Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies 9781350095632, 9781350095663, 9781350095649

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
List of Figures
Contributors
Acknowledgements
Introduction: Teacher Education and MobileTechnologies
Part One
Introducing the Mobilising andTransforming Teacher Educator’sPedagogies project
1Ubiquitous Mobile Learning in TeacherEducation
2Producing Hypertext Narratives forMobile Phones
3Pre-service Teachers’ Self-initiated Use ofMobile Devices to Support Their OnlineProfessional Learning Networking
4Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project:The Experiences of Teacher Educatorsand Teachers
5Using Video Documentaries in Historyand Social Science
Part One Commentary
Part Two
Mobile Learning in Teacher Educationbeyond the MTTEP Project
6Usability Testing in Teacher Education:Exploring the Pedagogical Affordances ofMobile Apps with Pre-service Teachers
7Virtual and Augmented Reality and MobileTechnologies in Religious Education
8Using Mobile Technology to Enhancethe Teaching of Media
9Using Video for Self-reflection in TeacherTraining Education
10Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland
11Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures
Part Two Commentary
Conclusion
Index

Citation preview

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

REINVENTING TEACHER EDUCATION Series Editors: Marie Brennan, Viv Ellis, Joce Nuttall, Peter Smagorinski The series presents robust, critical research studies in the broad field of teacher education, including initial or pre-service preparation, in-service and continuing professional development, from diverse theoretical and methodological perspectives. It takes an innovative approach to research in the field and an underlying commitment to transforming the education of teachers. Also available in the series Navigating Teacher Education in Complex and Uncertain Times, Carmen I. Mercado Secondary English Teacher Education in the United States, Donna L. Pasternak, Samantha Caughlan, Heidi L. Hallman, Laura Renzi and Leslie S. Rush The Struggle for Teacher Education, edited by Tom Are Trippestad, Anja Swennen and Tobias Werler Also available from Bloomsbury Developing the Expertise of Primary and Elementary Classroom Teachers, Tony Eaude Learning Teaching from Experience, edited by Viv Ellis and Janet Orchard Learning to Teach English and the Language Arts, Peter Smagorinski Social Theory for Teacher Education Research, Kathleen Nolan and Jennifer Tupper

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies Edited by Kevin Burden and Amanda Naylor

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2020 Copyright © Kevin Burden, Amanda Naylor and Bloomsbury Kevin Burden, Amanda Naylor and Bloomsbury have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. For legal purposes the Acknowledgements on p. xiv constitute an extension of this copyright page. Series design by Catherine Wood All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN: HB: 978-1-3500-9563-2 ePDF: 978-1-3500-9564-9 ePUB: 978-1-3500-9565-6 Series: Reinventing Teacher Education Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of Contributors Acknowledgements Introduction: Teacher Education and Mobile Technologies

vi vii viii xiii 1

Part I Introducing the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educator’s Pedagogies project 1 Ubiquitous Mobile Learning in Teacher Education 2 Producing Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones 3 Pre-service Teachers’ Self-initiated Use of Mobile Devices to Support Their Online Professional Learning Networking 4 Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project: The Experiences of Teacher Educators and Teachers 5 Using Video Documentaries in History and Social Science Part I  Commentary

111

Part II Mobile Learning in Teacher Education beyond the MTTEP Project

115

Usability Testing in Teacher Education: Exploring the Pedagogical Affordances of Mobile Apps with Pre-service Teachers 7 Virtual and Augmented Reality and Mobile Technologies in Religious Education 8 Using Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media 9 Using Video for Self-reflection in Teacher Training Education 10 Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland 11 Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures Part II  Commentary

11 15 33 51 73 87

6

Conclusion Index

119 131 151 171 183 201 219 223 231

Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4 3.5

5.1

5.2 5.3

Use of technology in undergraduate studies Attitudes to using and learning with technology Use of apps in university sessions, September–December A short model text, consisting of one node with two hyperlinks The nodes in the first part of the final hypertext narrative. The slashed arrow indicates a link that was not activated Version 4 and version 20 of the node ‘Encountering rival campaigners’ The first node of the narrative. The left-hand image in 2.4 and the end of the node in the right image. The latter showing the links that take the user to related nodes The Mobile Pedagogical (iPAC) framework comprising three distinctive features of m-learning experiences (from Burden & Kearney 2018, p. 92, with permission) Proportions of PST respondents from the English survey reporting how often they used their mobile devices to participate in PLN activities in certain settings (n = 129) Proportions of PST respondents from the Chinese survey reporting how often they used their mobile devices to participate in PLN activities in certain settings (n = 206) Proportions of PST respondents connecting through their apps to types of individuals Proportions of respondents that indicated they use their apps to ‘mainly consume’, ‘mainly produce’ or ‘mainly consume and produce’ content Aesthetics and image design recognize effects, evaluate and use them correctly (own representation of a selection of design possibilities) Hessisches Staatsarchiv Darmstadt, HStAD\R 4\21927/124 Adolf Hitler in civilian clothes sitting on a desk. The image design enables an active presentation of the subject (Schättler 2011)

23 24 26 38 38 42

46

53

58

58 61

62

92 93 93

Figures

5.4 5.5 5.6 7.1 8.1 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4

An empty picture can be put into different, communicative contexts (eig. Darst.) The Kuleshov effect The influence of lighting on our emotions The sub-constructions of the iPAC framework: http://www. mobilelearningtoolkit.com/ipac-sub-constructs.html. Model of film analysis (Reder/Rudel) Scenario planning quadrants Feedback from Delphi panel on Scenarios 1–4 (Courtesy of Mentimeter AB) Divergent scores for Scenario 2 (Courtesy of Mentimeter AB) Scenarios 1, 3 and 4 (Courtesy of Mentimeter AB)

vii

94 95 97 137 153 207 213 214 214

Table 3.1 Profile of survey respondents57

Contributors Tugba Altan is a Research Assistant at the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology in the Faculty of Education at Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Turkey. Her research focuses on design and evaluation of multimedia learning environments such as textbooks and mobile apps in K-12 and teacher education, integration of massive multiplayer online roleplaying games into K-12 education and the use of mobile technologies in teacher education. Monica Armundson is a Science Lecturer at the Metis Akadamiet, Bergen, Norway. She has an interest in developing the use of mobile technology in Chemistry teaching. She has been a partner in two European Erasmus+ research projects on the use of mobile technology in education: Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) and Mobile Learning Technology and Assessment Methods (MoLTAM). Monica has co-authored some articles in the use of mobile technology in education in Norway. Evrim Baran is an Associate Professor of educational technology in the School of Education at Iowa State University, USA. Her research focuses on effective design and evaluation of mobile, online and flexible learning environments in teacher education, engineering and STEM education contexts. She has published on mobile learning in teacher education, technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), online learning and integrated STEM education. Her publications on mobile learning looked at integrating mobile learning in various teacher education contexts (Baran, 2014; Baran, Uygun, & Altan, 2017; Baran, 2018; Celik, Baran, & Sert, 2018). Sinéad Ní Ghuidhir is a Lecturer in Teacher Education in the School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway. Sinéad’s research focus is on active learning methodologies and teaching and learning through a second language. She is currently involved in the EU project, DEIMP. Sinéad is the Director of the Máistir Gairmiúil san Oideachas, a post-graduate programme in Initial Teacher Education in NUIG and is current co-chair of MiTE Conference (International Conference on Mobile Technology in Teacher Education).

Contributors

ix

Janet Gibbs is a PGCE Tutor and Lecturer at the University of Hull, UK. Her research focuses on using fieldwork in science teaching, pre-service teacher’s use of social media and the use of mobile technology in science teaching. She has been a partner in the Erasmus+ MTTEP project and publishes in the area of mobile technology and science teacher training. Her most recent journal article is a co-authored publication in International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (2017), titled ‘Deep learning; Enriching teacher training through mobile technology and international collaboration’. Seán Ó Grádaigh is a Lecturer in Teacher Education in the School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway. Seán’s research focus is teacher education and mobile technologies in teacher education. He is currently NUIG’s co-principal investigator for the EU project, DEIMP. Seán is the founder of and current Chair of MiTE Conference (International Conference on Mobile Technology in Teacher Education). Tony Hall is a Senior Lecturer in educational technology and Deputy Head, School of Education, National University of Ireland, Galway. A Fellow of the International Society for Design and Development in Education, his research focuses on design-based research, innovation and technology in formal and informal educational environments. He is currently NUIG’s co-principal investigator for the EU project, Designing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies (DEIMP) and Teachers’ Research Exchange (T-REX), a blended learning platform to support Irish teachers to engage in collaborative research. His most recent book is Education, Narrative Technologies and Digital Learning: Designing Storytelling for Creativity with Computing (2018). Jon Hoem is an Associate Professor at the Department of Arts at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway. He researches digital media with a particular interest in relationship between digital and physical artefacts. Hoem’s PhD, Personal Publishing Environments, focuses on media design and communication patterns. His recent research interests focus on spherical media and robot-assisted education. Recent publications include Aesthetic Experience through Students’ Production of Digital Books (Rimmereide, Hoem & Iversen, 2019) and Digital Argumentation Aesthetics (Hoem & Schwebs, 2019). Paul Hopkins is a Lecturer at the University of Hull, UK. His research interests are in technology-enhanced learning, teaching science in the primary school

x

Contributors

and ‘What works’ in education. He has published in these areas including most recently on electronic books and on using technology for teaching and learning. Anbjorg Igland is an English Lecturer at the Metis Akadamiet, Bergen, Norway. She is interested in developing the use of mobile technology in English language teaching. She is currently leading an Erasmus+ research project on the use of mobile technology in formative assessment MoLTAM and has been a partner in the Erasmus+ MTTEP project. Anbjorg has co-authored some articles in the use of mobile technology in Education in Norway. Sarah Hoem Iversen is an Associate Professor in English language and literature at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway. Her main publications are on the history and pedagogy of English children’s dictionaries. Current research interests include children’s picture dictionaries, digital texts in teacher education and formative assessment using digital tools. Recent publications include ‘Student perspectives on formative feedback as part of writing portfolios’ (Bader, Burner, Iversen & Varga, 2019), ‘Aesthetic experience through students’ production of digital books’ (Rimmereide, Hoem & Iversen, 2019), and ‘Class, censorship, and the construction of the child reader in nineteenth-century children’s dictionaries’ (Iversen, 2018). Matthew Kearney is Deputy Director of the STEM Education Futures Research Centre at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) in Australia and is an associate professor in the area of ICT in education. His scholarly interests focus on innovative technology-mediated learning in K-12 and teacher education contexts. His most recent journal article is a co-authored publication in Computers and Education (2019), titled ‘Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students’. Ulf Kerber is the Head of the Department of Media Literacy and Digital Learning and also a research fellow in the Department of History Education, University of Education, Karlsruhe, Germany. Ulf ’s research focuses on the social aspects of computer science, the consequences of digitization on society and how these issues should be taught in school. This work includes topics such as big data, fake news and visual communication. Ulf ’s latest publication is Dealing with Facts and Fictions in Visual Communication in the Digital Age – A Transdisciplinary Contribution to the Creation of Reality in the Historical Media Education (2018).

Contributors

xi

Shanyun Kuang is a Professor at South China Normal University, China. Her research interests focus on educational technology and teacher education. Her most recent book is Design of Online Collaborative Learning Activity (2012). Jens Palkowitsch-Kühl is a Research Assistant and PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Human Sciences of the Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg, Germany, and project manager of RELab digital. Jens researches the attitudes and competencies of religious teachers in relation to digital media, develops media concepts together with schools and advises teachers on their use of digital media. His latest work is about Digital Media Literacy (2018) – a key competence in current German teacher training. Damian Maher is a Senior Lecturer in the School of International Studies and Education, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) in Australia. His research interests are in the field of emerging digital technologies and how these can support teaching and learning from primary through to the tertiary level. His most recent publication is in the Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education focusing on environmental education for primary school-aged students using digital technologies. Karsten Müller is a Teacher Educator at the Institute of Religious Education in Hassia, Germany, and responsible for media education. His research interests lie in the interaction between digital media and education. His most recent publication is about human rights and dignity on the internet (2019). Amanda Naylor is a Senior Lecturer in English and Education at the University of York, UK, where she is the Programme Leader for the BA English in Education. Amanda’s main publications are in the teaching of literature and poetry, teacher training and mobile learning. She is currently involved in the EU project, MoLTAM and has been a partner in the Erasmus+ MTTEP project. Her most recent publications include a co-authored publication in English and Education entitled ‘Developing UK and Norwegian undergraduate students’ conceptions of personal social issues in young adult fiction through transnational reflective exchange’ and ‘Shakespeare, Turgenev (and Kalashnikov) in Siberia’ (Mc Guinn and Naylor), in Students, Places and Identities in English and the Arts (2018) (Eds.) Stevens, D., and Lockney, K. London: Routledge.

xii

Contributors

Lien Pham is a Lecturer in the Graduate Research School, University of Technology, Sydney (UTS), Australia. Her research interests focus on education and macro development, participation and citizenship, and educational policy reform in the Asia Pacific region. She has published on international student experiences and capabilities, educational justice and philosophy of education. Her most recent book is International Graduates Returning to Vietnam (2019). Michael Reder is a Teacher of English, Sport and Media Education at the Wildermuth-Gymnasium, Tübingen, Germany, and media pedagogic consultant at the Kreismedienzentrum Tübingen. He is the author of articles in both of his subjects and co-author of several media education works. Thomas Rudel is the Director of the Kreismedienzentrum, Tübingen, Germany, and teacher of Geography and German at the Uhland-Gymnasium, Tübingen. He is author of several articles on media didactics and co-author of several textbooks on media education and German. Erdem Uygun is a PhD Candidate at Curriculum and Instruction programme at Middle East Technical University, Turkey. His research focuses on technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) development of pre-service and inservice teachers, evaluation of mobile apps’ pedagogical affordances, and their integration into learning and teaching environments.

Acknowledgements The editors would like to thank all the contributors to this volume, who worked efficiently to write their chapters and were generous in their time in sorting out many other aspects of this volume. We would like to thank Mrs Nadja Hess for translating Chapter 5 for Dr Kerber – not an easy task! We are appreciative of the speedy and efficient input of our editors at Bloomsbury and we could not have completed this volume without the patience and kindness of our families, so thank you all for that. Finally, without a doubt, much of this work could not have been done without the support and finance of the European Commission, through the Erasmus+ funding scheme, who supported the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) project and all the research infrastructure that has been provided by that inspirational funding body. It is this money and support that has enabled such an international set of researchers to write and think together, and we thank you for that.

xiv

Introduction: Teacher Education and Mobile Technologies

Background: The context of teacher education Many of the old certainties and convictions that characterized what some politicians nostalgically refer to as the ‘golden age of education’ (Gove 2012) are eroding or have disappeared altogether. Nowhere is this more apparent than in teacher education which currently faces a plethora of challenges driven by a wide range of political, social, economic and technological drivers. Change and unpredictability characterize the landscape of teacher education and the prevalent mindset is one of uncertainty as teacher educators grapple to address and satisfy an ever-increasing and demanding range of stakeholders, many of which would wish to steer it in multiple and often conflicting directions (Schuck et al. 2018). Although the notion of a ‘golden age’ for education, and with it teacher education, is itself highly contentious (Elliot 2007), there can be little doubt that teacher education now attracts considerably more attention and interference from policy-makers and politicians who seek to influence and control its direction in ways that were unthinkable and untenable only a generation ago. These initiatives and impositions are characterized by their top-down, ideological nature, brought about through government-sponsored reviews and reforms, but seldom from practitioners or decision-makers working at the chalk face of teacher education itself (Schuck et al. 2018). In this sense, teacher educators have become disenfranchised and excluded from the decision-making process yet still expected and required to implement reforms and agendas that are imposed upon them from above (Zeichner 2010). This book with its focus on transformation of teacher education is therefore timely, but problematic since it deals with a tension that is seemingly paradoxical

2

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

and contradictory: how does society prepare the next generation of teachers for a world that is both unpredictable and constantly changing, and is it feasible for teacher educators to transform the structures and practices of education from within? These questions and dilemmas are particularly relevant for the next generation of young teachers who will be expected to lead these futures, but it is equally pertinent and relevant for the current cadre of teachers and educational leaders who are currently struggling to cope with the demands to be relevant and forward looking while still expected to implement reforms and curricula that are essentially traditional or even retrograde. This book will not resolve or answer all of these questions and indeed that is not its intention. Rather, it offers the opportunity for teachers, teacher educators and decision-makers (at all levels) to explore alternatives and investigate the many different ways in which teacher education might be moving when it is mediated and supported by the appropriate use of technology, in this case, mobile technologies. It brings together a wide and diverse range of both theoretical and practical case studies, written by experts and researchers in teacher education, that practitioners and policy-makers will find thought provoking and, in some cases, challenging in terms of how they approach the exciting and daunting task of preparing the next generation of teachers to use technology in ways that are both appropriate and innovative.

Technology and its role as a driver of teacher education The digital revolution is already transforming the landscape of society and digital technologies are widely recognized as key drivers in the achievement of twenty-first-century skills and capabilities for young people, such as information management, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving (Fullan & Langworthy 2014; Van Laar et al. 2017). It is expected, therefore, that teacher education will prepare both the next and the current generation of teachers to effectively integrate the use of technology across the curriculum as a tool for teaching, learning and their own professional development. This is acknowledged almost universally with the inclusion of core standards and skills tests for technology integration an integral component in many programmes of initial teacher education (ITE) and, in fewer instances, in service teacher professional development. However, the potential impact and trajectory that digital technologies will take in the near future is uncertain, particularly when the landscape of teacher

Introduction

3

education is so changeable, ill-defined and subject to external ideological and political pressures. Horizon scanning exercises can confuse matters still further but some trends and developments point to an emerging nexus of technological and pedagogical developments that are likely to have a profound and lasting impact on school education and therefore on teacher education also (Schuck et al. 2018). Subject or content knowledge is a good example of the symbiotic relationship that exists and needs to be better understood, between emerging digital technologies and traditional pedagogical practices. Digital technologies, centred on the internet and the vast databases of information that are now stored on it, are altering how users search for and remember information. In the age of Google, memorization of facts and information is no longer as prized as it was and this, along with other knowledge management developments, invites new conceptualizations of what constitutes knowledge, how it is created, communicated, verified and stored (Burden 2010). Given these developments, is it sensible to require teachers to memorize and retain the same volume of content knowledge as in the analogue era, and if access to information becomes almost spontaneous, what new strategies and skills should we be expecting teachers to develop and acquire in place of pure memorization (Royle et al. 2014)? This example illustrates how the emergence and development of a particular technology is inextricably bound up with the many pedagogical considerations that flow from it, in what is sometimes referred to as TPACK or technological, pedagogical, content knowledge (Mishra & Koehler 2006). The relationship between technology, subject knowledge and pedagogical practice is complex and nuanced, consisting of an entirely new set of skills, understandings and practices that are now required as core masteries for preservice teachers (PSTs). The growth of Big Data and Learning Analytics, driven by technological innovations such as the Internet of Things (IoT), is another example of how the complex relationship between technology and pedagogy is changing, and the effect this has on teachers and teacher educators. Although it is still in its infancy in education, the use of large data sets and algorithms associated with learning analytics is set to have a huge impact on how teachers use pupil data to customize and personalize student learning and, in turn, how teacher education prepares new entrants to the profession to handle and utilize these emerging tools. Technology is altering the way teachers undertake and conceptualize assessment processes and with it the need to ensure pre-service teachers have a sound grounding, not just in the practical skills associated with these

4

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

technologies, but with the moral, ethical and many other implications that flow from them (Schuck et al. 2018). These few examples illustrate how technology is already used in education to support and enhance high-quality learning and why, therefore, it is important that teacher education recognizes and supports it with pre-service teachers.

Importance of mobile learning in teacher education For the majority of the time that digital technologies have been utilized as educational tools they have been used in specific locations and places such as computer rooms or laboratories because they are ‘tethered’ by the need for power and Ethernet cables (Traxler 2007; Maher et al. 2017). Due to their relative expense, technologies like this have been purchased by the institution, not the individual, and these factors have significantly dictated the manner in which digital technologies are used and their subsequent impact. Until recently, for most students in schools the use of digital technologies has been ‘episodic’ and irregular and for many who are not studying the subject itself, technology is a fleeting experience that makes only a limited impact on how they are taught or learn. Mobile technologies, in the form of laptops and more recently personal smartphones and tablet devices (e.g. the iPad), are transforming this paradigm of technology use in education. These devices are ‘untethered’, independent of Ethernet cables, and therefore unhindered by the fixed boundaries that restrict how PC technologies are used. They are also highly personal, often owned by the individual, not the institution, giving the learner much greater agency and autonomy about how they learn, where they learn and, indeed, what they learn (Burden & Kearney 2016). As a result the various capabilities and features associated with mobile technologies (collectively referred to here as ‘affordances’) have generated both interest and concern among practitioners (e.g. teachers and teacher educators), decision-makers (e.g. government ministers) and researchers for varying and not always complementary purposes (Johnson et al. 2013). For many of these stakeholders though, mobile technologies have been valorized as game changers, capable of mediating the kind of educational transformations that previous initiatives and, indeed previous technologies, failed to achieve.

