142788-LLP-1-2008-1-BG-LEONARDO-LMP
LIFELONG LEARNING PROGRAMME
MULTILATERAL PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION)
MOBILE PERFORMANCE SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING (mPSS)
THE PERFORMANCE-CENTERED MOBILE LEARNING (PML) MODEL
Desmond Keegan, Wendy Kicken, Gabor Kismihok, Mihail Milev, Nevena Mileva, Danish Nadeem, Slavi Stoyanov.
1 July 2009
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION p 3
2. PERFORMANCE-CENTERED LEARNING AND MOBILE LEARNING p 3
3. MODEL FOR PERFORMANCE-CENTERED MOBILE LEARNING (PML) p 9
4. INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR p13
PERFORMANCE-CENTERED MLEARNING
5. PRACTICAL INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR p26
DIFFICULTIES IN MOBILE LEARNING
6. DEPLOYMENT GUIDE FOR MPSS p27
7. TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE OF A PERFORMANCE-CENTERED p34
MOBILE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: MDIPSEILV2
8. REFERENCES p45
1. INTRODUCTION
A performance support system (PSS) is a promising approach in business and industry training to empower workers to perform tasks with a minimum amount of external intervention or training (Gery,2002). A PSS is a computer-based system that improves worker productivity by providing on-the-job access to integrated information, advice, and learning experiences by providing computer support just-in-time, just-enough and just-at-the-point-of need for an effective and efficient job performance. A PSS could also be introduced in the field of education, making the learning process more performance-centered.
This performance-centered approach to learning helps students to perform job-related tasks and develop job-related skills by providing them with job aids (i.e., performance support) during training. They are provided in a timely way with sufficient and relevant information to perform tasks closely related to tasks they will perform in their future job. Previous research on performance-centered learning in education shows that this approach is more effective than a traditional lecture-practice-test approach in training for higher order skills, in preparing learners for self-directed learning and for adaptation for changing jobs.
The performance support can be provided through various devices. In a previous project students received performance support through wired computers or laptops. In the current project how performance centered learning can be provided by mobile devices is investigated. The use of mobile devices enhances the flexibility of the performance support, making it possible to deliver the support just-in-time and just-at-the point-of-need. It also allows training to take place where the actual work takes place. Moreover, it enhances the flexibility of the learners, who can learn wherever they are and whenever they want to learn.
This document will provide a model for Performance-centered Mobile Learning. First performance-centered learning and mobile learning are discussed. Next a model for Performance-centered Mobile Learning (PML) is introduced. The model provides a pedagogical framework for performance-centered mobile learning and offers several implementation scenarios and guidelines for development and implementation of PML. The document ends with a description of the technical architecture of a mobile performance support system (mDIPSEIL v2) that will be used in the current project.
2. PERFORMANCE-CENTERED LEARNING AND MOBILE LEARNING
Performance-centered learning
Performance-Centered Learning is based on the concept of performance support systems used in industry. A typical performance support system is an integrated electronic environment that is available to, and easily accessible by, each employee and is structured to provide immediate, individualized on-line access to the full range of information, software, guidance, advice and assistance, data, images, tools, and assessment and monitoring systems to permit job performance with minimal support and intervention by others. Most PSSs consists of four components:
(a) an advisory component,
(b) an information component,
(c) a training component, and
(d) the user interface component.
Applying this concept in the context of education, performance-centred learning provides students with relevant information, advice, assistance, data etcetera during a specific learning situation in which they train their job-related skills. The support enables students to perform the job, enabling them to experience the job in a holistic manner, and at the same time they can start to develop specific job-related skills in a job-related context. However, research (Stoyanov et al., 2008) shows that the concept as it was developed in business and industry cannot be automatically implemented in higher education on a one-to-one basis. Only if adapted to address the specific goals and characteristics of higher education could there be some positive consequences of performance support for learning. It is thus important to keep in mind the specific goals of education when developing the support to improve learning. This means that the student should not only be supported to perform the task at hand well, but also to understand underlying processes and concepts.
