were sent to students through EduMob. During the first five days, one
major LO was sent between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. each day. The timing of sending content to the learners was scheduled to certain periods due
to two main reasons. The initial reason was related to the content distribution layout of the content delivery platforms. The EduMob
platform necessitated manual organization of the sending of every single content (whether a multimedia-based content or multiple choice
question). The second reason lied on the feedback mechanism planned for each LO. That is, the daily performance was assessed by the
average of different content modules, but students were not required to complete all of them to move to next one. This is the major reason
for not sending one message and having the flow consecutively, but sending content in an order within planned periods. The flow of each
major LO is presented in Table 3.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
A design based research (DBR) approach was used to investigate the major issues of the mobile instruction design processes that would
help improve design in practice based on data from participants’ natural settings (Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004; Design-Based Research
Collective, 2003; Reeves, Herrington, & Oliver, 2005). Using DBR provided the researchers with a process oriented approach focused on
understanding and improving the mobile learning intervention (Barab & Squire, 2004; Van den Akker, Gravemeijer, McKenney, & Nieveen,
2006). With an aim to strengthen the validity of the study, an embedded mixed method approach in which quantitative data were collected
as a support to qualitative data was used in data collection, analysis, and interpretation (Creswell, 2008). Data were collected through
a questionnaire that included both quantitative and qualitative items, observations, and field notes.
3.2. Participants
For the scope of the project, a dershane with a high reputation was selected, providing students in the target age group who needed
educational support due to busy schedules. The group was a class of convenience with 13 students from the dershane enrolled in an 11th
grade biology course, 10 of whom completed the project and agreed to participate in the study. Their ages were between 17 and 18 with
majority being female (70%). The three IDers, who were the designers of the project, were also participants of the study, providing
reflections and insights gained from the process.
3.3. Data collection and analysis
Student data were gathered from a questionnaire developed by the researchers to assess student perceptions on their m-learning
experiences, content representations, the implementation period, and their participation. The experiences of the IDers were collected via
field notes.
The quantitative data included ranking questions, with 1 denoting the most important option. These items were analyzed by calculating
the total scores for each item; the lowest score showed the highest rank. Content analysis was applied to the qualitative data. Through
a simple pattern-seeking method, the themes were identified by reading and organizing data, creating manageable units, synthesizing data,
searching for patterns, discovering what was important, and deciding what to present to others (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
Table 2
Sample learning object classification with ARCS components.
Attention
Relevance
Confidence
Instruction
Assessment
Feedback
Satisfaction
Urinary
System in the
Vertebrates- Types
of Kidney, Pronephros
Kidney
Open-ended
Question: “We are in
the class of vertebrate
organisms. What kind
of kidneys can be
observed in vertebrates?
In which vertebrates we
can observe pronephros
kidney?”
The university exam
might have questions
on the urinary system
in the vertebrates, so
learning this subject
is essential to being
able to answer such
questions correctly.
In this module
we will examine
the pronephros
kidney which
works in the
vertebrates
1st Screen: Kidney is the urinary
organ of all vertebrates.
2nd Screen: There are 3 types of
vertebrates’ kidney. Pronephros
kidney, Mesonephros kidney,
Metanephros kidney (gif).
3rd Screen: Pronephros kidney is
composed of nefridiums which
settle side by side.
4th Screen: The initial part of
nefridiums is ciliated funnel. The
channels that come from funnels
merge and as a united channel
opens to cloaca (Volf channel)
5th Screen: In the face of the each
ciliated funnel, there is “Glomerulus”
which has a mass of tiny blood vessels.
6th Screen: The waste materials
that were filtered via Glomerulus
and flow to the body space. Then
they are carried via ciliated funnels
and Volf channel to the cloaca from
which they are thrown out.
7th Screen: Pronephros kidney is
seen in fish and frog embryos and
the adults of sharks (gif).
8th Screen: In this module we
examined the pronephros kidney
type which works in vertebrates.
Multiple choice
questions
Provide the students
with the answers to
multiple choice and
open-ended questions.
Announce the top three
students’ names according
to their total points from
multiple choice and
open-ended questions.
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
Content name
1153
1154
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
Fig. 3. Logical Architecture of delivery platforms.
4. Findings and discussion
4.1. Critical issues in the design of m-learning
This project revealed issues critical to the design of cellular phone-based m-learning based on the designers’ experiences and lessons
learned as categorized into three themes: (a) technical and technological issues, (b) curricular and pedagogical issues, and (c) management
issues.
4.1.1. Technical and technological issues
The major technical and technological issues that challenged the designers were related to the features of the content delivery platform
and the types of mobile phones students used. As stated earlier, the content delivery platform was created by a GSM operator for m-learning
Fig. 4. The design and development process.
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
1155
Fig. 5. Sample screenshot from EduMob platform on design of content.
purposes. The system was available online and allowed for the distribution of text, graphics, audio, and video documents to the users’
cellular phones. Designers needed to be online to send the content, which complicated time management. The preview options and logs
kept on user performance were great strengths of the system, but it did not allow for open-ended responses through SMS. Therefore,
answers from multiple choice questions were gathered from one platform, while the answers of open-ended questions were gathered from
another, making assessment difficult.
The mobile phones that the students used were their own, a decision made to include all students with minimum technical requirements. The types of software and hardware used in mobile devices affect the effective use of pedagogical approaches. Using students’ own
mobile phones instead of providing them with advanced devices, which is the case for many projects, can be regarded as a great advantage
of the project in terms of ubiquity (Traxler, 2005) and, hence, its generalization. Moreover, letting students use their own phones made the
project cost efficient. Yet, this issue limited the design and development of the content (i.e., selecting instructional strategies, using the
platform to develop material, the format and length of multimedia content). Although students had the opportunity to ask technical
questions to the project team by phone, the students generally tended to solve problems by asking experienced friends. Since the students
were familiar with the technologies, they could quickly resolve problems, possibly due to their young and dynamic age, as suggested by
Prensky (2001).
4.1.2. Curricular and pedagogical issues
The second theme, curricular and pedagogical issues, was rooted in decisions related to the fit of mobile instruction in students’ learning
and the strategies and approaches of the design, development, and delivery of mobile instruction. Deciding on the function of mobile
instruction was a critical issue since it affected the selection of content and all approaches regarding the project. The main function of the
project was determined as support for f2f instruction and to fill the gap in students’ study times via mobile instruction, promising flexibility
Fig. 6. Sample screenshot from EduMob platform on design of assessment.
1156
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
Table 3
Flow within each major learning object.
Time
Component of learning object
Related SMS
Related URL
Platform used
7:00 p.m.
Attention Question (open-ended
question)
Deadline for the answers is indicated
to be 10:00 p.m.
EduMob þ wap-based
platform
7:30 p.m.
Relevance, Confidence, Instruction
Assessment Questions (multiple
choice questions)
10:00 p.m.
Satisfaction
Students access text-based information,
videos, and graphics.
Students answer multiple choice questions,
receiving immediate feedback and the total
point out of 100.
–
EduMob
8:00 p.m.
An SMS including a URL directs learner
to the open-ended question and a text
box for response.
An SMS providing a URL directs learner
to the content of the related LO.
An SMS providing a URL directs learner
to the multiple choice questions.
