DOI: 10.4018/IJMBL.2018040108

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

Copyright©2018,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

88

Designing an Educator Toolkit for the Mobile Learning AgeKevin Burden, The Faculty of Arts, Cultures and Education, The University of Hull, Hull, UK

Matthew Kearney, STEM Education Futures Research Centre, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT

Mobiletechnologieshavebeendescribedas‘boundary’objectswhichenableteachersandlearnerstotranscendmanyofthebarrierssuchasrigidschedulesandspaceswhichhavehithertocharacterisedtraditionalformsofeducation.However,educatorsneedtobetterunderstandhowtodesignlearningscenarioswhichgenuinelyexploittheuniquepedagogicalaffordancesofmobiletechnologiesratherthan replicating existing patterns and modes of behaviour. This article describes the design anddevelopmentofamobilelearningtoolkitforeducatorstorealisethisvision.Itpresentsthetheoreticalunderpinnings for the toolkit and describes the development of different tools, instruments andresources.Themainaimofthetoolkitistohelpteachereducatorsandteachersbuildknowledgeandunderstandingofmorediversemobilepedagogicalapproaches.

KEywoRDSEducation Technology, m-Learning, Pedagogy, Teacher Education, Toolkit

INTRoDUCTIoN

Mobilelearning(m-learning)isconsideredinthispaperaslearningmediatedbyhandhelddevicessuchas smartphones and tablet computers (Schuler,Winters&West, 2012).Thewide rangeofcapabilitiesof these technologieshascreatedconsiderable interestamongsteducators (Beckeretal., 2016) who seek to explore their application for learning. However, recent research suggeststeacherstendtodefaulttotraditionalteachingpracticeswhenusingmobiledevicesforpedagogicalpurposes,focusingonteacher-directedapproachesandcontentdelivery(Cochrane&Antonczak,2014;Kearney,Burden&Rai,2015). If transformativepedagogiesare tobeadopted,educatorsneedtobetterunderstandhowtodesignm-learningexperienceswhichgenuinelyexploittheuniqueaffordancesofmobiletechnologies.

Inteachereducation,staffareengagingwithmobilepedagogies,respondingtotherapidadoptionofm-learninginschools(Herrington,Ostashewski,Reid&Flintoff,2014;Newhouse,Cooper&Pagram,2015).Thechallengeforteachereducatorsistomodelexemplarypracticesandfacilitatepre-serviceteachers’(PSTs’)abilitytoenhancetheirownmobilepedagogies.ThereisaneedforteachereducatorstosupportPSTs’learningthroughawiderrangeofm-learningactivities,suchasmorein-situlearningcontexts,greaterconsiderationofstudentagencyandmoreuseofnetworkedandvirtualconversationstosharepracticesbeyondtheimmediatevicinityandaccessofexternalexpertise(Burden&Kearney,2017).ThereisalsoaneedforgreaterexemplificationofhowteachereducatorsusemobiledevicestomodelandpractiseapproachesrelevanttoK-12teachingandlearning(seeforexample,Naylor&Gibbs,2015).Thereisashortageofpedagogicalandtheoreticalmodelsthatcanguideteachereducatorsindesigningm-learningexperiences,andaneedtodevelopashared

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

89

languagefordescribingemergingpedagogies(Herringtonetal.,2014).Indeed,practicalstrategiesarerequiredthatwillsupportteachereducatorsinfullyexploitingmobilelearning(Baran,2014).

This paper discusses the design and development of a mobile learning toolkit (http://www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com/)thataimstotranslatetheseideasintopractice.

BACKGRoUND

Pedagogic ToolkitsPedagogictoolkitshavebeenpromotedasidealresourcesforeducatorstobecomemoreengagedwithnew,challengingareasofteaching(Oliver&Conole,2000)particularlyintheareaofdigitalpedagogies.They typically focuson teachers’professional learningaboutdesigningpedagogy—in the case of our toolkit, designing and implementing effective mobile pedagogies—providingresourcesandstrategies(‘tools’) tosupport teachers inaddressingpedagogicalproblemsin theirownteachingcontexts.Inthisway,toolkitscanbeviewedasbringing“bestpracticewithinthereachofallpractitionersinausableformat”(p.36),andaconduitforprofessionalengagementinnewpedagogicaldomains.