In a previous project, the Internet-based Performance Support System with Educational Elements (IPSS_EE) was developed to implement performance-centered learning at European universities, high schools, vocational training institution and SMEs. IPSS_EE is an integrated electronic environment, which is available via the Internet and is structured to provide individualized online access to the full range of information, guidance, advice, data, images, tools and software to permit the user to perform a task with a minimum of support and intervention by others. In this way students are provided with a job aid to perform the task at hand. The IPSS_EE differs in two ways from common performance systems: (a) the tasks aim at predefined learning outcomes, and (b) the target group has no knowledge of the work, are not yet practitioners in the field and will be more focused on learning than performance.
Research results of pilot studies show positive effects of the IPSS_EE as a performance-centered approach to learning. It appears that the performance centered approach is more successful in training higher order skills, preparing learners for self-learning and for adapting to changing jobs than the traditional lecture-practice-test (expository inductive) system. The performance-centered approach can be implemented in several ways. In the previous project learners had access to the IPSS_EE via their wired computers. However, it is also possible to increase students’ mobility and the flexibility of the learning environment by providing performance support through mobile devices.
Mobile learning
When defining mobile learning or mlearning, two perspectives can be distinguished, depending on whether the mobility of the learner is stressed or the use of mobile technology. Addressing the first perspective the use of a mobile device is not always necessary, because access to the internet or a network allows the learner also to be mobile. Addressing the second perspective, the learner is always mobile, but does not need to be all the time. When stressing the use of a mobile device when defining mobile learning, a distinction can be made between the use of mobile technology as the only tool for learning or mobile technology as one of the tools. Moreover, a distinction can be made between learning within an educational institute (i.e., school or university), or learning on location (i.e., natural environment or workplace).
These perspectives also help to distinguish the field of mlearning from e-learning. Mlearning is a specific type of learning within the field of e-learning. It focuses on learning across contexts and on learning supported by mobile technology, whereas e-learning does not necessarily involve mobile devices. The task for the field of mlearning is to move on from the field of e-learning to the development of mlearning. Specifically and practically this means the evolution from the wired virtual learning environment of today, to the wireless virtual learning environment of tomorrow.
The two perspectives described are complementary and can be combined in a definition for mlearning in which mobile devices increase the mobility of the learner. Thus, mlearning may be defined as the provision of education and training on mobile devices. However, to facilitate this mobility, the mobile device should meet several requirements. The learner must be able to use the mobile device wirelessly, standing and with minimal effort. Moreover, the device should be small enough to be held in one hand and should be easy to take along (Dye, 2007). Examples of such devices are PDAs (personal digital assistants), smartphones, mobile phones, handhelds, palmtops, MP3 players, and iPods.
There is an old adage in distance education research which states ‘It is not technologies with inherent pedagogical advantages which are successful in distance education, but technologies which are generally available to citizens’. Never in the history of the use of technology in education has there been a technology as available to citizens as mobile telephony today. One can safely assume that every student in every program in every institution in every one of the 27 states of the European Union possesses one. They use these mobile devices constantly in every walk of life – except their education. With the exception of a few notable large-scale implementations of podcasting in the USA, and leaving aside many short-term projects, the university sector has not yet adopted mLearning, despite widespread use of elearning. It is the role of the field of mobile learning to harness for education and training this unprecedented availability of technology, especially because there are specific problems in university learning that mobile technologies can help overcome: limited real world context, limited access to learning resources, low student engagement in classes, and lack of practical experience in learning about mobile technologies.
A promising approach to convince students to use their mobile devices for educational purposes comes from the more user-centered studies on mlearning, which propose to ‘thread innovative uses of technology into the existing fabric of behaviour’ (Pettit & Kukulsksa-Hulme, 2007). The existing pattern of students’ use of mobile devices identified forms the basis for mobile education. Furthermore, when designing mlearning it is important to do this from the perspective of the learning process and the learner and not from the perspective of mobile technology. That is, the decision to use a mobile device to deliver training or information should not be driven by the mere availability of the mobile device, but should be based on the added value of this device for the students’ learning processes.
