MLearning in a New Zealand Secondary School: A Case Study

MLearning in a New Zealand Secondary School: A Case Study Noeline Wright, University of Waikato, New Zealand Abstract: Four classroom teachers (geography, food technology, ESOL, Japanese) experimented with a range of mobile devices (digital cameras, proprietary hardware/software, phones and mp3 players) during 2010. In conjunction both with a telecommunications provider and the Ministry of Education, this research sought to understand the following: how teachers use various mobile technologies for learning, what issues arise that impede this, what benefits emerge if any, and what students’ experiences are of using these devices as part of their subject learning. Interviews and classroom observations were the key data collection methods over a month. Twenty-nine students were interviewed across three classes and three of the four classroom teachers were interviewed, plus the IT Director in the school. These data were analysed thematically for patterns of experience. Findings included: the importance of the pedagogical background knowledge of the IT Director in supporting the learning; the improved engagement and participation of students in their learning when mobile devices were used; the desire of students to use these tools regularly in their classrooms to support their learning; the crucial value of the experience of the trial teachers in experimenting with new tools. This last finding suggests that teachers of more than 10 years’ practice are likely to be most comfortable with coping with the potential destabilising effects of introducing unfamiliar/untried tools to a classroom setting. Keywords: MLearning, Pedagogy, Secondary Schools, Learning

Introduction

U

SING MOBILE DEVICES for learning purposes is a relatively new phenomenon, and there continues to be considerable resistance in seeing their educational potential. For example, one father said of his son that, “He needs to be concentrating on his schoolwork” (Schulten, 2010). Schools tend to ban mobile devices, and so students still have to power down at the school gates (Prensky, 2006). Perhaps this partly accounts for a relatively limited body of academic literature about the uses of mobile devices in schools compared with uses in tertiary/higher education institutions. Most current information about the educational use of mobile devices is spread by blogs, Twitter, Slideshare or YouTube. This article examines information about the use of mobile devices in schools, comparing it with findings from a recent mLearning case study in one New Zealand secondary school. A key finding was that teachers’ practices were critical to the productive educational use of mobile technologies rather than leaving these devices to students themselves.

Sourcing Texts Since this is a paper about current technologies, I felt it was fitting to use such affordances to source relevant texts. I have therefore limited my search through two means: Twitter feed recommendations and journal alerts to my email inbox. Most chosen texts were saved to The International Journal of Learning Volume 18, Number 1, 2011, http://www.Learning-Journal.com, ISSN 1447-9494 © Common Ground, Noeline Wright, All Rights Reserved, Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEARNING

either Delicious or Zotero. Delicious amassed 50 sources tagged ‘mobile’ in less than a month (June/July 2010) through Twitter feed recommendations, growing to 93 within 3 months. Primarily, this consisted of blogs and Slideshare files. On the other hand, my 7 month old Zotero journal library for things mobile contains approximately 40 journal articles, about 10 conference proceedings, and a number of international reports found on various governmental or international organisation websites (Johnson, Levine, & Stone, 2010; Ministry of Education, 2006; OECD, n.d.). Thus, the more formal publication collection lags behind other sources in promoting ideas and experiences of mLearning, regardless of context (see for example, Cochrane, 2010). The source texts were saved in relation to their links to the schooling sector and/or what they added to my mLearning body of knowledge. These were then reviewed in relation to findings from a recent research project examining the use of mobile devices in various classes in one secondary school in New Zealand during 2010. Finally, each text cited in the article from the Delicious collection was added to my Zotero library. Thus, this article is a product of available technologies through which search strategies, critical analysis, grounded research and writing are linked.

The Literature Literature cited here thus combines peer-reviewed journal articles, blog posts and reports. The standards for publication, and thus their reliability, differ for each text. Because of space restrictions, samples from these sources will be used to illustrate the main ideas.

