Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/compedu

Wandering: A Web-based platform for the creation of location-based interactivelearning objects

Miri Barak a,*, Shani Ziv b,1

a The Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, IsraelbWandering ltd., Tel-Aviv, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 22 August 2012Received in revised form20 October 2012Accepted 24 October 2012

Keywords:Learning objectsLocation-based servicesMobile technologiesPedagogy

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ972 4 8293883; fax:E-mail addresses: bmiriam@technion.ac.il, bmiriam

1 Tel.: þ972 5 26130250.

0360-1315/$ – see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.015

a b s t r a c t

Wandering is an innovative web-based platform that was designed to facilitate outdoor, authentic, andinteractive learning via the creation of location-based interactive learning objects (LILOs). Wanderingwas integrated as part of a novel environmental education program among middle school students. Thispaper describes the Wandering platform’s structural architecture and an evaluation study that wasconducted among grade nine students (N ¼ 102) who participated in the innovative educationalprogram. Our goal was to examine students’ learning outcomes and experiences while creating LILOs’and providing comments. Findings indicated high motivation among students to use Wandering, notonly for completing their school assignment, but also for contributing to the community. Despite the factthat the tagging and commenting tools could have been used more efficiently by students, more than onethird of the LILOs received an excellent grad. In addition, our findings indicated that Wandering is a goodplatform for enhancing 21st century skills, including: engagement with others, personalization, controlrelease, and change adaption.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the past decade, the understanding of the importance of integrating ICTandWeb 2.0 tools for enhancing students’meaningful learningwas signified (Annetta, Cheng, & Holmes, 2010; Barak, Ashkar, & Dori, 2011; Barak, Herscovitz, Kaberman, & Dori, 2009). Today’s learnersfrequently find themselves in learning and working environments that are constantly and dramatically changing. Emphasis on whatstudents can dowith knowledge, rather than howmany learning units they acquire, has become the essence of skills named the 21st centuryskills (Griffin, McGaw & Care, 2012).

In the past few years, advanced technologies are integrated into our daily life and they have become an important tool for collaborationand knowledge construction; however, it is still unclear how educators view the use of these applications and whether their use requiresnew skills for learning and working. This paper introduces ‘Wandering’dan innovative educational methodology and technology thatseamlessly integrates web applications with mobile technologies (http://thewandering.net). Wandering is designed to facilitate outdoor,authentic, and interactive learning through the creation of location-based interactive learning objects (LILOs). Wandering enables studentsto leave the four walls of their classroom and “wander” around, while exploring new information and interacting with the environment andwith each other.

This paper presents three main sections. The first section provides an up-to-date literature review on location-based services andlearning objects. The second section introduces the Wandering platform, its structural architecture, and its educational methodology. Thethird section presents an exploratory study that investigated students’ learning outcomes and experiences while using Wandering forcreating LILOs. This study is the preface of a large research project that investigates out-of-classroom learning via smartphones and its effecton students’ meaningful learning.

þ972 4 8295634.@tx.technion.ac.il (M. Barak), shaniziv100@gmail.com (S. Ziv).

ll rights reserved.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170160

2. Literature review

2.1. Location-based services

Location-based services are a new concept integrating a user’s geographic locationwith the general notion of services, such as dialing anemergency number from a cell phone or using a navigation system in a car (Schiller & Voisard, 2004). Location-based service can beconceptualized as the ability to find the geographical location of a mobile device (e.g. smartphones, notepads), through the mobile network,providing services based on the location and time information. The location of a mobile device is constantly retrieved through the wide-spread inclusion of GPS (global positioning system) that is based on satellite navigation system, and GPRS (general packet radio service) thatis based on cellular network tracking (Brimicombe & Chao, 2009). In addition, location maybe retrieved through active use of QR (quickresponse) codes. Location-based service informs both the user and others regarding their whereabouts, making it possible to synchronizeinformation for live databases. This process generates a new type of information that is created, compiled, selected, or filtered in relation tothe users’ current locations and the location of other users (Küpper, 2006).

Location-based applications change the way people act, make decisions, travel, and learn (Ahson & Ilyas, 2010; Brown et al., 2011).Location based applications include: location based social networks (e.g. Foursquare, Google latitude) location based advertisement (e.g.Yellow pages, Facebook places, Whatsup) navigational GIS systems (e.g. Waze, Bing maps, Nokia maps), augmented reality platforms (e.g.Layer, Junaio), social recommendation systems (e.g. Yelp, Wikiloc) photo sharing (e.g. Picasa), location based games, and educationalapplications. All applications share three aspects: location, time, and constant internet connectivity (Brimicombe & Chao, 2009). Location-based applications have the potential to generate new learning environments, accessible at any time, from any location (Brown et al., 2011).In this learning environment, content is abundant and geographically contextualized. Therefore, content needs to be filtered by tagging,searching, adding social relations, and examining past profile. In the context of education, a new pedagogical framework is required forlearning in such a dynamic and changing environment.