Supportive vs instructional tool
Mobile devices can be integrated as (a) a supportive tool or (b) an instructional tool. As a tool to support educators mobile devices allow the recording and maintenance of the lessons that take place, the instructional procedures, the type of mentoring and the pedagogical approach, the role of the teacher and students. Additionally, they facilitate communication between faculty members and students through file sharing capabilities, built-in networking and a friendly interface with on-line discussion and e-mail options.
On the other hand, mobile devices can be used as instructional tools to construct learning. Mobile devices can be treated as tools that help students execute their tasks and promote the balanced development of their mental abilities by functioning as intellectual partners to the instructor and the learner. Educators can provide students with electronic books, content reference sites, graphing calculator, dictionary, and thesaurus etc. Finally, electronic quizzes and tests can be taken through mobile devices.
Research on mobile learning
Of the mLearning projects found in the literature (Litchfield at al, 2007) the majority have been focused on improving interactivity in the classroom (Fujimura & Doi, 2006; Lindquist et al., 2007) or on increasing students’ access to learning materials anywhere, anytime (Barbosa, Hahn, Barbosa & Geyer, 2007; Cao, Tin, McGreal, Ally & Coffey, 2006). A smaller number of projects have focused on supporting on-the-job training in the field, largely for medical and nursing students in hospitals (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005; Sharples, Corlett & Westmancott, 2002).
A few projects have included teaching students some aspect of mobile technology, such as programming PDAs or using stylus technology, usually in connection with ubiquitous delivery (Bradley, Haynes & Boyle, 2005; Miertschin & Willis, 2004; Alford & Ruocco, 2001). Occasionally projects have combined ubiquitous delivery with a focus on interactivity, for example, Sá & Carrico’s mLearning framework (2006), although most studies have a single pedagogical focus.
Research has shown so far that through mobile devices reluctant learners can be motivated, hard-to-reach learners can be reached, various skills can be developed and improved, as well as better communication among learners and between learners and instructors can be achieved. Consequently, there is a need for some experiments to take place in order to examine the integration of mobile devices and their effects on various parameters such as students’ learning, performance, and behaviour, before moving further.
Moreover, there have been criticisms of the methodology of some experiments. Looking at the available studies on mobile learning (e.g., Copley 2007, Gaskel, 2007; Roschelle, Sharples & Chan, 2005;Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2008), there is a lack of operationalization of the theories referred to into concrete learning design guidelines, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed mobile learning approaches is hard to find or weak research designs were applied. Most mLearning studies have been small-scale and implemented in only one discipline. There is a major need for large scale implementations generalized across a range of disciplines and subject areas and across institutions. Furthermore, most mLearning experiments have dealt with enhancing classroom interactivity, mainly using a single technology. Finally, there is a lack of a consolidated body of knowledge to guide teachers in implementing mLearning, particularly in the university sector.
Four levels of mobile learning
Mobile learning is now a decade old as its origins can be traced to the work of Sharples (2000) with the use of PDAs in primary schools in the United Kingdom. Over the decade four levels of provision of mobile learning have emerged, with each requiring different instructional design guidelines.
Level 1: SMS messaging. The use of SMS messaging in educational contexts stems from the daily need of all schools, colleges and universities to communicate with some or all of their student bodies. For urgent communications (e.g., cancellation of a lecture), the main avenues for communication used by these institutions are: the postal services, email or SMS messaging. In many cases the postal services are too slow and not all students check their emails regularly, making these means not effective for this type of communication. However, all students enrolled in schools, colleges and universities carry a sophisticated communications device. If the institution’s communication is sent to the students’ mobile phones by SMS messaging, the message will be received immediately by all students. An SMS messaging system can be set up by in-house development or by using an SMS service provider.