Blog Posts and other Web 2.0 Sources Most blogs in the field of mLearning can be classified in three ways: university researchers’ postings that attempt to capture their syntheses and theories about the emerging field, people in schools who are keen on sharing experiences and resources, and industry/commerce-oriented sites: these might be mainly advertorial, or a way of focusing on applications of particular devices in educational settings. One New Zealand tertiary educator’s blog is a constant work in progress, where the blog becomes a repository of trials and ‘how tos’ with a variety of tools with tertiary students, such as blogging options on mobile devices (Cochrane, 2010). This provides a means by which others can learn from his experiences, and thus is of potential use in a schooling context. Cochrane’s students engage in activities such as commenting through video diaries about the value of these experiments to their learning. So while they are learning about the subject content (whether music, architecture or computing), they are simultaneously using mobile devices and affordances authentically. Another tertiary-oriented blog is Steve Wheeler’s (2010), in which he comments on educational issues related to Web 2.0 technologies. Both regularly advertise their presence and new content through Twitter posts. A blog centred on the schools’ sector is The St Marys City Schools Mobile learning Technology site (Menchhofer, Newcomb, Gundy, & Elson, 2010). It too is regularly advertised through Twitter posts (SNewsco). Its main focus is the promotion of mLearning professional development and experiences for teachers in the Ohio (USA) region, but is a potential resource for educators anywhere. Another is Crosslin’s (2010) blogpost where he notes that “So often it seems that when people talk about mobile learning, they are talking about mobile devices

576

NOELINE WRIGHT

and not mobile learners”. However, this post provides examples of using devices in a variety of contexts to “make the learning interesting”, rather than talking about pedagogy. In both of these cases, what appears to be omitted are links between using these devices and educational outcomes for either students or teachers, which is, for many jurisdictions, the bottom line for engaging in any new tool. This is certainly true in New Zealand, where a Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) programme focuses on unpacking what influences a range of desired outcomes for diverse learners (Alton-Lee, 2003), and finds its way into literature reviews on e-learning (Wright, 2010b). Of key interest to many governments is examining outcomes and e-learning affordances for learners (Barker & Wendel, 2001; Commonwealth of Australia, 2010; Ham, 2009; Johnson et al., 2010; Ministry of Education, 2006), and to make the case for promoting mobile device usage in schools, it may be useful to use an argument about educational benefits that go beyond making the learning ‘interesting’. After all, many teachers can do so without using such devices, and need convincing that using them is worth it. One blog post at least has attempted to link learning practices and mobile technologies. Wheeler (2010) recently highlighted the digital divide between developed and developing countries, as explored by a conference keynote speaker (Sir John Daniel) who outlined what works to support poor communities’ children become digital citizens. Wheeler summarised a key difference Daniel outlined between two projects aimed at third world children, and asked, ‘do such projects help?’: Well, yes and no, was the answer. No, in the case of Nick Negroponte’s One Laptop per Child (OLPC) project... Yes, in the case of ‘Slum Dog Professor’ Sugata Mitra’s hole in the wall project. The difference between them, said Sir John, lay in the concept and theory behind the two projects. OLPC was premised on the theory of constructivism, where the child, as a solo explorer, could use his laptop to learn independently. Mitra’s project on the other hand, discovered that children actually learn best (and even teach themselves) when they are in small groups…Thus, said Sir John, social connectivism trumps constructivism for third world child learning. While this blog centred on laptops, the pedagogical practices that supported learning are made clear, and this resonates with a recent e-learning review that noted the value of socially facilitated learning to students in countries where access to digital tools is taken for granted (Wright, 2010b). For example, Sastrowardoyo’s (2010) blog describes a developed world example and what happened to rates of homework when Tom’s River Middle School students were given mobiles. Not only did all students complete homework, but they also submitted it on time. Students’ confidence in learning was also reported as improving, and was particularly significant for “struggling students” (p.2). And to counter issues of cyberbullying (Downes, 2010) and ‘sexting’, the devices used in this school were not capable of texting. This helps to partly counter arguments about the potential negative effects on students’ health (see for example, Thomas, 2004). In New Zealand, adolescents mainly use cell phones for texting rather than phone calls in their private lives, and this too can partly allay the concerns some may have about brain cancers developing in heavy phone cell phone call use. Thus, using such devices in schools, particularly when students do not need to text or make phone calls, counters such issues.

