Performance Objectives and Mobile Learning

The idea of “online “tribes” as a community of like-minded people without geographic constraints”^[1] immediately struck me and served as a catalyst for my learning goals this week.  I have a student who has more than one online tribe, and he interacts with his tribes in a manner that does pique his curiosity, engage his evaluative thinking and foster new stimuli regularly.  One tribe member in particular, whom he met on a Mongolian underwater basket-weaving site, is a constant frame of reference for this student as he navigates life and learning.  This shifts online perception away from deviance or sources to be skeptical of towards imagining the hopeful possibility that is connected learning.  The chats are more than fodder to distract, as so much online life is, and instead offer random touchstones of sects of the world that might never have been encountered in one’s “regular” life, even with travels.  This leads me to the essential question, “What is the purpose of an educator in connected learning?”

 

Two key “educational affordances” stood out to me in my goals with trying to find meaningful ways to incorporate mobile learning.  One is “ Context sensitivity, the ability to “gather data unique to the current location, environment, and time, including both real and simulated data,”^[2] as it puts learning in the now, though I am reluctant to jump into using the “just in time” mindset.  The second key point speaks directly to my current practice and focus for change in education which is,  “Individuality, a “unique scaffolding” that can be “customized to the individual’s path of investigation.”^[3]  There is a clear advantage to students learning at their own pace, in their own way and when it suits them.  Additionally, as summed up so well in Ms. Peters’ words,  “Managing m-learning as a part of a suite of services that offers greater choice to learners will have benefits for providers, because it can allow teachers to move from delivery to the management of learning, and will help learners to gain specific skills of immediate value in the knowledge-based economy.” 

Admittedly, this should be driving my work, and specifically in writing performance objectives for the mobile learning module I’m trying create.  How, though, do I take the educational principles of objectives and focus more on providing this “suite of services” for my students.  How can I focus on conditions, performance and criterion^[4] for an objective, assuming I am still managing the learning, while allowing my students to learn however, wherever, and whenever mobily? 

I disagree with Hall Davidson’s theory that we are returning to non-reading or that all learning will be inevitably e-learning.^[5]  As a question lover, with support from Make Just One Change^[6], which is the basis for the Question Generation practice I use regularly, I believe reading is one of many ways we learn to question ideas of others as a means to think critically.  I also believe that seeking ideas from words along with other modalities, allows for higher likelihood of imagination, personal connections and practice finding “voice” or other aspects of storytelling.  If I’m attempting to nurture a generation of thinkers, I want multiple means of information as part of the deal in order to maximize construction of learning networks.  E-learning, m-learning, face-to-face learning and reading are essential.

In the interest of brevity, writing performance objectives felt quite challenging in relation to my learning goal.  I’m trying to put the Critical Thinking skills into concrete actions, yet have no idea how to put thinking into words let alone a succinct one to two sentence objective.  My big picture plan includes students helping define what it will look like if they achieve mastery of the CT skills, so perhaps my next step is to have that conversation in order to find ways to build backwards from those goals. 

IDA #2 Writing Performance Objectives

---

^[1] Peters, Kristine. "m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 8.2 (2007).

^[2] Peters, Kristine. "m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 8.2 (2007).

^[3] Peters, Kristine. "m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future." The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 8.2 (2007).

^[4] "Lesson 6 - Writing Objectives - ITMA." 2003. 1 Nov. 2015 <http://www.itma.vt.edu/modules/spring03/instrdes/lesson6.htm>

^[5] "TEDxManhattanBeach - Hall Davidson - The Teacher with a ..." 2011. 1 Nov. 2015 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdIhMV2DWLU>

^[6] "Make Just One Change - Right Question Institute." 2012. 1 Nov. 2015 <http://rightquestion.org/make-just-one-change/>

Instructional Design Models for Mobile Learning

In thinking through the various Instructional Design Models, my initial response is that many are similar to one another.  In terms of similarities, it seems that opportunities for differentiation exist throughout the models.  One key theme that resonates is the detailed mapping of a clear plan as part of the process.  Although this may be an intuitive expectation for educational models, it is not necessarily the truth in all classrooms.  It seems that being absolute in establishing purpose is essential especially when employing mobile learning as the risk of tangents could increase with the multitude of options online.  Staying true to a plan might ensure learning outcomes are met.
To me, the most user friendly models are the ones that are the most succinct.  As someone interested in the complexities of thought, in practice and with students in mind, less is more.  I think compact plans are also likely to resonates with students, as too many steps or options can become confusing.  More detailed design models, like the ADDIE Model, makes sense for a teaching brain that often does heavy thinking up front, yet may be over thinking or not allow for variation based on student voice, choice or need.  Additionally, the Dick and Carey Model says “five steps” then walks through nine very detailed design steps.  Finally, though I appreciate the Iterative Design in terms of rapid prototyping for engineering and maker project based instruction, I find that the idea of continuous improvement can be a challenge if a student’s passion for a project is not at the highest level.  Even students invested in getting “it” right or working on a highly valued project have trouble with “revisions” as it indicates that this version he or she put heart and soul into is not done, not awesome, or just not enough.  The project evolution brings up affective challenges and requires a high degree of resiliency on top of actual work.
Both the Backwards Design Model (Wiggins and McTighe) and the Criterion Referenced Instruction (Mager) include aspects that make the most sense to me as instructional design models.  First, both include experiential or authentic outcome expectations, which I believe improves student investment.  Second, both have ways to incorporate multiple means of instruction with student pace, choice and individualized needs in mind.  These fit my goals for instruction well, along with purpose being set forth at the beginning. Purpose driven design may also help keep mobile learning on task.
In considering Gagne’s Learning Outcomes to practice an Instructional Design Model for mobile learning, I appreciate the five categories of learning as part of the whole student and hopefully whole classroom experience.  However, I live in the land of intellectual skill and cognitive strategy and will always gravitate towards those skill areas.  What is most interesting, however is the interweaving of learning as stated in the reading, “Different internal and external conditions are necessary for each type of learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to be learned, there must be a chance to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn attitudes, the learner must be exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.” (Gagne)
To me, this is learning.  The details suit the complexity of the mind.
Putting it all into practice proved challenging, though.  While I have in mind the learning goals and outcomes, I am essentially trying to map out the thinking for how to think in my instructional design for Critical Thinking Skills.  I am up to my eyeballs in metacognition, and need to keep in mind simplicity in order to make learning accessible for my students.  