Introduction

5

This includes the ability of mobile technologies to transcend traditional boundaries such as space and time that have previously restricted or bounded teaching and learning to fixed places and timetables (Schuck et al. 2017). It points to the widespread belief that mobile technologies garner greater student engagement, motivation and agency (Bachmair et al. 2009; Kearney et al. 2012), more collaboration, creation and sharing (Sharples et al. 2009), alongside evidence for greater personalization and customization of learning (Kearney & Maher 2013), all situated in a variety of different contexts that include not only the formal classroom but non-formal or Third Spaces such as museums, field trips, coffee shops, public transport and other spaces where learners might be situated (Schuck et al. 2017). And yet despite these multitudinous claims and aspirations around the transformational potential of mobile technologies, the evidence base for significant and lasting innovation and change remains somewhat scant and patchy (cf. Burden et al. 2015; Burden & Kearney 2017). For example, in a recent systematic literature review undertaken as part of Erasmus+ project on mobile learning in teacher education (see www.deimpeu.com), researchers from the UK and Australia came to the conclusion that radical or disruptive innovation in mobile learning that actually transforms the existing paradigms of education is rare outliers. Indeed where they are identified they tend to be located in nonformal settings outside of schools or universities and are usually initiated and controlled by learners, not teachers (Burden, Kearney, Schuck & Hall 2019). Examples of innovation brought about through the affordances of mobile technologies are not difficult to identify but they are described as ‘sustaining innovations’ by the above researchers who suggest teachers and schools should be encouraged to focus on what is feasible in terms of innovation, rather than what is transformational. So what are the implications of these findings for teacher education and, indeed, the focus of this volume? A recent study focused specifically on the pedagogical practices of teacher educators, used the iPAC framework, a bespoke theoretical model of mobile learning (see Kearney et al. 2012), as a lens to understand and quantify how and to what extent teacher educators used mobile devices in their practice to promote transformational practices or pedagogies with their pre-service teachers. The iPAC framework identifies personalization, authenticity and collaboration (broken down into more granular sub-constructs) as the defining affordances or ‘signature pedagogies’ of mobile learning (Kearney et al. 2012).

6

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

The research discovered that teacher educators are also inclined to adopt pedagogies and practices with mobile technologies that replicate but do not replace traditional teaching approaches (Kearney et al. 2015). In particular it highlights how teacher educators are reluctant to adopt or ignorant to the benefits and opportunities of using mobile technologies seamlessly to cross boundaries between formal and informal settings. Like teachers in schools, teacher educators are also uncomfortable in using mobile technologies to support online collaboration between their trainees or to connect them with outside experts or other cohorts of trainees in different contexts and settings to develop intercultural awareness and understanding. More concerning was the reluctance exhibited by many teacher educators involved in the research to grant their trainees any significant degree of agency or freedom to make choices using their mobile device which exactly echoes the findings from multiple research studies of school teachers (Burden et al. 2015). This despite the greater maturity and experience of pre-service teachers and their need to demonstrate independence and leadership as would-be teachers.

Conclusions These challenges and opportunities suggest there is a clear and urgent need to understand better how teacher education is currently engaging with the phenomena of mobile learning, particularly in terms of how it prepares preservice teachers to tackle what must appear to be at times a complex and contradictory future. This volume draws upon the experiences and research of teacher educators and those involved in preparing the next generation of teachers who have explored and investigated the value of mobile learning in practice.

Outline and organization of the book In response to the many challenges and opportunities afforded through the emergence of digital technologies, and mobile devices in particular, in schools and colleges, it is generally recognized that teacher education has failed to keep pace with many of these technological developments and the pedagogical implications that flow from them (Baran 2014). The Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies project (www.mttep.eu) was a direct response to

Introduction

7

this challenge and the urgent need to provide teacher educators with resources, inspiration, guidance and exemplars to enable them to better equip their PSTs for the mobile age in which they will teach. The project, which ran from 2014 to 2017, featured an international collaboration of universities, initial teacher education institutions, teacher educators and schools, and this book captures much of the learning and subsequent developments that stemmed from the project. It is organized in two sections that illustrate the impact and learning derived in the project partner institutions themselves (Section 1) and those further afield, influenced by the outcomes and emerging research generated from the project (Section 2). Section 1 of the book draws upon the varied experiences of five groups of teacher educators involved directly in the project. This includes contributions from the UK (the coordinating partner), Australia, Norway and Germany. Section 2 is more diverse and features case studies from teacher educators who were not directly involved in the project itself but were influenced by it. This includes contributions from Ireland, Sweden, Turkey and Germany but remains focused on the theme of mobile learning in teacher education contexts and its potential to challenge and transform existing educational structures and practices. Finally, in Chapter 11 the editors adopt a futures thinking methodology to reflect on the various themes and drivers that emerge from each of the individual chapters. In this chapter the editors invited all of the chapter authors to reflect upon a series of future scenarios derived from their individual contributions and narratives, using a future scenarios building methodology (Schuck et al. 2018). Their responses and the scenarios that were developed are instrumental in assisting us to answer our central question about the feasibility of transforming teacher education with mobile technologies.

References Bachmair, B., Pachler, N., & Cook, J. (2009), Mobile phones as cultural resources for learning – An analysis of mobile expertise, structures and emerging cultural practices. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 1–29. Baran, E. (2014), A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Burden, K. (2010), Conceptualising teachers’ professional learning with Web 2.0. Campus-wide Information Systems, 27(3), 148–161.

8

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016), Conceptualising authentic mobile learning. In Mobile Learning Design (pp. 27–42). Singapore: Springer. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2017), Investigating and critiquing teacher educators’ mobile learning practices, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 110–125. Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Hall, T. (2019), Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 138, 83–100. Elliott, A. (2007), State Schools since the 1950s: The Good News, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, UK: Trentham Books. Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014), A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning, London: Pearson. Gove, M. (2012), The Independent, 30 April. Available online: https://www.independent. co.uk/news/uk/politics/golden-age-never-happened-head-teachers-leader-tellsgove-7689173.html (Accessed 12 June 2019). Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Martín, S. (2013), Technology Outlook for STEM + Education 2013–2018: An NMC Horizon Project Sector Analysis. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013), Mobile learning in maths teacher education: Using iPads to support pre-service teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 76–84. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015), Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1). https://doi. org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406. Maher, D., Schuck, S., & Perry, R. (2017), Investigating knowledge exchange amongst school teachers, university teacher educators and industry partners. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 42(3), 73. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teachers’ knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108 (6), 1017–1054. Royle, K., Stager, S., & Traxler, J. (2014), Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative critical factors. Prospects, 44(1), 29–42. Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017), Exploring mobile learning in the Third Space. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 121–137. Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burden, K., & Brindley, S. (2018), Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Scenarios, Politics and STEM. Singapore: Springer. Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009), Mobile learning. In Technology-enhanced Learning (pp. 233–249). Dordrecht: Springer.

Introduction

9

Traxler, J. (2007), Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ …. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.346 (Accessed 19 November 2019). Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A., Van Dilk, J., & de Haan, J. (2017), The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72. Zeichner, K. (2010), Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance, and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the US. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1544–1552.

10

Part One

Introducing the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educator’s Pedagogies project The contexts within which society prepares teachers to work in schools and supports the professional development of in-service teachers (ISTs) have always been capricious and susceptible to unforeseen swings and changes, but today it is almost unfathomable and there is no indication that this will change any time soon (cf. Pegrum et al. 2013). Add to this the growing ubiquity and pervasiveness of technology and particularly mobile devices, owned and controlled by individuals, not the institution, and teacher educators are caught up in a perfect storm of uncertainty. Indeed uncertainty in teacher education futures is a burgeoning field of academic study in its own right (e.g. Schuck et al. 2018) and the role and importance of educational technology are a fiercely contested part of this debate (Selwyn 2018). Schools and institutions of teacher education alike are struggling to stay afloat in the face of repeated waves of technological innovations, and the use of mobile technologies is proving to be a particularly problematic challenge, as educators seek to resolve the tensions and binary positions that situate these technologies as both the cause and solution of today’s educational challenges and problems. In 2014 these were some of the contextual factors and drivers that inspired the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) project, an Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership project partly funded through the European Union (see www.mttep.eu). This was a three-year transnational project featuring four Initial Teacher Education institutions (ITEs) in the UK, Norway, Germany and Australia, along with partner schools in each country.

12

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

The principal objective of the project was to develop bespoke resources and networks that would support teacher educators in using and teaching with mobile technologies. In turn it was recognized this was a necessary but not sufficient step in ensuring pre-service teachers (PSTs) understand and are able to use mobile technologies effectively when they teach. Therefore the MTTEP project was also cognizant of the issue of sustainability and the need to ensure the initiative had a legacy that lasted beyond its three-year duration. This led to the establishment of the Mobile Learning Network for teacher educators, an international network for teacher educators to support and enhance the use of mobile technologies as tools for learning (http://www.mobilelearningtoolkit. com/network.html). In order to achieve these aims the project partners focused on creating and disseminating a mobile learning toolkit to provide both theoretical and practical guidance for educators in the principled use of mobile technologies. The toolkit (see www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com) consists of several elements that include iPAC, a bespoke theoretical mobile learning framework developed by academics in Australia and the UK (see Kearney et al. 2012); a selection of evaluation and survey tools to gauge and monitor the capacity and capability of educators in using mobile devices; a collection of video exemplars to illustrate different practices in using mobile technologies in teacher education; an online mobile learning course or MOOC to support professional development; and a selection of eBooks which provide detailed guidance, advice and further reading around the topic. A more detailed account of how the toolkit was designed, created and tested can be found in Burden & Kearney (2018). The Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies project was designed to bring about change and transformation at a systemic level across institutions of teacher education and in turn, their partnership schools where PSTs undertake placements. But no two institutions of teacher education or the placement schools they partner with are alike. Indeed the contextual factors that shape the dynamics and relationships of these partnerships are complex and multifaceted, meaning one-size-fits-all solutions are unlikely to work. In the section that follows project partners from ITEs and partner schools/colleges illustrate their involvement in the project and describe the contextual factors and issues that shaped it. Each of these partners was instrumental in designing, developing and piloting the various resources, instruments and tools that make up the mobile learning toolkit, and the five chapters that follow highlight different aspects of each along with the impact their involvement has brought about on staff, students and their wider institutions.

Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educator’s Pedagogies Project

13

The project was coordinated and led by the University of Hull (UK), and in the first case study (Chapter 1), Paul Hopkins, a lecturer in teacher education at the University of Hull, highlights the challenges, barriers and benefits brought about by an institution-wide approach to personal tablet ownership which saw all PSTs provided with an iPad for the duration of their one-year programme. This case study demonstrates the importance and value of a sound theoretical framework (the iPAC framework) to underpin the practical activities and approaches when all students have access to a networked device like an iPad. It also highlights the need for institutions to consider how their existing curricula, including arrangements for school placements, will be affected when PSTs have access to a mobile device like an iPad. Many of the issues and tensions raised in this chapter are returned to again in later chapters. In Norway the project partners included a teacher education institution (Bergen University College, now Western Norway University of Applied Sciences) and Metis videregående, an Upper Secondary School with about 500 students of 16–19 years of age. Each of these partners worked in complementary but different ways to fulfil the project’s aspirations. In Chapter 2, Sarah Hoem Iversen and Jon Hoem from Western Norway University of Applied Sciences present a case study of PSTs collaborative writing of a hypertext narrative for mobile devices. This chapter foregrounds the collaborative elements of the iPAC theoretical framework that was used to underpin the entire MTTEP project and features the work of PSTs specializing in English. It expands upon current debates around the nature of literacy, multimodal texts and narratives and in doing so highlights a common theme that runs across the entire volume: namely, how does the use and adoption of mobile devices challenge our current thinking and understanding of narrative form? Chapter 3 takes us across the globe to the only non-European partner in the MTTEP project, the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). As co-authors of the iPAC framework, Associate Professor Matthew Kearney and his colleagues describe the role of UTS in applying the iPAC framework to support the creation of Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) for PSTs and their impact on learning. Like Chapter 2, Chapter 4 is also set in the context of Norway and provides a similar but different account of the MTTEP project, this time from a transnational perspective that features older students from Metis videregående, an Upper Secondary School in Bergen, working with PST English students at the University of Hull. In this chapter the authors illustrate the benefits of a transnational, collaborative approach to using mobile devices to produce and read eBooks, a central theme or element of the MTTEP project. This chapter

14

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

draws upon the notion of student agency and self-efficacy, both features highlighted as potent affordances of mobile technologies, to demonstrate how the process of designing and reviewing eBooks by school students and PSTs is a powerful pedagogic strategy in its own right. Finally, in Chapter 5, Dr Ulf Kreber from Karlsruhe University of Education in Germany explores how mobile learning and media literacy can be integrated together by both PSTs and ISTs to foster teacher education in the fields of history and social science. Taken together the case studies in Section 1 (Chapters 1–5) exemplify many of the different aspects and features of the MTTEP project and its aspiration to create a mobile learning network for teachers and teacher educators. They foreground the issues and complexities associated with introducing and sustaining the use of mobile technologies in teacher education institutions and in schools, including the paramount importance of professional development and support for teacher educators themselves.

References Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2018), Designing an educator toolkit for the mobile learning age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 10(2), 88–99. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1). Pegrum, M., Howitt, C., & Striepe, M. (2013), Learning to take the tablet: How pre-service teachers use iPads to facilitate their learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4). Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burden, K., & Brindley, S. (2018), Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Scenarios, Politics and STEM. Singapore: Springer. Selwyn, N. (2018), Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

1

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning in Teacher Education Paul Hopkins

University of Hull

Introduction This chapter explores the ubiquitous and pervasive use of tablet devices (in this case the iPad) in a teacher education programme at the University of Hull between 2014 and 2017. This coincides with the launch of the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educator’s Pedagogies project (MTTEP), coordinated and led by the University of Hull and involving many of the teacher educators associated with this case study. In 2014 the Faculty of Education1 at the University of Hull funded a three-year project to equip all pre-service teachers on the oneyear Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) programme with a personal tablet device to explore its impact on their pedagogical thinking and practices and those of their tutors. This chapter illustrates how the project was undertaken and its impact on students, teacher educators and the structure of the programme. Its central narrative is woven around the MTTEP project which occurred at the same time, and its main focus is around the disciplines of secondary history, science and English who were most closely involved in the project. While this chapter will touch on the experiences of pre-service teachers in their placement schools it will focus mainly on their experiences in the university-based aspects of the teacher education. For purposes of simplicity throughout the rest of the chapter, this is referred to as the ‘iPad Project’.

The Faculty of Education has since been amalgamated and is now part of the Faculty of Arts, Cultures and Education at the University of Hull.

1

16

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Background The Standards for Qualified Teacher Status for Teachers in England (2000) require that teachers are skilful in literacy, numeracy, and information and communication technology, and the iPad Project was established to explore the various ways in which mobile technologies (e.g. the iPad) might support this standard and the broader professional learning of pre-service teachers that occurs across different contexts including the university, placement schools and the home. In addition, the iPad Project was designed to explore the wider institutional impact of mobile technologies for learning and teaching purposes, including both the pedagogical and logistical considerations across and beyond the institution. Tablet devices have made a huge impact in schools since the launch of the iPad in 2010. Since that point tablet devices have proliferated and in 2014 they were predicted to outsell PCs. At the time of writing (2019) in the UK over 70 per cent of schools are estimated to be using tablet devices (BBC 2014) and in Europe, ‘laptops, tablets and net-books are becoming pervasive’ (Gartner 2014). As these devices become more established in schools they are being used to support and develop pedagogical practices (Burden et al. 2012; Baran 2014; Picardo 2017) but are also starting to challenge some existing models of thinking and pedagogy (Kearney et al. 2012; Fullan & Langworth 2014) and teachers’ attitudes towards learning and teaching (Ertmer 1999; Burden & Hopkins 2017). While offering spaces for learning to become more authentic, personal and collaborative (Kearney et al. 2012), there are also opportunities for teachers to start to redesign the ways in which learning is taking place (McCormick & Scrimshaw 2001; Puendentura 2010). In 2007 Traxler described mobile learning as ‘an educational process, in which handheld devices or palmtops are the only or dominant used technology tools’ (2007: 2) and in 2012 Kearney et al. predicted that mobiles had the potential to revolutionize the learning process in allowing individuals to determine their own independent paradigms and frameworks of learning. These devices also have the potential, with suitable human agency, to support sophisticated production of digital artefacts, and students and teachers are capable of being co-producers of learning materials. This is important for both teacher education and for teacher educators, as given that most of these tools are recent developments, it is likely that significant numbers of those currently preparing pre-service teachers to enter

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

17

the workplace have little or no experience in using these devices with schoolage children and are likely to be ‘digital immigrants’ (Prensky 2001) or ‘digital visitors’ (White & Le Cornu 2011) rather than more sophisticated personal users of these technologies. They are also less likely to be digital producers of materials suitable for use on tablet devices (i.e. apps or eBooks) (Felvégi & Matthew 2012); as Dewey said, ‘If we teach today as we taught yesterday, we rob our children of tomorrow’ (1944: 167).

Professional learning, pedagogy and digital technologies The iPad Project was underpinned by two core questions (McCormick & Scrimshaw 2001): ●●

●●

How does technology support existing models of pedagogy? How does technology challenge existing models of pedagogy?

An important change in the last few years has been the growth in ubiquitous Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) and the consequent emerging use of mobile technologies in and outside of the classroom. Data collected in recent informal surveys of pre-service teacher technology use at the University of Hull shows almost universal ownership of smartphones and significant ownership of tablet devices (Burden & Hopkins 2017). Therefore we consider it prudent and necessary to grasp the opportunities offered by ubiquitous technology ownership to prepare pre-service teachers to use and harness flexible technologies, such as mobile and tablet devices, both for their professional and personal learning, using a range of pedagogic models (McCormick & Scrimshaw 2001; Aubusson et al. 2009; Koehler et al. 2011; Kearney et al. 2012). The use of mobile technologies in teachers’ own professional learning offers the potential for pre-service teachers to access current educational information (e.g. video clips, articles, lecture and presentation notes) and transfer valuable learning and teaching resources between their various locations which include the university itself, their school placements and their homes (Aubusson et al. 2009; Wishart 2009). In addition, it offers opportunities for students to collaborate with other students (and teachers) and to analyse and reflect on their own practice and learning. Many of these are generic employability skills which are valued across many

18

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

different cognate areas of the university and therefore they are of interest to many different stakeholders beyond the teacher education department. While many of the core functions of teaching, such as planning, delivering and assessment, remain pedagogically the same, the growth in access to mobile technologies and wireless networks challenges the means by which these functions are carried. So teacher professional learning needs to provide opportunities for critical reflection on the application of these and access to changing knowledge bases. Mobile technologies offer a potentially powerful means to enhance teachers’ professional learning through the following: ●●

●●

●●

The discussion of pedagogical issues within a community of colleagues and with other trainees, both within and beyond the institution (Resta & LaFerriere 2007; Fullan & Langworthy 2014) Ready access to online information and resources which can be easily adapted for different audiences (Selwyn 2016; Picardo 2017) Shared reflection on digitally captured classroom experiences (McCarthy 2017; Picardo 2017)

Although some authors have identified mobile learning as a way of alleviating some of the problems associated with the itinerant nature of teacher training (Aubusson et al. 2009; Wishart 2009), others have discovered that pre-service teachers appreciate the portability that mobile devices afford for transferring resources and especially the just-in-time access to the internet made available through the device (Wishart et al. 2005). Pre-service teachers and teachers found the mobile devices particularly useful for management activities such as record-keeping and note-taking as well as resource finding and sharing, though  there were some issues around using the devices in schools due to restrictions and firewalls (Burden & Hopkins 2017). Much of the current research on teacher learning and technology investigates the integration of ICT into school curricula (Bain 2004; Staples et al. 2005). While there have been some small-scale projects which have explored the use of mobile technologies in ITE (Wishart 2009) these have not tracked pre-service teachers through their school placements nor have they investigated the impact of access to employment. In addition, research on mobile technologies in education has tended to focus primarily on use by pupils and on the ways that teachers can support that usage, while little research has been conducted on how teachers and preservice teachers themselves might learn with these new technologies or indeed

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

19

with any digital technologies (Naismith et al. 2004; Fisher et al. 2006). Fisher et al. (2006) argue that if different approaches to learning and teaching and different relationships between students and teachers are to occur, it is essential to understand teachers’ learning and the role that digital technologies might play in this. This project seeks to build on Fisher et al.’s (2006) review of teacher learning with digital technologies by considering what mobility, with its characteristics of being personal and portable, might contribute to the experience of pre-service and early career teachers and what benefits this might ultimately bring to institutions involved in the process, such as the university provider and the recipient schools. In recent years there has been a discernible shift in education away from fixed PC computers towards more pervasive devices, sometimes referred to as ‘Post-PC Technologies’ (Murphy 2011) such as mobile phones and tablet computers which are highly personal rather than corporate technologies. Although smartphones have been around for about fifteen years it is only in recent years that they have become virtually universal with UNESCO estimating there are over 6 billion subscriptions across the world (UNESCO 2016). Their use as tools for learning, however, especially in formal contexts such as schools and universities, remains contentious and largely unexplored both for practitioners and policy-makers alike who face the dilemma of reconciling the potential gains of these devices with the much publicized dangers and concerns, real or perceived, when used in the classroom or lecture theatre (Burden et al. 2019). Students are increasingly likely to bring their own mobile computers including laptops, notebooks and tablet technologies to campus and therefore there is an urgent need to clarify how such portable technologies can be used most effectively for teaching, learning and with what impact.