Toolkitsassumea‘just-in-time’approachandgenerallypromoteflexibleengagementbytheuser,incontrasttomoretraditional,linear-structuredmanualsorcookbooks,andalsodistinctfrommoreprescriptive,scaffoldeddigitaltemplatesandwizardsthatincorporatea‘just-in-case’approach(Conole&Oliver,2002).However,toolkitsaremoreopen-endedandadaptablethanthistypeoftemplateapproach(Conole&Fill,2005),providingsupporttoteachersbeyondsurface-levelguidance.

Thecoreelementofeducatortoolkitsisthetheoreticalunderpinning.Hence,useofapedagogictoolkit aims to support educators making theoretically-informed decisions about appropriatepedagogies.Any‘claims’inapedagogictoolkitforteachers,suchasclaimsof‘bestpractice’or‘goodlearning’,canthereforebeinterpretedthroughthelensofthetoolkit’sunderpinningtheory.Apartfromthisfoundationaltheoreticaloverview,othertoolkitelementsincludestrategiesandmediatingtoolsfortheusertoengagewiththeespousedtheory.

Examples of Toolkits Supporting Digital PedagogiesTherehasbeenagrowingnumberofpedagogic toolkitsdesignedanddeveloped for supportingteachers’effectiveuseofnewandemerginglearningtechnologies.BoweandWinter(2014)discussthedevelopmentoftheir‘technologytoolkit’forPSTsforsupportingdevelopmentofdigitalpedagogies.Their toolkithadamajorfocusonaselectedsetofteachingstrategiesincorporatingeducationaltechnologies.BothaandHerselman(2015)describedthedesignandapplicationofa‘teachertablettoolkit’ for theprofessionaldevelopmentof rural teachers, enabling them tousemobiledevicestosupport teachingand learning in theirclassrooms.The resulting toolkit focusedonpragmaticpedagogicalandtechnologyknowledge,skillsandpractice-basedexperience.Simulationandgamedesignwerekeythemes.WhileLimandPannen(2012)designeda‘capacitybuildingtoolkit’tobeusedbyteachereducationinstitutionstobuildtheircapacityfordevelopingPSTs’digitalcompetencies.ItprovidedasetoftoolsforinstitutionsintheAsiaPacificregiontoconductneedsandsituationanalysesofthecurrentstateofICTuseintheirteachingandadministration;andaimedtosupportthedevelopmentofinstitutions’strategicplanstobuildthiscapacityintheirprograms.

Othertoolkitsforteachersintheareaofeducationaltechnologyintegrationincludetoolkitsformediaandresourceselection,evaluationandinformationmanagement(Conole&Oliver,2002),andlearningdesign(Conole&Fill,2005).LearninganalyticswasthefocusofatoolkitdesignedandtestedbyDyckhoffetal.(2012).Theyintroduced‘eLAT’,anexploratoryLearning Analytics Toolkitsupportingteachers’useofdatatomonitorandanalyzetheirteachingactivities.

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

90

PRoCEDURES

ThetoolkitthatisthefocusofthispaperwasdesignedaspartofanEUfundedproject(seehttp://mttep.eu),ledbytheUniversityofHull,UK.Themultinationalprojectteamconsistedofthreeschoolpartners(inGermany,theNetherlandsandNorway)andfiveuniversitypartners(inAustralia,Germany,NorwayandUK).AllbutoneoftheuniversitypartnerswereinstitutionsofteachereducationandwereselectedonthebasisoftheirexpertiseanduseofmobilelearningwithPSTs.Eachofthethreeschoolpartnershadexploredtheuseofmobileandtabletcomputersandwereidentifiedasbeingatthepointofreadinesstoinvestigatemoreexpansiveandfarreachingmobilelearningapproaches.Insummary,theteamwasatransnational,heterogeneouspartnershipofeducatorsandthedevelopmentofthetoolkitneededtoencompassabroadanddiverserangeofparticularinterestsandmotivations.

Toolkit ConstructionToolkitdevelopmentfollowedthemainthemesespousedbyConoleandOliver(2002)fordevelopingpedagogictoolkits.

1. Assessment of Need by Practitioners:Eachcomponentofthem-learningtoolkitwasdrivenbyaneedsanalysisfrombothteachereducatorsandteachers.Forexample,aneedsanalysiswasconductedamongst30delegates(teachersandteachereducators)atoneofour2015internationalconferenceworkshops1astowhattypeofapprubric(oneofthenumeroustoolkitcomponents)wouldbeusefulforeducators,beyondwhatwascurrentlyavailable.Similarly,68educatorsfromseveralcountriesweresurveyedregardingtheirperceivedneedsfortheonlinecoursecomponentofthetoolkit.Thecourse’sfinalcoreandelectivetopicswereselectedfromthisanalysis.