2.2. Learning objects

In the past decade, the understanding of the importance of web-based instruction for enhancing students’ meaningful learning andhigher-order thinking skills has grown (Barak, 2007; Barak et al., 2009). Oneway for enhancing such skills is to create and integrate LearningObjects (LOs) into the learning process. LOs are recognized as independent instructional experience that contains an objective, a learningactivity and an assessment. Wiley (2002) conceptualized LO as any digital resource that can be reused to support learning. Rehak andMason(2003) defined LOs as a digitalized entity which can be used, reused or referenced during technology supported learning. In a more recentwork, Kay and Knaack (2008) identified LOs as interactive web-based tools that support learning by enhancing, amplifying, and guiding thecognitive processes of learners. Today, LOs are thought of as standards-compliant piece of eLearning, with an explicit objective and built-inassessment. Although there are many definitions to LOs, there is a broad understanding about the functional requirements of LOs, such as:Accessibility – the LO should be tagged with metadata so that it can be stored and referenced in a database; Reusability – once created, an LOshould function in different instructional contexts; and, Inter-operability – the LO should be independent of both the delivery media andknowledge management systems. These requirements are derived from the object characteristics in object-oriented programming (Polsani,2003).

LOs are stored systematically into databases. In order to retrieve materials from the databases, each object has to be tagged withMetadata defined as data about data. Metadata contains information about the main objective of the LO, its target group(s) and designer,date created andmodified, size, type, and usage. Both tagging and storing processes have particular standards such as IEEE Learning ObjectsMetadata (LOM) Standard. Varies of standard have been established and multiple repositories were developed for LOs. One example isMERLOT –Multimedia Educational Resources for Learning and Online Teaching (http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm). Other examplesare CAREO – Campus Alberta Repository of Educational Objects and Wisc-Online – Wisconsin Technical Colleges Consortium (http://www.wisc-online.com). LOs can be in different file formats such as pictures, audio, movie, animations, or web pages. Examples of LOs includeinstructional content, multimedia content, instructional software and tools (Churchill, 2007).

Studies on LOs indicated that compared to traditional teaching, students are more engaged and their performance increases (Kay &Knaack, 2008). Since LOs integrate multimedia and provide immediate feedback, they were found to be enjoyable and easy to controlwith respect to the pace of learning (Bradley & Boyle, 2004). Kay and Knaack (2008) examined individual differences in the effectiveness oflearning objects in secondary schools, focusing on gender, age, grade, subject area, and self-efficacy. They found no gender differences withrespect to student attitudes about LOs and their performance. However, students whowere more comfortable about computers appreciatedLOs more than their less confident peers. Recent study conducted by Boyle (2010) indicated that learning objects should be viewed asinstances of learning designs, concluding that it is the design of the learning activity that is oftenmost crucial in ensuring the effectiveness ofthe LO.

Indeed, LOs are usually created by teachers who design the learning activity. Conversely, in this study we describe an innovative programthat encourages students to create their own LOs, developing short, self-contained, re-usable units that include an objective, a learningactivity, and peer assessment.

3. Introducing the Wandering platform

Wandering is a web-based technology, designed to facilitate outdoor, authentic, and interactive learning via the use of mobile devicesand the creation of Stations which are location-based interactive learning objects (LILOs). Wandering is designed to encourage students toleave the four walls of their classroom and “wander” around, while exploring new information and interacting with the environment andwith each other.

Users can log into Wandering with their Google account, Facebook account, Windows Live ID, or create their own account. Once loggingin, they enter Wandering platform home interface (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Wandering home.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170 161

Wandering includes twomain events: Start Wandering and Create Station.2 First event Start Wandering allows users to participate in LILOsthat other users created. Finding an interesting LILO (station) can be done by: Wander, Search, or Enter Code. The Wander option, allowsusers to write the name of the location theywish to visit (city, street, park, museum, etc.) indicating whether theywish to see all the stationsat this location or only those that are certified (excellent LILOs that were tagged as ‘certified’ by experts). Users can also choose to see a list ofthe stations (LILOs) or view their distribution on a map. They can choose to explore individual stations or search routes (an organizedsuccession of LILOs) Fig. 2.

The Search option enables users to find LILOs by keywords and by their type. There are Knowledge LILOs, focusing on systematicinformation, or Experience LILOs, that inspires emotions. LILOs can also be identified by their cost: those that are free of charge or those thatcost money (i.e. museum or parks).

Once a user has located an interesting LILO, four tabs are displayed: Go, Do, Info and Share (Fig. 3).Go – provides a map and verbal directions to the location of the station. Do – presents an interactive learning activity related to the

location. Info – provides additional information about the LILO’s creator (Station builder) and the topic which is discussed. Inappropriateusage can be reported it this tab. Share – allows users to share the LILO via Facebook, Gmail, Googleþ, or Twitter. It also allows addingcomments and rating the LILO on a scale of �1 (horrible) to 3 (excellent).

Wandering’s second event is Create Station. This allows users to create their own LILOs, comprising of five parts: Info, Arrival,Action, Tagging, and Characterizing. Part 1 – Info, allows users to add general information about the station (LILO) they wish tocreate. The instructions are: “Think of a place. What do you find interesting about it?” Station creators are asked to indicate thelocation of the station on a digital map, identifying latitude and longitude coordinates. They are asked to indicate the name of theplace, provide a short description of it, and write what is the most interesting about it. In Part 2 – Arrival, station creators have todecide how the user will get to their station, using coordinates or address, asking a question or performing an activity. Part 3 –

Action, is the “heart” of the station. In this section, station creators have to think about a special activity, and write instructions forusers about how to perform it, either on their own or by involving other people. Station creators can end their activity by requiringusers to answer a question or send a picture/sound/video. In Part 4 – Tagging, station creators are required to add keywords in orderto assist users in searching and finding the station. Tagging is done by area of knowledge, place, time, etc. In Part 5 – Characterizing,station creators need to characterize the station, indicating the type of LILO: Knowledge (providing information) or Experience(inspiring emotions). Creators have to indicate if the station requires an admission fee (museums, parks, etc.) or if it requires anypreliminary preparations. At the end of this process, creators click on the “Submit” button for uploading the station (LILO) on theweb, assigning it with a URL.