577


In terms of the frequently mentioned downside to using mobiles in schools, that is, cell phone bullying, Lenhart, Ling, Campbell and Purcell’s (2010) USA focus noted that, “26% [of students] have been bullied or harassed through text messages and phone calls” (p. 5). While that is a substantial number of students, they also point out that “although the anytime, anywhere nature of the technology is a major draw for teens to stay in touch with their peers, it also provides new opportunities for bullies and harassers to stay connected to their targets” (p. 88), which may be a factor in this reported rate. Also, the Lenhart et al report showed that even when mobiles are prohibited in schools, the common trend is that over 80% of students will continue to bring these devices to school. Downes’ (2010) blog contained a graph that showed that bullying in schools is still greater than bullying by texting, thus placing such bullying in its wider social context. So what is mLearning? One Slideshare presentation grappled with this idea. Sharples (2007) suggests that it could be about “The processes of coming to know through conversations across multiple contexts amongst people and personal interactive technologies” (slide 5). This suggests that the communication and connectivity function of mobile devices is paramount. With the access to others that a range of Web 2.0 affordances and mobiles provide, this is a reasonable definition to begin with. What it omits, however, is reference to the role teachers play in facilitating ‘coming to know’ in school contexts including elearning contexts (Wright, 2010b).

Journal Articles and Reports A key focus in searching journal articles was tracing links between mLearning and any references to impact on or relationship to, pedagogical practices. Many articles focus on the tool in the classroom, rather than its learning effects for either teacher or student. For example, Motiwalla (2007) argues that “The key is to understand the strengths and weakness of a particular technology, while deploying good pedagogical practices to achieve specific learning goals” (n.p.), leading to a focus on students’ opinions about the ease of use of the device/tool, rather than its relationship to learning. This orientation on the tool and its uses rather than pedagogical purposes and effects is a feature of many studies, particularly in tertiary contexts (Patten, Arnedillo Sánchez, & Tangney, 2006; Pettit & Kukulska-Hulme, 2007). This is in common with many blog posts’ focus (see for example, Crosslin, 2010). On the other hand, Naismith et al’s (2005) report identified “six broad theory-based categories of activity” (p. 3) including pedagogical practices, associated with mLearning: •

•

•

Behaviourist: ie with an aim of changing learners’ observable actions, such as instant feedback and reinforcement from a student’s answer or solution to a question or problem. These can include online mastery tests, such as those available for the road code Constructivist: aiming to focus on helping learners construct knowledge through simulations, or actively creating new ways of mashing different contexts. Students creating their own digital content is a case in point Situated: this is related to authentic contexts and cultural practices. One example is the multimedia tour developed by the Tate Modern in the UK and the content students created in the geography classroom discussed below

578

NOELINE WRIGHT

•

•

•

Collaborative: this kind of context promotes social interaction. For example, using Twitter or other social networking tools to develop reflective practices about specific learning (Wright, 2010a), or sharing files from which to create content Informal and lifelong: this identifies the means by which learning opportunities may occur outside formal schooling contexts or curriculum. Using online sources to find out about gaining a driver’s licence is one example, and The Science Learning Hub is another (http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/) Learning and teaching support: this is a co-ordination role, where resources and learning opportunities are corralled to provide anytime access for learners, such as The Science Learning Hub. Moodle and mobile organisers are others. Pedagogically aware IT staff available to support what happens in classrooms is another.

This list suggests that learning experiences and opportunities can –and should- be varied, exposing students to different kinds of challenges while using mLearning/Web 2.0 tools both inside and outside of school. This resonates with Parsons and Ryu’s (2006) point that any judgement of the quality of a learning experience should focus on the conceptual framework upon which it is constructed, rather than the quality of any software or hardware (tool) or its ease of use. Such a conceptual framework is about specific pedagogical (teaching and learning), curriculum (concepts and content) and key competencies (such as thinking skills) that underpin a rich and interesting educational experience. These experiences are most likely to fit students’ concepts of what ‘fun’ means at school, and are more likely to help students succeed academically, notwithstanding the other socio-economic factors at play in students’ lives (Thrupp, 2010). Another view of learning is connectivism. If “education is concerned with the act of becoming” (Collis & Moonen, 2008, p. 105 authors’ italics), then how that ‘becoming’ occurs, is changing. Principles of connectivism include decision-making as a learning process and that “learning may reside in non-human appliances” (Siemens, 2005). Already, students in secondary school classrooms use more than one source of knowledge or information. They can also create their own knowledge using readily available tools, mashing up combinations of other knowledge in the process. As part of this, they will also rely on their personal networks (often sustained digitally) to develop their understanding. Examples of what happens to learners’ dispositions and motivation when mLearning tools are used in school classrooms, or changes to the dynamics of the teacher-student power relationship are not yet very common. Pettit and Kukulska-Hulme (2007), however, show that this power dynamic can be altered when mLearning tools are included in a learning context: “Mobile devices, contrasted with the centralised university-wide infrastructure for online learning, come to symbolise a greater focus on students and users” (p. 18). This also characterises students’ current online practices: they not only consume, but also create content that is available on demand. In other words, “mobile devices enable us to share ideas and information with others… and … promise access at any time from any place” (Pettit & KukulskaHulme, 2007, p.21). And, as Haythornthwaite et al (2007) suggest, “Students bring their own knowledge, share it with others, combine it with the course materials and the opinions of others, and come away with more knowledge than if each individual had worked solely with the course materials” (n.p). These kinds of practices are already common for students in secondary schools.