2. An Explicit Theoretical Underpinning:Weadoptedamobilepedagogicalframeworkemergingfromourownearlierwork(Kearney,Schuck,Burden&Aubusson,2012)toinformthedesignofthem-learningtoolkitelements.

3. Toolkit Specification:Them-learningtoolkitwasdesignedtobeeasy-to-useandtosupportpractitioners’flexibleuse.Elementsofthetoolkit,suchasthesurveytoolandonlinecourse,caneasilybeadaptedbyaninstitutiontofittheuser’scontexte.g.teachereducation,schoolteachermentoring.

4. Toolkit Refinements and Inclusion of User Defined Features Informed by User Trials:Eachelementofthem-learningtoolkitwasdevelopedandrefinedthroughanongoing,iterativeprocessoverthelifeoftheproject,asdescribedinthenextsub-section:‘Developingthetoolkitelements’.

5. Build Shared Resources:Them-learningtoolkit isorganicinthesensethatuser-generateddatawillbeusedtopopulateandexpandtoolkitelements,forexample,theappreviewdatabaseandthevideocasescenarios.Inthisway,usersofthem-learningtoolkitwillgenerateandsharematerialsforrepurposing.

DEVELoPING THE TooLKIT ELEMENTS

The toolkit elements were developed and refined through an iterative design-test-analyse-refinecycle (Kemmis&McTaggart, 1988), to address thekeyquestion:Whatdoes amobile learningtoolkit for educators look like that aims to support their engagementwith contemporarymobilepedagogies?Formativefeedbackfedintothiscycleandleveragedopportunitiestotestandrefineprogressiveiterationsofthetoolkitelements.Datawascollectedatinternationalscholarlyworkshops,presentationsandmeetingsfrom2015to2017,includingmultiplierevents2hostedbytheprojectin2015(50participants)and2016(77participants);workshopsatseveralinternationaleducationaltechnologyconferences3(approx.30delegatesateachsession);aresearchsymposium(approx.30delegates inattendance)andposterataninternationalmobile learningconference4; tworesearch

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

91

seminars(approximately20scholarsateach)attheauthors’institutionsin2016;andsix(internal)projectmeetings.Theprojectmultipliereventsandprojectmeetingshaddedicatedsessions(e.g.usingfocusgroups)devotedtofeedbackonspecifictoolkitelements.

Avarietyofdatawascollectedduringtheseevents,emphasisingtoolkitusers’perspectivesinthedesignprocess,andfollowinggeneraldesignguidelinesbasedonconstructivisttheory(Willis,2000).Datasourcesincludedverbalandwrittenfeedbackfrompractisingexpertteachersfromwithinandoutsidetheprojectteam(e.g.atthe‘multiplierevents’andworkshops);verbalandwrittenfeedbackfrom academics in Teacher Education (from within and outside the project team) and SoftwareEngineering(e.g.fortheapprubricdevelopment);verbalfeedbackfromconferencedelegatesandwritten feedbackonacademicpapers5; trialswithPSTsandschool students (e.g. for the studentsurveydevelopment); and analysis of user documents (e.g. trialists’ completed task surveys andrubrics).Variousonlinefacilitieswereusedtogatherfeedback,includingemail,backchannels(e.g.usingtheonlineZeetingsplatform)duringconferenceandworkshoppresentations;onlinesurveys(usinguniversity-basedtoolsandGoogle Forms),onlinewriting‘walls’(e.g.Padlet),widgets(forfeedbackontheinteractiveeBooks)anddiscussionfora(e.g.peerfeedbackfromcolleaguesinourproject’sSlackplatform).Strategieswereusedtopromotecollaborativecriticalreflection(Ghaye&Ghaye,1998)throughoutthedevelopmentcycles,takingintoaccountarangeofperspectivesfrompedagogicalandm-learningexpertswithinandoutsideoftheprojectteam.Thesediscussionscritiquedelementsofthetoolkitfromamobilepedagogicalperspectiveandinterrogatedhowwellitalignedwiththesocio-culturaltheory(Wertsch,1991)underpinningthisperspective(Kearneyetal.,2012).