Project development phases Phase I: Set-up and launch (university phases) In September 2013 the faculty purchased approximately 150 second-generation iPads and core apps which were allocated to all pre-service teachers. In this initial phase of the project the student cohort and the lecturers were introduced to the aims of the project and the technology. The apps that were used for the project were shared with the students and some training was given to the staff and students with some open ‘drop-in’ sessions to upskill both. These initial

20

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

stages of the initiative were focused on using the devices as learning aids while in the university and in their placement schools and included: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Use of the device as a recording tool for reflection (a process at the heart of the teacher education programme) capturing (using video and audio capture tools) and note-taking Use of the device for the creative construction of resource artefacts (using presentation, graphic, video, text and audio creation tools) Use of the tool for the creative construction of knowledge (e.g. collaboration in social space, sharing of resources) Understanding the necessary ethical and e-safety requirements for the use of the tools in a school context

At the start of this phase the pre-service teachers completed an online survey to identify both their experience/competency in using mobile technologies and also their attitudes about the potential value in terms of their own professional learning. This was repeated at the end of the project (June 2014) to establish the ways in which trainees perceived they had changed in terms of attitudes and competencies. The student teachers were also requested to keep a log or journal on a regular basis during this phase, using the mobile device itself allowing them to reflect on the use of the device and how it impacted on their thinking about teaching and learning.

Phase II: School placements During this time students were away from the university on school placements. This phase of the programme is traditionally a difficult one for universitybased staff as they attempt to visit and keep track of individual students who may be dispersed across a wide geographical area. It can also be a disconcerting experience for students who are remote from the advice and support of both their peers and tutors. The iPad was used by students and tutors to stay in contact during this period with the use of videoconferencing tools (e.g. Facetime and Skype). Students were also able to explore how their device could be used for teaching and learning purposes during this phase. This was not a compulsory requirement at this stage in the project since trainees and their school-based mentors had not yet had enough time to make this feasible and it was impossible for all school placements to offer equal support to students. At the end of this

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

21

phase students were surveyed and some were interviewed to assess the impact on their thinking and practice.

Phase III: February–June 2014 During this phase students returned to the university for a short and intensive period of study before returning to a second placement, in a different school, where they had further opportunities to use the iPad in their teaching. During the university period students were encouraged to develop a wider range of strategies for using their iPad both as a tool for professional learning and as a teaching tool working with the project coordinators and with their own subject tutors who had themselves been planning ways in which the devices could be used.

Phase IV: September–June 2014–2015 The cycle above was repeated for a second time in 2014–2015 using the equipment loaned to students in 2013–2014. This gave the project leads and the university tutors time to refine and improve the student experience with technology building on the lessons learned from the first cycle including the provision of more bespoke training and resources.

Impact and findings This section discusses the findings and impact of the project using data collected from surveys, interviews and student journals. It explores how the devices were used in the teaching sessions in the university and during school placements. It also examines how the students’ attitudes changed as they had access to a personal device and some of the barriers that were encountered in their use of the iPads. This is followed by four micro-case studies on how the devices were used in the disciplines of history, English, science and mathematics. These findings draw on a number of data sources gathered during the project: ●●

●●

Entry surveys undertaken with the trainee teachers at the beginning of their year of usage Exit surveys taken at the end of the year when the devices were returned

22 ●●

●●

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Email logs sent to the research team during the course of the project Video interviews with a selection of teachers during the project

Existing experiences and expectations of technology use at the start of the programme As mentioned earlier, students’ access to technology has changed considerably in the last few years with the move from ‘static’ technologies such as fixed personal computers to dynamic technologies such as laptops, tablets and mobile devices. This project started seven years after the first iPhone came onto the market and four years after the first iPad. However, the speed of adoption of the smartphone has been remarkable and all the pre-service teachers in the group owned a mobile device at the start of the programme with 93 per cent (108/116) owning a smartphone capable of internet access. The iPhone was the most popular device (53 per cent) with about 43 per cent owning an Android smartphone. There was also a significant number who already owned an iPad (26 per cent) or an Android tablet (15 per cent). This means most of the students had some facility with mobile devices for personal use though the opportunity for professional or work-related use was much lower.

How did students perceive these technologies? While the vast majority of students (97 per cent) considered their laptop (or desktop) to be a ‘working’ or ‘learning’ tool, only 38 per cent of those who used a tablet made the same claim and only 11 per cent saw their smartphone as a learning tool. Their tablet devices and especially their smartphones were seen as consumption, media, entertainment and communication devices. This was significant finding for the use of the devices in the classroom and was instrumental in shaping the development of the MTTEP project referred to earlier in the book. When asked about their previous technology use for learning it was the desktop that was cited as the established tool for use in their undergraduate degree with 80 per cent citing this as the tool they had most used. Despite high levels of access to technology only 10 per cent of students reported using it as part of their taught undergraduate degrees. Over half reported technology being used occasionally and about a quarter reported that it had never been used (see Figure 1.1).

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

23

Figure 1.1  Use of technology in undergraduate studies.

The most commonly cited uses for technology in their previous studies had been for accessing the internet for information (99 per cent), sending of emails daily or very frequently (94 per cent), writing documents (84 per cent), making presentations (55 per cent) and note-taking during lectures (47 per cent). To a lesser extent they created multimedia artefacts (15 per cent). There were similar patterns of use for social media with 66 per cent accessing social media for networking (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), 68 per cent watching video (YouTube, Vimeo) and 45 per cent accessing blogs. However very few reported using technology as a creation tool with only 20 per cent having made or uploaded a video, 14 per cent creating a blog or webpage, and only 8 per cent creating their own wiki. This shows an interesting disjunct between the use of technology in personal and professional lives and between consumption and creation. This disjunct was picked up in White and LeCornu (2011) when looking at personal and professional use of technology. While the personal use of technology is moving towards the mobile, the professional still seems to be more situated in tethered technologies. At the start of the project, students were asked about their attitudes to using and learning with technology. These can be seen in Figure 1.2. Figure 1.2 reveals how students were very positive about developing their skills (79 per cent mostly or very much), are convinced of the benefits of technology (80 per cent), are convinced technology can make their work easier (80 per cent), and think technology will be useful in finding and managing

24

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 1.2  Attitudes to using and learning with technology.

information (92 per cent). They are mostly positive about how they will go about this as 80 per cent feel not at all or only somewhat overwhelmed by technological developments. They are more cautious in their attitudes to the use of technology in the classroom with almost half (45 per cent) thinking that pupils in schools might damage a device and 51 per cent thinking they might use it to access inappropriate materials. A majority (55 per cent) thought that pupils would get distracted from their learning and a similar percentage (58 per cent) were concerned that pupils would forget the device or bring it to school insufficiently charged. They were on the whole supportive of the idea of having devices in the classroom with only 25 per cent unsure and most (71 per cent) were confident they could use the device for teaching and learning. Common themes that emerged from the data were using the device for personalized learning, for research, for data collection or note-taking, and for presentation of materials.

Use of the technology during the project in the university and in placement schools The students made good use of the devices in the first phase of the programme (see above) while they were in the university and in their initial placement schools with 80 per cent of the students reporting that they used the devices every day or most days. No student reported never using the device

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

25

but 4 per cent did report they only used it occasionally. The most common use of the devices was in the more general professional studies sessions and in the subject-specific university sessions. There was comparatively little use of the devices in the placement settings where the most common reasons given for the lack of use were being able, or permitted, to connect to the school’s Wi-Fi; opportunities within the teaching and learning frameworks to use the device; and not seeing a single device as a useful teaching tool for the classroom. The students also reported on how the university tutors modelled the use of the devices in their university sessions and some correlation can be seen here between the modelling by the tutor and the student use. Forty-five per cent of the students reported that the tutor used the device in every (25 per cent) or most (20 per cent) sessions in their professional studies sessions and 54 per cent of the students said that they used the device every (26 per cent) or most (28  per cent) sessions. In their subject sessions the figures were 34 per cent (10 per cent/24 per cent) for the tutors and 38 per cent (10 per cent/28 per cent) for the students. The structure of the university course dictates that the majority of the teaching time takes place between September and December and most of the rest of the year the students are in one of two placement schools. Therefore the initial university phase was the time when the students needed to gain confidence in using the devices and the data on this was mixed with 60 per cent reporting that they felt sufficiently trained but only 17 per cent were very positive about this. A significant minority (23 per cent) did not feel that they were sufficiently well prepared to use the devices on teaching practice. The data below shows how well prepared the students felt in using the apps that had been pre-installed on the devices (see Figure 1.3). Looking at Figure 1.3 there were only four applications which more than 50 per cent of the students used a reasonable number of times and really only two they used frequently (Pages and Dropbox) which were probably due to the requirement to upload journal items. Away from the environment of the university there were some considerable barriers to using the technology in schools both as a tool in the classroom and as a tool for personal learning. It is illustrative to hear some comments from students (names changed) on their own experiences of using their iPad during these phases of the project: James, an English trainee, talked about using Dropbox to store and share information with colleagues, using iBooks to have access to electronic versions of books which he could annotate and share; using Pages to share presentations and then mark up to make note taking more efficient and more personal.

26

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 1.3  Use of apps in university sessions, September–December. Jenny, a Geography trainee, has been using note-taking apps which allows her to make notes and link these directly to the documents; she has found having the reading for sessions in electronic form an advantage so she has not had to transport heavy folders and has given her access to materials during discussions, including her own markup of these documents. She has used mind-mapping and sticky notes for note-taking and to aid with her ‘to do’ and organisation of the course. She has also used a range of apps in her subject including Earthquake. Availability to real-time data in schools and the browser has allowed her to easily access and share materials with colleagues in the university and students in school (e.g. maps and images to enhance her teaching). Andrew, a mathematics trainee, talks about the usefulness of having all the resources ‘at your fingertips’ for both the university work and for preparation for school activities. This includes specific mathematics applications such as Qquickgraph and rRocketmaths. He did not have a chance to use the device in school but has used it a lot to develop his professional and subject knowledge. Alice, a science trainee, has been able to use her device in school using apps to organize and support her teaching including the development of subject knowledge and the preparation of differentiated questions for pupils in school and to share video and images in school. She has used the device as an e-portfolio to have all her documentation for mentor sessions. She also has been using the device for supporting her learning in the university – she has really liked the portability and convenience of having ‘everything in one place’.

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

27

Attitudes and barriers to the use of technology When the students were asked to comment on their attitudes to the tablet device as a tool for personal, school-based and professional learning, they were generally very positive, and despite their concerns about preparation the majority grew in confidence across their year of the project. While both the pre-service teachers and tutors in the university were on the whole positive about the use of the devices and their ability to use these in teaching and learning, there were a number of issues that were raised by students that were barriers to usage and development. These could be categorized as both internal and external factors. The external factors are those that are out of the control of the student (e.g. lack of training, hardware/ software issues, infrastructure issues) and the internal are the attitudes that the teacher has towards teaching and learning with the devices (Ertmer et al. 2012). The argument is that if these internal attitudes are not addressed then ‘fixing’ the external factors makes little difference. Burden and Hopkins (2017) explain this in more detail but at the crux is Ertmer et al.’s (2012) argument that developed countries have passed the tipping point where these external factors are the determining factors about usage of devices in teaching and learning: If first order barriers are no longer operational in teachers’ classrooms today, or are operating below a minimal threshold, we may be in a better position to observe how teachers enact their beliefs through purposefully selected practices. (2012: 425)

Case studies of usage Finally it is worth outlining briefly some of the individual projects that subject tutors in the university were able to carry out as a result of the 1:1 ownership scheme in which all students had access to a personal device across all phases of the programme, both in and beyond the university. Due to space restrictions only three of the projects are outlined below.

Science: Data gathering during field trips The science tutor saw the iPad as an ideal data-gathering device for science and environmental fieldwork. The fieldwork was situated in a local tidal bay

28

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

where the students explored the marine fauna and floral between the low- and high-water marks. Video, audio and textual data was gathered on the devices which allowed students to construct their own eBooks for disseminating this information to other pre-service teachers and to school students (see Naylor & Gibbs 2015 for a fuller explanation of this).

History: Creation of iBooks personalizing visits to cemeteries and battlefields of the First World War The history tutor had organized visits to the First World War battlefields for a number of years. 1:1 access to devices allowed him to construct a learning journal for his students to complete during the field trip itself making this more instantaneous than previously. This learning journal contained multimedia assets for direct instruction to the students and also allowed the students to gather data in multimedia formats for the construction of their own learning journals and for their students to use in the placement schools.

English: Collaborative poetry The English PGCE tutor worked with the iPad to encourage the pre-service teachers to compose poetry. Joining in with the science field trip (see above), the pre-service teachers used their iPads to collect sensory data while at the seashore. The iPad allowed for the collection of visual, aural and responsive data while in situ. Using the iPad later, back in the university, allowed for the pre-service teachers to remember and reflect on the experience, encouraging a collaborative approach to the creation of these poems using online collaborative tools (see Naylor & Gibbs 2015 for a fuller explanation of this).

Conclusions and reflections The project was designed to run for two years to explore the impact of 1:1 personal ownership of iPad devices on the attitudes of pre-service teachers during their PGCE year and also on their teacher educators tutors. As can be seen above the overall impact on the trainees was positive with the majority being supportive of the use of mobile technologies in the classroom. Follow-up conversations with these pre-service teachers more recently show that this enthusiasm for the use

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

29

of technology has not dimmed and there are good examples of schools where significant deployment of devices for children has allowed practice to continue to develop. However wider policy decisions have impacted in England with a central distrust of the use of mobile devices in schools (Gibb 2019) and the increased number of secondary schools who operate total bans on mobile devices in the school (Scutt 2019). This allied with serious budget cuts in schools has restricted the access pre-service teachers have to these devices. It may be that with a change in legislation and reduction in cost of tablets this will change. While at the university the project was not sustainable in the provision of new devices for all trainees. Post the operational stage of the project there have been significant changes in way that individual teacher educators thought about the use of technology and in how technology is being used in the development of trainee teachers in the department. This has been aided by substantial development in the Wi-Fi infrastructure. Significantly higher technology use is taking place in the department across courses and the awareness of many staff has led to further development work including the bid for the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educator’s Pedagogies project that forms the focus for much of the rest of this volume and in the development of a range of resources.

References Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2009), Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: Benefits, obstacles and issues. Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 233. Bain, K. (2004), What makes great teachers great? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50, 1–7. Baran, E. (2014), A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education, Educational Technology and Society, 17(4), 17–32. BBC (2014), Tablet computers in ‘70 per cent of schools’. Available online: http://www. bbc.co.uk/news/education-30216408 (Accessed March 2019). Burden, K., & Hopkins, P. (2017), Barriers and challenges facing pre-service teachers use of mobile technologies for teaching and learning. In Alice Kirke (Ed.), Blended Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 1665–1686). IGI Global. Burden, K., Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2019), Is the use of mobile technologies in schools really innovative? What does the evidence say? Impact Special Journal on Technology. Charted College of Teaching.

30

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., & Trala, C. (2012), iPad Scotland Evaluation, University of Hull, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264464463_iPad_ Scotland_Evaluation. Dewey, J. (1944), Democracy and Education, New York: Macmillan DfE (2011) Teachers Standards, London. HMSO. Ertmer, P. (1999), Addressing first and second order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration, ETR&D, 47, 47–61. Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012), Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers in Education, 59(2), 423–435. Felvégi, E., & Matthew, K. (2012), eBooks and Literacy in K–12 Schools, Computers in the Schools: Interdisciplinary Journal of Practice, Theory, and Applied Research, 29(1–2), 40–52. Fisher, T., Higgins, C., & Loveless, A. (2006), Teacher Learning with Digital Technologies: A Review of Research and Projects. Report 14. Futurelab Series. Bristol: Futurelab. Available online: http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reportsarticles/literature-reviews/Literature-Review129 (Accessed March 2019). Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014), A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning. London: Pearson. Gartner (2014), Future Technologies, www.gartner.com (Accessed December 2016). Gibb, N. (2019), ‘Ban Phones in Schools says minister Nick Gibb’. Available online: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47095053. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1). Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., DeSchryver, M., Kereluik, K., Shin, T. S., & Wolf, L. G. (2011), Deep-play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146–163. McCarthy, J. (2017), Enhancing feedback in higher education: Students’ attitudes towards online and in-class formative assessment feedback models. Active Learning in Higher Education, 18 (2), 127–141. McCormick, R., & Scrimshaw, P. (2001), Information and communications technology, knowledge and pedagogy. Education, Communication & Information, 1(1), 37–57. Murphy, G. (2011), Post-PC devices: A summary of early iPad technology adoption in tertiary environments. E-Journal of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching, 5(1), 18–32. Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004), Report 11: Literature review of mobile technologies in learning. Bristol: Futurelab. http://www.futurelab. org.uk/research/reviews/reviews_11_and12/11_01.htm (Accessed March 2019). Naylor, A., & Gibbs, J. (2015), Using iPads as a learning tool in cross-curricular collaborative initial teacher education, Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(4), 442–446. Picardo, J. (2017), Using Technology in the Classroom. London. Bloomsbury.

Ubiquitous Mobile Learning

31

Prensky, M. (2001), Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Puendentura, R. (2010), The SAMR model, www.hipasus.com (Accessed March 2019). Resta, P., & Laferrière, T. (2007), Technology in support of collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 65–83. Scutt, C. (2019), Banning phones in schools: Reflections on the debate, Charter College of Teaching Impact Journal on Technology. Available online: https://impact.chartered. college/article/banning-mobile-phones-schools-reflecting-debate/ Selwyn, N. (2016), Education and Technology Key Debates. London: Bloomsbury. Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. J. (2005), Rethinking the technology integration challenge: Cases from three urban elementary schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 37(3), 285–311. TDA (2000), Guidance to accompany the Professional Standards for Qualified Teacher Status and Requirements for Initial Teacher Training, Training and Development Agency, HMRC. Traxler, J. (2007), Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ moves on. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 112. UNESCO (2016), Use of Mobile Technologies in Education. Geneva. UNESCO. Wishart, J. (March 2009), Use of Mobile Technology for Teacher Training. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (pp. 265–278). Edmonton: AU Press. Wishart, J., McFarlane, A., & Ramsden, A. (2005), Using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) with internet access to support initial teacher training in the UK. Paper Presentation, mLearn 2005, 25–28 October, Cape Town, South Africa. http://www. mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Wishart.pdf (Accessed March 2019). White, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011), Visitors and residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday, 16(9). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/ view/3171.

32

2

Producing Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones Sarah Hoem Iversen, Jon Hoem

Western Norway University of Applied Sciences

The use and purpose of mobile technology A recent Norwegian survey shows that nine out of ten Norwegian children aged 9 and over have their own mobile phone (Medietilsynet 2018). Moreover, 82 per cent of children aged 9–12 play digital games on an average day, with mobile phones being the preferred devices (SSB 2018). The United Nations report that over 6 billion people in the world have access to mobile phones. Even in the least developed countries, there are 66.5 mobile phone subscriptions per 100 capita (UNDP 2018). Given the ubiquity of mobile devices and the ongoing debate on the use of mobile phones in schools (see e.g. Ott el al. 2017) an important objective for teachers and teacher education is how to harness the pedagogical potential of mobile technology (see e.g. Burden & Kearney 2016) so that mobile devices are neither a distraction for pupils nor a source of frustration for teachers. Although mobile phones are by far the most frequently used digital devices today, there are still areas where larger mobile devices, such as laptops with keyboards and larger screens, have substantial advantages. Where mobile phones come in handy for short, immediate messages, the computer is more convenient when it comes to producing and editing of longer texts. The texts focused on in this study are, as hypertext narratives, stories with multiple narrative paths. The participants in the study produced these stories on laptop computers, but the texts were designed to be read on smaller mobile devices, typically mobile phones. The combination of mobile phones as the preferred reading device and the computer as the primary device for more advanced text production characterizes many services built for the mobile web. In their study

34

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

on pre-service teachers’ perceptions about using mobile technology as learning tools, Şad and Göktaş (2013) found that trainee teachers favoured the strengths of laptops as mobile learning tools significantly more than mobile phones, except for the feature of portability. People’s habits concerning mobile devices  do, however, change rapidly. Expert writers may still prefer larger mobile devices such as laptops for more advanced text production and smaller mobile devices such as mobile phones for reading. However, mobile phones are becoming much more integrated in the everyday life of children and adolescents, who perhaps increasingly use mobile phones for both text production and reading. In addition, the increased quality and availability of text to speech (TTS) interfaces may significantly reduce many of the perceived disadvantages of not having a physical keyboard when writing.