579


These ideas thus preface discussion of an mLearning study undertaken in a New Zealand secondary school. The discussion examines both the conceptual and pedagogical design of teachers using mobile devices in curriculum areas, and students’ experiences about creating and consuming digital and mobile learning content.

The Study Four teachers in four different classroom subjects (ESOL, geography, food technology and Japanese) undertook to use various mobile tools. In all but one case (ESOL), the type of device was less important than the student-created content. The research used observation and digitally recorded interviews as the main data collection tools. Some classroom episodes were videoed or photographed to support the observational notes. Three teachers (one teacher taught two of the classes in the study) and the IT Director were interviewed. The IT Director and geography teacher (key drivers of this study) were each interviewed on multiple occasions. The IT Director was a frequent aide in classrooms where mLearning tools were being used, and was responsible for behind-the-scenes infrastructural support. Twenty-seven students were formally interviewed, and a further six informally (that is, on an ad hoc basis within classrooms). The principles of qualitative data analysis outlined by Seidel (1998) underpinned the analysis of this wealth of data. It focused on trends arising from the interviewees and classroom observations across each subject, and in this paper, are outlined within each classroom context. The findings outlined below are thus a selection, with the emphasis mainly on engagement, enjoyment, concentration and positive attitudes to learning. These are all understood to be conditions supporting academic achievement (Wright, 2010b).

Geography and Japanese In the geography and Japanese classes, the teachers worked with students to devise content using a similar process that was then pushed to their devices. For example, the Japanese language students devised their own movie files (Giving Directions) incorporating directional arrows, Japanese characters, and their voice-over narration pronouncing the vocabulary items. The geography class composed their own narrated movie files based on images and text devised after a field trip to Mt Tarawera, a site of a massive eruption in the 1800s. Before the trip, the class was introduced to the volcanology topic and given instructions on what to collect on the day: images and notes of specific features relevant to the study. Back in class, all images and notes were shared so that all students, including those unable to go on the fieldtrip, could develop content files for their own mobile devices that answered specific curriculum volcanology questions. Before the files were finalised, the class shared their draft narrated movies. This show-and-tell encouraged self-reflection and improvements to individuals’ files and narrations. The final products pushed to devices were thus refined and improved. In both classes, students reported using these files for regular review and revision.

Food Technology In the food technology class, students were engaged in creating nutritious hamburgers and recording the process using digital cameras, digital videos and sometimes, their phones. Once the process was recorded during one lesson, they then turned these files into short

580

NOELINE WRIGHT

narrated movies explaining food safety practices and their hamburger method for a specific audience as an assessment task. The teacher used the same topic with four different groups over one year, using the digital assessment product (self-made movie) with half, and the traditional product (a tablemat-sized poster addressing the same requirements) with the other two classes. During each of the digital device lessons, the IT Director supported both the teacher and student, by managing the provision and use of the devices. This IT support by the Director was also very much part of the other mobile device classrooms.

ESOL The ESOL teacher had a diverse class of students- in ages (from 13-18), language background and origin, such as Japan, China, Taiwan, Philippines, India, Thailand and Cambodia. Some had been in New Zealand for 18 months, while other had arrived within the previous 3 months. Some had learning issues, some were very shy, and some were very gregarious. This diversity presented a range of challenges for the teacher. In this experiment, she trialled a proprietary computer software program linked to specific hand-held devices designed to text answers to the question posed on the screen. The results of everyone’s contributions could be seen anonymously once the all answers had been contributed. This tool was observed on three occasions. In each case, students engaged fully, taking often less than 5 minutes to become familiar with the device. It appeared to be easy for them to focus on responding to the posed questions.

