In the theory of transactional distance, there are three key interactive components that influence (reduce or increase) the cognitive space between instructors and learners, namely dialogue, structure and learner autonomy (Moore and Kearsley, 2010). From our discussion forum with Dr. Shattuck (2012), it is clear that the “emphasis of transactional distance is on the productive exchange between instructor and student.” On effective teaching at a distance, there are three key interactions involved: learner- content, learner-instructor and learner-learner (Moore, 1989). Drawing from these theories and current research studies, I hope to find out more about the use of mobile technology as an effective way of learning at a distance.
Peng et al (2009) offers a theoretical framework that is organised in a hierarchical manner which starts with the m-learning infrastructure at the bottom (learners and tools), moving to pedagogical methods (constructivism and lifelong learning theories) and ends with the vision of ubiquitous knowledge construction. The pedagogy for m-learning is drawn from constructivism, social constructivism and cognitive apprenticeship that support the ideas of collaborative learning and education for mobile people.
The need to provide basic health care for a population size of 1 billion is a tall order. Vyas et al (2010) describes how this need is met by facilitating clinical education and training at remote secondary hospital sites across India. Despite logistical and cultural challenges, the medical college and partnership with US successfully met the key goals to enhance clinical training at remote training sites using mobile technology that is supported through an institutional hub.
Using
authentic and situated learning in diverse (geographical) and challenging
(internet access) environments, Beckmann
(2010) showed in her development study that
“mobile technologies offer opportunities for on-going access to distance
education that can be pursued off-campus and transnationally with the same
peer-centred approaches available on-campus, enhancing authenticity of both
content and context.”
In
an experimental study on 120 third year university students studying (History, Economics and Political Science) by Chandran (2010), the results showed that mobile learners scored higher than conventional
learners.
Koszalka and Ntloedibe-Kuswani (2010) synthesized study
findings on m-learning and concluded that the results from convenience samples
are “not generalizable to other contexts, audiences, or locations….it is
questionable whether much has been learned about the use of m-learning as a way
to enhance learning.” However, they agreed that
studies have suggested that m-learning has the potential to extend education resources
by opening access to disadvantaged groups such as women, rural poor, and people
with disability. Another positive observation is that those who use
m-technology showed higher ownership in the learning process.
M-learning is about mobility and refers to the phenomenon of learning with portable technologies (which include but is not limited to handheld computers, MP3 players, note books and mobile phones). Clearly, learning is not situated on technology alone but research has shown that mobile learners are more engaged and responsible. My interest is to explore further on military training courseware that are or will be developed for use on smartphones or iPAD – will it enhance learning? From the types of interaction and theory of transactional distance, I would also like to find out if productive exchange between instructor and learner (dialogue) can be substituted with high interactivity that is afforded by sophisticated technologies (learner interface). A survey method would be used to gather data for analysis.
References
Beckmann,
E. A. (2010). Learners on the move:
mobile modalities in development studies. Distance Education, 31 (2), 159–173.
Koszalka, T.A. & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G.S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive
learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education,
31(2), 139–157
Peng,
H., Su, Y.J, Chou, C. & Tsai, C.C. (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a
conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 46 (2), 171–183.
Vyas, R., Albrightb, S., Walker, D., Zachariah, A. & Lee, M.Y. (2010). Clinical training at remote sites using
mobile technology: an India–USA partnership. Distance Education, 31(2), 211–226.
Chandran, S. (2010). E-Education in Multicultural Setting: The Success of Mobile Learning. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 70, 2010.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6
Moore, M. and Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View.
California: Wadsworth
No comments:
Post a Comment