Hypertextual competence Hyperlinked texts are an important part of current text culture, most significantly in the form of web pages and as a large variety of digital games. Hypertexts are multilinear, that is, composed of nodes that can be combined in several ways according to which electronic links the reader chooses to follow (Nelson 1981). In this way, hypertexts transfer some of the power from the author to the reader, as readers move from one node to another, each node representing a focus of the reader’s investigation (Landow 2006). Hypertexts can be descriptive (e.g. Wikipedia articles), argumentative (e.g. blog posts), narrative (e.g. electronic fiction and feature journalism), explorative and/or quest driven (e.g. computer games). Given that children and young people increasingly read and play games on mobile devices and are massively exposed to hypertexts, teacher training programmes should provide pre-service teachers with practical experience with digital texts and hypertexts in a variety of genres. Miles argues that it is important for students in higher education to recognize ‘that they have been deeply acculturated to particular forms of reading and writing that are determined by print and that there are other ways of writing’ (Miles 2009: 233). Following Dudeney and Hockly (2016: 118), we argue that teacher training should include an element of hypertextual literacy, considering the fact that most people today read online texts on their mobile phones. The present study centres on the narrative genre of hypertexts. Written multipath narratives are part of a long-standing tradition of printed ‘choose

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

35

your own adventure books’ from the 1960s and 1970s, which invited readers to work their way through the book in a non-linear fashion. Today, many of the principles of early adventure games and multipath adventure books can be found in computer games and in popular applications like What’s Your Story (https://www.ludia.com/en/games/whats-your-story), Episode (https://www. episodeinteractive.com/) and Choices (http://www.pixelberrystudios.com/). For instance, the mobile storytelling app Episode (c. 2013–2018) has 8.3 million registered users and more than 73,000 stories. Users of this app are able to read these multimodal multilinear stories and are also able to become ‘authors’, producing their own ‘episodes’ by using the app’s online coding interface. This interface facilitates the creation of game-like structures, with multiple narrative paths. Gee (2018) argues that digital games provide new ‘affinity spaces’ for learning. He gives examples of young learners whose avid interest in gaming not only results in the mastery of technical computer-related skills such as coding, but also skills such as ‘writing a compelling narrative’ and matching ‘compelling images with text’ (Gee 2018: 11). Critics of hypertext fiction, such as Mangen and van der Weel (2015), claim that readers find hypertext stories frustrating and confusing because of their fragmented and unstable nature. In the context of second-language learning, Cobb (2018) argues that while stronger readers ‘profit from text technologies and hypertextual environments’, weaker readers and second-language readers experience ‘the docuverse of linked texts mainly as distraction, confusion and disintegration’ (Cobb 2018: 1). However, as Rustad (2009) points out, it is important that digital texts are investigated in their own right, taking their specific qualities (e.g. hyperlinking, the inclusion of audiovisual media, and a closer relationship between production, consumption and revision) into account. Rustad (2009) argues that readers’ frustration with hypertexts is due to unfamiliarity with the genre. In order words, readers may lack what Gunder (2004) refers to as ‘hypertextual competence’. Teachers and students usually relate to hypertext as readers and not as writers. Even though digital technology today facilitates multilinear writing and children frequently engage with multilinear texts online, students in primary, secondary and tertiary education still primarily write linear texts. There is, however, a substantial potential in the production of digital texts and multilinear texts. Brox (2016) reports that pre-service teachers gained particular insights from becoming contributors of the content that they normally deal with only as consumers (i.e. Wikipedia articles). Rimmereide et al. (2018) discuss pre-service

36

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

teachers’ aesthetic experience through the production of digital books using mobile devices. Among the findings in this study was the importance of mobile devices that ‘can easily be brought into physical locations and situations where the boundaries between producing and reading become blurred’. In the present study we explored a similar dialogic interplay with respect to how students related to the production of content, not by moving from text to physical location, but rather by moving back and forth between various mobile devices and different interfaces for text production and use.

Focus of the study Our case study investigated whether actively producing multipath texts for mobile phones could develop pre-service teachers’ understanding of hypertext and multilinear narratives. This joint production of such narratives requires collaboration (Kearney et al. 2012) in conversational spaces (in class, in groups and in the wiki). Moreover, we observed what challenges pre-service teachers of English encountered when producing multipath narratives in a collaborative writing environment. The following two questions have guided our investigation: 1. How do pre-service teachers develop their narrative writing skills through the process of producing their own multipath narratives? 2. Can writing multipath narratives for mobile phones change pre-service teachers’ understanding of this genre? Our data consisted of the multipath narrative (both as work in progress and as finished product), and anonymous pre- and post-intervention questionnaires. In the pre-intervention questionnaire, pre-service teachers were asked about their reading and computer game habits, as well as their experience with hypertexts and non-linear literature. The post-intervention questionnaire asked the participants to reflect on the writing process and to evaluate the finished hypertext.

Google Sites as a writing tool Our choice of production environment was the classic version of Google Sites, a free wiki and web page creation tool. A previous study found Classic Google Sites to be an effective tool for collaborative creative writing (Rimmereide et al. 2011).

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

37

In addition, it offers automatic publishing for mobile devices. When editing a page (or node) in Google Sites, the revision and formatting of the written text are done in a What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) interface. Pages can easily be linked together, and the links are kept active even if a page is moved to another place (URL) within the wiki. The content of individual parts of the text can be changed over time so that content produced by one group may be revised by others. Finally, Google Sites has robust revision control that makes it possible to return to earlier versions of individual pages. Not only does this lower the risk of malicious editing or mistakes, it was also a useful tool that gave the researchers the opportunity to follow the development of the students’ work on specific pages or nodes over time.

The case study The present project was carried out in spring 2016. The participants were a class of nineteen pre-service teachers specializing in English in the third and fourth year of their teacher training. The teaching intervention was carried out by the researchers, one of whom was also one of the course tutors. The intervention consisted of lectures centred on hypertext and multilinear writing, as well as collaborative brainstorming, organizing and allocation of group writing tasks. The collaborative planning stages were carried out in Google Docs, before the teacher students started producing the actual hypertext in Google Sites. The participants were also shown a short example text that indicated the technical possibilities of the wiki, as well as potential multimodal features and writing styles. The pre-service teachers were then introduced to the following scenario, which had been chosen to reflect one of the topics in their course curriculum, namely contemporary American politics: Donald Trump is one of the major Republican candidates for presidency. The primary elections are coming up, beginning in Iowa on the 1st of February. Our story begins the day before the first primary election. Trump has a large team of people working for him, many of whom are never seen in the media. We are going to write a story where four of these people are the main characters: two women and two men.

During the first writing session, the teacher students co-wrote biographies for the four main characters in Google Docs. These biographies included the characters’ names, ages, jobs and backgrounds. At first, the students opted for

38

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 2.1  A short model text, consisting of one node with two hyperlinks.

unrealistic characters with ludicrous names, impossible powers and unlikely backgrounds. However, after being encouraged to create comedy through the series of events in the actual narrative instead, the students finally decided on more realistic characters.

Figure 2.2  The nodes in the first part of the final hypertext narrative. The slashed arrow indicates a link that was not activated. The node indicated with a white background (‘Encountering rival campaigners’) is shown in Figure 2.3.

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

39

The researchers also initiated a plenary discussion about the content and how the story could unfold. This was done using a shared presentation in Google Slides, which was made available for editing by the students. The goal was for the story to unfold in such a way that a reader would be left with the impression of having multiple choices, though the story itself only had one ending. It was crucial that all the participants producing individual parts of the text had insight into the overall structure. The students were organized in pairs or groups of three, where each group was responsible for writing one of the nodes or parts. This process of collaborating and discussing the structure was done at the beginning of every writing session. Potential flaws were pointed out, discussed and solved, and the coming nodes were outlined. The final structure was created after three rounds of discussion. The first half of the narrative is represented below (see Figure 2.2). Each blue box in this structure represents a node in the overall text with arrows indicating the link structure.

Discussion of results Sixteen of nineteen students responded to the pre-intervention questionnaire. The responses revealed that the majority of the pre-service teachers (thirteen respondents) read linear fiction in printed books (rather than digital linear fiction). No one read digital fiction on mobile phones, whereas five respondents read linear fiction on computers or tablets. Only one respondent had ever read a hypertext narrative before. Nine respondents considered themselves ‘experienced readers’. A few of the respondents regularly played computer games, and six out of sixteen respondents considered themselves ‘experienced players’. Those who played computer games reported enjoying a range of different genres, including narrative games such as adventure games and roleplaying games. The post-intervention questionnaire showed that half of the respondents felt that the hypertext project had made them more curious about non-linear literature. However, in response to the question ‘would you consider doing a similar project with your pupils?’, 75 per cent of the respondents were ‘not sure’ and 25 per cent said no, suggesting that students would need more time and training to be comfortable producing hypertext narratives with their own pupils. Although only twelve out of nineteen students completed the post-intervention questionnaire, those who did respond wrote extensive responses to the open-ended questions, reflecting on their writing experience

40

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

and on the finished product. The following section first discusses the students’ reflections on the writing process and the written product, before moving on to a discussion of the students’ understanding of hypertext narratives, both as seen in the text they produced and in their responses to the post-intervention questionnaire.

The writing process The post-intervention questionnaire asked students to reflect on their own writing process and to evaluate their own writing, as well as the quality of the finished hypertext. The finished text was read on the students’ own mobile phones. In their responses, the students articulated various experiences when it came to collaborative writing. Collaboration took place on three levels: (1) joint class sessions where the overall structure was planned, (2) pairs or small groups of students writing individual nodes and (3) cooperation between groups in order to make the narrative coherent and enable the reader to follow the hyperlinks connecting the nodes. When expressing their thoughts about their own writing process, individual students related their experience to all three levels. Some reported challenges related to writing in groups and agreeing on what to write, as illustrated by the following quote: ‘We had to write in groups and agree what to write which can be quite difficult. I prefer to work individually when writing stories’ (Student 2). This is, however, a general challenge that might apply to all collaborative writing. To Student 2, writing a story or a narrative text is typically a personal, individual activity, rather than a collaborative task. The individual aspect of reading was further emphasized by the way in which students used their mobile phones when accessing different parts of the story outside of class, before going back to using their laptops for collaborative work (revision, writing new material) during class. More specific to the production of a hyperlinked text was the frustration some students felt when other groups did not write their nodes in time. One student reported being satisfied with the quality of her own part of the story but nonetheless frustrated with the story as a whole because of a lack of flow or cohesion: Student 4: I do not feel that the flow in this story is any good. If people had done what they should, when they should, it would be easier for the rest of us to write our parts that come later in the story […] To be honest I felt I did a good job. I was irritated with some of my fellow students, because many of them did not

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

41

write their part in time, and that sometimes made it difficult for me to write my part […] It seems like people have not read through the story before writing their own part.

If someone is working on a particular node and one of the nodes that is meant to precede it is not finished, it can be difficult to maintain consistency in the story, even if the overall structure of the hypertext narrative has been agreed upon. This frustration combines the challenges of collaborative writing and hypertext structuring. In order to make the content of a specific node consistent with the previous nodes it is sometimes necessary to go back and make changes to previous nodes. This was one of the reasons the researchers chose for the text to be produced in a wiki, which made it possible for any student to make changes to different nodes. Reading through the other nodes is essential in order to address inconsistencies in the narrative. Several students seemed aware of this but were nonetheless more concerned about writing their separate nodes rather than reading the parts of the story written by other groups: ‘I could have used more time on reading the other texts not written by me. I had most of my focus on my own work and did not care much about the others’ (Student 8). Similarly, when responding to a question about what might have improved the writing project, one student responded: ‘More cooperation between the groups. That way we would make sure to tie the story together all throughout the writing process’ (Student 1). However, even the students who did read other nodes as part of the production process had to be actively encouraged to edit nodes initially created by someone else. Both in their questionnaire feedback and during class discussions, most students communicated that they found it very difficult, almost unsettling, to make changes to nodes produced by others. This aspect of the wiki concept was clearly very unfamiliar. This could be linked to Miles’s (2009) observation that when undergraduate students are first introduced to the concept of hypertext, they are firmly acculturated in print literacy and invested in the values associated with print culture. As a previous student reflection might have suggested, the reluctance to edit other students’ work could also be linked a view of writing as a personal and individual rather than as a social activity. From this point of view, editing someone else’s text might be seen as intrusive. Reflecting on the finished story, one student noted that ‘some parts of the story as I remember it were left out’. He goes on to reflect that ‘I can understand that in the end the final slide had to make sense for all the previous parts of the story, so something had to be cut’ (Student 3).

42

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Students’ understanding of hypertext narratives Google Sites provided the site administrators (in this case the researchers) with useful tools for investigating the ways in which different nodes evolved over time. Changes to the text could be monitored through the history of any given page. For example, after the class had received some feedback from the course teachers, pointing out that their texts were generally rather descriptive, lacking narrative elements such as dialogue, many student groups revised their nodes. In Figure 2.3 (left-hand image which shows an earlier version of the node) the written text has been placed in a table. In a later version (Figure 2.3, right-hand image) the text is wrapped around the image, which means that the page scales better when read on different screens. Such revisions are likely to be the result of students reading the work in progress on their phones, noticing flaws in the layout and text flow and then editing the wiki in order to make the necessary corrections. Figure 2.3, right-hand image, also shows that the students have revised their text so to be less descriptive and to include dialogue. In fact, in the post-intervention questionnaire, one student commented that ‘I did not think of the possibility to use a conversation in the text before being giving guidance’ (Student 12). Students were also asked to reflect on whether their previous experience (or lack thereof) with computer games may have influenced their writing. One student points to the fact that when you make a choice in a computer game you do not usually know what would have happened if you had made a different choice. By contrast, reading all the different nodes of a hypertext, or even just glancing at the overall hypertext structure, reveals all the different paths or options, thereby making it difficult to suspend one’s disbelief: Student 6: I played a lot before, but that’s a different thing. If we think about role playing games, you know what could happen if you make certain choices, but you never know where every option you can make, brings you. When you have

Figure 2.3  Version 4 and version 20 of the node ‘Encountering rival campaigners’.

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

43

read all the different possibilities of a hypertext, (such as the story we made), it’s a bit irritating to know that there is more than one ending.

However, reading through a hypertext narrative several times in order to discover the different paths is perhaps no different from playing through a digital role-playing game several times in order to discover where different options might bring you. Finally, going ‘behind the scenes’ (Brox 2016: 333) as a producer rather than a user, or as a writer rather than a reader, inevitably involves a demystification of the narrative process. After finishing the hypertext story, students were asked to read it from start to finish, picking their own way through the narrative. The post-intervention questionnaire then asked students to reflect on and evaluate their reading experience. Given the challenges related both to collaborative creative writing and to planning and writing a multipath narrative, one student was surprised that all the different nodes (written by different students) actually resulted in an intelligible story: ‘I was a bit surprised that the texts combined would give a readable story’ (Student 5). Some students expressed specifically enjoying the multipath aspect of the writing task, in spite of the challenges that came with structuring and writing a hypertext narrative collaboratively: Student 7: It is a creative assignment that is fun because you can choose your own paths and endings in the story. At the same time, it was sometimes confusing because there was a lot of planning, and because we were so many it was sometimes hard to know what my job was and how to connect it to the other groups’ texts.

By contrast, some students’ negative attitudes towards multipath narratives remained unchanged after taking part in the project. For instance, one student reacted to the idea that a story could offer the reader several different paths: Student 6: I just want the story to have one ending really. I kind of want a writer to give me his version, not more options for new versions, even if he has written both of the endings himself. It would be disappointing if you saw a movie with a sad ending, and you could just say you didn’t like it, and then it turns out to be a happy ending after all. Feels a bit like cheating.

Both Student 6 and Student 7 mention the idea of multiple endings. Technically, however, the Trump-campaign story only had one possible final ending, namely a scene in which the four characters met up for a final debriefing in a restaurant. The multipath aspect of the story means that readers can pick different paths through the story and read about slightly different events before getting to the inevitable final node. In this respect, these students’ comments suggest that they

44

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

were still not completely clear on what was involved in constructing this kind of hypertext. Other students reflected that contributing to the hypertext story gave them a greater understanding of hypertexts and made the writing task more interesting. For example, Student 12 noted that ‘I understood the concept this time and due to the fact that I have contributed to writing the text, it made it more interesting.’

Issues and challenges: Collaborative writing Perhaps the most important part of producing a hypertext is the use of internal links. The technical aspect of creating links in Google Sites did not pose any problems for the participants in the study. However, both the questionnaire responses and observation during class revealed that what was challenging for the students was planning the overall structure of the multipath story and creating textual cohesion between the linked pages. In addition, many students were uncomfortable with the idea of altering an existing page written by fellow students, even if revisions were necessary in order to create a cohesive and meaningful narrative. These difficulties are not related to lack of experience with digital tools, but rather to a lack of experience with this kind of collaborative writing. This is consistent with findings from other studies on the use of new digital tools in schools and in higher education, in which students are asked to become contributors of content, which they are accustomed to use exclusively as consumers. Brox (2016) reports that the student teachers in her study showed a lack of understanding of hypertext when creating a Wikipedia article on the topic ‘multicultural schools’, in that they attempted to define important concepts such as ‘racism’ from scratch, instead of simply creating hyperlinks to already existing Wikipedia entries on these concepts (Brox 2016: 339). In short, the students in the present study developed increased confidence and independence when it came to writing individual nodes, but developing a similar confidence when it came to linking nodes and revising adjacent nodes was more challenging. During the course of our project, the researchers addressed these difficulties related to structure, cohesion and hyperlinking by showing the students the overall structure or map of the multipath narrative and discussing how they could create links between the different nodes in the story. This back and forth between individual nodes and the overall structure, which frequently included reading the work in progress on mobile phones, was an important part of

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

45

the writing process. However, writing a hypertext narrative has a substantial difference compared to writing factual texts such as Wikipedia articles. In a hypertext narrative the links should not lead to nodes that do not maintain the current plot structure. Some central nodes can take the narrative in directions that will exclude other nodes from a coherent narrative. Writing in order to ensure coherence throughout the narrative is more challenging in hypertexts, but also a necessary skill when writing linear texts. Writers of fiction will habitually go back and forth in their text to make changes in order to align the plot with events that had not yet been imagined when the writing first began. Writing multipath fiction, then, has transferrable value when it comes to writing linear texts. Overall, assignments such as the one in the present study provide teacher students with a significant opportunity to address their own use of digital technology, their roles as producers of digital texts, and to reflect the use of similar tools and methods in their own teaching.

The impact of mobile technology use Concrete experience with collaborative writing in a wiki made the pre-service teachers more aware of their own creative process as text producers. In this respect the students in this project articulated experiences that correspond with observations from previous studies, like the wiki-storyline case study, also carried out as part of the MTTEP project (www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com undated). The type of mobile device used is not what is crucial in this study on writing hypertexts. Even though the technical framework (Google Sites) was chosen with small, mobile reading devices in mind, the text can also easily be read on tablets or laptops. What is interesting, then, is the mobility of content between various platforms where the laptop connects with the mobile phone, the most widely used mobile tool for reading digital texts. The flexible interface of Google Sites enabled seamless transitions from one platform to the other. The students produced the bulk of the texts on larger devices such as laptops and tablets, but the simple interface of the wiki also facilitated reading and editing on smartphones. Figure 2.4 shows how the hypertexts produced by the students were presented, when viewed on mobile phones. Figure 2.4 (right-hand image) shows a node with hyperlinks entitled ‘highway’ and ‘shortcut towards Des Moines’. This node gives the reader an either/or choice on behalf of one of the characters, Michael, who is driving the car: should

46

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 2.4  The first node of the narrative. The left-hand image in 2.4 and the end of the node in the right image. The latter showing the links that take the user to related nodes.

he continue driving along the highway, or should he take a shortcut? Making such narrative choices an integrated part of the text was challenging for many of the students. In the beginning of the writing process, the links indicating where the narrative might be heading did not represent real choices for the reader. The students initially produced several links that simply pointed forwards in the story. For example, they created links where two characters head towards the airport while the other two stay at the fast-food restaurant. The reader is then not given any choice that will affect the narrative path but simply has to decide which characters to follow. There might be several reasons why students created these kinds of hyperlinks. The most obvious is perhaps their lack of familiarity with the genre. Second, the model text the students were provided with (Figure 2.1) isolated the hyperlinks from the rest of the written text, which may initially have encouraged the students to produce similar nodes.

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

47

Conclusion and future research This case study suggested that pre-service teachers became more aware of the textual properties of digital texts and hypertext as a result of the intervention. Some of the participants were able to reflect on similarities between the structure and logic of computer games and hypertext narratives. The participants also developed their creative writing skills. In this respect, the study suggests that student teachers are able to gain transferable skills and knowledge through producing multipath narratives. The study also revealed some challenges related to students’ production of collaborative texts with multiple narrative paths, particularly when it came to editing texts written by other students. A future project might specifically address this challenge by making peer feedback and revision a more integrated part of the process. The most significant finding from this case study is the substantial difference between reading a multilinear text and actively producing one. Because the complexity of the hypertext is found both in the narrative structure as well as in its technical properties, students must take part in production to gain insight into the genre. Given the increased outreach of the mobile web, this ‘turn taking’ between producing and consuming interfaces is important for digital text production in general and for literacy development in particular. Today, we are on the brink of a potentially massive change in how text is produced, caused by a turn towards automatic speech recognition (ASR), the most widespread examples being auditory chatbots and digital assistants, such as Amazon Alexa, Google Home and Apple’s Siri. Future research on the production and use of hypertext in education could address how speech recognition (ASR) and text to speech (TTS) interfaces will influence the experiences of producing and consuming texts. ASR technologies might make initial text production much more accessible on mobile devices. When texts are produced and experienced on mobile devices, which are portable and capable of using information from many different sensors and net-based sources, the content, structure and presentation of such texts are also likely to change significantly. Text to speech may facilitate reading and producing longer, written texts on mobile devices. At the same time, pre-service teachers have to be prepared for a future where both the production and consumption of texts are part of a process of continual and instantaneous revision. The present study has only scratched the surface of this future, though, in line with findings from the MTTEP project, it has indicated the need for modelling a wider

48

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

range of mobile pedagogies and for supporting student agency and networked collaborations. This project is an example of an approach that can help preservice teachers prepare for a more mobile future – one that involves mobility of content as well as mobile devices.