The Findings Geography and Japanese About half of the students in the geography class were formally interviewed and a key theme was that most enjoyed having access to their curriculum content on their devices, and wanted more opportunities for this in other subjects. For example, they wanted to use the video recording capability on their phones to capture what the mathematics teachers said as they developed equations on the board. They wanted to repeatedly review the instructional talk associated with the equation as a reminder of the key points when they needed to practise similar mathematical problems. This opportunity for repeated review of the ‘talking into being’ was important to their understanding, and underpinned both a desire to learn well and to be able to return to learning information as needed. Repeated exposure to instructional processes is considered to support effective learning in a range of scenarios. This class also used the content on their devices in a number of ways in classrooms. For example, in one lesson, the teacher required students to create mindmaps from their mobile files, as a precursor to constructing short paragraphs that practised answering potential exam questions. Thus the information was further transformed for learning and assessment purposes. Some students also felt that they could develop their own mobile files in other subjects for other content, both as an alternative to paper-based tasks, and as assessments. They certainly enjoyed the anytime access of the content, and described such occasions- on the bus, idle moments at home, in front of the television, during lunch breaks and between classes. In other words, these students regularly reviewed this work. This was not something they practiced with textbooks. Niles (2010) observes that, “studying in short, frequent increments

581


is the most efficient and effective method for understanding and retaining material well” and this is certainly what these students were doing with this content. In the Japanese class, students appreciated creating their own content, because they could (a) see the Japanese characters, (b) associate them with an image, and (c) hear their own voices contextualise their use. These all supported their ability to develop their vocabulary and contextual use of specific language forms, as well as helping them understand more clearly how well they could pronounce words, and improve pronunciation as a critically reflexive exercise. This content creation was one part of their learning, and the opportunities for revision were another. One student felt that this ability to review the content whenever she needed to helped ‘stamp the learning in [her] mind’. These students also regularly used some teacher-made content of other Japanese language/cultural contexts, such as the weather, on their mobile devices. Their vested interest in the shape and availability of the content was a compelling factor in their engagement in this class. One student, who had recently bought a touch-screen mobile device, discovered the notes app and used this to create Japanese notes with English translations. After that, she realised she could make digital notes faster than she could handwrite and sought permission to use it as her prime note-making device in other classes as well. She said that it transformed her attitude to note-making and engagement with learning right across her subjects. This is a prime example of what can happen when the focus is on supporting the student as learner, not the teacher and content. The geography students also reported that they frequently reviewed their mobile content in diverse places, such as on the bus, in idle moments in school and at home, and even showed their parents. And most students in both Japanese and geography classes said that since they carried their devices with them most of the time, it was sensible to use them for learning purposes, and wanted to extend their use into other subjects too. The anytime revision aspect was attractive to students, and has the potential to link closely to effective learning since repeated short-burst revision supports long-term memory.

Food Technology The food technology teacher informally reported encouraging results. She noted that the assessment results for the two classes in the first half of the year showed significant difference between the two groups of students, and this was repeated in the second half of the year when she compared raw scores on the end-of-unit test. For example, the mean score (out of 50) for the two non mLearning groups were 27.14 and 32.54. The two mLearning task groups had raw mean scores of 40.75 and 36.70. The group scoring a mean of 36.70 had fewer class days than earlier classes. This shows that the two groups creating the digital assessment product for the same task, the hamburger, achieved much better results than the two groups asked to create the usual assessment product. This suggests that using digital tools engaged students deeply in the subject content, and led to enhanced achievement in the assessment task.

ESOL Both the students and the teacher were new to the proprietary software and hardware tools accompanying it. Students took a very short time to get used to these handheld devices.

582

NOELINE WRIGHT

Later, they said that ‘they were like texting from their phones’. By applying what they already knew (transferring knowledge) to these devices, they rapidly became familiar with them. They also liked that everyone’s answers could be seen on screen. Under normal circumstances, a teacher and class might hear two or three responses at a time. Seeing everyone’s answers meant that the teacher could discuss the ideas, ask questions of students to understand their reasoning, and students could see their responses in relation to everyone else’s. This was of particular interest to students, who also said they really enjoyed these tasks, and wanted them repeated on a regular basis: they were sharing their learning.