Users of theWandering platform are encouraged to create short and concise LILOs, suited for the use of mobile phones. Two examples forLILOs created by Wandering users are presented as follows.

2 A ‘Station’ is a location-based interactive learning object (LILO). The term Station is used in the Wandering platform for simplification.

A LILO that was created in a museum:

Station name: Hellenistic and Roman DorGo: You are at the Glass Museum located at Dor village. Which room contains the Gorgon mask?Do: Look for the Gorgonmask, a Greek salt cellar, an Aphrodite-Tyche headwith a crown of walls, a handle stampedwith a rose,a mask with lips, and a very large Roman lamp. How many of these items can you find in the room?Info: The Hellenistic and Roman room is my favorite. It shows us what the people of Dor used to do during the period of theGreeks and the Romans.

A LILO that was created outdoors:

Station name: A small caveGo: At the end of Shmura St. look for a small cave hiding under thorns and bushesDo: Look around the cave, record a short video of the hazards around it (garbage, thorns, open pit, etc.) and post it on YouTubewith comments and suggestions for improvement.Info: The small cave you visited can be dated back to a prehistoric area. It is located on top of the Carmel Mountain. Standingnear the cave you can see the Mediterranean Sea.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170162

In addition to Start Wandering and Create Station, Wandering platform includes the following features:

1. Profile – Holds the meta-tagging of information about the user: name, date of birth, address, and interests.2. My stations – Includes a list of LILOs created by the user that can be edited and shared.3. Pictures and Videos – Consists of the media files that the user uploaded in order to create the LILOs. All the media files are meta-tagged

according to the user, the device, and the LILOs they were attached to.4. My activities – Includes a list of routes, codes, and games that organize groups of LILOs in a thematic and systemic method.

Wandering enables the exploration of LILOs in five ways: Wandering, Searching, Gaming, Routing, and Coding, detailed as follows.Wandering – the system choses for the user random LILOs in a walking distance from her/his location. This enables users to experience

new locations and learn about them in an explorative way.

Fig. 2. Wandering options.

Fig. 3. LILO info display.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170 163

Searching– LILOS canbeextracted from thedatabaseand locatedonamaporviewed ina list, byusing searchwords (tagging), creator’s profile(name, e-mail address), geographical location, purpose (knowledge or experience), cost (free or with charge), certification (certified or not).

Gaming – LILOs’ QR codes can be organized in a random structure on a game template, such as: matching game, bingo, crossword puzzle,monopoly, or Tic-Tac-Toe (Fig. 4). Any LILO can be used as a game component, thus encouraging users to visit places, participate in an activityand find the correct solution as the game progresses.

Routing –LILOs can be organized in a linear structure forming awalking route that connects one location to another in a geographical andlogical way. There are three types of routing: a. Plain route – can be accessed via “search system”dsearching each location at a time, b.Narrated rout – can be accessed only through “sharing”dwalking through different locations that are shared and described by colleagues, c.Random route – the Wandering system creates random routes for users according to time and distance parameters.

Coding – LILOs can be organized under a certain code number. The code will allow users to see only LILOs that belong to this code. Codesare important for specific groups of users, topics, or disciplines. For example, each school can have his own code number, allowing only theschool’s community (students, teachers, parents etc.) to see the LILOs created by this group.

3.1. Wandering structural architecture

Wandering is based on two main technological layers. The first is MySQL database with PHP or Java on the server-side, interacting withthe database that constitutes the system. The second is a user interface which is extremely varied depending on the user profile: HTML/HTML5 and JS, Android or iOS or any other mobile operating system.

Fig. 4. A Tic-Tac-Toe game of environmental-related LILOs.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170164

Wandering structure and functionality are based on a set of five principles. Three principles are adapted from object-orientedprogramming: Accessibility, Reusability, and Inter-operability (Polsani, 2003). The other two principles: Personalization and Social-interactivity are related to the requirements of 21st century skills.

Accessibility –Wandering facilitates the tagging of learning itemswithmetadata so that it can be stored and referenced in a database andcan be easily accessed. The system is web-based so it can be opened on any device connected to the Internet: desktop computers, laptops,electronic notebooks, smartphones etc. In addition, Wandering can be accessed by computer browser, email, phone application, SMS, or QRcodes.

Reusability – Wandering is a modular platform that allows the reuse of LILOs. Users can reuse LILOs that were created by others. Inaddition to participating in LILOs, users can reorganize them in any meaningful way. LILOs can be embedded into another user’s games,tours, and other activities.

Inter-operability – Wandering has the ability to work with or use parts of other systems in its inner structure as well as outputs. Beingboth a platform and a framework, Wandering is not a standalone system but rather integrates many other platforms, addressed in four maincategories:

1. Using frameworks as basis of applications in the Wandering platform, such as mixare, PhoneGap, jQuery Mobile, Zend, HybridAuth,Wordpress, Joomla, Wikimedia, ZXing etc.