References Brox, H. (2016), Troublesome tools: How can Wikipedia editing enhance student teachers’ digital skills? Acta Didactica Norge, 10(2), 329–346. https://www.journals. uio.no/index.php/adno/article/view/2493/2481 Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016), Future scenarios for mobile science learning. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 287–308. Cobb, T. (2018), Technology for teaching reading. In J. I. Liontas (Eds.), The TESOL Encyclopaedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1–7). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Dudeney, G., & Hockly, N. (2016), Literacies, technology and language teaching. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language Learning and Technology (pp. 115–126). Episode (c. 2013–2018) Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge. https://www.episodeinteractive.com/. Gee, P. (2018), Affinity spaces: How young people live and learn online and out of school. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(6), 8–13. Gunder, A. (2004), Hyperworks: On Digital Literature and Computer Games. Doctoral Thesis. University of Uppsala. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), n1. Landow G. P. (2006), Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mangen, A., & van der Weel, A. (2015), Why don’t we read hypertext novels? Convergence, 23(2), 166–181. Medietilsynet (2018), Barn og medier undersøkelsen 2018: 9–18 åringer om medievaner. http://www.medietilsynet.no/globalassets/publikasjoner/barn-ogmedier-undersokelser/2018-barn-og-medier. Miles, A. (2009), Hypertext teaching. In M. Bernstein & D. Greco (Eds.), Reading Hypertext (pp. 223–238). Watertown: Eastgate. Mobilelearningtoolkit (undated), Wiki storyline mobile learning toolkit URI: http:// www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com/wiki-story.html Nelson, T. (1981), Literary Machines. Sausalito, CA: Mindful Press. Ott, T., Magnusson, A. G., Weilenmann, A., & Af Segerstad, Y. H. (2017), ‘It must not disturb, it’s as simple as that’: Students’ voices on mobile phones in the infrastructure

Hypertext Narratives for Mobile Phones

49

for learning in Swedish upper secondary school. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 517–536. Rimmereide, H. E., Blair, B., & Hoem, J. (2011), Wiki storyline in second language teaching, Seminar.net: International Journal of Media, Technology and Lifelong Learning, 7(2), 94–110. Rimmereide, H. E., Hoem, J., & Iversen, S. H. (2018), Aesthetic experience through students’ production of digital books. Ch. 8 in E. S. Tønnessen & F. Forsgren (Eds.), Multimodality and Aesthetics (pp. 137–153). Abingdon: Routledge. Rustad, H. K. (2009), A four-sided model for reading hypertext fiction. Hyperrhiz: The New Media Culture, 6(1), 1–17. Şad, S. N., & Göktaş, Ö. (2013), Preservice teachers’ perceptions about using mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 606–618. SSB (2018), Statistics Norway. https://www.ssb.no/a/barnogunge/2018/fritid/ (Accessed 10 October 2018). UNDP (2018), Human development indices and indicators: 2018 Statistical update – Table 13 human and capital mobility. United Nations Development Programme.

50

3

Pre-service Teachers’ Self-initiated Use of Mobile Devices to Support Their Online Professional Learning Networking Matthew Kearney, Damian Maher

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

Lien Pham

Graduate Research School, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Australia

Shanyun Kuang

School of Educational Information Technology, South China Normal University, China

Introduction The use of mobile devices to support learning (mobile learning) is growing in many parts of the world in K-12 education. As a result of this growth, there has been an uptake in the pedagogical use of these devices in teacher education courses, and mobile learning (m-learning) studies have been promoted as an important area in teacher education research (Baran 2014). Despite these developments, there is a scarcity of m-learning studies in teacher education contexts, and the process of supporting and preparing teachers to use new and emerging mobile technologies is largely under-theorized (Burden & Hopkins 2017). This is particularly evident in initial teacher education. In the context of teacher education, professional learning networks (PLNs) are defined by Trust et al. (2016) as ‘complex systems of interactions consisting of people, resources and digital tools that support ongoing learning and professional growth’ (28). Teachers’ use of online strategies can supplement face-to-face approaches such as action learning groups (Aubusson et al. 2009), Teachmeets and Edcamps (Swanson 2013), to create a broader ‘PLN landscape’

52

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

for teachers’ interactions and knowledge exchange (Jenkins et al. 2009). ‘Online PLNs’, typically involving multifaceted use of social media apps such as Twitter and Facebook, are becoming vital to teachers’ ongoing learning, and their use is increasingly seen as a legitimate and effective approach for their professional development (Trust et al. 2016; Tour 2017). Research into the use of online PLNs has been conducted mostly with in-service (practising) teachers (ISTs), while research into pre-service teachers’ (PSTs) use of online PLNs has been limited (Carpenter et al. 2016). During the MTTEP project, a case study was conducted by the first two authors to interrogate a growing m-learning practice in initial teacher education: PSTs’ use of their mobile devices to support their PLN activities (Kearney & Maher 2019). The case study examined eleven PSTs’ use of their PLNs, seeking to explore how they were using their mobile devices in these mostly informally developed online activities. Two PST participants from the case study featured in an exemplar produced by the first author for the MTTEP m-learning toolkit (see video titled ‘PLNs for teachers’ from http://www.mobilelearningtoolkit. com/video.html). The research described in this chapter is a follow-up from this case study. This study further examines PSTs’ use of social media apps to support their online PLN activities. It investigates PSTs’ self-initiated, informally developed PLNs (Lantz-Andersson et al. 2018) to uncover insights into their associated m-learning practices and to elicit their perceptions of benefits and challenges. In this way, it aims to deepen our understandings of these increasingly important practices and elucidate ‘ways forward’ for teacher educators and ISTs to better support these PST endeavours. Hence, we address the following research questions: 1. How are PSTs using social media apps to support their online PLN activities? 2. What are PSTs’ perceived benefits and challenges of these mobile technology-supported PLN activities?

Background Theoretical perspective The theoretical underpinning for the study described in this chapter is the validated mobile pedagogical framework (Kearney et al. 2012) introduced earlier

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

53

Figure 3.1  The Mobile Pedagogical (iPAC) framework comprising three distinctive features of m-learning experiences (from Burden & Kearney 2018, p. 92, with permission).

in this book. Informed by sociocultural theory (Wertsch 1991), it highlights three central and distinctive pedagogical features of m-learning: personalization, authenticity and collaboration (iPAC). How learners experience these distinctive characteristics is influenced by their use of time-space (or context), as depicted in Figure 3.1. The personalization construct consists of the sub-constructs of customization and agency. High levels of personalization would mean that learners can enjoy an enhanced degree of agency (Pachler et al. 2010) and the flexibility to tailor both tools and activities, driven by a strong sense of ownership of both the mobile device (Traxler 2007) and the learning process. The authenticity construct highlights opportunities for in-situ, participatory learning (Radinsky et al. 2001). The sub-constructs of task, tool and setting focus on learners’ involvement in rich, contextualized in-situ tasks, making use of tools in realistic, typically discipline-specific ways, and driven by relevant, real-life practices and processes (Burden & Kearney 2016). The collaboration construct consists of conversation and data sharing sub-constructs, as learners engage in conversation, negotiated meaning-making, co-construction and sharing, forging connections and interactions with peers and experts (Wang & Shen 2012). The iPAC framework has been used to inform research on m-learning in school education (Kearney et al. 2015) and initial teacher education (Kearney & Maher 2013, 2019). The framework’s constructs align well with the inherent

54

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

personalized and networked aspects of learning with PLNs, providing a useful lens to examine PSTs’ m-learning experiences.

Mobile learning practices in teacher education The use of m-devices to support personalized, authentic and collaborative m-learning experiences for PSTs has been explored in a number of ways. Obonyo et al. (2018) suggest that the use of mobile technology can be promoted to support PSTs’ learning in authentic contexts, where learners are mobile and can learn both individually and collaboratively. Aubusson et al. (2009) suggest that the ability to capture and share actions provides opportunity for authentic examples of classroom experiences to be deconstructed. This sharing helps PSTs to develop skills of critical reflections supported by m-devices. In collaborating through their m-devices, PSTs can gain access to resources and people. Cushing (2011) reports that the use of mobile technologies can connect PSTs to their colleagues and enhance professional learning through collaboration. Similarly, the use of m-devices helps PSTs to make connections between what they do as learners during their training and what they would eventually do as teachers (Tolosa 2017). Pegrum et al. (2013) examined twenty PSTs’ use of the iPad and found that its use helped them to stay connected and organized and to critically reflect on specific teaching and learning concepts, strategies and experiences. It is imperative that PSTs are provided with opportunities to learn with m-devices in authentic contexts using relevant resources (Maher 2018). One study reported on the benefits in an authentic context where PSTs used iPads to become more aware of maths in everyday environments and to ‘initiate their thinking about real-life contexts for K-6 maths’ learning experience’ (Kearney & Maher 2013: 78). According to Caldwell (2018), there are opportunities for PSTs’ authentic engagement through m-learning practices, including for documentation of learning at different contexts such as teacher sharing events, at network meetings and in classrooms. Burden and Hopkins (2017) examined  the  perceptions, attitudes and beliefs of PSTs using m-devices for professional learning purposes, including during their professional experience. They found that teacher educators have a critical role in supporting PSTs’ use of m-devices. PSTs’ use of social media apps to support their PLNs and the outcome of such use has been a recent focus of studies in this area. The use of Twitter has been reported on in the literature as an effective app to support PSTs’

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

55

learning. For instance, PST participants in Krutka’s (2014) study used Twitter, Facebook and Edmodo as part of their studies and found Twitter to be a beneficial professional learning tool. Carpenter’s (2015) study found that PSTs’ ‘microblogging’ (using Twitter) supported sharing of pertinent teaching resources and communication with educators both inside and outside their university classes. In a recent study conducted with seventy-eight PSTs in China, Sun et al. (2018) explored PSTs’ use of Moodle and WeChat apps. The study showed the two tools have different affordances for collaborative learning. Both tools were found to facilitate PSTs’ knowledge construction and social learning. Finally, the previously mentioned Kearney and Maher (2019) study explored the efficacy of mobile technology-mediated PLNs in PST education using a case study method conducted with eleven Australian PSTs studying to be secondary teachers. It found that PSTs were frequently interacting through their devices with ‘real’ practitioners and other experts. Participants were participating in genuine conversations of high relevance and meaning to their prospective career. The PSTs drew on a range of apps including Twitter, Facebook and Pinterest to support their collaborative learning. The research described in this chapter builds on our case study by adopting a global survey method to probe the perceptions of a much wider, global sample of PST participants (primary/elementary and secondary), gaining a deeper understanding of their m-learning practices and their perceptions of benefits and challenges.

Study design The study was conducted using an online survey method in two sequential phases of data collection and analysis. The survey instrument was designed to understand how PSTs use social media apps to support their online PLN activities, as well as their perceived benefits and challenges of using these mobile technologies for these activities. The first section of the survey required respondents to report on their practices (e.g. types of connections, frequency of use, content consumption or production tendencies), aiming to explore the nature of the PSTs’ online PLN activities. Items in the second section were designed to elicit PSTs’ perceptions of benefits and challenges of using their online PLN through a combination of closed-ended questions, open-ended questions and Likert scale questions. In recognition that respondents may also

56

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

use social media apps for their personal use, it was made explicit to survey participants that we were only interested in their use of social media apps for professional learning, not for their personal or leisure activities. The survey was piloted with thirty-five PSTs in the final year of their teacher education programme at an Australian university before it was fully deployed. The final survey was implemented in two phases with PSTs in the final year of their teacher education programme. In the first phase, respondents were recruited using a snowball approach of sending invitations to the researchers’ networks of teacher educators in Australia and overseas. The survey was also promoted by the researchers via social media using popular PST ‘spaces’ such as Facebook groups and Twitter memes (e.g. #pstchat, #newteachertribe and #edtech). In the second phase, the respondents were recruited from China with the aim of gathering data from wider perspectives. Prior to fielding the survey in China, the survey instrument was translated to Chinese by the fourth researcher and then disseminated among her networks of teacher educators in China. The Chinese survey (second phase) had less open-ended items than the English survey (first phase) to minimize translation costs. For example, the benefits and challenges items were presented as multiple-choice items, using popular themes emerging from responses to the equivalent items in the English survey. The only open-ended item for the Chinese survey was the ‘learning experience’ item, where respondents were asked to describe a key professional learning experience when using their PLNs. The survey data sets from both phases were filtered to include only respondents that had indicated they used a ‘mobile device’ or ‘both a mobile device and desktop’ in their PLN activities, the latter with 51 per cent or more of m-device use. Overall, there were 129 respondents from the first phase and 206 respondents from the second phase that were included in the final data set. Analysis of both data sets was conducted using descriptive statistics to identify the overall distribution of various survey items and demographic information of respondents. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the open-ended questions in the surveys. Table 3.1 summarizes the demographic information of the respondents. The top four countries of the Phase 1 (English) data set (n = 129) are Australia (43 per cent), UK (20 per cent), Canada (15 per cent) and the United States (8 per cent). The top four provinces from the Chinese survey data set (n = 206) were Guandong (36 per cent), Shanxi (17 per cent), Jiangxi (13 per cent) and Gansu (13 per cent).

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

57

Table 3.1  Profile of survey respondents English survey (Phase 1) No. of ­respondents Type of ­degree Undergraduate Postgraduate Other Total Teaching degree Primary Secondary K-12 Total Gender Male Female Prefer not to say Total Age 20–30 31–40 41–50 > 50 Total

Chinese survey (Phase 2)

Percent

No. of ­respondents

Percent

68 50 11 129

53 39 9 100

142 54 10 206

69 26 5 100

76 47 6 129

59 36 5 100

62 109 35 206

30 53 17 100

19 110 0 129

15 85 0 100

31 174 1 206

15 85 1 100

109 9 8 3 129

85 7 6 2 100

205 0 1 0 206

100 0 1 0 100

Background questions revealed a generally high level of confidence in their use of social media apps. Average proportions of PSTs that indicated medium or high levels of confidence in their use of social media apps were 29 per cent and 41 per cent respectively for the English survey and 31 per cent and 41 per cent for the Chinese survey.

Findings Findings are discussed in three subsections aligned with the three iPAC categories: personalization, collaboration and authenticity. At the start of each subsection, quantitative data from the surveys is used to address research question one. We reiterate that results of the two versions of the surveys (English and Chinese) are offered to present a stronger global view of PSTs’ practices and

58

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 3.2  Proportions of PST respondents from the English survey reporting how often they used their mobile devices to participate in PLN activities in certain settings (n = 129).

Figure 3.3  Proportions of PST respondents from the Chinese survey reporting how often they used their mobile devices to participate in PLN activities in certain settings (n = 206).

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

59

not to contrast and compare cultures. Qualitative data from the surveys is used in each subsection to address research question two. (Quotes from the Chinese survey are marked with an.*)

Personalization PSTs exercised a high degree of agency in their m-learning activities. They selfselected apps and topics to suit their own specific needs and chose the people they interacted with. They chose a range of settings to use their m-devices for these activities (see Figures 3.2 and 3.3), including ‘in-situ’ at their school placements. They emphasized control and choice of topics and the ability to customize their learning. They also highlighted the flexible nature of their m-learning activities, including the convenience of accessing their apps ‘anywhere, anytime’ and the ‘just-in-time’ nature of their problem-solving. No reported challenges were categorized under this theme of personalization. Almost all survey respondents reported that they started their online PLN on their own initiative and were mostly not required to use an online PLN as part of their university course. The findings of this subsection should be interpreted mindful of this context.

Use of social media apps to support personalized m-learning There was a range of self-selected apps used by the PSTs. The most popular apps in the English survey were Pinterest (84 per cent), Facebook (80 per cent), Blogs (58 per cent), Instagram (54 per cent) and Twitter (50 per cent). However, many of these apps are not available in China. The most popular apps in the Chinese survey were WeChat Official Accounts (94 per cent) – created by an agency such as an institution, WeChat (personal) (91 per cent), WeChat (group) (91 per cent), WeChat Moments (85 per cent) and QQ (81 per cent). Examples of how these apps are used by PSTs are presented throughout this Findings section. Exploiting the m-device’s portability, the PSTs enjoyed high levels of agency over where and when they participated in their PLNs. They chose a range of formal and informal settings to engage in their PLN, as shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3. Home settings were frequently used, as were informal settings and their professional experience school placement. Given the non-formal, self-initiated nature of their PLN activities, the levels of PLN use in campus-based, in-class settings were somewhat surprising.

60

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Perceived benefits relating to personalization A main benefit emphasized by the PSTs was their ability to customize their m-learning activities to their own interests. They experienced autonomy over their choice of topics – often driven by their own specific professional interests. PSTs commented on how their m-learning activities allowed them to  conveniently address and respond to their own specific problems and needs: [m-learning activity] allows me to request/access personalised advice and promote opportunities for professional learning that wouldn’t have been noticed otherwise. Online supports are easily accessible … It is also helpful to speak to others that are experiencing the same thing because you can share thoughts and resources. The sharing in a WeChat group let me know about a policy issue in a timely way.*

PSTs reported on the convenient access to teaching ideas and materials and how their PLN activities responded to their own professional interests, including on professional experience. Seeking and receiving personalized advice, searching for and adapting lesson ideas for their practicum classes, often under the pressure of short preparation timelines, was a commonly highlighted benefit of their PLNs. Class management, inclusive education and technology-enhanced learning themes were frequently mentioned as topics they chose to focus on. I received help from the in-service internship tutor, academic teacher and intern friends about discipline management strategies in primary classrooms through my use of WeChat and QQ.* I talked in a WeChat group with teachers in special education about how to reduce the unwanted behaviours of the special needs children.* I discussed the developing status and future of technology in education with some specialists in a Wechat group.*

Collaboration PSTs reported on enhanced collaboration in their m-learning practices through their rich connections to a range of people, including ISTs, teacher educators and especially peers in and beyond their university. A sense of inspiration, collegiality and community were emphasized as benefits of these interactions.

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

61

Figure 3.4  Proportions of PST respondents connecting through their apps to types of individuals.

However, sharing of content was somewhat limited due to a lack of confidence and intimidation in these online spaces that are inhabited by experienced ISTs. The spontaneity and currency of communications and exchanged data was perceived as beneficial.

Use of social media apps to support collaborative m-learning PSTs used their PLN apps to prioritize connections and interactions with peers in their course, as shown in Figure 3.4. They also prioritized interactions with peers in other universities, practising school teachers (ISTs) and teacher education staff. Qualitative data in the next subsection sheds light on how PSTs perceived their interactions as collaborative. In terms of ‘data sharing’ and more generative m-learning activities, the PSTs’ use of PLN apps was somewhat passive, revealing a reluctance to share or post. As shown in Figure 3.5, respondents were mainly consuming content: 53 per cent of International PSTs participants and 40 per cent of Chinese PSTs. Only a small proportion of PSTs said that they ‘mainly produce’ (share) content, while a larger proportion of PSTs said that they ‘mainly produce and consume’ content.

62

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 3.5  Proportions of respondents that indicated they use their apps to ‘mainly consume’, ‘mainly produce’ or ‘mainly consume and produce’ content.

This general reluctance to ‘share’ content is linked to one of the challenges raised by PSTs and reported later in this section: a lack of confidence and feeling of intimidation when networking with experienced ISTs.

Perceived benefits relating to collaboration Although their self-reported behaviour was somewhat limited with regard to ‘data sharing’ (see Figure 3.5), PSTs reported on many ‘benefits’ linked to this construct of collaboration. PSTs appreciated the ability to link with peers, ISTs and others to share experiences, advice and resources. Again, immediacy and accessibility underpinned these benefits. Typical comments included: You can exchange opinions and ideas conveniently and instantly …. I communicate with teachers and classmates and get on time information from my WeChat groups.* Can share information … and construct things together.

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

63

As shown in Figure 3.4, PSTs prioritized connections to peers both in and beyond their course. Many PSTs chose to highlight these peer connections, reporting that these interactions elicited valuable professional learning conversations, sharing and negotiation of solutions. Sample perceived benefits were: Discussing ideas and lessons with peers on my course.  ollaborative study, I am alerted to interesting articles, discussions etc. by likeC minded peers.  y friends and I discussed a classroom teaching strategy. The relaxed discussion M context leads to diverse thinking directions. Although some suggestions may not be ‘right’, we usually find solutions.*

Smaller groups, especially using the Facebook app, were emphasized by some PSTs as conducive to conversation and sharing with peers: Smaller Facebook groups, where I know many members in real-life, have the benefits of being comfortable to ask questions … and engage in debate on issues surrounding teaching and learning. I shared materials and opinions with classmates in a WeChat group. It improved my engagement and gave me new teaching ideas.*

Connecting to ISTs was strongly emphasized in the qualitative data as a main benefit to these PLN activities. Many chose to emphasize the value of professional learning conversations and discussions with experienced teachers: We get to share ideas and can get answers from other professionals. We can inspire each other and take advantage of other teachers’ previous experiences. I have been able to stay in touch with educators I have either previously worked with or met that I admire. Through interactions on Twitter, I am able to continue to learn from those educators. We exchanged ideas about the benefits of using video clips … among professional WeChat group members.*

Finally, PSTs perceived these collaborative interactions as enhancing a sense of collegiality and community. Sample survey responses were: It also helps to form relationships with new people and to foster a supportive community to provide new ways of thinking, resources, and ideas. [There is] a sense of virtual camaraderie with people going through similar experiences working in schools. … the benefit is both accessing new entry points into content and actively engaging in a professional community of educators.

64

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Perceived challenges and concerns relating to collaboration This subsection draws on survey items addressing PSTs’ perception of ‘challenges’: an open-ended item from the English survey and a closed item from the Chinese survey. A commonly held perception from PSTs was that they lacked confidence and felt intimidated by ISTs in their networks. Ninety-six Chinese PSTs (47 per cent) said that finding confidence to share posts with ISTs was a challenge for them. Having confidence to share posts and other resources via their PLNs with ISTs and prospective employers was daunting for many PSTs and led them to exhibit predominantly ‘lurking’ or ‘passive consumption’ behaviours, as shown in Figure 3.5. The main challenge as a pre-service teacher, is having the confidence to produce content for others and believing that we have something valuable to offer, other than just consuming content.