Mobile Learning Final Project Topic Idea

In considering the foundational understanding of the “Mobile Learning Process” as so clearly framed in the FRAME diagram put forth by Marguerite Koole on page 27 of our text, one aspect roused my thinking.  Although the FRAME model makes perfect sense with mobile learning at the center of learning, it goes against my instinct to have the learner at the center of any pedagogy or learning theory.  It led me to the question, how could mobile learning wrap around the learner instead?  

My work focuses on individualized learning for many reasons, and I see the future of education as needing it to remain so, between personalized learning “playlists” and “Mass Customized Learning” it seems that mobile learning is a tool for individualized learning.  In attempting to merge my Action Research work and my own big dreams for education that focus on direct instruction of Critical Thinking Skills via Individualized Learning, the module I have in mind needs to address the instructional problem of defining performance outcomes for critical thinking.  As my best filter and best option for change in the classroom, I’ll use to create this module using my Philosophical Literature class, which is made up of twice-exceptional learners quite comfortable with “Individualized Learning Plans” and chaos in the school day.  Therefore, my learning module topic is practical application of the six areas of Critical Thinking customized for individualization.

Through a previous course on “Learning Styles” I created a sample module on Google Classroom. What I need to figure out before employing it in the classroom is how to make it more student driven and designed.  In the classroom I practice question generation and link it to the Critical Thinking areas as a means to guide students’ researching of various ideas, but if I want them to arrive at specific knowledge or understanding, I formulate the prompts or questions.  My hope is that this project will help me take my dream idea to a classroom reality.

Exploring Mobile Learning

The "Nomadic Learner"

     Delving into the “Current State of Mobile Learning” offered disconcertion at the same time as comfort as I considered my own lack of understanding of what mobile technology means and read that there is not yet an official definition.  The idea that we are moving away from possession of knowledge and into a world of getting knowledge as needed is put rather nicely by John Traxler in the text, “Finding information rather than possessing it or knowing it becomes the defining characteristic of learning generally and of mobile learning especially, and this may take learning back into the community.”^[1]I take solace in not having to “know” things, as memory has always been my intellectual weakness, but imagining trying to keep up with the vastness of information and means of obtaining information is quite daunting.  As an educator, how might I harness the power of immediate and global learning while helping students manage tools and critically think about the information available everywhere, all the time?

     Mobile learning turns my ideas of what we know and discourse upside down where a reframing is necessary.  Learning and knowledge don’t exist as entities to acquire, but rather as active pursuits towards context, functionality, empathy and connections.  I am excited by the idea of learning as a fundamental human right and believe that mobile learning holds particular interest for equity in learning.  The societal hurdles for support of mobile learning aside, linking information and calling upon our own thinking about thinking fits with recent theories about how we learn and especially inquiry based learning.  “Authentic learning” is used often in the beginning discussions of mobile learning, and is thrown around in education circles these days without clarity of what it means.  To me, authentic learning exists when an individual takes ownership of their learning journey and is most likely to happen when learning is personalized in such a manner as to be comfortable, interesting and applicable for a student.  As Mohamed Ally writes in the first section of The Theory and Practice of Online Learning, “online learning should have high authenticity, high interactivity, and high collaboration.”^[2]  Philosophically, this fits with my personal ambitions as an educator, particularly in the correlation to critical thinking skills, but the challenge of how to achieve this learning structure remains.

     Mr. Ally’s discussion of the “Schools of Learning” in relation to psychological theories piqued my interest and provided meaningful context to mobile learning, as I’m currently looking at behaviorism, cognitivism and constructivism theories with my psychology students.  Taking the best of each and integrating into one theory, behaviorism provides the “what” of learning in sequential, conditioned feedback loops.  Cognitivism offers the “how” of learning and depends on thinking and reflection for synthesis of knowledge.  The interpretation provided from constructivism offers the context, or “why”, of learning so that we have means to apply knowledge.  What I liked about “Connectivism” learning, besides the mention of chaos (personal favorite methodology), is the integration of the other three schools of thought with the added defining factor of ownership.^[3]  Mr. Ally points to “learning how to learn” as the underlying foundation for mobile learning.  Given an ideal classroom, I dream of students who sift through the vast amount of information in order to formulate their own ideas, or “learner interface” as the book states.^[4]

     As I proceed into my journey of going global from the comfort of my own home or classroom, it seems the essential question of how we make the leap to mobile learning in current models of education is entwined or perhaps ensnarled with the cultural mindset shifts that must take place for success.  My instinct tells me to go to the source- students.  Students are already living mobily in many regards.  Students also possess the key to unlocking the difficulties, that is, they already know what is getting in the way of their own learning in most cases.  Step one, then is finding out what students see as the right way to pursue mobile learning. 

---

^[1] Ally, Mohamed. Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Athabasca University Press, 2009.

^[2] Anderson, Terry. The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press, 2008.

^[3] Anderson, Terry. The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press, 2008.

^[4] Anderson, Terry. The theory and practice of online learning. Athabasca University Press, 2008.