2. Integration of API’s of external services into the applications themselves as part of knowledge creation: Google Maps is used formapping, Facebook social plugins (that enable yahoo, hotmail and I.D.) to enable commenting, profile systems (Google, Facebook.Twitter, Linkedin, OpenID etc.), in order to log in, storage of media on Picasa and YouTube, PayPal for online payments, etc.

3. Integration ofWandering into external interfaces in order to create, organize and represent LILO’s:Wordpress plugins that create LILO’s,maps, Games etc. Sharing of LILOS and activities on all known platforms (using AddThis and other sharing methods), channels on ARplatforms such as Junaio, Creating and organizing activities on the ExperienCity platform etc.

4. Future public API (in progress) enabling developers to utilize Wandering assets in their own applications and/or websites.

Personalization – Wandering is a learning environment that is tailored to meet the needs and interests of individual learners. InWandering, the basic presumption is that on web 2.0 systems, the process of personalization starts when a user logs into the system. Thisprocess relates the LILOs to the user that created them, allowing her/him to edit and share them. It holds the presumption that LILOs areabundant and that in order to promote learning, they need to be sorted out according to learning profile.

Social-interactivity – Wandering encourages interactive learning among users: students, teachers, and community members. The basiclevel of interaction includes encouraging users to go somewhere and do something for the benefit of their community. The second level issharing comments and experiences, while using a Facebook comment system and a rating system. The third level of interaction is thecreation of an interactive LILO and sharing it by using social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and QR codes.

3.2. Wandering content reliability

While Wandering was developed, the assurance of content reliability was one of the major concerns. It was essential to ensure that thesystem will not be misused or abused and that incorrect, misleading, or commercial contents will not occur. In order to enhance users’honesty while creating LILOs and encourage users to trust LILOs that were created by others, the following content reliability mechanismswere embedded: Identity, Rating, Certification, and Abuse report.

Identity – The creation of a LILO is not anonymous. Each LILO includes the name of its creator and her/his picture, requiring the creator tobe responsible for the contents’ accuracy and correct it if necessary.

Rating – Is based on an accumulative scale, from �1 (horrible) to 3 (excellent). The goal of this rating system is to give an estimationregarding the quality of the LILO in a single number. High rating can be achieved by a high number of raters combined with high scores. Ifa LILO is inadequate because it contains misleading data, mistakes, and/or irrelevant activities, users can “penalize” the creator bysubmitting a rating of (�1), which is also represented by a red star.

Certification – LILOs can receive certification, provided by an expert in the field. The expert can be either a teacher or a specialist. There isno limit to the number of certifications a LILO can have; each certification is identified and the user can look for “only certified” LILOs.

Abuse report – Wandering includes an elaborated online form, enabling users to warn system administrators about inappropriatecontents and system misuse.

3.3. Wandering as an educational platform

Wandering platform can enhance students’ learning by presenting them with interesting location-based interactive learning objects(LILOs) that were created by other users. But most importantly, Wandering facilitates constructivist learning by allowing students to createtheir own LILOs. In this case, learning is enhanced in four consecutive steps: searching for information, creating a LILO, sharing the LILO, andorganizing LILOs in a meaningful ways.

1 Searching for information – The first step for creating a LILO is searching for interesting locations and collecting information. Students arepresented with a theme in a certain discipline, for example: chemistry (water), biology (botanic gardens), environment (recycling),history (old city), literature (poets), social sciences (regulation) etc. They are encouraged to create their own data by exploring theschoolyard, their neighborhood, and parks andmuseums. Once they find an interesting location that relates to the topic discussed in theclassroom, they are encouraged to collect information either textually or visually: photos, and videos, taken by the use of smartphonesor other mobile devices. This activity can be done during the school hours or as part of the students’ afternoon assignments.

2 Creating a LILO – The second step includes the use of theWandering wizard which enables students to: a. pinpoint the location of a LILO(station) on a digital map, b. name the location, add a photo of the place, and describe it, c. provide information about how to arrive to

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170 165

the location, d. add a relevant activity that would help other users to learn about the topic and interact with the surroundings, and e. tagthe data, for effective search.

3 Sharing the LILO – The third step is actually a default. All created LILOs are automatically shared with all users; however, onlythe LILO’s creator can edit or delete it. LILO’s can be actively shared in various ways (email, social networks, social book-marking, location etc.), and each object holds a Facebook comment system that permits Yahoo, Hotmail, AOL, and Facebookcommenting.

4 Organizing LILOs in a meaningful ways – The fourth step is not obligatory, but highly recommended. Once a large number of LILOs arecreated, they can be structured in groups according to an event, theme, or place. They can be organized by routes, games, and otheractivities.

4. Evaluation study

An evaluation study was applied in order to examine the use of Wandering as part of a new environmental education program for gradenine students. The program was designed to facilitate outdoor, authentic, and interactive learning via mobile devices.

4.1. Goals and settings

Our study aimed at examining students’ learning outcomes and learning experience while using Wandering platform to create location-based interactive learning objects (LILOs) and participate in them. This goal raised the following two research questions:

1. What are the students’ learning outcomes and learning experience while creating LILOs and participating in them?2. What are the required skills for teaching and learning while using the Wandering system?