An SMS providing the answer of
open-ended question and ranking the
students’ total scores from multiple
choice and open-ended questions.
EduMob
EduMob
in time and space. Therefore, the students’ preferences on content were assessed. They stated that certain content and courses were suitable
for mobile instruction and they had preferences mostly for verbal courses. For the Biology content, the students reflected the reasons for
their preferences related to revision of content to remember information and the high number of concepts and terms to be memorized.
Initially, students did not have the desire to study or review their biology content, but they later stated that they would be interested in SMS
messages including information, questions, and motivating items such as real world facts about content. At the end of the project, they
revealed increased motivation increased to study the content, likely related to the “push effect” (Saran, Seferoglu, & Cagiltay, 2009, p. 99).
This push effect of m-learning is described as to initiate a task with some internal motivation. Another aspect of the instruction was that the
students were tried to be actively engaged in the learning process via open-ended questions that required critical thinking on the issues
inquired. The feedbacks offered to them afterwards helped them be on track and keep them on the instruction flow. The student data
showed that only half of the students (i.e., five students) responded the open-ended questions fully. As the course instructor noted, the level
of questions were above the average, and the findings reveals a need to reconsider the level of these questions.
Not surprisingly, the designers gave great care in selecting main approaches and instructional strategies. Considering the learners,
content, deliverables, and pedagogical needs, the ARCS motivation model was utilized within an LO framework using an eclectic approach.
As expected, the design required additional considerations for a mobile delivery environment as compared to f2f or online learning
environments. Screen size, processing capacity of mobile devices, and bandwidth were some of the issues identified. The IDers removed
some videos and graphics during the development phase to accommodate these needs. In addition, the scheduling and duration of content
delivery challenged designers. Each day of the 10-day implementation period, at least one LO module was sent to students. Decisions for the
duration and time intervals between each LO were very challenging for the designers. Delivering all mobile content in a week in which at
least one or two modules were implemented was criticized by the students as well. This overload may explain the drop outs (3 out of 10)
from the content modules, although the project was voluntary. It can also be argued that this structure also prevented the flexibility that is
a critical characteristic of mobile learning.
4.1.3. Management issues
The third theme, management issues, ranges from communication among stakeholders to content delivery processes. The critical issue in
this theme was communication among all parties. As in any instruction, the coordination of designers, subject matter experts, administrators, and the technical support team made great contributions to the project’s success. Regarding the mobile nature, it was important for
the designers in managing the timing and scheduling of the instruction and the delivery of instructional strategies. During the implementation period, the designers were not synchronously together with the students or teacher, making control over learners and learning
harder. It was important to be in touch with teachers not only to discuss content and delivery strategies but also duration, scheduling, and
changes to f2f instruction. The cost of this study included the hardware and software used to design and develop the m-learning
components, Internet access, and the service fee for participants’ use of SMSs. Another management issue was the cost for the call credit of
student mobile phones pre-paid for using their devices for the project. The designers provided financial support for the students’ expenditures during the project, such as 3G and GPRS connection costs. During implementation, researchers discovered that students were
spending their credits for personal use and fell short of credits for the project modules, leading the team to invest additional funds for these
expenditures.
4.2. Students’ perceptions on the mobile instruction
The students’ perceptions were gathered about their preferences of content representations, implementation processes, and motivation
and satisfaction. These three issues are presented below.
Table 4
Perceived reasons to participate in the M-learning project.
Item
Priority
Due to my curiosity about mobile learning
To review content about biology
Enjoy using cellular phone, therefore may enjoy learning with it
Since there were rewards at the end
Since my friends participated
1
2
3
4
5
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
1157
Table 5
Students’ preferences on content representations.
Item
Priority
Content descriptions (text-based)
Content presentation (videos)
Content presentation (images)
Open-ended questions
Multiple choice questions
1
2
3
4
5
4.2.1. Reasons for participation
When students were asked to rank their reasons for participating in the mobile project, students placed their curiosities about mobile
learning first and participation of their friends last (Table 4). In the open-ended items, two students mentioned that they liked the competition
among their peers. One student wrote: “When I figured out that I was falling behind my peers, I became more enthusiastic to study.”
4.2.2. Preferences of content representations
When the students were asked their perceptions on strategies and content representations, they rated text-based presentations as most
helpful, while the open-ended and multiple choice questions were least helpful (Table 5). The major representation of the content was done
via text materials, and images and videos were used as supplements. Video-based presentations were also ranked highly by students, both
in the questionnaire and in the open-ended questions. Although text-based content was identified as the most helpful strategy, videos were
noted in the open-ended questions as the most preferable and effective delivery method.
4.2.3. Implementation process
The students were asked their perceptions on the duration of the ten-day implementation period, with one or two main modules and 1-h
time intervals between sub-segments. Almost all students preferred to limit the content to one topic each day.
When there were two topics [learning objects] [in a day], we became quite overloaded. We have other courses as well!
I had limited time to study (e.g., my school scheduling is tough, dershane ends late). I hated not having enough time to respond to
questions.
For time intervals between each segment of the daily modules (i.e., open-ended questions, main instruction, multiple choice assessment,
performance feedback for each module), students expressed diverse preferences. While some preferred longer intervals to study content,
others suggested shorter intervals to become more motivated. Two students wrote:
I think the time was not enough! When I was trying to respond to one question, there was another question sent and I was confused.
Time intervals should be shorter to motivate me better!
An analysis on students’ preferences for time intervals during project implementation can be helpful. Also, a pilot phase before sending
actual content could be helpful to get learners’ reactions.
4.2.4. Satisfaction with the use of M-learning
When asked whether the instruction provided via their mobile phones was helpful when learning biology content, all students
responded positively:
Yes, I was satisfied. Issues were explained in a concise manner. It was clear and simple. Pictures and videos on the topic were very useful
to review the subject.
It was satisfactory for sure. .In particular, it was very informative and helpful to my learning since the schedule of the project was during
our exams period. Admittedly, I did not expect such a successful project.
The students listed advantages as learning the content better, reviewing the topics to answer the questions, and being motivated by the
competition among peers. Students were posted a grade book based on their scores with evaluation questions at the end of each day.Students remarked:
When I realized that I fell behind my peers, I studied harder. Of course, I can’t forget the content presentations with great explanations.
[The best aspect was] the continuous questions and information presentations, helping us to review content, which is the core of
studying biology.
The students mentioned the condense implementation period and time limitations as negative aspects of the project, as well as several
personal conflicts pertaining to retrieval of the content:
Having limited time was bad. I could not always find time to answer questions.
The content was being sent too frequently. I also had to research issues, which required a lot of dedicated time from me.
5. Implications and conclusion
During this study, the researchers primarily tried to understand the important issues in designing a cellular phone-based m-learning
instruction as a support to f2f instruction. It involved limited number of participants on a ten-day implementation period within a special
learning institution. Thus, the generalizability of the study is limited to similar contexts. However, since the main focus of the study was not
on student learning outcomes, but understanding the instructional design process for mobile learning settings, generalizability is not
a significant threat to the study. Findings from this study demonstrated working with a young age group such as 11th graders brought great
1158
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
advantages due to their attraction to mobile technology. The use of the ARCS motivation model and LOs as the main framework provided the
designers with a clear and strong base of pedagogical approaches. Dividing content into meaningful and consistent sub-topics in the form of
LOs offered the IDers the ability to control and manage content effectively while maintaining structural consistency throughout the project.