As novice teachers lacking experience, they were reluctant to critique or react to experienced teachers’ views and perceived that they ‘didn’t have much to offer’ in debates and discussions involving ISTs: We are still trainees and not the finished article. For this reason, I feel that I personally would not feel comfortable, in my training year, posting something on a Facebook group for teachers sharing their resources.

Many were intimidated and either feared criticism by ISTs, or they felt they might ‘look silly’ or accidently expose their lack of experience or a weakness. Some also expressed a concern that their lack of status in these spaces affected the number of ‘followers’ on their chosen app (at least from ISTs) affecting prospects for collaboration.

Authenticity PSTs were using their m-device to interact with ‘real-world’ ISTs about meaningful, current topics of interest, akin to the way ISTs learn themselves through their career. Their chosen PLN apps were used ‘in-situ’ in realistic professional contexts in similar ways to teacher practitioners. PSTs appreciated the relevance of the ‘tested’ ideas and resources from the ISTs in their PLNs. A major challenge was managing the complex ‘information landscape’ encountered in their PLN spaces.

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

65

Use of social media apps to support authentic m-learning As shown in Figure 3.4, most PSTs used their m-devices to make connections with ‘real’ teachers’ (82 per cent of English survey respondents and 62 per cent of Chinese survey respondents), for example from their professional experience schools and teacher communities. PSTs used a range of apps to leverage these interactions, using tools such as Pinterest and Twitter that ‘real’ teachers use. Given that ISTs use these apps for their own professional learning (Trust et al. 2016; Tour 2017), use of these apps can be seen as an authentic practice for PSTs’ professional learning. The PSTs’ use of m-devices supported their situated professional learning experiences in the authentic settings such as their professional experience school. (As shown in Figures 3.2 and 3.3, 32 per cent of English survey respondents and 37 per cent of Chinese survey respondents used their PLN apps ‘very often’ and ‘always’ during their school placement.) Other places that PSTs were frequently using their PLN apps (such as at home or in informal settings such as cafes and public transport) could also be considered ‘realistic’ in the sense that ISTs also learn in and across these types of physical spaces (Kearney et al. 2015).

Perceived benefits relating to authenticity PSTs emphasized the perceived relevance of ISTs’ real, ‘tried and tested’ ideas and resources encountered through their PLN activities. The following comments typified these views: Relevance e.g. ‘tried and test’ ideas from real teachers; resources are current and relevant. Twitter has given me access to someone who has gone through the experience already and was sharing their thoughts, ideas and experiences in a ‘real’ and ‘honest’ way with the opportunity to access resources for free that were backed up by real experiences and results. Facebook groups which are organic and limited to real teachers rather than businesses often lead to the most authentic answers.

Indeed, PSTs perceived their use of PLN apps as mimicking the ‘real way’ that teachers themselves learn and update their professional knowledge: I was encouraged by another teacher to get a Twitter and Instagram account and join certain Facebook pages. They described it as where to get real professional learning.

66

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

A further example of this authentic ‘tool use’ was the PSTs’ use of apps such as LinkedIn (used by 31 per cent of English survey respondents), WeChat and Facebook to seek future employment and to find out about potential employers. In this way, PSTs learned about applying for jobs and how to market themselves: Getting real-life outlook on future jobs in a safe and relatively anonymous space. I always share information with classmates by WeChat and QQ – information and resources about teaching jobs.*

Perceived challenges and concerns relating to authenticity This subsection draws on survey items addressing PSTs’ perception of ‘challenges’: an open-ended item from the English survey and a closed item from the Chinese survey. A major challenge for PSTs is navigating and managing the complex information landscape of PLNs. Understanding, interpreting and prioritizing the importance and relevance of information from their PLN activities were perceived by PSTs as difficult. A big challenge for PSTs was finding quality information and resources and evaluating the relevance for their own teaching context. Sample survey comments were: I t can be overwhelming. There is a lot to sift through until you can find the really useful things.  e struggle to find what you want. As PLN takes place in places like Facebook Th groups or twitter feeds a lot of the time, there is no clarity to where things go in the curriculum or what is on the page.  e information comes from such diverse sources so it is a bit difficult to judge Th whether the information and materials seen are compatible with the local context/ideals.

Trustworthiness and integrity of information sources were also difficult for PSTs to evaluate. One hundred and thirty-six Chinese PSTs (66 per cent) said that evaluating the reliability of information sources was a major challenge (this concern was prioritized by these participants as the biggest challenge for them). Information may be conflicting, especially if a wide range of views are elicited via a larger PLN: There is often conflicting information. I am part of one PLN on Facebook for one exam board specifically, and often teachers have contrasting interpretations of the specification or requirements.

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

67

A related challenge is dealing with bias and emotive teacher opinions, corporate marketing and spin, as well as disinformation and fake news. There are so many strong opinions out there. It’s hard to decide for myself what fits best within my own pedagogical framework Informal groups post a smorgasbord of content, only some of which is relevant or useful to me. More importantly, they might be accessed by corporations and individuals seeking to promote products or services. Many of these are illinformed or fail to disclose any conflicts of interest.

Others believed this complex information landscape leads them to shallow information. As a partial solution, some PSTs stated they intended to improve the focus of their PLN when they start as ISTs on more specific areas such as behaviour management, innovations or on identified areas of weakness.

Discussion This study provides a nuanced understanding of a niche but evidently valuable m-learning activity: PSTs’ self-initiated use of social media apps to support their PLNs. It provides a timely international spotlight on how final year PSTs from a range of countries behave in these informally developed online spaces, in contrast to more formally organized online PLNs that typically include set goals, prescribed tools and activities initiated or mediated by a teacher educator. It also elicits PSTs’ perceptions of benefits and challenges. It adds to the literature on other contemporary m-learning practices in initial teacher education, such as the use of m-devices to support PSTs’ observations and reflective practices during their professional placements (Aubusson et al. 2009; Maxfield & Romano 2013; Pegrum et al. 2013) and the use of m-devices to support collaborative, project-based learning (Naylor & Gibbs 2017). PSTs’ m-learning practices were evidently strong in aspects of authenticity, personalization and the peer conversational component of collaboration but showed limited ‘data sharing’ in the collaboration construct. The PSTs reported on a high degree of agency in these activities, emphasizing their freedom to tailor their learning to their own needs and use apps and resources of their own choosing. They highlighted the flexible ‘anywhere, anytime’ nature of their practices, and the convenience and immediacy of their communications. They used their apps in a variety of formal and

68

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

informal locations to connect to peers and other experts in a timely way and particularly valued the collegiality and authentic nature of their interactions with ‘real teachers’. However, PSTs reported that they felt inadequate and were intimidated by more experienced ISTs and often lacked confidence in these online spaces, limiting more proactive, generative behaviour. Additionally, they lacked organizational and information management skills to ‘tame’ these complex, organic spaces. The study highlights ‘ways forward’ for teacher educators wanting to assist PSTs’ developing competence and confidence with using PLN apps, as they prepare for career-long professional learning in these digital spaces. Firstly, PSTs need assistance with relevant information literacy skills to confidently navigate and manage the complex unwieldy ‘landscape’ of their online PLN spaces. Secondly, PSTs don’t necessarily see themselves as fully fledged members of the teaching community and evidently lack confidence when interacting with ISTs. Hence, teacher educators (and ISTs) need to facilitate PSTs’ confidence and professional identity development to allow them to more actively participate in these online PLN spaces. Such support and encouragement should help strengthen PSTs’ collaboration practices, assisting with more generative and participative behaviour. Teacher educators’ modelling of these more proactive and collaborative m-learning practices in their own PLNs may also assist with this outcome. The use of supportive resources, such as the MTTEP mobile learning toolkit for educators (Burden & Kearney 2018) introduced elsewhere in this book, and the PLN enrichment framework (Krutka et al. 2016) offer teacher educators valuable assistance when addressing these challenges.

Conclusion The study provides valuable insights into contemporary m-learning practices self-directed by PSTs that evidently exploit some of the distinctive pedagogical affordances of mobile technologies. Further longitudinal research is needed into the role that these valuable practices might have in the critical transition period from pre-service teacher education to early-career teaching and how teacher educators and ISTs might more effectively facilitate PSTs’ m-learning experiences during school placements.

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

69

References Aubusson, P., Ewing, R., & Hoban, G. F. (2009), Action Learning in Schools: Reframing Teachers’ Professional Learning and Development. London: Routledge. Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2009), Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: Benefits, obstacles, and issues. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 233–247. Baran, E. (2014), A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Burden, K., & Hopkins, P. (2017), Barriers and challenges facing pre-service teachers use of mobile technologies for teaching and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 8(2), 1–20. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016), Conceptualising authentic mobile learning. In D. Churchill, J. Lu, T. Chiu & B. Fox (Eds.), Mobile Learning Design: Theories and Application (pp. 27–42). Singapore: Springer. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2018), Designing an educator toolkit for the mobile learning age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 88–99. Caldwell, H. (2018), Mobile technologies as a catalyst for pedagogic innovation within teacher education. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 50–65. Carpenter, J. P. (2015). Digital backchannels: Giving every student a voice. Educational Leadership, 72(8), 54–58. Carpenter, J., Krutka, D., & Trust, T. (2016), PK-12 teachers’ conceptualizations of professional learning networks. In G. Chamblee & L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE International Conference (pp. 1936–1942). Savannah, GA: AACE. Cushing, A. (2011), A case study of mobile learning in teacher training – Mentor ME (mobile enhanced mentoring). MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 19, 1–14. Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. (2009), Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015), Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57. Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013), Mobile learning in maths teacher education: Driving pre-service teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 78–86. Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2019), Mobile learning in pre-service teacher education: Examining the use of professional learning networks. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1), 135–158.

70

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17. Krutka, D. G. (2014), Social media as a catalyst for convergence culture: Immersing pre-service social studies teachers in the social media terrain. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Digital Social Studies (pp. 271–302). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Krutka, D., Carpenter, J., & Trust, T. (2016), Enriching professional learning networks: A framework for identification, reflection, and intention. TechTrends, 61(3), 246–252. Lantz-Andersson, A., Lundin, M., & Selwyn, N. (2018), Twenty years of online teacher communities: A systematic review of formally-organized and informally-developed professional learning groups. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 302–315. Maher, D. (2018), Supporting pre-service teachers’ understanding and use of mobile devices. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mobile Technology, Constructivism, and Meaningful Learning (pp. 160–177). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Maxfield, M. B., & Romano, D. (2013), Videos with mobile technologies: Pre-service teacher observations during the first day of school. In J. Keengwe (Ed.), Pedagogical Applications and Social Effects of Mobile Technology Integration (pp. 133–155). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Naylor, A., & Gibbs, J. (2017), Deep learning: Enriching teacher training through mobile technology and international collaboration. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 10(1), 62–77. Obonyo, C., Davis, N., & Fickel, L. (March 2018), Mobile learning practices in initial teacher education: Illustrations from three teacher educators. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2424–2429). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Pachler, N., Cook, J., & Bachmair, B. (2010), Appropriation of mobile cultural resources for learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2(1), 1–21. Pegrum, M., Howitt, C., & Striepe, M. (2013), Learning to take the tablet: How pre-service teachers use iPads to facilitate their learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4). Radinsky, J., Bouillion, L., Lento, E. M., & Gomez, L. M. (2001), Mutual benefit partnership: A curricular design for authenticity. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(4), 405–430. Sun, Z., Lin, C. H., Wu, M., Zhou, J., & Luo, L. (2018), A tale of two communication tools: Discussion forum and mobile instant messaging apps in collaborative learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 248–261. Swanson, K. (2013), Professional Learning in the Digital Age: The Educator’s Guide to User-generated Learning. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Tolosa, C. (2017), The role of mobile technologies in pre-service foreign language teacher education. Teachers and Curriculum, 17(2), 47–52. Tour, E. (2017), Teachers’ self-initiated professional learning through personal learning networks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 179–192.

PSTs’ Self-Initiated Use of Mobile Devices

71

Traxler, J. (2007), Current state of mobile learning. International Review on Research in Open and Distance learning, 8(2), 1–10. Trust, T., Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016), ‘Together we are better’: Professional learning networks for teachers. Computers & Education, 102, 15–34. Wang, M., & Shen, R. (2012), Message design for mobile learning: Learning theories, humancognition and design principles. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 561–575. Wertsch, J. V. (1991), Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

72

4

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project: The Experiences of Teacher Educators and Teachers Amanda Naylor

University of York, United Kingdom

Janet Gibbs

University of Hull, United Kingdom

Anbjorg Igland Metis Akadamiet, Bergen, Norway Monica Armundson Metis Akadamiet, Bergen, Norway

Introduction This chapter presents a case study of a collaborative project using mobile learning between pre-service teachers (PSTs) in the UK working with Norwegian college students (ages 17–19). The authors of this chapter, two tutors from a university in the UK and two teachers from a college in Norway, collaborated together to design and operationalize the project. The purpose of the project was to explore the value and potential of students designing and creating their own eBook as a pedagogic strategy to enhance learning, using mobile devices (in this case the iPad). As a focus for this the app Book Creator was chosen (see www.bookcreator.com). Using Book Creator enabled the PSTs and the college students to produce eBooks at the centre of their work and as an output for them to co-author collaboratively. In effect we, as university tutors and college teachers, were asking the PSTs to model the process of using mobile technology by working collaboratively between UK and Norwegian students. In order to use the technology with the PSTs, we had to become familiar with the technology ourselves. By modelling what we were going to ask our students to do, we had set ourselves a challenge, and it is this aspect of the project that will be discussed in this chapter, together with the thoughts of the UK PSTs and Norwegian students in working through the process. This work formed

74

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

part of a larger transnational European Erasmus+ project, designed to help teacher educators develop their own skills in using mobile technology (www.mttep.eu).

The use of mobile technologies in educational contexts in Norway According to the European Commission (2013), Norway is one of the top five countries in terms of student access to computers, tablets and interactive whiteboards at school, but Norwegian schools are quite mediocre in the pedagogical usage concerning such technology. The continuing development of new technology in education creates a need for teachers to be updated on how to make use of it so that they can help students to develop their digital competence. Basic skills such as being able to use digital tools in an independent, critical way are integrated in the competency aims of all subjects at any level in Norwegian schools. Søby (2013) reports on the Technology Outlook for Norwegian Schools 2013–2018 project which identifies trends that are expected to have a significant impact on Norwegian primary and secondary schools, namely social media and shifting educational paradigms to include online learning and collaborative models. The report also identifies some of the key challenges for education, namely that initial teacher education and in-service teacher education are both lagging behind what is needed, and schools and teachers remain dependent on physical textbooks. Tømte et al. (2013) found that most teacher education institutions do not have a holistic approach to developing digital literacy and that student teachers are not equipped to utilize digital tools, despite teacher education undergoing a significant reform in 2010 with the focus on preparing children for the future (Engen et al. 2015). According to Søby (2013), digital competency needs to be embedded in the curriculum in order for the trends to become realized in schools and the education sector. In further investigating the National Guideline documents for the curriculum for both schools and teacher education, Tømte et al. (2013) found disparity between them. For schools the curriculum makes clear a holistic approach to the use of digital tools and the development of digital skills, whereas for teacher education this is less clear and described by Engen et al. (2015: 81) as ‘random’. In contrast, Wasson and Hansen (2014: 62) interviewed six ‘power’ teachers from high schools and a primary school. These are teachers whom they describe as having a special interest in using technology and may therefore be unrepresentative of Norwegian teachers generally. They found that they were

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project

75

using technological tools which were not designed for use in the classroom, such as Twitter and Google Docs, but they were using them in innovative ways for pedagogical purposes. So it would appear that there are pockets of expertise within Norwegian schools, but as Søby (2013: 4) reports the development of digital skills has been too slow, ‘with insufficient digital learning resources … and in inequalities in the availability of infrastructure and equipment’. Krumsvic et al. (2018) investigated the impact of tablet use in Norwegian primary schools by comparing national test results in numeracy and literacy where teachers had taught with and without tablet use in the classrooms. While the use of the tablets provided a fun and motivating way to learn for the students, there appeared to be no significant difference in the outcomes of using either method. As the only study of this kind, much more research is needed to identify the ways in which mobile technology can be used to bring about successful pedagogical strategies in the classrooms of today. This exposes a gap addressed by the MTTEP project (www.mttep.eu), which was explicitly designed to support teachers and teacher educators to develop their own skills in using mobile technology.

The use of mobile technology in educational contexts in the UK and Europe In order to encourage school use of mobile technologies, it is crucial that teacher educators can engage with mobile technology and make it a part of their subjectspecific pedagogy so that newly qualified teachers feel familiar with its use and have explored how to use the devices in a pedagogically appropriate manner. However, in a recent study Burden and Kearney (2016) found that teachers and teacher educators are struggling to exploit the full range of mobile pedagogical approaches. Part of the problem would appear to be that as the technology is changing rapidly teacher educators lack confidence in teaching with them, together with a reluctance to embrace mobile learning (m-learning) because it conflicts with traditional methods of teaching and learning and scepticism that m-learning can add anything, due to the lack of evidence for their educational value (Pegrum et al. 2013). Gillies (2016) used focus groups to discuss aspects of students’ ‘bring your own mobile device’ compared with using institutional iPads, on a small number of academics within an education faculty at a UK university. The majority of staff preferred to use the institutional iPads because they felt that there were more barriers to students’ bringing their own device than enablers. Examples of barriers included unequal access, limited faculty

76

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

technological support, phone attitude, limited task control, academic issues with personal devices. Aiyegbayo (2015) surveyed and interviewed academics at a university in the UK about their use of iPads for teaching and found that they were reluctant to use them in this way, mainly because most of their students did not possess one and also due to their unfamiliarity with their use for teaching purposes, having received little or no pedagogical support. Where academics were using their iPads for teaching there was ‘no evidence of the transformational use of iPads … because none of the teaching tasks were … newly created as a result of using the iPad’ (Aiyegbayo 2015: 1330).

Mobile devices or laptops Şad and Göktas (2014) surveyed pre-service teachers in Turkey to find out their preferred technological device, which proved to be the laptop. Using the same survey tool in 2015, Davison and Lazaros found that their US counterparts similarly preferred the laptop as their choice of technological hardware. Tablets were unavailable when Conole et al. (2008) surveyed UK students, and in the United States they were found to be the third choice of technology, after mobile phones. Mobile phones were preferred for personal use, with email being preferred for contacting tutors and peers, but texting was also used to contact peers. Conole et al. (2016: 521) found that the social affordances of the technology appeared to be more important than actually using the hardware, so much so that it enabled the students to develop a ‘networked, extended community of learners using a range of communicative tools to exchange ideas, to query issues, to provide support, to check progress’. While the laptop appears to be the number one choice of undergraduate technology, there is little in the way of research on academic opinion about their use in the higher education sector. Haßler et al. (2016) reviewed the literature about tablet use in schools across ten countries. The students enjoy using the tablets, participated more in the activities and collaborated more. Using tablets in the classroom requires effective technology management, together with the need for a supportive school culture, collegiality and empowerment of staff. Teachers who used the technology found that their lessons became more learner-centred and had greater variety and pace than when they did not use them. Baran (2014) reviewed the literature about teacher educators and mobile technology and found that another stumbling block was the lack of information relating to pedagogical and theoretical models that teacher educators could use to design mobile learning experiences

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project

77

for pre-service teachers. To this end a mobile learning toolkit, together with a theoretical framework for teacher educators, was developed as part of the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educator’s Pedagogies project (MTTEP), a transnational European Erasmus+ project (Burden & Kearney 2016).

Mobile learning in practice – A case study In this project, the Norwegian college students visited a university in the UK for two days to work with science and English PSTs to co-author a selection of eBooks, using a common focus of science and maritime topics common to both the English ‘A’ level and the Norwegian science curriculum. The outcome for the PSTs and college students was to produce an interactive learning resource for students preparing for university in the form of an eBook using the app Book Creator (see www.bookcreator.com). The PSTs specializing in science were responsible for collecting data and the trainee teachers specializing in English responsible for text structure, working collaboratively with the Norwegian college students at all stages of the project. The UK team wanted the group to be inspired by an authentic experience, which was situated in a suitable venue away from the university and which could provide a context on which the eBook topic could be based. The venue chosen was The Deep (www.thedeep.co.uk), a large aquarium, or submarium, next to the North Sea in the north of the UK. The Deep offered the potential for lots of choice of authentic topics, which were current issues or problems to be solved. While half the Norwegian students were studying chemistry, some were also studying biology and/or physics. The science trainee teachers were mainly biology and chemistry graduates with some physics graduates. As the eBooks would be produced around a science topic, it was suggested that the physics trainee teachers work together with the college student physicists; similarly the chemists and biologists work together. The UK team went on preliminary visit to The Deep to identify some sciencebased topics that could be linked to both the Norwegian and UK curriculum at the post-16 level, because the brief was to make an eBook for A-level students and their equivalent counterparts in Norway to use in a way that could be interactive. After the preliminary trip the trainee teachers involved in the project sent the college students information about what to prepare for the collaborative workshop in Hull in spring. This included a list of possible topics that were related to both the UK and Norwegian biology, chemistry and physics curricula such as adaptation of sea life, genetic diversity, population size and factors affecting it,

78

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

acidification, global warming, refraction. As the eBooks would be written in English, the English students were able to support with the written tasks. Planning for the Norwegian visit to the UK began as much as a year before the visit took place and involved a brief visit by the UK team to Norway when the UK university staff visited the Norwegian college and presented a pilot crosssubject project, based on a field trip to the sea side they had arranged for their trainees prior to their college visit. This pilot included collection of data, usage of different apps and creating eBooks (Naylor & Gibbs 2015).