The study included grade nine students (N ¼ 102) and their teacher, N.K. the Head of the Geography Environmental Education Program,who had 12 years of teaching experience in formal and informal education systems. Students’ gender distribution was almost equal (51%girls). The environmental education program included topics such as: natural resources and their exploitation, human coping with naturaldisasters, pollution of natural resources, and global-environmental changes.

4.2. Methodology and instruments

The evaluation research was based on the mixed methods model, applying both qualitative and quantitative methodologies in theanalysis of data (Johnston & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The research tools included students’ performance on their learning assignment and anin-depth semi-structured interview with the course teacher, the Head of the Geography Environmental Education Program. The interviewtook an hour and a half. The responses were audiotaped and documented in a researcher diary.

The quantitative data included dependent and independent variables. The two dependent variables were: grades based on LILOs’relevancy and grades based on peers’ comments. The independent variables included: the number of LILOs created, the number of peercomments, the number of tags (keywords) students’ wrote, and the size of their work group. We also examined gender differences. Datawere analyzed using GLM (general linear model), consisting of a series of t-tests and Spearman correlations.

The qualitative data included content analysis of the teacher’s interview, the LILOs created by the students, and the comments given bytheir peers. The data were gradually analyzed, using the qualitative-interpretive approach (Smith, 2004); establishing full consent by twoexperts in education. Data were processed and analyzed into manageable categories, listing words and phrases that indicate students’maininterests and thinking skills.

4.3. Research settings

In the context of environmental education course, grade nine students were given an assignment to create location-based interactivelearning objects (LILOs), while using Wandering platform. The assignment included four steps: 1. Exploring LILOs that were created byothers, 2. Learning to operate the Wandering wizard, 3. Creating new LILOs, 4. Participating and then assessing LILOs that were created byfellow students. Each step is detailed in the following.

1. Exploring LILOs that were created by others

Through their mobile devices (tablets or smartphones) students received links and/or QR codes for several exemplary LILOs showingdifferent locations in the schoolyard and presenting themwith an assignment. They were instructed to choose a certain LILO and carry outthe activity. This step was conducted in order to expose students to exemplary LILOs as models for inspiring them to create their own LILOs.For example, one LILO was about bottle recycling; it was located at the recycling cage near the school gate.

2. Learning to operate the Wandering wizard

In a computer lab, guided by their teacher, students were asked to register to Wandering platform and create their personal account.Then they were asked to create a LILO by exploring the schoolyard, looking for locations that can be related to environmental issues. Whilelearning to create a LILO, students were guided on how to add a photo, write the activity, and tag keywords.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170166

3. Creating new LILOs

Individually or in pairs, students were required to design, create, and submit at least two LILOs. They had to choose a location in the cityparameters, visit it, and think about an ‘activity’ that will promote knowledge about environmental issues and enhance positive ecologicalbehavior among users. The students were required to use the Wandering wizard to create the LILOs on their own, without any supervisionfrom their teacher. They did however receive information about how their work will be evaluated and graded.

4. Participating and assessing LILOs

Students were asked to encouraged peers (fellow students, family members, neighbors, etc.) to participate in a LILO that they created;namely, to go to a certain location and carry out the environmental-related activity. The peers were then asked to evaluate each LILO in twoways: by ranking it on a scale of (�1), 1, 2, 3, and by posting written comments.

The educational assumption was that once people are aware of environmental problems, especially those that are close to their homes,they would be more likely to act upon improving them. Thus, a LILO of one student might contribute to the involvement of the entireneighborhood.

4.4. Grading the LILOs

The LILOs’ creation activity was 100% of the students’ final grade. Each LILO received two grades: for the content’s relevancy (50%) and forthe peers’ comments (50%). Both grades were assigned by the course teacher andwere validated by another expert. The analysis of the LILOs’relevancy consisted of three levels: Excellent, Qualified, and Weak, detailed as follows:

Excellent – the LILO meets all the requirements. The information provided is valid and correct, it is logically linked to important envi-ronmental issues, the activity requires higher order thinking (i.e. creative, critical, inquiry), it has the potential to influence people’s opinionsand behavior, and it might generate a network reaction. Excellent LILOs receive a special green marking on the digital map, and they will beintegrated into the formal curriculum in the following years.

Qualified – the LILO meets the minimum requirements. It includes clear and concise instructions about how to get to the location andhow to execute an environmental related activity. It also includes a detailed reflection about the student’s work. However, it does not havea potential to influence people’s opinions and behavior. Qualified LILOs received special marking on the map.

Weak – the LILO doesn’t meet the minimum requirements. The instruction on how to get to the location is vague, the activity is notrelevant, and the reflection about the student’s work is poor.

Examples for the teacher’s feedback and the students’ grades are presented in Table 1.The peers’ comments were analyzed by the following five criterions: 1. More than five peers participated in the activity and wrote

comments, 2. The comments are generally relevant, 3. The comments indicate that the peers gained new knowledge 4. The commentsindicate an enjoyable learning experience, and 5. A discussion about environmental issues was triggered among the peers. Examples of thepeers’ comments and the students’ grades are presented in Table 2.