THE TooLKIT ELEMENTS

Informedby theproceduresdescribedabove,a toolkitprototypewasdesigned incorporatingsixelements.Atthecoreofthem-learningtoolkitisarobustmobilepedagogicalframework(Kearneyetal.,2012)thatunderpinsthedesignoftheothercomponents:Am-learningtasksurvey(teacherandstudentversions),anappevaluationrubric,video-basedexemplarcases,interactivee-booksandanonlinecourse.Theseresourcesaretaggedandmatchedtothemobilepedagogicalframework,enablinguserstointerrogatethetoolkitbythesignaturepedagogiesofmobilelearning.

The Mobile Pedagogical Framework (iPAC)Thetheoreticalunderpinningforthetoolkitisavalidatedmobilepedagogicalframeworkdevelopedbytheauthorsandothercolleagues(Kearneyetal.,2012).Informedbysocioculturaltheory(Wertsch,1991),ithighlightsthreedistinctivepedagogicalfeaturesofm-learning:personalisation,authenticityandcollaboration(or‘PAC’).Howlearnersexperiencethesedistinctivecharacteristicsisinfluencedbytheiruseof‘time-space’(orcontext),asdepictedinFigure1.

Thepersonalisationconstructconsistsofthesub-constructs‘agency’and‘customisation’.Highlevelsofpersonalisationwouldmean the learner isable toenjoyanenhanceddegreeofagency(Pachler,Bachmair&Cook,2009)andtheflexibilitytotailorbothtoolsandactivities,interactingwithastrongsenseofownershipofboththedevice(e.g.Gasparini,2011)andthelearningprocess.The authenticity construct privileges opportunities for in-situ, participatory learning (Radinsky,Bouillion,Lento&Gomez,2001).Thesub-constructsof‘task’,‘tool’and‘setting’focusonlearners’involvementinrich,contextualisedtasks,makinguseoftoolsinarealisticway,anddrivenbyrelevantreal-lifepracticesandprocesses.Thecollaborationconstructcapturestheconversational,networkedfeaturesofm-learning.Itconsistsof‘conversation’and‘datasharing’sub-constructs,aslearnersengageinnegotiatedmeaning-making,forgingconnectionsandinteractionswithpeers,expertsandtheenvironment(Wang&Shen,2012).Themobilepedagogicalframeworkprovidesausefullenstoexplorehowmobiletechnologiescanleveragepotentiallytransformationalpedagogiesinarangeofformalandinformallearningsettings.

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

92

The Mobile Learning Task Survey Tools (Teacher and Student Versions)Thesurveycomponentsofthetoolkitcontainaselectionofonlinesurveytoolsthateducatorscanuseinvariouswaystomeasureandevaluatetheirm-learningpractices.Itreliesonself-reporteddatathatparticipantsprovidethatfocusonam-learningscenariotheyhaverecentlyimplemented.Theteacherversionisusedbyeducatorstoevaluatetheirowntask,particularlytheiruseofthedistinctivemobilepedagogies.Thestudentsurveyprovidesaperspectivebasedonstudentvoice(Campbell&Groundwater-Smith,2007),therebytriangulatingthedatafromtheteachersurvey.Thedatageneratedfromboththeteacherandstudentversionsofthesurveyispresentedtoteacherparticipantsintheformofapolarchart,asshownbythesamplereportinFigure2.

Theteacherreportallowsteacherstocomparetheirownresponses(Figure2a)withtheirstudents’responses(Figure2b),providinganm-learningprofilewithguidanceandsuggestionsforfurtherprofessionaldevelopment.

Thedevelopmentofthesurveyinstrumentwasinformedmainlybytrialsattheaforementionedinternationalworkshops,bothmultipliereventsand(internal)projectmeetings.Feedbackwasreceivedinrelationtouser-friendlinessandbasicaestheticsoftheinstrumentandtheteacher’sreport.Polarchartswerepreferredinthereportovertraditionalbarchartswhichusersfoundmoredifficulttointerpret.Additionaladviceon‘developmentopportunities’wasrequestedinthereport,especiallyforteacherswith‘weaker’taskratings,orratingsthatweresignificantlydifferenttotheirstudents’scores.Samplefeedbackincluded:

Figure 1. A representation of our mobile pedagogical framework, (iPAC) comprising three distinctive features of mobile learning experiences (adapted from Kearney et al., 2012, p.8)

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

93

I would like to see some guidance on further development addressing weaker scores. So if I am low in personalisation then perhaps some links or tips would help” [participant from Norway multiplier event]. Some reference to development opportunities for results that were low or in conflict with student responses.” [participant from Norway multiplier event].