The Role of the IT Director This was a pivotal role, and part of this related to his teaching background. Through this, he was able to provide pedagogically sound advice to teachers related to the technologies, and support them appropriately in their classrooms during the relevant lessons. This was an unexpected finding, but a significant one, since it points to ways in which teachers can be properly supported when they attempt to develop their technological pedagogical content knowledge (or TPACK) in content-specific ways (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, 2009). The IT Director’s enabling support was a critical part of the successful classroom use of these tools.

Pedagogical Practices and Teacher-experimentation Another significant aspect of this school’s experiments with mobile technologies for learning purposes was the teachers’ experience. Each had at least 10 years’ professional practice. All felt that because of their pedagogical experience, they were able to experiment with new technologies and could accommodate the potential ‘pain of failure’ (interview NK 3). Their maturity and pedagogical expertise were key components in their willingness to embark on the unknown. In other words, their practices demonstrated “the greater focus on students and users” Pettit and Kukulska-Hulme (2007) observed was a characteristic of educational mobile device use. These teachers’ practices contradict a commonly asserted belief that ‘older’ teachers are resistant to technological change. Instead, these teachers encouraged fun - creating learning environments in which students solved problems (sometimes in groups, sometimes alone), and were intellectually challenged using relatively familiar digital tools as part of focused pedagogical purposes.

Conclusion This small case study identified key factors for learning that may resonate in other classroom contexts, including: taking advantage of students’ existing mobile devices and their ready access entices students to revise content; using their own devices for educational purposes did not put students off, instead, they suggested how their devices could support their learning and revision in other subjects (such as mathematics). The study also showed that experienced teachers are more than ready and willing to engage in mobile learning experiments because their knowledge of effective pedagogy helped them cope with the potential for failure. These teachers also demonstrated that educationally successful mLearning practices are not used in a pedagogical vacuum; instead, the lesson design

583


is highly important. Lastly, pedagogically oriented IT staff, who are a key asset to supporting teachers’ mLearning experiments, are crucial. In other words, it is not enough to leave students or teachers to their own devices. Instead, mLearning experiments occur within a complex matrix of design and support. This design contains specific people (teachers, IT staff, students), specific pedagogical knowledge and practices (enabling pedagogies which support learners and challenge thinking about new concepts and content), specific content and curriculum (topics, concepts, key competencies), specific resources (such as: mLearning devices -particularly ones students already have and IT staff), and opportunities (the classroom context).

Acknowledgements This project was made possible by New Zealand Ministry of Education and Howick College. I especially want to thank Nathan Kerr and Robert Douglas as well as the other participating teachers.

References Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality Teaching for Diverse Students: Best Evidence Synthesis. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education. Barker, K., & Wendel, T. (2001). E-learning: Studying Canada’s virtual secondary schools (Research Series No. 8). Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Cochrane, T. (2010, July 9). Thom Cochrane’s blog: Exploring Educational Technology. Mobile Blogging options for Typepad & Wordpress. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://thomcochrane.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/mobile-blogging-options-for-typepad-wordpress.html Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2008). Web 2.0 tools and processes in higher education: quality perspectives. Educational Media International, 45(2), 93-106. doi:10.1080/09523980802107179 Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Trends in media use by children and young people: Generation M2 (USA) and results from the ACMA Medial and communications in Australian Families. Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from http://www.acma.gov. au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_311473 Crosslin, M. (2010, September 15). Mobile pedagogy and mobile devices. EduGeek Journal. Retrieved September 26, 2010, from http://www.edugeekjournal.com/2010/09/15/mobile-pedagogyand-mobile-devices/ Downes, S. (2010, September 4). Cyberbullying: the research reveals school itself is (a lot) more problematic than the open web. Stephen’s Web: Stephen Downes. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=53250 Ham, V. (2009). Outcomes for Teachers and Students in the ICT PD School Clusters Programme 20052007 - A National Overview. Education Counts. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ict/49515/1 Haythornthwaite, C., Bruce, B. C., Andrews, R., Kazmer, M. M., Montague, R., & Preston, C. (2007). Theories and models of and for online learning. First Monday, 12(8). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_8/haythorn/index.html Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Stone, S. (2010). 2010 Horizon Report. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2010/ Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010). Teens and Mobile Phones. Washington DC, USA: Pew Internet Research Centre. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/ Teens-and-Mobile-Phones/Summary-of-findings.aspx