The study also showed that merging each LO into the components of ARCS made it easier to organize and sequence content and develop the
m-learning pieces of the platform.
The “push effect” of mobile phones was defined as the stimuli effect for the learners to start their work and was regarded as strength over
f2f or online instruction (Saran et al., 2009: p. 99). The students’ attentiveness to study and revise the content at home which was “not
otherwise possible” in their sayings was made possible with the ‘push’ of mobile instruction designed for them to study biology via their
own cellular phones. Thus, the study demonstrated that this effect might be considered to be a great strength of mobile learning for this age
group as well.
One critical issue in the study involved decisions about the intended functions of m-learning. The results showed that students requested
m-learning as a support mechanism for their f2f learning. Moreover, the limitations of regular cellular phones (i.e., screen size, bandwidth)
made it difficult to provide full instruction using them. Therefore, m-learning can be considered to be more suitable for supporting f2f
instruction unless a strong rationale exists to use it for other purposes.
Another critical issue was the dependency on technological tools for m-learning strategies, as the types of software and hardware used in
mobile devices greatly affected the effective use of pedagogical approaches. It can also mean that despite the strong pedagogical aims,
technological features of the cellular phones offered IDers to limit those approaches and use them to get maximum benefit. With respect to
multimedia elements, study results showed that videos were helpful for remediation purposes, but download time needed to be taken into
consideration in GPRS connections. Such issues demand that IDers have strong technical background as well. Related to this issue, mlearning development platforms need to enhance automatic distribution of content instead of requiring manual distribution. They also need
to support diverse hardware and software types (i.e., the content should work on all phones).
The needs analysis period offered great value to the design of the study. Since students and teachers have limited time for the preparation
of an innovative project, the IDers need to conduct a condense and rich needs analysis period focusing on users’ mobile device capabilities
and preferred schedules. There needs to be at least one f2f test period with students regarding the practice of mobile instruction.
Since students tended to solve technical problems by asking their more experienced friends for help, the study showed that peers could
be considered part of the technical support mechanism. This finding suggests that m-learning platforms can be designed to support
interactions among peers.
Another lesson learned in the study was that content delivery needed to be spread out over more time. The IDers considered it a better
strategy to provide learners with knowledge first, then to support f2f instruction with rich mobile media, revising content and evaluating
learning formatively throughout the implementation period. With this concern, a more flexible timeline can be suggested to provide
students with self-pacing and compensation time for missing modules. Assessing overall instruction with summative evaluation is also
highly recommended to extend the assessment of the instructional value of the mobile instruction. All students expressed satisfaction with
the project and described a sense of achievement, but the students’ learning outcomes were not assessed in the study since it was beyond
the study focus.
The timing for sending SMSs that direct students to content was also another critical issue. In this project, the SMSs were sent to students
after 7:00 p.m and sequenced after certain time periods. However, parallel to the aim of the instruction as well as learners’ habits and daily
life, timing should be tailored meticulously.
The study results also implied that using learners’ regular cellular phones limited the IDers in all aspects, including decisions about
technical and pedagogical strategies, particularly with respect to the application of a constructivist approach. Instead, IDers used an eclectic
approach, which led them to determine the optimum conditions for diverse, regular cellular phones. Similar to what Bradley, Haynes, Cook,
Boyle, and Smith (2009) assert, the critical issue was to maintain the richest functionality given the limitations of the devices. This study
showed that when learners’ own phones are used, the minimum technical conditions need to be coordinated with the most effective
pedagogical approaches.
The use of images and text together instead of a large video file or open-ended questions and offering a competitive environment instead
of long, informative representations were sample strategies used in this study. While it might be considered using mobiles for things that
mobiles do best (e.g., sending reminders, taking surveys, etc) instead of assembling certain multimedia content to create mobile instruction,
the students expressed satisfaction with using their cellular phones to study the content. This issue might be considered a promising aspect
of mobile learning for this age group as well as the novelty effect of digitized content.
Decreased cost is regarded as one of the strengths of m-learning (Peters, 2009; Traxler, 2007). One critical implication of the project was
that the cost of the mobile instruction needed to be determined and communicated to users from the very beginning. The cost of the
Internet access and the service fee for participants’ use of SMSs as well as the call credit of student mobile phones became an issue for IDers
while working with the young age group who tend to spend all their credits for personal uses in a short time.
Finally, in any instructional design environment, extensive and effective communication and coordination must take place between all
stakeholders, including managers, teachers, students, and the IDers. The ID team needs to consult with and receive help from the subject
matter expert on content, duration, scheduling, and any changes to f2f instruction.
6. Suggestions for future studies
Since this project was the first time participants had used their phones for learning, they were inevitably distracted by the novelty effect.
Therefore, future studies could implement m-learning projects with longer durations. While mobile instructions are generally delivered via
PDAs or smart phones in developed countries, students used their own, regular cellular phones in this study. In future studies, different
mobile devices could be examined in terms of efficiency of instruction, student satisfaction and acceptance, and learning outcomes.
Regarding financial expenditures, cloud computing could be considered to decrease costs in terms of ownership of services and utilities,
enhancing flexibility for users (Vouk, 2008) and increasing energy savings for computation, storage, and communications (Berl et al., 2010).
Further studies could investigate the potentials of cloud computing for m-learning applications.
N. Gedik et al. / Computers & Education 58 (2012) 1149–1159
1159
In this study, a mobile learning application provided supplementary material for a private institute’s f2f course. Since dershanes prepare
students for the university exam, this study could be an example of mobile learning in a formal context. However, the context and results
might vary in a school or workplace setting. Also, as Sharples, Taylor, and Vavoula (2005) suggest, the nature of m-learning extends the
limits of formal education to informal learning contexts. Therefore, informal learning experiences could be supported by m-learning as well.
Further, cultural differences that affect the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of mobile instruction as well as outcomes
of student learning should also be subject to future studies.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge support from sponsors Turkcell, OLLE Software, and Sinav Dershanesi and thank Olgun Karademirci for
his great help and the contributions during the design process.
References
Aderinoye, R. A., Ojokheta, K. O., & Olojede, A. A. (2007). Integrating mobile learning into nomadic education programmes in Nigeria: issues and perspectives. International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1–17.
Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. D. (2004). Design-based research: putting our stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Berl, A., Gelenbe, E., Girolamo, M., Giuliani, G., De Meer, H., Dang, M., et al. (2010). Energy-efficient cloud computing. The Computer Journal, 53(7), 1045–1051. doi:10.1093/
comjnl/bxp080.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Needham Heights, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Bradley, C., Haynes, R., Cook, J., Boyle, T., & Smith, C. (2009). Design and development of multimedia learning objects for mobile phones. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning in
education and training (pp. 157–182). Athabasca, BC: Athabasca University Press.
Chinnery, G. M. (2006). Going to the MALL: mobile assisted language learning. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 9–16, Retrieved June 18, 2011, from. http://llt.msu.edu/
vol10num1/emerging/default.html.
Clarke, I., III, & Flaherty, T. B. (2002). Mlearning: using wireless technology to enhance marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 67–76.
Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: an emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.
Divitini, M., & Morken, E. M. (2007). Collaborative community-oriented mobile learning: a position statement. In I. Arnedillo-Sanchez, M. Sharples, & G. Vavoula (Eds.),
Kaleidoskope: Beyond mobile learning workshop. Switzerland: Trinity College Dublin Press.
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.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x.
Gregson, J., & Jordaan, D. (2009). Exploring the challenges and opportunities of m-learning within an international distance education programme. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile
learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 215–246). Athabasca, BC: Athabasca University Press.
Hsu, T., Ke, H., & Yang, W. (2006). Knowledge-based mobile learning framework for museums. The Electronic Library, 24(5), 635–639.
Information and Communication Technologies Authority. (2011). Turkish electronic communication sector: report on first quarter of 2011. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from, http://
www.btk.gov.tr/kutuphane_ve_veribankasi/pazar_verileri/ucaylik11_1.pdf (in Turkish).
International Telecommunication Union. (2010). The world in 2010. Retrieved 20.03.11, from. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/FactsFigures2010.pdf.
Jeng, Y.-L., Wu, T.-T., Huang, Y.-M., Tan, Q., & Yang, S. J. H. (2010). The add-on impact of mobile applications in learning strategies: a review study. Educational Technology &
Society, 13(3), 3–11.
Jones, A., Issroff, K., Scanlon, E., Clough, G., & McAndrew, P. (2006). Using mobile devices for learning in informal settings: is it motivating? In: Paper presented at the IADIS
International Conference Mobile Learning. Dublin, Ireland.
Kakihara, M., & Sorensen, C. (2002). Mobility: an extended perspective. In: Paper presented at the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-35). Big
Island, Hawaii.
Keller, J. M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction, 26(9), 1–8.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Innovation in mobile learning: a European perspective. International Journal of Mobile
and Blended Learning, 1(1), 13–35.
Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., & Ólafsson, K. (2010). Risks and safety on the internet: The perspective of European children. Initial findings. London: EU Kids Online.
Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. (2007). Gradations in digital inclusion: children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9(4), 671–696.
MoNE. (2010). National education statistics: Formal education 2009–2010. Republic of Turkey: Ministry of National Education. Retrieved February 22, 2011, from. http://sgb.
meb.gov.tr/istatistik/meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2009_2010.pdf.
Peng, H., Su, Y., Chou, C., & Tsai, C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 46(2), 171–183. doi:10.1080/14703290902843828.
Peters, K. (2009). M-learning: positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning, transforming the delivery of education and training (pp.
113–132). Athabasca, BC: Athabasca University Press.
Pew Research Group. (2010). Teens and mobile phones, 2010. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from. http://www.pewinternet.org/w/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP-Teens-and-Mobile.pdf.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).
Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: Mobile, wireless, in your-pocket learning. Retrieved 11.06.10, from. http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm.
Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2005). Design research: a socially responsible approach to instructional technology research in higher education. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education, 16(2), 97–116.
Samkange-Zeeb, F., & Blettner, M. (2009). Emerging aspects of mobile phone use. Emerging Health Threats Journal, 2, e5. doi:10.3134/ehtj.09.005.
Saran, M., Seferoglu, G., & Cagiltay, K. (2009). Mobile assisted language learning: English pronunciation at learners’ fingertips. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research., 34, 97–114.
Schwabe, G., & Göth, C. (2005). Mobile learning with a mobile game: design and motivational effects. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 204–216.
Sharples, M. (2006) Big issues in mobile learning. Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, University of Nottingham, UK.
Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo, S. I., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. De Jong, A. Lasonder, & S. Barnes (Eds.),
Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233–249). Heidelberg: Springer.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. In: Paper presented at the mLearn 2005 Conference, Cape Town. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from
http://www.eee.bham.ac.uk/sharplem/Papers/Towards%20a%20theory%20of%20mobile%20learning.pdf.
State Planning Organization. (2011). Information society statistics for Turkey. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from. http://www.bilgitoplumu.gov.tr/Documents/1/Diger/Bilgi_
Toplumu_Istatistikleri_2011.pdf.
Traxler, J. (2005). Case studies: introduction and overview. In A. Kukulska-Hulme, & J. Traxler (Eds.), Mobile learning: A handbook for educators and trainers (pp. 173–188).
London: Routledge.
Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussion, and evaluating mobile learning: the moving finger writes and having writ. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 8(2).
Traxler, J. (2009). Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 1(1).
Turkish Statistical Institute. (2010). Turkey in statistics 2010. Turkish Statistical Institute. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from. www.turkstat.gov.tr/.
Van den Akker, J., Gravemeijer, K., McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Introduction to educational design research. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, &
N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 3–7). London: Routledge.
Vouk, M. A. (2008). Cloud computing-issues, research and implementations. Journal of Computing and Information Technology, 16(4), 235–246. doi:10.2498/cit.1001391.
Winters, N. (2006). What is mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning. Kaleidoscope network of excellence Nottingham: Mobile Learning Initiative.
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in
an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Yu-Chang Hsu and Yu-Hui Ching
Boise State University, USA
Abstract
This research applied a mixed-method design to explore how best to promote learning
in authentic contexts in an online graduate course in instructional message design. The
students used Twitter apps on their mobile devices to collect, share, and comment on authentic design examples found in their daily lives. The data sources included tweets (i.e.,
postings on Twitter), students’ perceptions about mobile microblogging activities, and selfreported Twitter usage. Based on the tweet analysis, we found that the students appropriately applied the design principles and design terms in their critique of design examples.
While the students were mainly engaged in assignment-relevant activities, they spontaneously generated social tweets as they related peers’ authentic design examples to their own
life experiences. Overall, they had positive perceptions toward the mobile microblogging
activities. The students also indicated that the design examples shared by peers through
mobile microblogging inspired their own message design work. We synthesized instructional design suggestions and challenges for educators interested in incorporating mobile
microblogging in their instructional settings.
Keywords: Twitter; microblogging; mobile learning; social learning; online course; Web
2.0
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Introduction
The recent advances in mobile devices make mobile learning possible through the powerful computing capability built into their conveniently small sizes, their Internet connectivity, and the availability of many types of easy-to-use mobile software applications (“mobile
apps” hereafter) (Johnson, Levine, Smith, & Stone, 2010). The major affordances of mobile
computing technologies for learning include (a) mobility, the small sizes of the devices,
making them highly portable, which enhances user mobility (Brown, 2009) and easy access
to mobile devices; (b) computing power, relatively strong computing power, which enables
users to complete tasks on small devices as effectively as on larger and less portable devices
(Lai & Wu, 2006); (c) connectivity, always-on and stable Internet connectivity with high
bandwidth, which allows for instant access to large amounts of information and real-time
communication regardless of location (Johnson, Smith, Willis, Levine, & Haywood, 2011).
These features unleash tremendous possibilities for innovative uses in education.