Other ideaswerereceivedandactedupon,suchas thesuggestions(nowwritteninto toolkitguidelines)forsurveystobeusedbyPSTsaftercampus-based‘mirco-teaching’scenarios,orafteraschool-basedpracticumtasktheyhaveimplemented.Languageissuesdominatedthefeedbackonthestudentsurvey,with21outof32responses(Norwaymultiplierevent)deemingtheoveralllanguageintheitemsasnotuser-friendlyforhighschoolstudents.

Video Scenario MatrixThistoolkitcomponentprovidesaselectionofexemplarpracticevideoscenariosdepictingm-learningactivitiesinavarietyofdisciplinesandacrossarangeofteachereducationandschool-basedcontexts.Foreachscenario,recommendationsareincludedforparticulartoolsandappstosupporttheactivity.

ThesevideocasesillustrateandcontextualisevariousdimensionsoftheiPACframework,andaimtostimulateinterestandpedagogicaldiscussionamongstPSTs.Additionalvideocasestudiesfromoutsidetheprojectpartnershavealreadybeenaddedtothematrixanditisanticipatedtheeducationcommunitywill supplement theproject’s existing resourceswithm-learningvideoexemplarsoftheirown.

Thedevelopment of thevideo caseswas informedby trials at theproject’s 2016multiplierevent—includingadedicatedsessionwherebothwrittenandverbalfeedbackwaselicitedfromall77participants,(internal)projectmeetingsandbypeerfeedbackfromcolleaguesviatheproject’sonlinecommunicationplatform.Feedbackmainlyrelatedto‘user-friendliness’issues,suchasthelengthofthevideo,orgraphicdesignissues,suchaslegibilityoftextappearingonthevideos.Peerfeedbackfromprojectcolleaguesfocusedmoreonthecontent,forexample,somevideoswererevisedtofocusjustononeiPACdimensionratherthantryingtoincludeallthreeconstructs.

Figure 2. Screenshot of the report generated for teachers after they and their students have completed the survey

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

94

App Evaluation RubricAlthougheducatorsarelookingforadviceandguidanceonhowtoselectandusedisciplinespecificapps(e.g.Green,Hechter,Tysinger&Chassereau,2014)ouranalysisofteachers’backgroundneedsandpreviousresearch(Kearneyetal.,2015)suggestededucatorstendtousemoregeneric,‘contentfree’ apps. Such apps are typically used by learners for more creative, ‘constructive’ purposes(Goodwin&Highfield,2013),forexampletogeneratetheirowndigitalcontent.Itwasconcludedthatanappevaluationinstrumentthatcatersforbothdiscipline-specificandmoregenericapps,wasmoresustainableandscalable in the longer term.Therefore,our toolkitcontainsanoriginalappevaluationrubrictohelpteachersassess,selectanduseanytypeofeducationalapp,withemphasisonthesocioculturalaspectsoftheiPACpedagogicalframework.

Severaliterationsoftherubricweredevelopedduringtheproject.Themainsourcesoffeedbackwere:1) fiveexpert teachers fromoutside theproject (online survey) inNovember2016;2) sixacademicsinteachereducation(inandoutsideoftheprojectteam)andtwoSoftwareEngineeringacademicsinDecember2016(viaemail);3)projectmembersattwoprojectmeetingsinMarch2016andMarch2017(individualusers,focusgroupsandusingPadlettocollateresponses);4)two‘usertrials’byPSTsatcriticalpointsoftherubricdevelopment.ThefirsttrialwasconductedinAugust,2016by45postgraduatePSTs; thesecondtrialofamorerefinedversionof the instrumentwasconductedinearly2017by17postgraduatePSTs.

Thefeedbackinformedarangeofactionsaddressing‘user-friendliness’issues,suchasprovisionofalinktoaYoutubevideotoexplainGoodwinandHighfield’s(2013)appcategories(relevanttooneoftheBackgroundquestions).Also,thetwosystemssoftwareacademicsgavefeedbackonthe‘popupnotes’accompanyingtherubric,suggestingrelevantexamplesof‘appfeatures’tofacilitatemoreinformedandconfidentresponsesbyrubricusers(seeFigure3).