4.5. Findings

This section includes two parts; each provides an answer to one of the research questions. The first part examines the students’performance, indicating the grades they received for creating the LILO and for the comments that their peers wrote. This part providesinformation about the students’ learning outcomes and experience. The second includes an edited transcription of the interview that wasconducted with the Head of the Geography Environmental Education Program. This part provides insights not only about the skills requiredwhile using Wandering, but more importantly, it discusses the teaching and learning skills required in the 21st century.

4.5.1. Students’ learning outcomes and learning experience while creating LILOsBy the end of the academic year, 216 LILOs were created, in a few kilometers space in a small community town (Fig. 5).Most of the students (71.5%) created two LILOs as was requested by the teacher, 24.5% created three, and only 4% created one location-

based interactive learning object. About half of the students (52%) worked in pairs, 24.5% worked in groups of three, and 23.5% individually.Although the students were asked to tag their LILOs (i.e. assign keywords), 49% did not assign any keyword, 31% assigned one, 16% assignedtwo, and only 4% assigned three or more keywords. Even those who did assign keywords, referred to broad and general concepts, such as:recycling (45%), environment quality (30%), or the name of the high school or the city (25%). A series of independent-samples t-tests wereconducted in order to examine the source of difference for students’ content relevancy grades (Table 3).

Table 1Examples for the teacher’s feedback and the students’ grades.

Level Teacher’s feedback Grade (out of 50)

Excellent This is an excellent LILO. The riddle is challenging, it relates to important environmental issuesand it requires people to be engaged in conversation. This is an impressive and relevant stationthat adds to the knowledge of people about recycling and playgrounds.

50

Qualified You chose an interesting place with a strong environmental connection. With an extra effort thisLILO can be fascinating. You should try to think about a more detailed description of the recyclingbin; then add a related activity.

45

Weak The LILO has a good potential, the concept you wanted to discuss about is important but yourassignment does not relate to environmental issues and it is not clear how people should get there.

30

Table 2Examples for grades that students received on peers’ comments.

Level An exemplary peer comment Grade (out of 50)

Very good (10 positive comments) Well done! I did not know that the fine for not cleaning dogfouls is so heavy. The city municipality should add manysimilar signs. I can help raise awareness to eliminate this annoying phenomenon.

50

Mediocre (5 positive comments) This was supposed to be a bird fountain but people turned it to a garbage can.Too bad, it should be restored.

45

Poor (2 fair comments) An interesting station. 20

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170 167

Table 3 indicates statistically significant differences in students’ grades between those that created three LILOs compared to those thatcreated only one or two. Table 3 also indicates statistically significant differences in students’ grades between those that worked individuallyand those who worked in pairs or threesome. This means that the more students create LILOs, the better they get in providing correct andvalid information, making logical links to important environmental issues, and influencing people’s opinions. This also means that team-work is most significant in this type of an assignment.

Therewere no statistically significant differences in students’ grades between LILOs that receivedmany peer comments (10) to those thatreceived only few comments (1–6). There were also no statistically significant differences in students’ grades between LILOs that weretagged by 2-to-3 keywords and those that were hardly tagged at all. These results suggest that students were not using the comment tooland the tagging tool efficiently. Both tools can help students improving their LILOs by editing them according to reviewers’ suggestions andaccording to keywords.

While examining gender differences, we found no statistically significant differences between boys and girls in their grades for contentrelevancy. However, we did find statistically significant differences in their peer comments grades (t ¼ 3.54, p < 0.01). Girls received highergrades related to peer comments, compared to boys (Mean ¼ 43.32 SD ¼ 5.53; Mean ¼ 37.58 SD ¼ 10.25, respectively). A scatter plot andregression lines of students’ grades by gender (Fig. 6) indicated that the gender gap is mostly evident among the lower grade students. Boyswith low grades for content relevancy received low grades for peers’ comments. However, girls with low grades for content relevancyreceived medium grades for peers’ comments. Finding indicated that girls received more comments that asserted gain of new knowledgeand an enjoyable learning experience. In terms of learning implications, literature indicates that most girls prefer cooperation over

Fig. 5. The distribution of environmental-related LILOs created by students.

Table 3Grades based on LILOs’ content relevancy.

Source N Meana SD t p

No. of LILOs created Low (1–2) 77 42.90 5.01 2.25 <0.05High (3) 25 45.40 4.77

No. of students in a group Low (1) 24 41.71 5.42 2.03 <0.05High (2–3) 78 44.06 4.83

a Out of 50.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170168

competition. Girls, compared to boys, are more social and comfortable in group learning, and are likely to be more productive in suchsituations (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986, pp. 214–229).

Spearman correlation test indicated positive associations between the number of students in a working group, the number of stationsthey created (r¼ 0.78, p< 0.001), and the number of words tagged (r¼ 0.38, p< 0.001). The best predictor for content relevancy grades wasthe number of LILOs created (R2 ¼ 0.38). This means that almost 40% of the grades can be explained by the number of learning objects thestudents generated. The more LILOs were created, the better the content was. A linear regression test indicated that these results werestatistically significant (b ¼ 0.20, p < 0.05).