Mobile technologies have the potential for innovative educational use because they allow
learning to occur in authentic and meaningful contexts. Because of the mobility and strong
computing power of mobile technologies, learning becomes ubiquitous and seamless (Liu,
Tan, & Chu, 2009). Learners can now take mobile devices anywhere they want in order to
execute tasks or continue their learning processes outside classrooms or traditional learning environments. Learners can also go into the field, where they can apply their knowledge
and skills in real-world settings. For example, mobile devices equipped with cameras and
GPS (global positioning systems) make possible a variety of educational uses, such as data
collection and documentation in field learning and field research. Together, all these advantages allow mobile device users to learn in their desired or preferred locations and physical
contexts.
In addition, the connectivity of mobile devices promotes social learning through communication and collaboration among learners (Zurita & Nussbaum, 2004). Social learning usually involves a group of learners who interact collaboratively to develop their knowledge
or expertise in order to achieve their goals. Through sharing knowledge and experiences,
learners can develop knowledge related to their field or their interests (Lave & Wenger,
1991). Mobile devices afford rich and varied opportunities for the communication and sharing (Motiwalla, 2007) critical to collaborative knowledge construction. In addition, learners
can enjoy frequent and easier access to the Internet because they can be connected to the
Web virtually anywhere. With the blossoming of Web 2.0 applications that emphasize participation and sharing (O’Reilly,2005) and the increasing availability of Web 2.0 applications on mobile devices, learning can now be enhanced in both mobile and social contexts.
Microblogging: A Web 2.0 Application for Social Learning
Web 2.0 applications, designed for communication, creation, and sharing, allow for collective and cooperative creation of content and knowledge through easy and dynamic communication and publication mechanisms (Hsu, Ching, & Grabowski, 2009). Unlike the passive knowledge consumption model of web use, Web 2.0 applications encourage and make
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
212
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
possible a participatory web where individuals contribute and participate in the creation
of content and knowledge—together. As such, Web 2.0 applications can provoke different learning perspectives, including sociocultural, situated, and distributed views (Ching
& Hsu, 2011; Hsu, Ching, & Grabowski, in press). Among these perspectives, social learning is particularly pertinent to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which holds that learners
construct knowledge through intellectual exchanges during their social interactions. In this
view of learning, the social environment plays a critical role in enabling individuals’ development and learning (Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003). Considering their nature and purpose,
Web 2.0 applications are ideal mediators for creating social environments conducive to
social learning (Gunawardena et al., 2009) and helping to achieve social presence (Dunlap
& Lowenthal, 2009). With these applications, social engagement critical to learning is extended beyond the cultural perspectives of a local community to groups that are diverse and
geographically dispersed, such as groups of learners in online learning environments. Social learning enhanced by Web 2.0 applications is likely to increase motivation (Pauschenwein & Sfiri, 2010) and create relatedness and a sense of community (Wright, 2010) among
learners.
Microblogging is one of the latest Web 2.0 applications and can best be exemplified by the
highly popular Twitter application (Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs, & Meyer, 2010). Like blogging, microblogging allows for personal publication and conversation between writers and
readers. One unique key feature of microblogging is the short-and-sweet constraint it poses—the limited number of characters per entry. Twitter, for example, allows for only 140
characters per post. This prevents long-winded entries and forces microbloggers to post
concise messages. While this format of publication may not allow for in-depth composition
in any single entry, the lightweight requirement and mechanism make it easier for people to
follow up on conversations and give immediate feedback (Ebner et al., 2010) because individuals do not need to put in too much time and effort at once. The short messages are very
similar to exchanges of real-time text chat on Instant Messenger. However, Twitter does
not impose time pressure on the conversant on either end for responding or turn-taking
because it does not require synchronous presence. Participants in microblogging only get
involved when they feel like it. In addition, microblogging applications allow users to easily
share resources such as hyperlinks to web-based multimedia, including images or videos.
In some educational contexts, microblogging has been used for back-channel chat to enhance the communication between the presenter and audience. For example, Elavsky, Mislan, and Elavsky (2011) studied students using Twitter for in-class feedback and asking
questions during lectures with large audiences (approximately 240 students in their study),
where the customary method of asking questions by raising hands could have interrupted
the flow of the class. Although Elavsky et al. found that students’ class participation and enthusiasm improved, about 47% of the students did not actively use Twitter (posting one or
no tweets) for class activities. While this type of microblogging activity helps improve class
dynamics, it does not exploit the full potential for social learning because it mainly encourages instructor-to-student communication and lacks peer-to-peer interaction.
In other educational situations, microblogging was used as a social networking tool to pro-
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
213
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
mote social interaction and community building. Wright (2010) studied how microblogging
helped education students develop self-reflective practices during their practicum. As the
participants in Wright’s study were required to regularly record and share their thoughts
about their teaching practices using Twitter, they reported that they valued the constant
contact within the community that was built using the microblogging (i.e., Twitter) because
the interaction mitigated their feelings of isolation. Also, Waller (2010) incorporated Twitter to help struggling writers (primary school students) communicate their thinking to each
other. It was found that students enjoyed writing and felt excited because they had a real
audience that included not only their classmates but also other followers beyond the class.
From the learning perspective, microblogging fosters intellectual exchanges among students or between students and the instructor, through asking questions, giving feedback,
exchanging ideas, sharing resources, and reflecting on learning (Ebner & Maurer, 2008).
Examining college students using microblogging for project-oriented communication, Ebner et al. (2010) found that this tool supported informal learning and social interaction
during group work. They also found that microblogging enhanced process-oriented learning because learners were able to help shape each other’s developing ideas through posting
thoughts and information pieces.
Microblogging applications have recently become available on mobile devices, and users
can benefit from the mobility, computing power, and connectivity of mobile devices during microblogging. This availability, therefore, takes learning through microblogging to the
next level—mobile social learning. Namely, social learning can now go with learners truly
anytime, anywhere, and with ease. This enables both social learning and learning in authentic contexts that learners create, share, and communicate in real time. For example,
learners who find good examples (e.g., photos) related to their learning can create a “sample” through the camera on their mobile devices, share it with peers through Twitter, and
communicate their thoughts with short messages. Mobile social learning thus provides an
environment where users can build an authentic learning context for their collaborative
knowledge construction. The use of mobile social learning has opened up promising opportunities for social interactions, especially for learners in online learning environments who
rely heavily on technology for communication.
Research Purpose and Questions
This study investigated the impact of mobile microblogging on students’ participation in
authentic learning. The following research questions guided this study:
•
What kind of interactions are students engaged in when participating in mobile microblogging activities? Are the tweets more about designated coursework or social conversation? What kinds of social conversation would students be engaged in?
•
How do students benefit from learning that is situated in authentic contexts and enabled by mobile microblogging?
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
214
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Through this study, the authors aim to (a) provide useful design suggestions for educators
to incorporate mobile microblogging in online learning in meaningful and engaging ways,
and (b) explore challenges in design and implementation in order to inform instructional
design decisions.
Methods
Study Context
This study was implemented in a fully online graduate course in instructional message design in a mid-size state university in the northwestern United States. This online course
was hosted on the Moodle learning management system (LMS) provided by Moodlerooms,
Inc. The goal of the course was to have students learn to apply learning and design theories
and principles in order to select, combine, and design visuals to effectively communicate instructional information. With emphasis on instructional message design, students in class
learned about visual graphic design principles and created graphics for instructional use in
their own professional settings. The 16 students enrolled in this course included K-12 teachers, school technology specialists, military personnel, and corporate trainers. Students in
this course were required to have smartphones or mobile devices with Internet and camera
capability. With the mobile learning component being funded by a university grant (i.e.,
mLearning scholars), students had the option of purchasing a subsidized mobile device
(i.e., the fourth-generation iPod Touch) if they did not have one or needed one for this
course.