Likethesurveytool,therewerenumerouslanguageissuesraisedinthefeedbackonbetaversionsofthisrubric.Minorrevisionsweremadetorelevantitemsandtheassociated‘pop-upnotes’.

online CourseThetoolkitincludesaccesstoanonlinecoursethatbringstogetherallofthevarioustoolkitresourcesandexemplarsinatwelveweekcourse,enablingteachereducatorsandteacherstolearnaspartofaninternationalnetwork.Theneedsanalysisinfluencedtheplatformandstructureofthecourse(e.g.thechoiceofGoogleSitesasthemainplatform)andselectionofthecoreandelectivemodules.The

Figure 3. Screenshot of the ‘Collaboration’ items in the online rubric. Feedback informed the ‘pop up notes’ that provide relevant sample app features to help users decide their ratings

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

95

onlinecourseisalsodesignedasa‘shell’typecoursethatinstitutionscanadoptandadapttotheirparticularcontextualneedsandsettings.

Sourcesoffeedbackincluded(internal)projectmeetingsandpeerfeedbackfromcolleaguesviatheproject’sonlinecommunicationplatform.Apartfromtechnicalissuesrelatingtothetwodeliveryplatforms,feedbackrelatingto‘coherency’issueshelpedwithstandardisationacrossthecourse—suchasconsistentuseofpeerandself-assessmentproceduresineachmodule,andprovisionoflinkstotheiPACframeworkinallmodules.

Interactive eBooksThetoolkitincludesaseriesofthreeexemplareBooks(seeFigure4)availableviaApple’siBooksStore.Theseillustratetheuseofmobiletechnologiesinteachereducation,emphasisinghoweBooksmightbeused,andwithwhatimpact.

ThedevelopmentofthethreeinteractiveeBookswasinformedbyfocusgroupsatbothmultiplierevents,includingadedicatedsessionwherebothwrittenfeedback(viaeBookwidgets)andverbalfeedbackwaselicitedfromalldelegates,andpeerfeedbackvia(internal)projectmeetingsandviatheproject’sonlinecommunicationplatform.Examplesofmodificationsincludedtheadditionofadvancedorganizers,shorteningof text,anduploadingofallvideos toYouTube todecrease theeBooks’downloadtime.

Toolkit StructureInsummary,Figure5showsanoverviewofthesixcomponentsofthem-learningtoolkitandtheirrelationshipwitheachother.

Thetoolkithasanon-linearstructureinaccordancewithpreviousguidelinesontoolkitdesignandconstruction(Conole&Oliver,2002). In thisway, the toolkitcaters foruserswithdifferentagendasandgoals,andofvaryinglevelsofexpertise.Thetoolkitisorganicinthesensethatuserswillpopulateandmakeongoingcontributionstoelementssuchastheappreviewdatabaseandthevideocasescenarios.

DISCUSSIoN

Thetoolkitforeducatorsintroducedinthispaperreflectsmanyofthefeatureshighlightedinthetoolkitdesignliterature,reviewedpreviously.However,itistheinherentflexibilityandadaptability

Figure 4. Series of three interactive eBooks

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

96

ofthefinaltoolkitthatweexamineinthisfinaldiscussionsectionsincetheseaffordancesaremoreproblematicandworthyoffurtherexploration.

Theflexibilityandresponsivenessoftoolkitdesignisabenefitfordesignerswhoseektogeneratetoolsandexemplarsthatareconstructivistandcollaborativeinnaturesincetheyencourageuserstoadaptandmodifyrather thanreplicateoruse‘off thepeg’exemplars.This isconsistentwithsocioculturaltheorysinceitrecogniseshowatoolmaybemodifiedaccordingtothewaysitisused,andinturn,itsdesignwillinfluencehowpeoplemayuseit(Salomon&Perkins,1998).

Proponentsoftoolkitsidentifytheirinherentflexibility,adaptabilityandresponsivenesstodiversecontextsas the features that set themapart fromtemplatesandwizards,whicharecharacterisedasmoredeterminist(Conole&Oliver,2002).Ourexperienceofdevelopingthemobile learningtoolkitsupportsthisinterpretation.Sincethetoolkitwasdesignedwithasocioculturaltheoreticalunderpinning,itencourages,butdoesnotdictate,thecreationofsympatheticexemplarsandtoolsthatemphasisesharedunderstandingsandconstructionofmeaning.Forexample,thevideocasestudieswhichareusedtoillustratetheiPACframeworkinpractice,donotofferarecipeof‘bestpractice’forusingmobiletechnologiesinteachereducation,butrathertheyencouragetheviewertodeconstructtheseexemplarsusingtheiPACframework,inordertoidentifyunderlyingprinciplesandmeaningsthatmightbeadaptedforuseintheirowncontext.