584

NOELINE WRIGHT

Menchhofer, K., Newcomb, S., Gundy, J. V., & Elson, L. (2010). St. Mary’s City Schools Mobile Learning Technology. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://www.smriders.net/Mobile_Learning/ Ministry of Education. (2006). Enabling the 21st Century Learner - e-Learning Action Plan for Schools 2006-2010. Ministry of Education, NZ. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/Initiatives/ICTInSchools/ICTInitiativesAndProgrammes/EnablingThe21stCenturyLearner.aspx Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2009). Too Cool for School? No Way! Using the TPACK Framework: You Can Have Your Hot Tools and Teach with Them, Too. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(7), 14-18. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ839143 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2005). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning (No. 11). NESTA Futurelab Series (p. 36). Bristol UK: NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved from www.nestafuturelab.org Niles, M. (2010, September 13). Innovate My School Blog. - How mobile learning devices can be effectively used to increase student retention and learning acumen. blog, . Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://www.innovatemyschool.com/blog/item/14-how-mobile-learningdevices-can-be-effectively-used-to-increase-student-retention-and-learning-acumen.html OECD. (n.d.). SourceOECD: issues. Retrieved February 28, 2010, from http://puck.sourceoecd.org /vl=1609731/cl=22/nw=1/rpsv/~6671/v2006n4/s1/p1l Parsons, D., & Ryu, H. (2006). A framework for assessing the quality of mobile learning. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference for Process Improvement, Research and Education (INSPIRE), Southampton Solent University, UK (Vol. 13). Patten, B., Arnedillo Sánchez, I., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Computers & Education, 46(3), 294–308. Pettit, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Going with the grain: Mobile devices in practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 17–33. Prensky, M. (2006). Digital natives, digital immigrants. Learners Together. Retrieved from http://www.learnerstogether.net/digital-natives-digital-immigrants/53 Sastrowardoyo, H. B. (2010, September 8). Toms River Regional middle school students get mobile devices | APP.com | Asbury Park Press. App.com: From the Jersey shore to you. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://www.app.com/article/20100908/NEWS/9080362/TomsRiver-Regional-middle-school-students-get-mobile-devices Schulten, K. (2010, September 22). Can cellphones be educational tools? The New York Times. New York, USA. Retrieved from http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/can-cellphonesbe-educational-tools/?partner=rss&emc=rss Seidel, J. V. (1998). Qualitative data analysis (originally published as Qualitative Data Analysis, in The Ethnograph v5.0: A Users Guide, Appendix E. Colorado Springs. The Ethnograph v5 Manual. Retrieved January 21, 2011, from http://www.qualisresearch.com/ Sharples, M. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. SlideShare Presentation presented at the LSRI, Leicester, UK. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/sharplem/theory-of-learningfor-the-mobile-age-leicester-april-2007 Siemens, G. (2005, April 5). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. elearnspace: everything elearning. blog. Retrieved September 29, 2010, from http://www.elearnspace.org /Articles/connectivism.htm

585


Thomas, W. (2004). Cell Phones Investigations/CellPhone Health Effects/Cell Phones Health Effects/Cell Phone Use/Cell Phone Health. William Thomas: Investigations. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://willthomas.net/Investigations/Articles/cellphones.htm Thrupp, M. (2010). The politics of being an educational researcher: Minimising the harm done by research. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(2), 119-133. Wheeler, S. (2010, September 21). House of cards. Learning with ‘e’s. Retrieved September 21, 2010, from http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com/2010/09/house-of-cards.html Wright, N. (2010a). Twittering in teacher education: reflecting on practicum experiences. Open Learning, 25(3), 259-265. Wright, N. (2010b). e-Learning and implications for New Zealand schools: A literature review. Wellington, NZ: Education Counts: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ict/77614

About the Author Dr. Noeline Wright Noeline has worked extensively in secondary schools both as a teacher and researcher. She was involved in a longitudinal evaluation of a national literacy professional development programme in secondary schools for 6 years, through the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research (WMIER). Currently she is involved in elearning and mLearning research as well as researching literacy and co-leading action enquiry projects in the tertiary sector. She also teaches in an initial teacher education graduate programme at the University of Waikato. Her research interests include the related fields of pedagogy and ICT, educational leadership, teacher change, literacy and secondary teacher education.

586

Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of International Journal of Learning is the property of Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.