The Mobile Microblogging Activities in this Study
The mobile microblogging activities, lasting for nine weeks, were designed to help students
leverage the potential of mobile computing and the Web 2.0 application Twitter during
their learning. The goal of the activities was to extend students’ learning context from the
content in class to their authentic real-life settings. Each week, each student was required
to post at least one original tweet with one graphic design example collected from his/her
environment and to comment on the collected design examples. The students were encouraged to share examples related to each week’s design topic, such as typography, color, or
shape. Also, they were asked to reply to at least two peers’ course-related tweets each week.
In the activities, students took advantage of mobile device capabilities, documented design
examples from their daily-life contexts using the on-device camera, concisely commented
on design examples, and shared those examples with the class via Twitter mobile apps. In
both original and response tweets, the students were instructed to include a hashtag followed by a designated course-related keyword so their tweets could be searched and located
on Twitter by their peers.
The activities were designed to help students become more observant designers by having
them consciously attend to potential graphic design examples in their daily lives and evaluate which design techniques/principles they learned in class applied to those examples.
This allowed students to reciprocally connect in-class and out-of-class learning and fosVol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
215
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
tered learning in individuals’ authentic contexts (e.g., design examples from a gas station
on how to use gas pumps, emergency evacuation instruction) through interaction among
peers via mobile microblogging. Students could also obtain inspiration for their own design
work through the examples collected by themselves and their peers. Because the examples
were not simply retrieved from the image search on search engines or photo sharing sites
but were associated with peers’ life experience, they carried contextual meaning associated
with their peers in terms of time, place, and people, which could arguably be more lasting
in one’s learning experience.
Data Sources and Analysis
This study applied a mixed-method design. The tweets collected from students’ microblogging activities were the major data source in this study. Students’ tweets were analyzed
using a qualitative method first, through open coding and constant comparison. The tweets
were first imported into a spreadsheet and coded as original postings and replies. Students’
retweets (i.e., tweets reposted from other resources) were not included in analysis since
they were neither original tweets nor replies to peers’ tweets. Strauss and Corbin’s (1990)
constant comparison method was then applied in data analysis in this study. With open
coding, the authors developed coding schemes to examine the types of tweets. After open
coding, the authors constantly compared the data and revised the categories based on the
themes emerging from the data through continuous meaning negotiation. After coding and
categorizing the tweets, quantitative analysis was applied to help reveal the extent of distribution of different types of tweets in our data set.
In addition to students’ tweets, we conducted an online survey on students’ perceptions
about the mobile microblogging activities at the conclusion of the activities. The questions
included the following:
1. Does the microblogging (Twitter) activity help you feel more involved in class as part of
a learning community? Why or why not?
2. What do you like most about the microblogging (Twitter) learning activity in this
course?
3. What do you dislike most about the microblogging (Twitter) learning activity in this
course?
We also asked questions about students’ Twitter experience before the mobile microblogging activities, such as whether they had used Twitter and, if so, which types of devices they
had used to access Twitter. At the end of the activities, students provided information about
the devices they used to share and discuss the design examples in this course.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
216
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Results and Discussion
Participants, Mobile Devices, and Time on Microblogging
Ten of the 16 enrolled students participated in this study. Before the microblogging activities in this class, four of the ten students had never used Twitter before. Among the six students who had used Twitter, four of them used smartphones to access or post on Twitter,
one used a tablet computer, and one used a desktop computer. At the end of the microblogging activities, seven students were using their smartphones, two used iPod Touches, and
one used a tablet. The tweet data of two participants were excluded from analysis because
one of them participated minimally, with four original tweets and no replies, and the other
removed her Twitter page altogether after this course. While students’ time on collecting
design examples could vary because finding the examples was incidental, we found that
they did not spend much time during any of the nine weeks on microblogging. For each
week, two students reported they each spent half an hour, three students each 10 minutes,
and the other five students each less than 10 minutes on course-related Twitter activities.
Regarding the frequency of checking Twitter, one student checked once a day, two students
checked five times a week, three students checked three times a week, and the other four
checked fewer than three times a week.
Tweet Analysis
During the nine weeks of activities, each student was required to post a minimum of nine
original assignment-relevant tweets and 18 replies. On average, each of the eight students
participating in this study posted 14 original tweets (see Category 1 in Table 1) and 28 replies (see Category 2 and Category 4 in Table 1). The average numbers of both original
tweets and replies were 56% more than the required numbers. It is likely that the 140-character constraint makes posting tweets less overwhelming, and therefore participants were
more willing to access the mobile devices for microblogging. It is also possible that the easy
access and always-on connectivity of their mobile devices made it possible for students to
check and reply often.
We collected and analyzed a total of 361 tweets posted by the eight participants. During
our data analysis, we found and defined the following six coding categories emerging from
the tweet data. The coding categories and descriptions of the categories are summarized in
Table 1 below.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
217
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Table 1
Tweet Coding Category and Description
Category number
Coding category
Description
1
Assignment-relevant
Including tweets directly relevant to the assigned task of post-
original tweets
ing and commenting on one’s own design example collected
from his/her daily environment.
2
3
Assignment-relevant
Including tweets relevant to the assigned task of replying to
replies
peers’ posted design examples.
Other course-relevant
Including tweets on
tweets
resources sharing;
seeking help on Twitter usage (e.g., how to tag tweets or use
tags for filtering);
responding to other coursework questions; and
reflection on learning.
4
5
Social tweets derived
Including replies on assignment regarding daily-life experi-
from assignment
ence rather than graphic design aspects.
Social tweets not de-
Including tweets that did not originate from the assigned mi-
rived from coursework
croblogging task but were rather general greetings among class
members.
6
Resource-sharing
Sharing course-relevant resources.
tweets after the course
ended
Categories 1, 2, and 4, which contained 330 tweets (91% of all analyzed tweets), were related to the assigned microblogging tasks regarding collecting and sharing design examples.
Figure 1 below provided a graphical summary of tweet distribution by category.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
218
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Figure 1. Tweet distribution by category.
In the following section, we discuss the different types of tweets in more detail and provide
examples of these tweets.
Assignment-relevant original tweets (110 tweets; 30% of all tweets). This category includes
the tweets that consisted of links to design example images found in authentic environments and documented by students, with concise comments on the contexts and design
aspects of the images. For example, one student commented on a poster: “White space? No,
black space, but same concept. I liked the balance on the page provided by the openness.”
[Image URL].
Another student posted about a commercial delivery package of a movie renting service:
“color and depth, good contrast, drop shadow gives pop to the word.” [Image URL]
As Figure 2 illustrates, one student shared a design example spotted by his daughter at a
fast food restaurant. This figure shows the student posting this example and concisely commenting on the design principles (CARP—contrast, alignment, repetition, and proximity)
being incorporated. This tweet showed another interesting aspect of this activity—some
students often involved their family in their learning because it occurred in authentic family contexts, which also revealed the potential of mobile devices for learning in authentic
settings. In this particular example, social learning has also been extended beyond the class
because it involved interaction among family members, making it even more relevant and
motivating.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
219
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Figure 2. A tweet with a design example and concise comment on its context and design
principles.