Theflexiblenatureof thetoolkitenabledpartnersfromadiverserangeofgeographicalandculturalbackgroundstoworkcollaborativelyinordertocontributetheirownvignettesunderthebroadsocio-culturalcanvasoftheiPACframework.Moredirectiveapproachesmayhaveinhibitedorpreventedthiskindofcollaborationamongstpartnersanditisanticipatedthetoolkitwillencourageasimilarlevelofdiversitywhenitisadoptedbyend-users.

Itisdifficultorimpossibletopredictwhichtoolsandinstrumentsend-userswillutiliseorinwhatsequence.However,wehaveanticipatedthisvaried,unpredictableusageofthetoolkitcanbestbedesignedforbythepromotionofbroadtheoreticalprinciplesratherthanprescriptiveuser-guides.Henceourmobilepedagogical(iPAC)frameworkisinstantiatedacrosseachoftheindividualelementsofthetoolkit.Indeed,theproceduresdescribedinthispaperhavefocusedontheindividualtoolkit

Figure 5. Toolkit structure showing the relationship between the six toolkit elements

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

97

elementsthatweretestedandrefinedextensivelyduringthedevelopmentphases.Theholisticuseofthetoolkitremainstobetestedandthisfutureevaluationmayshedmorelightonhowendusersadoptit.

Finally,thetoolkitisdeliberatelydesignedtobeadaptableforuseindiversesettingsandcontexts.Itisanticipatedthatinstitutionsofteachereducation,teachingschools,andanyinstitutioninvolvedinthefieldofcontinuingstaffprofessionaldevelopmentwillbeinterestedinusingthetoolkitbutnotnecessarilyinitsprojectinstantiation,orinitsentirety.Thispartlyexplainsthemodulardesignofthetoolkitwhichcanbede-coupledandadaptedatamoregranularlevelthanatemplateorwizardwouldallow.

CoNCLUSIoN

There is a burgeoning interest in m-learning approaches in teacher education and consequentlyacademicsare involved insharingandexchanging informationonresearchandpotentialusesofmobiletechnologiesthroughworkinggroupsandprofessionallearningcommunities(e.g.Schuck,Aubusson,Kearney&Burden,2013).Thispaperdescribesthedesignanddevelopmentofamobilelearningtoolkitforteachereducatorsandteachersthatendeavourstogalvanisetheseeffortstostimulatewidespread,pedagogicallysoundm-learningpracticesinteachereducationandultimatelyinschools.

ACKNowLEDGMENT

ThetoolkitwasdevelopedusingfundingfromtheEuropeanUnionundertheErasmus+fundingstream(2014-1-UK01-KA200-001796)

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

98

REFERENCES

AdamsBecker,S.,Freeman,A.,GiesingerHall,C.,Cummins,M.,&Yuhnke,B.(2016).NMC/CoSN Horizon report: 2016 K-(12thed.).Austin,Texas:TheNewMediaConsortium.

Baran,E.(2014).Areviewofresearchonmobilelearninginteachereducation.Journal of Educational Technology & Society,17(4),17–32.

Botha,A.,&Herselman,M.(2015).ATeacher tablet toolkit tomeet thechallengesposedby21stcenturyruralteachingandlearningenvironments.South African Journal of Education,35(4),1–19.doi:10.15700/saje.v35n4a1218

Bowe,R.,&Winter,J.S.(2014).Creatinga technologytoolkit:Effectsofa technologyorientationduringstudentteaching.InM.Searson,&M.Ochoa(Eds.),Proceedings of SITE International Conference 2014(pp.2441-2446).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Burden,K.,&Hopkins,P.(2016).Barriersandchallengesfacingpre-serviceteachers’useofmobiletechnologiesfor teachingand learning.International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning,8(2),1–20.doi:10.4018/IJMBL.2016040101

Burden,K.,&Kearney,M.(2017).Investigatingandcritiquingteachereducators’mobilelearningpractices.Interactive Technology and Smart Education,14(2),110–125.doi:10.1108/ITSE-05-2017-0027

Campbell,A.,&Groundwater-Smith,S.(Eds.).(2007).An ethical approach to practitioner research: Dealing with issues and dilemmas in action research.London:Routledge.

Cochrane,T.,&Antonczak,L.(2014).Implementingamobilesocialmediaframeworkfordesigningcreativepedagogies.Social Sciences,3(3),359–377.doi:10.3390/socsci3030359

Conole,G.,&Fill,K.(2005).Alearningdesigntoolkittocreatepedagogicallyeffectivelearningactivities.Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2005(1).

Conole,G.C.,&Oliver,M.(2002).Embeddingtheoryintolearningtechnologypracticewithtoolkits.Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 2002(2).

