Proposal view
| Proposal Type: | Individual Paper |
|---|---|
| Domain: | Teaching and Instructional Design |
| SIG: | Learning and Instruction with Computers |
| Type | Submitted Paper |
| Equipment |
Slide projector |
| Paper Details |
|---|
| Title | A simple model of SMS-based learning objects in the context of e-learning environments |
|---|---|
| Abstract | The paper reports the implementation of a mobile learning environment based on short messages (SMS) interventions. The authors used a simple implementation of a Learning Object to deliver an orchestrated sequence of SMS-based learning support, in parallel to an on-going e-learning course. Each LO consisted of four elements that relate to content: (1) Short Tutorials; (2) Key Terms; (3) Flash card statements; (4) Quizzes. Although each LO is basically treated as one entity, its constituent elements were used asynchronously to “construct” short messages which were sent to the participants’ mobile phones as SMS six times a day. The experiments were performed on forty college students enrolled for a business course, controlled for GPA, gender and computer and mobile phone literacy. |
| Summary | Introduction and Theoretical Framework Mobile learning has emerged as a potential new educational environment to support learning. Mobile tools immerse in the learning environment and surround educators, students and the environment in which they operate. These tools can be directly integrated in classroom activities to enhance and promote new ways of teaching and learning. Some authors view e-learning as the immediate ancestor of m-learning. For example, Milrad (2003) defines e-learning as learning supported by digital electronic tools and media, and by analogy, m-learning as e-learning that uses wireless transmission and mobile devices such as such as PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants), mobile phones, laptops and tablet PCs. Polsani (2003) considers such definitions ‘restrictive’ and proposes instead the term ‘network learning’ (or ‘nlearning’). Traxler (2005) defined it as “any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices”, admitting a few paragraphs later that this definition might be rather techno-centric and argues that we might need to look at mobile learning from the learner’s and user’s perspective. Sharples (2005) provided a definition in which the process of learning is viewed as “conversation,” thus giving the mobile the role of a conversation enhancer. The authors have proposed a definition that is more relevant for the educational context “Mobile learning offers an evolutionary opportunity to reconsider the role and the methods of education, in light of relevant technological advances and pressing social priorities” (Laouris and Eteokleous, 2005). This definition invites the development of innovative environments that can take full advantage of new technologies. The primary objective of this study was to test whether a simple implementation of a learning object based on SMS technology had a measurable effect on learning performance. The second objective was to test a model of a modified learning object adapted for delivery in the form of a sequence of short messages. Research Methodology The data reported were collected from forty second year college students, enrolled for a business degree in a Cyprus Higher Educational Institution. The students were divided in two groups: the experimental (those who received the additional SMS treatment) and the control group. In the experimental group students were treated differently than the control group. More specifically, all students have attended exactly the same college courses and had access to exactly the same number of formal lectures and seminar. The students in the experimental group were receiving in addition, short messages on their personal mobile devices during school as well as during after school hours. The timing for delivery of these short messages was pre-programmed on an SMS server (developed in-house). Students in the control group did not have any knowledge or access to this extra treatment. The students were controlled for GPA and gender. We have used a simple implementation of a Learning Object definition developed by the authors earlier (Eteokleous and Laouris, 2006) to deliver an orchestrated sequence of SMS-based learning support. Each LO consisted of four elements that relate to content (for simplicity, we do not discuss here other elements needed for logistics): Short tutorials: The syllabus was divided into very short summaries. Each unit is “readable” in 3-5 minutes. A student can “study” while waiting for something, e.g., in bus-stop. The server sends the short tutorial whenever scheduled or when the student requests it. Key terms: Terms that are considered instrumental to the subject and require a clear understanding. The definitions must be concise and short. They must optimally be sent as two consecutive SMSs: The first contains only the term, eg. “hypothesis.” The second is expanded e.g., “hypothesis is a statement that you try to prove or disprove with your experiments.” Flash card statements: Statements that have a key term as their answer. Example: “An assumption that a scientist makes and then designs an experiment to test.” The student has to send back the key term. Quizzes: Either multiple choice questions or fill-in-the-gaps statements. In both cases, the server is programmed to expect the answers and provide relevant responses. In the implementation of the methodology students received these four types of messages. Thirty short tutorials (max 250 characters) were used to provide concentrated knowledge of the domain. These were transmitted to students as follows: Each key term was transmitted twice, once a day before they actually heard the term in class and once one the same day but hours after the class. Definitions were also transmitted a day before and during the day of instruction, but always exactly five minutes after the key term was sent. The purpose of this temporal relationship was to take advantage of possible subliminal learning and also to stimulate curiosity and possibly excite learning pathways. More specifically, students were receiving six SMSs at different times every day: a key term, and a flashcard for a term that is scheduled to be covered on the following day; the key term covered on that particular day and its definition; a short tutorial; a quiz for learning (covered through the SMS intervention) that has taken place 1-3 days before. Research Outcomes The experiment took place during the Spring semester 2006. At the end of the seventh week, all students have taken the midterm exam. Their scores during the midterm exam were used as the quantitative measure of learning outcome. Other parameters examined include: relations between mobile device use and performance with gender, age, mobile and computer literacy, GPA. Furthermore, qualitative questions will assess student attitudes and satisfaction in regard to mobile learning. Educational and Theoretical Significance The study contributes in the development of new practical learning environments for educators. Furthermore, it adds to the body of literature, since the field is relatively new and studies of this kind are still rare. Despite the accompanying euphoria, mobile learning is currently still at a stage of small-scale projects that aim to investigate issues related to technical feasibility and to demonstrate and evaluate the relevant educational advantage. There are not many studies that investigate the feasibility and propose practical applications. |
| Keywords | Computer-supported learning environments Instructional design/development Virtual learning |
| Appendices | |
| Authors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Name | Surname | Institution | Country | EARLI Number | Presenting | |
| Yiannis | Laouris | Cyprus Neuroscience & Technology Institute | Cyprus | laouris@cnti.org.cy | * | |
| Nikleia | Eteokleous | Cyprus Neuroscience & Technology Institute | Cyprus | nikleia@cnti.org.cy | ||