Content analysis of the LILOs focused on the names and the assignments that the students gave to their stations. A large percentage of theLILOs (40%) were named after the city, street or school, where they are located at. Other (26%) were given an attractive name thatmight drawparticipants’ interest, e.g. recycling in nature, it’s not what it seems, thinking green for a better world, one small step for man one giant leap for theenvironment. More than 20% of the names were general concepts taught in class, e.g. green energy, recycling, renewal, toxic gases, 10%indicated criticism, e.g. Outdated thinking, Polluted entrance, damaged facility, and 4% wrote their private names. The most interesting factis that most of the LILOs related to the effect humans have on earth, air, and water pollution, and the consequences to humans. Only onestation related to trees and only one to animals’ suffer from the pollution caused by humans.

4.5.2. Teaching and learning skills required while using WanderingThe interview with N.K., the Head of the Geography Environmental Education Program, indicated four important skills while using

Wandering: Engagement with others, Personalization, Control release, and Change adaption, detailed in the following.

4.5.2.1. Engagement with others. According to N.K., Wandering platform has the ability to connect people instead of isolating them.

Many times, when people are engaged with computers, there is a feeling of disconnection; they spend hours sitting in one place staring ata screen. Desktop computers andmost of the learning software distance people from each other. I was looking for a technology that will connectpeople, make them more involved and engaged with each other and with their surroundings.

In the past I used Google maps to involve students in inquiry-based learning. Now I am using Wandering to make the learning experience moreexciting. They have to go outdoors, explore their surroundings, creating their own routes, while generating and sharing information that is newto them and to their peers.

N.K. stated that the students enjoyed working in groups, but they did not like the idea of persuading their friends and family to accesstheir LILOs and write comments: I think that once they started receiving comments, they understood the importance of engagement andfeedback.

Fig. 6. A scatter plot and regression lines of students’ grades by gender.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170 169

4.5.2.2. Personalization. N.K. decided to integrateWandering in his teaching since according to him: it is a powerful tool. He explains it due tothe fact that: most of my students have smart phones and enjoy using them, Wandering is easily accessible, and information can be immediatelydistributed. anyone can be the creator of a learning object. Smart phones and pods are personal devices that are used for communication, gameplaying, music, videos, and more. The use of such devices for education makes learning more personal and entertaining. It actually blurs theborders between learning and fun.

4.5.2.3. Control release. An important theme that repeated itself was the need for releasing control, allowing students to explore, makemistakes, and learn from them; all this, while they are out of the classrooms walls.

Teachers nowadays should understand that they need to release control and encourage independent learning. Teachers should be prepared to‘not know’ in advanced what the results will be, prepared to be surprised and to act accordingly. This approach contradicts all that is taught inteacher preparation programs. It also contradicts the educational system policies and standards. If you believe in true exploration, you have tothink differently, allow your students to wander about, to pave their own routes, not knowing where to go, maybe even getting lost.

I believe that the role of teachers nowadays is not to ‘show the way’ to the students but rather to allow them to explore different paths. Teachersshould have enough confidence and self-assurance to believe in their ability to identify ‘lost’ students and find ways to guide them to exploreother tracks. They should be able to assess the risks, minimize them, and allow students to meet the ‘real world’.

Today, most teachers are too afraid of losing control, in order for more teachers to join us; they must see the beauty of this learning process. Theythemselves should experience the use of location-based platforms such as Wandering; it should be part of their training program.

4.5.2.4. Change adaption. N.K. believes that while using Wandering, students gain learning skills that are important to their daily lives: Inthe 21st century, people need to become “lizard-like”, changing colors when needed. People should be able to live with changes and accept the factthat we live in uncertainty. This is a mental strength that, unfortunately, is not acquired in todays’ schools. In fact, the traditional assumption thatstudents should obtain one profession and become an expert in this field is becoming more and more irrelevant. In our global and dynamiceconomies, and due to various circumstances, professions change rapidly. It is therefore our role as educators to prepare our students to suchsituations.

N.K. notes that not only teachers have difficulties in adapting to change: At the beginning of the process, when I first presented the idea, thestudents’ reactions were mixed. Some were against the whole idea, some were confused, and only few were truly enthusiastic. As the processprogressed, students became more involved and showed an increase in their positive attitudes. Many students produced more LILOs than wererequired, but there were nine students (out of more than 100) that refused to participate in any way.

The ‘strong students’, those who usually receive highest grades, were those who also received high grades in this activity. It was quite surprisingto see that the week students, the under achievers, were those who resisted the change in the teaching method. This is something that should befurther examined.

According to N.K., one explanation for the gap between high and low achievers is the students’ ability to adapt to changes, a skill that canand should be taught.

5. Summary and further investigation

In our ever-changing and challenging world, the way teaching is practiced and the way learning is conducted are rapidly transforming(Barak, 2007; Barak et al., 2011). Teachers nowadays have an almost impossible task – to prepare students to a world that does not yet existand cannot yet be clearly defined. The findings of the evaluation study indicated that about one third of the students created more LILOsthan required, suggesting positivemotivation to useWandering not only as part of their learning assignment, but also for contributing to thecommunity. Our findings also indicated that most of the students preferred working in groups and that teamwork is significant to this typeof learning activity. While using Wandering to create LILOs, each student had the opportunity to contribute from her/his knowledge as wellas to learn from fellow teammates.

Contrary to their enthusiasm in creating LILOs and working in groups, students did not use the comment tool and the tagging toolefficiently. Both tools can help students improving their LILOs by editing them according to reviewers’ suggestions and according tokeywords. However, it seems that students used them superficially and did not fully understand their importance.We therefore suggest thatin future programs, the importance of tagging and commenting will be better explained to the students at the beginning of the program andthroughout its duration.