Most students were very active in this category and went beyond (56% more) what was
required in terms of the numbers of postings. In examining the content of these tweets, we
found that students, as observant learners, were able to use relevant design principles and
terms to analyze and critique design examples found in their authentic contexts.
Assignment-relevant replies (173 tweets; 48% of all tweets). This category includes replies
on the design aspects of the examples posted by peers. For instance, one student commented on the design technique of a peer’s example: “they probably just bend the words along a
path. That would be my best guess. Perhaps it[’]s more sophisticated than that?”
Another student provided rationale for agreeing on the negative aspects of a design example: “Agreed. Too much motion. Not enough contrast w/ centered text on dark shape.”
From the tweets quoted here, we found that although there is a conservative character limit
per tweet, students did a good job of concisely analyzing design technique and critiquing
examples using technical terms that they learned in this course.
The tweets included in Categories 1 and 2 provide examples of how learners can co-construct
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
220
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
graphic design knowledge/ideas through intellectual exchanges during social interactions
via microblogging. It is worth noting that the students were very motivated to post more
than 50% of the required number of tweets in both categories—they co-constructed knowledge with each other through active original postings and replies. These types of tweets also
showed that students engaged in conversation that extended beyond their coursework and
was at the same time situated in their real-life experience. Authentic graphic design ideas
and examples were found in the social and cultural contexts surrounding the learners.
Other course-relevant tweets (18 tweets; 5% of all tweets). This category includes various tweets other than those related to sharing and commenting on design examples. One
student shared a web resource featuring online pedagogy useful in general instructional
design. Another student used Twitter to offer peers some tips about Twitter usage. Yet another student was inclined to seek help on Twitter usage on such questions as how to tag
tweets or use tags for filtering tweets. An interesting use of tweeting in this category was to
reflect on one’s changes and learning during the course. One student asked his peers: “do
[yo]u find [yo]urself looking at signs & designs differently since class began?”
Another student had a similar observation and stated, “It’s really funny how this class has
changed my perspective of the simplistic things like an instrument panel in a car.”
These types of tweets seemed to indicate the Twitter environment could provide a casual
atmosphere where students felt comfortable and willing to share the changes in their own
learning and expose gaps in their knowledge.
Social tweets derived from assignment (47 tweets; 13% of all tweets). This category included tweets about how students related their own personal life experiences to peers’ design
examples. For instance, one student asked another student about his cooking plan after
reviewing the design example of a seafood package. The student being asked responded,
“Sorry, no grilling tonight. Was at Whole Foods and thought the fish would make a good
background for the graphic.”
On a graphic design example of gas pump instruction, one student commented: “Everyone
assumes pumping gas can be figured out by all. My wife is from NJ. No self serve there. She
had no clue how to.”
This conversation was then joined by a tweet from another student: “I’m pretty sure in Oregon, they pump gas for you... That threw me for a loop when driving thru...”
The tweets in Category 4 showed that seeking real-life experience enabled students to bring
their daily lives into their course discussions, which was conducive to sparking social exchange among the members in the community. These social exchanges, while not solely
focusing on the content of this course, helped build connections among members and made
them relate to each other through sharing experiences regarding various aspects of their
lives. In accordance with Gunawardena et al. (2009), the microblogging platform, a type of
Web 2.0 application, served as an ideal mediator to create an environment for learning and
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
221
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
developing graphic design knowledge and principles socially.
Social tweets not derived from coursework (11 tweets; 3% of all tweets). Some students
simply connected with other students through compliments, greetings, or discussing the
weather and the economy, without referring to any coursework. For example: “…like your
user name!” or “Not a fan of drizzly and cloudy anymore. I like the sun. How’s the economy
doing there these days?”
This type of social tweet was not as common in this course, and 91% of these tweets came
from one student. Comparing the distribution of tweets in Category 4 and Category 5, it
seems the students were usually more engaged in assignment-relevant social tweets.
Resource-sharing tweets after the course ended (2 tweets; 1% of all tweets). Only one student posted this type of tweet, where he shared a Twitter mobile app with the instructor.
This type of activity is not common. It could have to do with the student’s interest in using
Twitter as a social tool, as reflected through his continuous updates on Twitter. At the time
of our in-depth tweet analysis (four months after this course), two of the eight participants
still updated their Twitter postings for personal use.
While the instructor intended to have students focus on discussing design aspects of the
shared examples via Twitter, the instruction did not specifically prompt students to do so
because the instructor wanted to observe the spontaneous relative contributions of learning tweets versus social tweets. Of all 220 coursework-relevant replies (i.e., Categories 2
and 4), 79% were learning tweets and 21% were social tweets. The distribution of types of
tweets seemed to reveal a major emphasis on learning aspects accompanied by a certain
level of social bonding. This is likely due to the assignment being situated in the students’
daily lives, which meant they could relate to their peers’ examples if they had encountered
similar life experiences or design examples. The convenience of accessing Twitter apps on
mobile devices and the nature of short messaging on Twitter also allowed for quick posting
without needing to extensively compose a message, which made it easier to connect with
peers in a casual way.
While the instructor hoped that students would focus on design issues during their microblogging activities, social interaction during microblogging was not discouraged because
social activities could be vital “glue” in helping students connect with each other and become more engaged in the activities—students could feel more bonded at a personal and
social level. The spontaneous social interactions found in the tweets (e.g., mentioning personal dining plans or a wife’s hometown) suggest that some students were able to identify
with the community and found this microblogging a trusting environment in that they were
willing to share their personal information or events with the learning community to build
interpersonal relationships.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
222
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
Benefits of Learning in Authentic Contexts with Mobile Microblogging
Promoting learning in authentic contexts. The data collected from the survey showed that
students enjoyed mobile microblogging activities that helped connect learning with peers’
everyday lives. One student commented that
It provides an opportunity to seek out examples of content
in the real world, and it is unique to one person because of
the spread out nature of the students in the class (all over
the world!). It is exciting to share findings with the class
and comment on others’ finds.
One student commented on becoming conscious of design principles applied to things in
the environment: “I liked the way that it made me aware of all of the things that I read
about being applied in everyday life. Examples of design that may have gone unnoticed by
me were caught.”
Reinforcing formal learning with informal learning. Students also found that the activities helped them with course-relevant learning. For example: “I did appreciate learning
how to use Twitter, and I do like seeing a few examples of graphics since some helped to
generate ideas for my own projects.”
Sharing images provided a means to ground some of the textbook concepts as well as others’ understanding of those concepts.
Enhancing social learning. In addition, students liked Twitter as a tool for social learning:
“The class did feel a bit more like a community after starting this activity,” “it’s more of an
informal way to connect with your fellow colleagues.”
Overall, the students showed positive attitudes toward the mobile microblogging activities. They found mobile microblogging helped them learn about design examples that were
authentic in individuals’ contexts and widely geographically dispersed. The students also
found that the activities helped them see how the design principles learned in class were
actually applied to the design artifacts in their environments. In addition, they learned from
peers’ views about design and could connect with peers in an informal way.