Dyckhoff,A.L.,Zielke,D.,Bültmann,M.,Chatti,M.A.,&Schroeder,U.(2012).Designandimplementationofalearninganalyticstoolkitforteachers.Journal of Educational Technology & Society,15(3),58–76.

Gasparini,A.(2011).Touch,learn,play-whatchildrendowithaniPadintheclassroom.UniversityofOslo,Masteroppgave.RetrievedMarch1,2017fromhttps://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/9015

Ghaye,A.,&Ghaye,K.(1998).Teaching and learning through critically reflective practice.London:DavidFulton.

Goodwin,K.,&Highfield,K.(2013).Aframeworkforexaminingtechnologiesandearlymathematicslearning.InL.D.English&J.T.Mulligan(Eds.),Reconceptualizing early mathematics learning(pp.205–226).NewYork,NY:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6440-8_11

Green,L.S.,Hechter,R.P.,Tysinger,P.D.,&Chassereau,K.D.(2014).Mobileappselectionfor5ththrough12thgradescience:ThedevelopmentoftheMASSrubric.Computers & Education,75,65–71.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.007

Herrington,J.,Ostashewski,N.,Reid,D.,&Flintoff,K.(2014).Mobiletechnologiesinteachereducation.InSuccessful Teacher Education(pp.137–151).Rotterdam,Netherlands:SensePublishers.

Kearney,M.,Burden,K.,&Rai,T.(2015).Investigatingteachers’adoptionofsignaturemobilepedagogies.Computers & Education,80,48–57.doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.009

Kearney,M.,Schuck,S.,Burden,K.,&Aubusson,P.(2012).Viewingmobilelearningfromapedagogicalperspective.Research in Learning Technology, 20.doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406

Kemmis,S.,&McTaggart,R.(1988).The action research planner.Victoria:DeakinUniversityPress.

International Journal of Mobile and Blended LearningVolume 10 • Issue 2 • April-June 2018

99

Lim,C.P.,&Pannen,P.(2012).BuildingthecapacityofIndonesianeducationuniversitiesforICTinpre-serviceteachereducation:Acasestudyofastrategicplanningexercise.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(6),1061–1067.doi:10.14742/ajet.811

Naylor,A.,&Gibbs,J.(2015).UsingiPadsasalearningtoolincross-curricularcollaborativeinitialteachereducation.Journal of Education for Teaching,41(4),442–446.doi:10.1080/02607476.2015.1081718

Oliver,M.,&Conole,G.(2000).Assessingandenhancingqualityusingtoolkits.Quality Assurance in Education,8(1),32–37.doi:10.1108/09684880010312677

Pachler,N.,Bachmair,B.,&Cook,J. J. (2009).Mobile learning:Structures,agency,practices.NewYork:Springer.

Radinsky,J.,Bouillion,L.,Lento,E.M.,&Gomez,L.M.(2001).Mutualbenefitpartnership:Acurriculardesignforauthenticity.Journal of Curriculum Studies,33(4),405–430.doi:10.1080/00220270118862

Salomon,G.,&Perkins,D.(1998).Individualandsocialaspectsoflearning.Review of Research in Education,23,1–24.

Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2013). Mobilising teacher education: A study of aprofessionallearningcommunity.Teacher Development,17(1),1–18.doi:10.1080/13664530.2012.752671

Schuler,C.,Winters,N.,&West,M.(2012).The future of mobile learning: Implications for policy makers and planners.Paris:UNESCO.

Wang,M.,&Shen,R.(2012).Messagedesignformobilelearning:Learningtheories,humancognitionanddesignprinciples.British Journal of Educational Technology,43(4),561–575.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01214.x

Wertsch,J.V. (1991).Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.

Willis, J. (2000).Thematuringofconstructivist instructionaldesign:Somebasicprinciples thatcanguidepractice.Educational Technology,40(1),5–16.

ENDNoTES

1 TheInternationalMobileLearningFestival(IMLF),HongKong,20152 InGermany,2015&Norway,2016(seehttp://mttep.weebly.com/events.html)3 e.g.TheEuropeanConferenceonTech.EnhancedLearning(ECTEL),Toledo,2015;M-Learning in

TeacherEducation(MITE)conferences2015,2016,2017;TheInternationalMobileLearningFestival,HK,2015,2016.

4 mLearn2016:WorldConferenceonMobile&ContextualLearning,Sydney,Australia5 e.g.BurdenandKearney(2017)