Another interesting result related to the LILOs’ contents. Most of the LILOs related to the effect humans have on earth, air, and waterpollution, and the consequences to human beings. Only one station related to trees and only one to animals’ suffer from the pollution causedby humans. The effect of human ecological footprint on animals and plants should be more emphasized in the classroom.

Wandering is a platform that is publicly open to all audience. People that plan to visit the small community town can useWandering andthe LILOs created by students for learning about the locations they visit. Since the comments are socially shared on Facebook, people who donot participated in the program can be exposed to an environmental discourse due to the school’s program. The environmental educationprogram via Wandering platform may induce change not only among the people who created the LILOs but also among people who areengaged (intentionally or unintentionally) while they are at the location. For example, some of the LILOs endorse cleaning an area, someinfluence people to change their environmental habits, some ask people to be acquaintedwith others, etc. In addition, certified and excellentLILOs are integrated as part of the school official curriculum and activities, thus creating a button-up curriculum, that is a curriculumdeveloped as a collection of learning objects that students developed. The architecture of the Wandering platform is open and democratic,therefore informal content such a location-based interactive learning objects, created by students, will be blended into formal content,created by teachers, and will become part of the learning environment in the following years.

M. Barak, S. Ziv / Computers & Education 62 (2013) 159–170170

Our findings indicatedWandering is not only a platform for allowing students to generate their own learning objects and to comment oneach other’s work, but it can change students’ learning experience. Wandering is a good platform for enhancing the necessary skills neededfor life in the 21st century. On top of academic skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and creativity, that were discussed in theprevious decade, our study identified new skills and competences needed for teaching and learning in the 21st century. These skills are:Engagement with others, Personalization, Control release, and Change adaption. Indeed, In addition to the development of high levelacademic contents and learning materials, teachers should emphasize the enhancement of 21st century skills, such as: working in uncertainand changing environments, communicating in decentralized and nonhierarchical systems, generating information while applyingmultimedia, andmanaging information overload. The use ofWandering as part of the teaching and learning processes in schools can providemeans for teachers to prepare their students to future life. Wandering provides a learning environment that is present anywhere at once(omnipresent) and that can promote students’ interactivity through a variety of modalities.

The findings of our study raise the following questions: Do teachers have the required skills for teaching in the 21st century? How canweenhance the four skills among teachers and students? Will the process go beyond the classroom? Further research on these importantquestions will promote the growing body of knowledge on web-based technologies, 21st century skills, and innovative pedagogy.

Acknowledgment

The authors wish to thankMr. Nati Kranot, the Head of the Geography Environmental Education Program, for his vision and cooperation.We also wish to thank David Lachmish, instructional designer and programing manager, for creating data extraction tools and providinginformation regarding technological specifications required for the research.

References

Ahson, S. A., & Ilyas, M. (2010). Location-based services handbook: Applications, technologies, and security. Taylor & Francis.Annetta, L. A., Cheng, M.-T., & Holmes, S. (2010). Assessing twenty-first century skills through a teacher created video game for high school biology students. Research in

Science & Technological Education, 28(2), 101–114.Barak, M. (2007). Transitions from traditional to ICT-enhanced learning environments in undergraduate chemistry courses. Computers & Education, 48(1), 30–43.Barak, M., Ashkar, T., & Dori, Y. J. (2011). Learning science via animated movies: its effect on students’ thinking and motivation. Computers & Education, 56(3), 839–846.Barak, M., Herscovitz, O., Kaberman, Z., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). MOSAICA: a web-2.0 based system for the preservation and presentation of cultural heritage. Computers &

Education, 53, 841–852.Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.Boyle, T. (2010). Layered learning design: towards an integration of learning design and learning object perspectives. Computers & Education, 54, 661–668.Bradley, C., & Boyle, T. (2004). The design, development, and use of multimedia learning objects. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(4), 371–389.Brimicombe, A., & Chao, L. (2009). Location-based services and geo-information engineering. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Brown, D. J., McHugh, D., Standen, P., Evett, L., Shopland, N., & Battersby, S. (2011). Designing location-based learning experiences for people with intellectual disabilities and

additional sensory impairments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 11–20.Churchill, D. (2007). Towards a useful classification of learning objects. Educational Technology Research & Development, 55(5), 479–497.Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.), (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.Johnston, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.Kay, R. H., & Knaack, L. (2008). A formative analysis of individual differences in the effectiveness of learning objects in secondary school. Computers & Education, 51, 1304–

1320.Küpper, A. (2006). Location-based services: Fundamentals and operation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Polsani, P. R. (2003). Use and abuse of reusable learning objects. Journal of Digital Information, 3(4), Article 164. Available at: http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/viewArticle/89/

88 Retrieved on June 2012 (last accessed August 2012).Rehak, D. R., & Mason, R. (2003). Keeping the learning in learning objects. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning (pp. 20–34).

London: Kogan Page.Schiller, J. H., & Voisard, A. (Eds.), (2004). Location-based services. New York: Morgan Kaufman.Smith, J. A. (Ed.), (2004). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to methods. London: Sage.Wiley, D. A. (2002). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomyIn The instructional use of learning objects, . Bloomington,

IN: Agency for Instructional Technology.