Instructional Design Implication and Challenges
Our exploration of the different categories of tweets can help inform designing and planning of mobile microblogging for learning in authentic contexts. Instructors can consider
the types of tweets (e.g., replies on design aspects or life experiences) they want to solicit
and engage students in, and design instructions or prompts that help lead to outcomes
aligned with their instructional objectives. The character limit of microblogging may enable
a unique mode of communication. While students who prefer extended comments in single
postings could find it inconvenient, the lightweight nature of microblogging eases the pressure of extended participation. Despite the character limit, microblogging can help to bring
about deep conversation through short but frequent exchanges. While participants might
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
223
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
not be able to make a complete argument in one posting, microblogging is likely to promote
the opportunity for co-construction of knowledge when participants take turns in elaborating or adding to others’ short postings to make their own points clearer.
Implementing a program involving mobile microblogging activities requires early planning
and communication. While students’ participation and engagement in our mobile microblogging activities exceeded course requirements and instructor expectations, it was not
without challenges. In terms of logistics, the instructor had to ensure that everyone in class
had access to a mobile device with a camera feature so they could participate in the required
tasks. It took some planning in advance to survey students’ mobile device accessibility either before or early in the course. Fortunately, most students in this study (i.e., graduate
students who are working professionals) owned a smartphone or at least planned to get
one by the beginning of the activities. Students who did not have such mobile devices could
purchase a subsidized device with the help of the first author’s grant funding. If this type of
resource were not available, it might be difficult to get all of one’s students ready for such
activities. In fact, we found that some students were not interested in purchasing the device
even with the funding support. In this situation, instructors would want to make sure they
could develop alternative activities so that students’ learning opportunities were not compromised. In our situation, there was another section of the same course, so the instructor
could arrange microblogging activities that did not require mobile devices with the camera
feature. In situations where another section of the same course is not available, instructors might have to create two sets of instructions and accommodate two different learning
groups in one course.
One student commented on the nuisance of having to remember to include a required
hashtag-keyword combination (for searching and filtering) in posting tweets. While there
is instructional and learning value in using tags for learning activities, this requirement
further reduced the content posting quota because the keyword counted toward the character limit per tweet on Twitter. If learners engaged in conversation with peers, they would
also need to include “@username” so the tweets could be directed to the conversant, which
further reduces the amount of substantive content one can post in one tweet. Educators
interested in incorporating Twitter in their instruction might want to consider these constraints during their planning. It might help to assign a shorter activity keyword or encourage students to create shorter usernames to allow more room for posting in each tweet.
Conclusions
In this study, we showed how to promote learning in authentic contexts through mobile microblogging. The affordances (i.e., mobility, computing power, and connectivity) of today’s
mobile devices and microblogging applications combined to make students’ learning in authentic contexts possible. We found that the students in our study appropriately applied the
design principles and terms they learned in class when they critiqued the examples collected
by themselves and their peers. Students were able to co-construct knowledge through their
exchange of tweets. Generally, they had positive perceptions toward the mobile microblog-
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
224
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
ging activities that allowed them to apply their knowledge about graphic design principles
in authentic contexts. The students also indicated that the design examples shared by their
peers via mobile apps inspired their design work. While being effective in supporting learning, mobile microblogging was also efficient in helping students connect with each other
through short and quick social conversations. We hope the study presented here represents
a promising example of integrating mobile microblogging in an online graduate course,
one that could encourage educators to explore and experiment with the potential of mobile
microblogging for promoting learning in authentic contexts and through social learning.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
225
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
References
Brown, I. (2009). Art on the move: Mobility – a way of life. In J. Herrington, A. Herrington,
J. Mantei, I. Olney, & B. Ferry (Eds.), New technologies, new pedagogies: Mobile
learning in higher education (pp. 120–128). Wollongong: University of Wollongong. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/
Ching, Y.-H., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2011). Design-grounded assessment: A framework and a case
study of Web 2.0 practices in higher education. In J. Waycott & J. Sheard (Eds.),
Assessing students’ Web 2.0 activities in higher education [Special issue]. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 781–797.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance
social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 129–135.
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – A
chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55, 92–100.
Ebner, M., & Maurer, H. (2008). Can microblogs and weblogs change traditional scientific
writing? In Proceedings of e-learn 2008 (pp. 768–776). Las Vegas, NV.
Elavsky, C. M., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large-lecture hall. Learning, Media and Technology,
36(3), 215–233.
Gunawardena, C. N., Hermans, M. B., Sanchez, D., Richmond, C., Bohley, M., & Tuttle, R.
(2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with
social networking tools. Educational Media International, 46(1), 3–16.
Hsu, Y. -C., Ching, Y. -H., & Grabowski, B. (2009). Web 2.0 technologies as cognitive tools
of the new media age. In L.T.W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 353–
371). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Hsu, Y. -C., Ching, Y. -H., & Grabowski, B. (in press). Web 2.0 applications and practices for
learning through collaboration. In M. Spector, D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop
(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology
(4th ed.). Springer Academics.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report. Austin,
TX: The New Media Consortium.
Johnson, L., Smith, R., Willis, H., Levine, A., & Haywood, K. (2011). The 2011 Horizon Re-
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
226
Mobile Microblogging: Using Twitter and Mobile Devices in an Online Course to Promote Learning in Authentic Contexts
Hsu and Ching
port. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lai, C. -Y., & Wu, C. -C. (2006). Using handhelds in a Jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 284–297.
Liu, T. Y., Tan, T. H., & Chu, Y. L. (2009). Outdoor natural science learning with an RFIDsupported immersive ubiquitous learning environment. Educational Technology
& Society, 12(4), 161–175.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49, 581–596.
O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next
generation of software. Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/6228.
Pauschenwein, J., & Sfiri, A. (2010). Adult learner’s motivation for the use of micro-blogging during online training courses. International Journal of Engineering and
Technology, 5(1), 22–25.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman & D.
H. Schunk (Eds.), Educational psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207–
228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Waller, M. (2010). Using Twitter in the primary classroom. English Four to Eleven, 39,
14–16.
Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: Reflecting on practicum experiences.
Open Learning, 25(3), 259–265.
Zurita, G., & Nussbaum, M. (2004). Computer supported collaborative learning using
handheld computers. Computers & Education, 42, 289–314.
Vol 13 | No 4
Research Articles
October 2012
227
© Athabasca University. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Computers in Human Behavior 33 (2014) 213–223
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers in Human Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh
Research Report
Social media for learning: A mixed methods study on high school
students’ technology affordances and perspectives
Jin Mao ⇑
Department of Educational Leadership, Wilkes University, 84 W. South Street, Wilkes Barre, PA 18766, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Available online 14 February 2014
Keywords:
Social media
Technology affordances
Attitudes and beliefs
Learning design
a b s t r a c t
Using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the study investigated high school students’
affordances for social media, their attitudes and beliefs about these new technologies, and related obstacles and issues. The affordance findings indicate that students depend on social media in their daily lives
for leisure and social connections. Educational uses by teachers for classroom teaching and learning are
sporadic, while uses by students on their own for learning purposes seem to be abundant but also incidental and informal. Quantitative results suggest that in general, students show positive attitudes and
beliefs about social media use in education. Exploratory factor analysis revea...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment