Ken Carroll

 We recently made a commitment internally to mobile learning at Praxis Language. I guess I’ll be talking a lot about it in the future. Here are some thoughts for today.

One type of context

In the past, schools provided the physical context for most learning - the setting (or shell) that surrounded the learner (classrooms, teachers, textbooks.) Mobile learning, by contrast, lacks a unifying physical context. It can occur uninterrupted across times, locations, and settings: from office, to car, to meeting, to airport, for example.

An effective mobile learning system must, therefore, seek to create portable ‘islands’ of context for the learner. One way to do that is by embedding context in discrete, reusable, learning objects. You can see here some examples of situated, stand-alone lessons with an audio (circa 12 mins) text, and reinforcement. The content is embedded in the target language and augmented through sound effects, and other elements to give it a sense of concreteness.

The modularity of the learning objects means they can be selected at will, according to individual preference from a very sizable online database - over 1,000 lesson in the case of ChinesePod. I think it is notable that the user can group individual learning objects into sets (of whatever lengths she chooses) on the basis of vocabulary, topics, or other things. In this sense, the learner can create the broader context (travel, business, culture, grammar, etc) for herself, based on her true reasons for study.

A second type of context 

There is a second type of context in mobile learning. This lies, not in the physical surroundings, but in the intangible ones: the relationships, and social ties that emerge through learner interaction. Unlike the learning objects, this type of context cannot be pre-planned. Instead, it follows from discussion within the community of practice. Again, the learner should be free to choose where and when to engage in discussion within the community.

Choice 

Choice is the lifeblood of a mobile learning system. The learning needs to happen wherever and whenever the learner has the time and inclination. Those islands of context, the learning objects, need to be designed for choice, but also for the environment in which they are consumed. A broad selection of short lessons is, therefore, almost certainly more manageable and appealing than, say, a pre-programmed, linear course of 65 hours. (Why would anyone do a course by mobile means, when there are more convenient ways?) Because of the desultory nature of physical movement, the mobile learner needs choice and flexibility.

The most successful learning happens when the learner is on control of her own learning projects. Mobile learning success isn’t just a matter of just choosing the lessons. It invovles the learner creating the broader context of her own learning and moulding the system around her own needs. This is the idea behind the PLS and this is what infroms our notions of mobile learning going forward.

 Ken Carroll
 

I’m thinking about mobile learning - how it will work, and why it is significant. Gary Woodill’s recent paper provides a simple, and helpful description:

True mobile learning is personalized learning that unites the learner’s context with cloud computing, using a mobile device.

Clearly, electronic devices that allow access (at least intermittently) to the information-cloud are essential to mobile learning. Fine. Right now, by using an RSS feed and an iPod you are pretty much in the mobile learning club. ‘Mobile’, to me, is not an end in itsellf. It should merely seek to integrate, or blend, the broader learning experience.

Clearly, however, all of this is going to get more sophisticated. I also agree that personalization is of real significance in mobile learning. Personalization is an unstoppable trend - the iPhone 3G is basically a personal, ubiquitous, hand-held computer. (Personalization to me, is analagous to learning on your terms.) That’s fine too. However, these are characeristics of the technology, rather than the learning and we know from previous experience that just building out the tech is not enough. There needs to be something else in the equation.

The most obvious characteristic of mobile learning is the freedom - no walls, no schedules, no time or location confines. But in order to take advantage of all the freedom the mobile learner must be empowered to meet certain learning criteria: to access, to manage, to participate in the right information, and the right conversations, at the right time. (Of course, only the individual can know what the ‘right’ means here.) Again, this is something that goes beyond the technology. In my view, it might come down to communities of pactice as a source of those things.

There is a pull here, between the personal and the social: It doesn’t matter how smart or personal your phone is, learning remains social, a ‘conversation’, in Mike Sharples words, rather than a solitary activity. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking of the device is the source of the learning. It isn’t. But it can become one (integrated) conduit of that learning as conversation.

I see other things emerging from my direct experience with producing mobile lessons. Here are a few quick observations that will be relevant, I think, going forward:

One: Learning content has to be engaging. Regardless of how sexy the iPhione is, it’s not the plumbing that counts, it’s what you do with it.

Two: The medium is the message. You can’t just pile extraneous content onto the mobile medium and expect it to work. The best learning content will be designed for the medium.

Three: Learning objects, ideally need to be manageable, searchable, sharable, and ‘device agnostic’ - again, designed for the medium.

Four: The user’s history of collaboration, and other learning interaction must be accessible over the devices

Five: Not every type of learning will work on the mobile medium.

As I say, I think Praxis Language are already operating in the realms of mobile learning through ChinesePod and the rest. Now it’s time to explore it in more depth. (I think we will be hearing more from Hank Horkoff in this regard.)
Ken Carroll