Enabling a successful collaboration at The Deep At the university in the UK, the PSTs had prepared a workshop for the Norwegian students. It was of great importance that all the participants worked effectively together in teams. The students and PSTs formed mixed groups which consisted of one science and one English PST together with one science and one English Norwegian college student. Based on the Norwegian curriculum in science and English the groups decided on the focus of their research, based on the preliminary possible topics sent in preparation to the Norwegian students to be used for the visit at The Deep. As an icebreaker activity, the Norwegian students brought a personal artefact to present to the group to begin discussion about themselves. The PSTs acting as hosts took their group around campus so that they became familiar with their surroundings. After the workshop, the groups went to visit The Deep. The science students and PSTs used their iPads to collect data and the English students and PSTs focused on the text for the eBooks. After the visit at The Deep, both PSTs and the Norwegian students completed the eBooks and presented them for the whole group. Throughout this collaboration one of the challenges for the Norwegian students was to practice their use of academic English, both orally and in a written format. This is a useful preparation for studying at university in Norway, because science courses are taught in English, so the language is as important as knowledge about the topic itself.

What issues and challenges did our students face with the project at The Deep? How were they resolved? Student challenges; Pre-service teachers One of the challenges noted by the PSTs was the use of the mobile technology outdoors. Many of the science PSTs were inexperienced at working outdoors,

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project

79

in particular the chemists and physicists. All of the English PSTs were unaccustomed to working outdoors for curricular work. One of the English PSTs noted feeling ‘daunted’ by using the technology outdoors, while another stated that she was ‘worried about … breaking it or dropping it’. One science PST commented that she had never before considered using an iPad in this way on location outside of the university. She found the iPad to be more robust than she had expected and the ability to record images and sound and then play it back on return to the university meant she could review and remember more clearly what she had seen and experienced in that location. It was preferable to using a piece of paper and making notes because the recording of sound and images was instantaneous. One of the science PSTs felt that he would have preferred to have a Windows-based tablet so that he could move resources from his laptop to his tablet and vice versa, which he could not do between the iPad and his laptop, but he thought that the general idea of using a tablet on location to record sights and sounds was a very good idea and something that he would like to repeat should the opportunity arise. The PSTs found that time and effort was required to become familiar with the technology: The only negative I think that some of us have found is the time that it takes to actually make the book, how to get your head around where to put things and how to do it, fonts etc., but I think with practice, the more that you tried it out the quicker you would become and it would be quite useful to use.

Working together transnationally was another challenge that the PSTs identified. Using the iPads at The Deep ensured that all the project teams worked collaboratively together and selected what was going to be recorded as a group. One of the English PSTs stated, ‘For me it was about how you bring that technology into a collaborative process so and making sure that you can join up your ideas through the iPads, and … the eBooks as well.’ Another science PST thought that the experience of working collaboratively enabled him to see things from another person’s perspective, which is a valuable asset in a beginning teacher. The PSTs were conscious that it was their responsibility to use appropriate and accessible language in this collaboration. One English PST stated, ‘I think it made us think more about phraseology and how we were putting things across and making sure that it was accessible.’ One of the science PSTs stated that she thought it was useful to be able to access search tools to translate technical words into Norwegian to help with the college students’ understanding of certain concepts.

80

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Student challenges; Norwegian college students One of the main objectives of this project was to encourage and motivate the Norwegian college students to work within new formats, with the focus on new mobile technology methods. One of the challenges the Norwegian students faced was obviously to become familiar with new mobile learning technologies. The chemistry students had been used to writing traditional laboratory reports and the English students had been used to using their laptops to make traditional PowerPoint presentations and essay writing. For both of the groups, the eBook format was a new method and it gave room for personalization, authenticity and adding video, audio and animation to the book. Language barriers were also a challenge, especially for the chemistry students that needed to practise the English terminology in science prior to the visit to The Deep. The fact that the trainee teachers gave instructions and feedback in English could also have been a challenge for some Norwegian students. Here one of the Norwegian science students observes in an interview from the second day of the project: It was easier than I had thought before we came because the language barrier decreased during the working process because, we Norwegians had an exponential development in our language, kind of, and therefore everything became easier. It was much easier today than it was yesterday, for example.

The main challenge for the students of English, however, was the specialized science terminology, which is very different to the familiar vocabulary used in English literature and other texts belonging to the English subject. This meant that they had to familiarize themselves with new unknown terminology, since their main task in this project was to be responsible for the texts in the eBooks. The chemistry students found being able to collect data and movie clips and produce interactive eBooks to be a motivating experience in contrast to writing traditional science reports. The incorporation of still images, videos, animations and voice-overs can add important information and details that can be useful when learning new methods. Details such as shape, colour, duration, motion and position make this format optimal to reproduce technical procedures. Feedback from the students indicated that making eBooks was more challenging than simply using a helpful tool and more time-consuming than writing traditional reports. It also challenged them because they had to consider how they phrased their English and a few students found it difficult to communicate with the PSTs. However, the majority of the students said the work was different, fun and that it

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project

81

made them understand the topic better. They were also proud of their product – the eBook that made their presentation look more professional. All the Norwegian students found the benefits outweighed the challenge of the activity. The opportunity to collaborate with PSTs in an authentic English environment was rewarding regardless. English is the world language and all students need to be able to read it and speak it, both as part of their further education and for their later job careers, whether it is in Norway or abroad.

Impact of mobile learning: Impact of the project on the Norwegian college students There are many advantages participating in such an extensive international project such as the MTTEP project. The experience of transnational cooperation, concerning teaching and learning, is beneficial in many ways. The benefit for the Norwegian college students has first and foremost been the experience to work with PSTs at university level in an English-speaking country. The opportunity to work within such a big international project, especially the opportunity to get away from traditional classroom teaching, has been motivating for the students. A few of them have been invited back to the school to support us starting new mobile learning projects in new English classes, among them previous English students who worked with iPads and eBooks for two years in their English classes at college in Norway. Student A comments: Being a part of the Erasmus-project taught me a lot about mobile learning and how to use different tools and devices as a part of regular schoolwork. Learning how to use iPads and different apps made learning more fun.

The idea that using the iPad can become a regular part of the schoolwork is important in developing confidence in using the technology and enabling students to see the ways in which it can be used. The same student also says: The use of the iPads and the different applications helped me in my other classes, and made my projects in school better in so many ways.

Student B has found that now she is at university, the mobile technology has the affordance of being able to study wherever and whenever one wants to: I knew that I could bring my computer everywhere and use my surroundings as help in the study process. In addition to this I am more aware, than most students, of the different tools and devices that may help me while I am studying.

82

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

She also adds: The iPads expanded the learning with new devices and tools, such as different applications and the opportunity to take the schoolwork out of the school building.

Impact on university tutors For the tutors at the university, the challenge of modelling good practice using mobile technology presented a steep learning curve. When introducing the project and the apps to the trainees, this had the potential to take the tutor out of their comfort zone, in particular with any technological difficulties that presented themselves, so it was important to seek support for the training of the students at the outset of the project. The impact on one’s own teaching is very significant, providing the motivation to take the work further into research or other projects. To some degree the work promoted a changing of the conception of the subject for both tutors and students, moving away from pens and paper to the use of the iPad. In her reflection on the project the science tutor writes: As a result of this work with the iPads, I have incorporated their use into my fieldwork on a regular basis. I prepare my own interactive eBook about the trip, as a demonstration for the trainee teachers of how to make an eBook. I have prepared spreadsheets and word documents to collect data whilst in the field using the offline function. The advantage of this is that trainee teachers can have identification keys and data collection sheets open at the same time as being able to record sounds and images of their data. Once they are back at the university they can check their results using the images collected or clarify identification of species. It also means that the trainee teachers are not juggling pieces of paper on a clipboard whilst the wind whips them away. However, on particularly sunny days the iPads are sometimes difficult to view and in the rain would require protecting with a plastic cover. By collecting data in this way it demonstrates how you can use iPads effectively in the field and how you can get not only trainee teachers, but the students they will eventually teach, to work collaboratively to learn about the seashore ecosystem. I would hope that by working in this way, the trainee teachers may see the potential of using this mobile technology in their own teaching. By running workshops for my university colleagues about making eBooks, this has had an impact on them as they are also beginning to see the potential of making eBooks as a tool for learning.

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project

83

One English PST reflected on her experience: Well really, we kind of collected all our data, our videos, our pictures and stuff from the Deep and used it in combination with our own thoughts and ideas about the topic that we picked, to kind of pull it all together. So we have all kind of worked individually then brought it all together as one collaborative piece as well.

The English PST is not only contributing comments on the language and structure of piece but is also learning about the topic that they have chosen for their eBook and making a contribution to that as well. So although we as teacher educators had expected the PSTs to have clearly defined roles it is clear that those boundaries have become blurred as the project developed. Another reflection from the English PST refers to how positive the experience has been: So it’s been quite nice to have that mixture of working as well, that caters for everyone’s learning styles in addition to making it a really collaborative, interesting, engaging kind of project for us, so yes it’s been a really positive experience.

Positive experiences are the ones that PSTs remember and as teacher educators we hope they will bring these experiences and pedagogic strategies into their own teaching repertoire as they become more experienced teachers.

Impact of the project on the teachers and school The Norwegian schoolteachers have been able to use their experience of working on the MTTEP project to further develop the use of mobile technology within their own teaching and learning. Using the expertise developed through the MTTEP project they were able to successfully apply for Erasmus+ funding for a school-only project (KA219). The aims of this project are to use mobile technologies for formative assessment within various pedagogical contexts working in collaboration with partners from Germany and Spain. The use of mobile technology in formative assessment is a crucial area for further research and development and supports the use of open and innovative digital practices in education. The aim of the new project is to strengthen teachers’ skills and competence in using new mobile learning technology to support formative assessment, which will in turn support student progress. This will allow for the development of new methods for formative assessment, in which peer assessment

84

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

is the main objective. The results of this work will be shared with school colleagues, other institutions, nationally and transnationally. Dissemination outside the partnership is intended to be to teachers and teacher educators. The purpose is to improve teacher education in general, to help teachers in their personal/professional development and to inspire them with new ideas. The management at college in Norway has encouraged more teachers to become involved in the project and as a result more students are involved in formative assessment. The project partners arrange workshops at their respective schools in Spain, Germany and Norway, where teacher colleagues experience hands-on training activities. The project also allows teachers to explore the vast potential of guided learning that takes place outside the classroom, such as collecting data at different authentic sites, allowing student-teacher dialogue in nonhierarchical learning contexts. The project aims to set up a digital network for future collaboration and sharing of good practice, as well as establishing an E-Twinning platform for communication between teachers, as well as a website to share the findings of the project. Another outcome of the project is the production of digitally competent teachers who can work collaboratively to develop transnational working relationships.

Conclusion It is apparent that the staff involved in this project, both teachers and teacher educators, are willing to embrace new technology and to think about how they can be used within an educational setting. The authors of this chapter are experienced teachers and teacher educators who have the confidence to try out new pedagogies using mobile technology. Both of these factors, a willingness to embrace new technology and the confidence to use the technology with students, are important considerations to enable staff to become involved in using new technology. While there were many challenges along the way, such as learning to use the technological tools and being confident of using them with a class of students, they were also able to have the support from their colleagues to explore the use of technology and how it could relate to their own subject specialism. Having staff support for the technical side of the project was also important as well as having access to the technology. For the students and PSTs, personalization enables them to have ownership of the construction of new knowledge, and discussion with peers enables students to make sense of the knowledge and to allow for deep learning, where the experience will

Mobile Technology in a Transnational Project

85

remain with them and they will remember what they did. Construction of an authentic task is important for the students to see the relevance of what they are doing in the real world, and because there was an element of choice, they could select a topic which was important to them personally. In preparing teachers for the future, they need to feel confidence in using the technology and be able to think about how they can use it to enhance their pedagogical repertoire.

References Aiyegbayo, O. (2015), How and why academics do and do not use iPads for academic teaching? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1324–1332. Baran, E. (2014), A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2018), Designing an educator toolkit for the mobile learning age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 88–99. Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T., & Darby, J. (2016), ‘Disruptive technologies’, ‘pedagogical innovation’: What’s new? findings from an in-depth study of students’ use and perception of technology. Computers & Education, 50, 511–524. Davison, C. B., & Lazaros, E. J. (2015), Adopting mobile technology in the higher education classroom. Journal of Technology Studies, 41(1), 30–39. Engen, B. K., Giæver, T. H., & Mifsud, L. (2015), Guidelines and regulations for teaching digital competence in schools and teacher education: A weak link? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 10 (Jubileumsnummer), 172–186. European Commission (2013), Survey of schools: ICT in education. Benchmarking Access, Use and Attitudes to Technology in Europe’s Schools. Available online: https:// ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/KK-31-13-401-EN-N.pdf Gillies, G. C. M. (2016), To BYOD or not to BYOD: Factors affecting academic acceptance of student mobile devices in the classroom. Research in Learning Technology, 24 ISSN 2156–7077. Available online: https://journal.alt.ac.uk/index. php/rlt/article/view/1781 (Accessed 5 October 2018). doi: https://doi.org/10.3402/ rlt.v24.30357. Haßler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016), Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 139–156. Krumsvic, R.J., Berrum, E., & Jones, L. Ø. (2018), Everyday digital schooling – Implementing tablets in Norwegian primary school. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 13(3), 152–178.

86

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Naylor, A., & Gibbs, J. (2015), Using iPads as a learning tool in cross-curricular collaborative initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(4), 442–446. Pegrum, M., Howitt, C., & Striepe, M. (2013), Learning to take the tablet: How pre-service teachers use iPads to facilitate their learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 464–479. Şad, S. N., & Göktaş, Ö. (2014), Preservice teachers’ perceptions about using mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(4), 606–618. Søby, M. (2013), Synergies for better learning – Where are we now? Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 1(2), 3–11. Tømte, C., Kårstein, A., & Olsen, D. S. (2013), ICT in teacher education: On the way to professional digital competence? NIFU Report 20. Available online: http://www.nifu. no/files/2013/05/NIFUrapport2013-20.pdf Wasson, B., & Hansen, C. (2014), Making use of ICT: Glimpses from Norwegian teacher practices. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 9(1), 44–65.

5

Using Video Documentaries in History and Social Science Ulf Kerber

University of Education, Pädagogische Hochschule, Karlsruhe

Introduction In the last couple of years, the unabashed way political players, aided by social media, generate and circulate evidently falsified assertions and ‘alternative facts’ to reap political profit is alarming. For this purpose, it has become a quite popular habit among producers of, e.g., the political public relations work of New Right parties to make use of historical comparisons, seemingly elapsed historical images or utilize persuasive techniques of media communication to compel changes in attitude of their recipients (Group 1979; Nagle 2017). All of these methods clearly stem from a long media-historical tradition – most of them are not new to us (Taylor et al. 2013). This recourse to historical images, historical myths and visual concepts aims to ‘socially construct reality’ (Jeismann 1997) and become – if left unattended – part of the common historical culture and awareness. The rise of mobile technologies and social media has changed the means of political communication and public relations (Strömbäck & Kiousis 2011). Digital communication has become an important issue in the lives of young learners and the recent past has shown the effects on the ways that political opinion can influence the beliefs of students (Moeller & de Vreese 2013) and is therefore an important aspect of research on digital learning in subjects such as the social sciences (Bernsen & Kerber 2017). This raises the question of how we can prompt students to competently and responsibly deal with new and old forms of mass media and assist them to studiedly face historical conclusions by analogies and generations of reality and to understand the use of psychological media concepts. In respect thereof, this article should offer a contribution to communication methods with regard to historical didactics/education and

88

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

provide suggestions for a profound revision of previous historical image and film analyses. This contribution can be regarded as an extension of already existing premises of film and image interpretation patterns in history lessons. These proposals remain in line with educational media impact analysis that cover continuity and change of media constructs, which I claim to call visual history analytics. Hereby, elements of visual history, visual literacy research, media psychology and media impact analysis will be merged with findings of historical culture and public history and will be introduced in educational school and university processes. This will be accomplished by adopting a media didactical perspective with regard to digitalization. Learners will, thereby, be presented with the opportunity to understand medial communication design and rhetoric, analyse typical patterns, and reflect. Knowing and understanding forms of design and mechanisms of action and reception construct the core of this analytical competence. It lays the foundation for what is required in this digital age: the ability to cooperate on an interdisciplinary level, link complex systems, and analyse and interpret communication and the effect of data and algorithms on society. History and social science can add to this field of digital (data) literacy. Communication and information acquisition should be an important part of any curriculum given today’s context of the relationship between politics and society, issues such as propaganda, PR and fake news, which is not necessarily the case at the moment. School subjects like history or social science could take the lead here (Kerber 2016) and help to implement a key competence of the UNESCO TOOL KIT of media literacy. Key questions of the UNESCO TOOL KIT are listed as follows: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Realism – Is this text intended to be realistic? Why do some texts seem more realistic than others? Telling the truth – How do media claim to tell the truth about the world? How do they try to seem authentic? Influences – Do media representations affect our views of particular social groups or issues? Targeting – How are media aimed at particular audiences? How do they try to appeal to them? Making sense – How do audiences interpret media? (Frau-Meigs 2006)

This case study shows how mobile learning and media literacy can be integrated together by pre-service and in-service teachers in classrooms

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

89

and provides ideas and empirical data about how this can be done to foster teacher education in fields of history and social science. It addresses the field of ‘learning about media’ and not so much ‘learning with media and media technology’, although the use of media technology plays an important role for this project. In this teaching and learning scenario, teacher trainees of history education had to deal with different aspects of political and historical communication via forms of video. A special focus was placed on history documentaries and the principles of their construction of meaning, production and their mechanisms of manipulating information acquisition with means of emotions, psychological media effects (Bonfadelli & Friemel 2011), and methods of creating ‘truth’ and ‘authenticity’ (Weber 2002). From this complex learning scenario multiple objectives can be derived. These are of interest, especially from a historical perspective, when talking about media interaction and the comprehension of communication in the digital age. Besides possessing the ability for interpretative (re)construction on a content-related level, the critical interaction with historical culture of the past and present on an analytical level shall lead to the ability to conduct a comprehensive deconstruction of these medial agents of opinion. Orientation skills obtained through the historical thought process shall facilitate a transfer to the deconstruction of general political communication in the digital age. Through this, the subjectivity and credibility of moving images can be resisted and dismantled, and the intrinsic logic of the medium can be decoded. This is sustained through the analysis of image and film-related linguistic devices which are often utilized to invalidate manipulative effects in political public relations. Hereby, learners should be put in a position to create criteria-based video productions and should be able to include the learned concepts into the targeted visual communication in a responsible and critically reflected manner.

Impact of the MTTEP project and the iPAC framework Within the EU project MTTEP, my university (University of Education Karlsruhe) took part in the implication and dissemination of the iPAC framework model. This model enabled me to transform my previous seminars via digital and mobile tools and develop new, digitally supported teaching and learning concepts. The iPAC framework – used as a consecutive extension of the TPACK and SAMR models – is completely independent of

90

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

possible media competence models and can, therefore, be employed alongside various competencies of historical media education. It is mainly based on the Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning model by Yeonjoeng Pak (2011) which is characterized by two main constructs: the transactional distance between the learners and the degree of interaction during a mobile learning activity. Learning activities with a high transactional distance can be identified by the high degree of autonomy displayed by the learners, who act independent of formal instructors or teachers. This was considered a major criterion during the conception of the seminar. The iPAC model (Kearney et al. 2012) implements varying clusters of methodical action, which represent typical teaching and learning concepts by utilizing digital tools to transform education. While the SAMR model describes different steps of transformation, the iPAC framework allows their respective methodical description to use them for the planning and evaluating of classes and lectures. Through this, a pedagogical tool has been created which permits me to plan, execute and evaluate my didactical teaching and learning concepts. It was also used to evaluate the seminar presented here. The development of this seminar was – on multiple levels – heavily influenced by the international and interdisciplinary exchange with colleges. Next to the numerous new tools and ideas on how these could be used in learning-specific contexts, it was the fact that an international awareness on how to deal with the affordances and the mostly negative potentials of digitalization in a classroom context has yet to be developed. While MTTEP was clearly focused on ‘learning with media technology’, the goal of my contribution is to establish a link between sensible digitalization processes and a necessary media-critical awareness which must be applied in a didactical manner.

How do we foster visual communication skills? Ever since J. W. T Michel’s so-called Pictural Turn (Mitchell 1995), multiple branches of science have contributed to a better understanding of the cultural, social and political significance of image and film. In school, especially when viewed from a German perspective, these findings have only scarcely – or not at all – been included into the lessons. Even today, images and film are predominantly used for their documenting character. They are expected to clarify what already has been said and proven elsewhere or are simply utilized

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

91

as visualization or motivation (Pandel 2011). Learning scenarios do not require analytical knowledge but remain on a visible level and can be decoded with the help of general knowledge. This chapter will offer a first glance into a multitude of new pedagogical finding from the German-speaking regions. Hereby, the focus will not be on already established contexts of image interpretation or film formation. Because of spacing issues, only the most significant findings will be presented hereafter. Images and film are by far not the same – nonetheless; they are both based on individual pictures and use similar patterns of composition. Because of that, it is necessary to consider the image as a part of the cinematic production (Coventry et al. 2006). While the calculated manipulation of an image before the age of digitalization was quite intricate, digital tools, nowadays, make it possible for every amateur to do so. In reverse, spotting a manipulated image by simply viewing it is challenging – even for professionals. Basically, the only thing that remains is examining the image’s intended effect and its design tools before evaluating it from a mediacritical perspective. By means of now historical examples using image analysis, the intentions and techniques as well as the approach of the producers can be detected, divulged, compared and assessed categorically (Radtke 2009; Petersen & Schwender 2011; Chik 2014; Cordell 2016; Korda 2016). Here, the necessary additional steps for image analysis during history lessons shall be demonstrated (visual analysing, visual thinking, visual communication).

Images – Key images Although the opposite is the case, images operate in a way that makes them appear devoid of any semiotic conventions and, therefore, give the impression of being objective (Münkler 2001: S. 1–19). Given our biological and physiological predispositions, humans tend to believe in images and accept them as alleged reflections of reality (Domsich 1991; Bredekamp 2011). Semiotic conventions refer to signs whose meaning is commonly known and recognized and which can easily be decoded – e.g. specific gestures or symbols. Images of social, political or historical events are not just reflections of reality but are also – given their orchestrated nature – suitable for the construction of reality (Braun 2017). The images can have such a strong effect that their actual message dissolves and their authenticity and reality are moved to the background. The message is then connotated with a new meaning by different players like journalists or politicians (see Figure 5.2).

92

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Pictures are also capable of creating a unique reality in our heads which is, nonetheless, governed from the outside. If this happens to most of the population, the images become social conventions and the shaping elements of it can be recombined as ‘clichés’ or ‘metaphor’ into various other images. Therefore, images can shape perceptions and generate interpretation (Paul 2006: 7–36).

Image composition and image design to navigate perception Image composition is one of the significant subjects when conveying visual communication. It refers to the planned and intentional arrangement and connection of formal elements in an image, taking into consideration elements such as image build-up, position of the camera, lighting and exposure, perspective, colours, structures, display details, the relation of fore-, middle- and background as well as configuration. For this purpose, it is prudent for learners to convert elements of the image composition into narrative text because of less scatter loss and semantic background noise (Petersen & Schwender 2011: 20–21). Selected examples of these design principles are shown in Figures 5.1a and 5.1b. For amateurs, it is not possible to recognize and formulate all the effects of different elements. Image composition can aid in increasing the selection of perceived aspects of reality as well as their salience for the recipients. It, furthermore, can provide corresponding structural and interpretational patterns. Examples for an active application of the design principles are given in Figures 5.2 and 5.3.

Figure 5.1  Aesthetics and image design recognize effects, evaluate and use them correctly (own representation of a selection of design possibilities).

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

93

Figure 5.2  Hessisches Staatsarchiv Darmstadt, HStAD\R 4\21927/124.

Figure 5.3  Adolf Hitler in civilian clothes sitting on a desk. The image design enables an active presentation of the subject (Schättler 2011).

Image clichés are, just like image icons, also able to emerge as an image tradition. This occurs when images are displayed repeatedly in order to illustrate specific situations or mindsets. In correlation with certain topics, we are used to first being shown ‘empty’ pictures, like for instance abandoned houses or old rail wagons to illustrate economic depression. These clichés can then always be used to trigger a familiar association in the beholder. If

94

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Figure 5.4  An empty picture can be put into different, communicative contexts (eig. Darst.).

these pictures are required to clarify a specific situation, they can be placed in an arbitrary context to exemplify whatever the accompanying script or the caption suggests (see Figure 5.4). Hereby, empty wagons can act as a symbol for depression, while wagons and trains are simultaneously associated with trade and prosperity. In addition, these ‘empty’ images can be contextualized through their proximity to other images which provide them with a new conceptual meaning. The ambiguity of a single image can thereby be limited or extended (Holzwarth 2013: 16). These images remain ‘silent’ and open to interpretation – only other images, text keys or ‘off ’ commentary can create narrative contexts and also control the interpretation of the recipient (Hamann 2006: 6).

Authenticity and media reality: Media psychological concepts and media impact research In media psychology, the construction of reality through the proximity to other images is referred to as the Kuleshov effect (Mobbs et al. 2006: 95–106). What could be verified is that spectators significantly interpret the image of a neutral face through the context provided by the following images (e.g. hunger, fear, grief, desire). Therefore, this context influences how a film image should be interpreted. Furthermore, cuts can serve to induce a person with certain emotions

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

95

Figure 5.5  The Kuleshov effect.

and intentions that are not based on reality. Through this, the construction of reality can be controlled systematically (see Figure 5.5). In media communication, the so-called priming is related to this effect. It describes the changes in assessment patterns and the decisions of media consumers based on medially conveyed information. In simple terms, the effect shows that media consumers use an internal filter to link new knowledge and concepts with already existing semantic junctions in the brain. Due to this, connections between frequent medial terms like ‘refugee crisis’ and ‘terror’ will always be linked by the beholders and interpreted according to this correlation. Whoever controls the semantic discourse controls the interpretive patterns of the recipients (Schenk 2002: 305). What is presented as being reality by the media is ultimately nothing but a product of itself, which during its creation is not dependent on its environment (Luhmann 2004: 75). Through images and constructions, the media creates a dualist generation of reality which Weber entitles ‘empiric constructivism’ (Weber 2002: 14–15) and which he states should be met with pedagogical media criticism. In our case this media criticism should be embedded in an educational, historical context. By using intertextuality and intermediality with various sources and procedures of multi-perspectivity, real-world references, lies, myths and manipulations, history lessons can contribute towards recognizing these constructs as ‘reality models’ (Schmidt 2003: 353). The concept of reality models – here viewed in relation to the historical-didactic media impact and media analysis competence (Kerber

96

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

2016: 353) – aids in comprehending that reality can also be newly created by the media and does not have to contradict or run contrary to the ‘actual’ reality. Concerning the renaissance of ‘authenticity’, Achim Saupe states in his research paper that historiography has now realized the importance of examining communicative and media-produced effects of authenticity with regard to relational communicative structures, i.e. asking who, what and when something is considered authentic (Saupe 2017).

Cinematic strategies and the construction of reality Film extends the space of the images through numerous additional aspects. The usage of rapid successional image sequences expands the potential applications in a fundamental way, turning them into a moving image. In addition, sound level, cut, assemblage, construction of space, utilization of light and the emotional effect of music play a part in the analysis and deconstruction of film. I would like to discuss a selection of these aspects, hereafter. Just as with images themselves, filmic images are generated out of already existing experiences and the cultural pool of symbols of a society. Harmut Winkler, for instance hypothesizes that films are usually understood by many people. This, however, is not a result of the objective presentation of things but rather of the cultural code that creates a common foundations shared by sender and recipient (Winkler 1992: 230). During the construction of cinematic space, film producers employ an array of culturally rooted perception strategies that create the impression of us being an active participant in the scenic image of the film. Hereby, it is important to differentiate between the space in front of the camera, allowing the spectator to see an image which displays a location where an action takes place and the space within the film, i.e. the space he or she does not see. It is essential to understand that the film does not only convey a staged space but also, beyond that, a whole world which is co-constructed. The audience accepts that the film can only show excerpts and designs the remainder of the world using an imagination, that is shaped by perceptive patterns. Through a so-called montage of individual images (e.g. details of space), the camera is able to conciliate the usage of certain imaginative patterns with the help of authenticity signals. These signals cause members of the audience to retrieve certain concepts from their culturally shaped visual storage and co-construct (Hohberg 1999).

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

97

Used in a skilful way, film can create anxiety and well-being spaces for its viewers – depending on how the acting person should be perceived. Because of that, the film manages to emotionally control the audience. If in the film we enter a room while the camera carries out a pan – enabling us to view the room in its entirety – we will acquire a subjective impression of safety. This space does not contain anything dangerous or surprising. If the camera only shows us small individual details of the room, we cannot focus and experience an unpleasant feeling. Thus, audience members expect danger and automatically develop a physical reaction: tension. No less important is the usage of light and lighting direction. Light is needed to sculpturally model the space. By being placed under a common light source, different objects in a space appear in relation to one another (Koebner 2007: 491). We consider a room with multiple small light sources to be cosy and pleasant: no danger can threaten us here. In contrast, we connect people in a dark, sparely light rooms with loneliness, sadness or even with something sinister. These could be the signs of impending doom (see Figure 5.6). The cinematic space does not only form on a visual level. Its construction also occurs on a level of sound and music. Our perception always connects rooms with certain, sound-influencing effects like impact sound, reverberation, echo, etc. ‘The sound can create spaces in the viewer’s imagination. It bestows character to a room and is similarly paramount as the production of light and shadow’ (Wulff 1999: 78).

Figure 5.6  The influence of lighting on our emotions.

98

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Construction on a level of sound and music A substantial part of the emotionalizing impact of film is created by sound and music. Silent images appear less graphic because they do not correspond with our everyday perception. Music is not part of a film for its own sake but because it serves as an emotional identification tool for the audience. Especially background music does not only highlight specific assertions of a film scene but often produces them in the first place. Sounds and music have the ability to significantly manipulate our perception – they influence our perception of time and space and cause physical reaction in members of the audience (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 01.11.2018). Through certain kinds of noises or the rhythm of the music, they influence our breathing and our heartbeat. High volume levels or extreme sound frequencies invigorate the autonomic nervous system as well as our emotions. Thus, films cores can stimulate our emotions in ways that we for example grieve, rejoice without any real reason or experience fear of an imminent danger (Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung 01.11.2018).

The manipulation of different dimensions If sound/music increases or decreases – starting at 65 db – the autonomic nervous system will create tension. From 75 db on, we experience considerable stress. If the rhythm of sounds/music becomes faster or slower our body will react autonomously. The standard beat – due to vital functions of humans – is normed at 72 heartbeats per minute with a respiratory rate of eighteen breaths. This equals a 1:4 ratio (‘pace of the heart’). The audience autonomously adjust their heart and respiratory rate to match the pace of the sounds/music. Sounds and music also play a vital role in the construction or perception of space. We associate low sounds/sequences with large spaces, e.g. the vastness of the universe. High sounds/sequences generate and emphasize small, threatening spaces. Hereby, Hitchcock’s Psycho, famous for its shower scene, can serve as an example: The room is only partially shown, accompanied by short, fast cuts and a fast score which turns into shrieking screams (onomatopoeic: ‘hieck, hieck, hieck’).

From generalized to specific: Images in historical documents Apart from the textbooks with corresponding tasks and work sheets, images and films represent one of the most prominent teaching materials in history lessons. Yet only recently, suitable pedagogical models for their deliberate use

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

99

in the social studies have been developed (Monaco 2000; Näpel 2012; Kleinhans 2016; Stoddard, Marcus & Hicks 2017; Marcus et al. 2018). The type that is often encountered in Germany is historical documentation. Besides topics like the deconstruction of content, the discussion of controversial representation, the development of empathy and the evaluation of the historic, cultural value, the analysis on a technical and cinematic level and the effects included therein are often taken into account. Here, history didactics have not been able to develop an effective arsenal of research methods, because possible answers have almost exclusively been examined by non-pedagogical disciplines. The above-mentioned chapters of this contribution form an attempt to explore these areas for history didactics in an interdisciplinary manner. Still, there are numerous effects which can specifically be developed for the genre of historic documentation. If learners want to employ mobile media to create their own historic documentation in a media-critical manner, the following aspects must be considered. Hereafter, you will find an overview of several aspects included in this field of analysis.

Image-sound gap: Is the spoken text suitable for the image? ●●

●●

Are the displayed pictures fillers to allot more time to the spoken text and without meaning for the actual narration? Are images and scenes used repeatedly, even though different acts/fact should be confirmed therein? Note the budget of the production.

Is the validity/constructed meaning of the narration verified? ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Is an intended construction of meaning indicated? Which question is one looking to answer, or can the construction of meaning be derived solely by reading the title? Is the choice for utilizing a specific topic or constructed meaning justified and are processes of construction revealed? Are claims empirically proven? Are sources, which corroborate statements within the narration, indicated and citied (empiricism)? Are former actions only evaluated based on present norms and values, or is an attempt made to empathically discuss them – e.g. religion during the Middle Ages, fratricide among sultans during the Ottoman empire, torture as a means of justice (normativity)? Does the presentation indicate sympathy/antipathy for certain individuals or groups (bias)?

100

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Perspectivity ●●

●●

Are historic events regarded from various standpoints or point of views (multi-perspectivity)? Are controversial and contending views indicated when phrasing statements and interpretations (controversy, alterity, plurality)?

Exemplarity ●●

●●

Are general context can often only be illustrated exemplarily, i.e. one situation/biography is examined representatively for others. This creates questions and the following must be verified. The presented fate is actually representative of others or whether it was chosen simply for dramaturgical reasons; e.g. is this fate especially poignant?

Contemporary witnesses ●●

●●

●●

●●

Are location and perspective of the witnesses considered perpetrator, victim, uninvolved witness? Contemporary or remote in time? Are witnesses used in an emotionalizing manner to convey a sense of authenticity? Are the biased statements of the witness questioned?

Experts ●●

●●

How is the professionalism of the experts in the film validated (profession, title, academic institution)? Are experts presenting their research, or are they simply making use of platitudes to suggest authenticity?

Filmic documents ●●

Risk: the non-critical use of original recorded films, meaning material consciously designed to elicit an emotional response or manipulate can facilitate the spreading of the intended message as propaganda (e.g. almost

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

101

all documentaries produced during the Nazi regime are deliberately orchestrated documents. This is also true for most documentaries recorded by front-line soldiers. These almost always display the perspective of the perpetrator and are therefore strongly biased).

Reconstruction/scenic quotes ●●

●●

●●

Are reconstructed scenes necessary or do they simply serve as an emotionalizing agent? Are there other sources (text, image, film)? Is dramatizing the scene the only goal? Does personalization or personification take place? How authentic and credible are the things presented? Are well-known and verified personalities of contemporary history quoted scenically or are there attempts to reflect everyday life and/or general actions or attitudes to create a better understanding (macro- vs. micro-history)?

New and associative images ●●

Are new and current film materials used in way that would render them ‘historic’, and do they associatively support statements in manner that makes it impossible for the observer to differentiate between old and new?

Use of mobile technology with history pre-service teachers Besides reflexive competences concerning the utilization of images and film during history lessons, pre-service teachers (PSTs) should also obtain the ability to guide their pupils during cinematic project work. For this purpose, in this case study the task was to create their own individual documentary about the history of their location of study. Here, they were required to demonstrate whether they are able to implement the aspects of a well-executed historic documentation presented above. They also needed to exhibit their ability to make conscious and reflected choices about whether the use of emotionalizing and manipulative elements to trigger a desired audience reaction could still be justified from moral and media-critical standpoint. During this project, students filmed stories of individuals, locations or circumstances of the city’s history and produced their own historic documentation with the help of archive

102

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

documents from participating archives (Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg/ Stadtarchiv Karlsruhe).

Steps to create a video documentary with the help of the iPAC framework Step 1 The students autonomously select one topic on a historic location, event, person or group of people appearing in the urban history of Karlsruhe. They are supported by an online map, where previously used ‘narratives’ have already been indicated. In addition, they are also provided with hints of possible/ available ‘narratives’. Regardless of that, the students are still completely free to make their own choices (iPAC rating: high degree of personalization/internal agency). The production of a semi-professional historic documentary can be situated as a quasi-realistic task within the iPAC framework.

Step 2 During the next three sessions of the seminar, the students pitch their topic and justify their choice with regard to their envisioned target audience. They also publish it in the online discussion board of the seminar to make it available for a peer review (iPAC rating: data sharing/network conversation). Reallife connections to the present should be established. Possible topics to do so could include: ‘The municipal park in Karlsruhe – the significance of local recreation areas for urban designing’, ‘The history of the Monniger brewery – the brewery history of Karlsruhe through the ages’ or ‘The Lobberle (nickname of the first tram) and the development of the local transportation system in Karlsruhe’. The connection to a present-day topic offers new possibilities such as expert/pedestrian interviews and can increase the relevance and authenticity of the integration of these narratives into public discourse (iPAC rating: high authenticity/realistic setting). The pitches are constantly modified according to suggestions from the peer reviews and consultations with experts.

Step 3 After an introduction into the archival work, students can consult the city’s archivists on their topic and on where to find suitable primary sources. They can, furthermore, take photos of their original locations and interview experts or passers-by. For this task, most students employed smartphones or tablets.

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

103

Documents from cooperating archives can be digitalized via tablets and can, therefore, be taken from the archive free of charge. During the seminar, students are also introduced to copyright laws to ensure a legal handling of data and photographic materials (iPAC rating: data sharing/networked conversation).

Step 4 At the end of the seminar the students hand in a storyboard draft, which includes all intended presentation texts, sources and transcripts, and it connects them in a meaningful manner. As their supervising tutor, this offers me an opportunity to indicate possible scientific inaccuracies and support the students in producing a narration that is as exciting and stimulating as possible. Given the fact that I am no expert on local and regional history, I am able to resort to two consulting specialists, who possess the skills to assess the historic consistency of the narration: Dr Peter Pretsch (director of Karlsruhe’s city museum) and Dr Otto Bräunche (director of the city’s archive). Here, one problem area of the iPAC framework can be identified: The methodological designs of teachers include methods like Scaffolding, Feedback and Assessment. The iPAC framework, however, only considered the planning and evaluating of these methods from a student perspective.

Step 5 The concluding movie-making process is done using a professional cutting tool. The students are allowed to choose their own software to work with. However, the requirements of a semi-professional documentary also pose certain requirements for the film which, in turn, limit the selection of suitable software. Students, who do not have the appropriate hard- and software at their disposal, are provided with laptops and professional cutting tools by the university (iPAC ranking: high authenticity/practitioner-like tool). All films that meet the qualitative requirements of the seminar will subsequently be included in an app offering guided historical tours of the city of Karlsruhe (app: DisKAver). After the project has been concluded (scheduled for the end of 2019), the cooperating archives will be able to use this app for their marketing. The editing of the app was done with the app-editor ‘ExpoQuest’ (www.quest-mill.com).

Issues and challenges Keeping in mind the quality of the documentary, it was significant that basic principles of moving- image-productions could be fulfilled – the audience

104

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

demands moving images. Displaying only still images and stringing together archive images will not lead to an adequate result. Thus, the principle of active production is required to take effect. It makes the participating students aware of the compulsions professional producers are subjected to. Here, the main issue is – how can I actively stage locations, persons or events if those are not present anymore? For this very reason, students will be provided with a workshop on creating comic and animated films. That way, most participants succeed in staging past things in an active manner while maintain the rules of a wellexecuted historic documentation. All previous participants underestimated the effort and complexity of the cutting process and did not allot enough time for the implementation. Also, the students were only supplied with a ninety-minute workshop on film cutting which meant that many parts of the ensuing film production had to be learned autodidactically. This led to a certain dropout rate (approx. 20 per cent). The only requirement to successfully pass the seminar was to submit a film, without the quality criteria being a prerequisite. However, if the film was to be included in the app, the above-mentioned rules would have to be considered and therefore, simultaneously, functioned as quality criteria. The content-related levels of the production were also reviewed by experts of urban history. Hereby, the strength of the project and the advantages of the situated teaching and learning model (service-learning) were clearly visible: most of the students wanted their film to be included in the app and were willing to accept even multiple rounds of revisions (80 per cent). Out of those, only 30 per cent were unable to deliver the required quality.

Impact of mobile technology use and students’ affective skills and beliefs To evaluate the learning arrangement a method using e-portfolios was chosen (Software Mahara). According to Wallin and Adawi (2017), reflective diaries can foster self-regulated learning scenarios through formative assessments, because they can help visualize conceptions of knowledge, conceptions of learning, and strategies for monitoring and regulating learning. Hereby, the students kept a log documenting their work and reflecting on their process. Additional guiding questions concerning attitudes and conceptual notions about media competence were posed twice (pre- and post-test). These questions surveyed what role, according to the students’ opinion, media competence should play in the classroom. These samplings did not collect data concerning the changes

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

105

in historical awareness and thinking but focused exclusively on the area of media competence. Four rounds with sixty participants each (falls semester 2013 – spring semester 2016) were accounted. The evaluation was based on two definitions of media competence which Herzig and Grafe (2010) have divided into two sections and four dimensions: Section 1: Knowledge about and evaluation of media, fostering the intellectual examination of its potential dangers. Section 2: The rehearsed ability to utilize specific manual skills as individual competence, which requires fundamental and technical knowledge.

Hereby, the analytical thesis of Jürgen Hüther suggests counteracting a renaissance of functional-technocratic media didactics that are, among others, present in the debate on information technology education. This debate primarily deals with the conveyance of instrumental skills and knowledge for the usage of computer and net technologies, disregarding the media competence that would facilitate a critical and reserved interaction with them. This shall prevent the frenzied support of technical advances through media didactics which uncritically conveys purely technical knowledge without linking it with orientational knowledge (Hüther 2005: 239). To receive empirically secured data from the e-portfolios, a system of categories was developed. Based on that, the entries of the students could be simplified and assigned to a certain level.

Categories of the e-portfolio analysis Basic level: Solely recognizes media competence as a concept which is geared towards the ability of using technology. Intermediate level: Possesses an extended understanding of media competence, which addresses the technical uses but also indicates the social and pedagogical significance of media for a reflective application in the learners’ lives and in the classroom. However, the answers do not refer to anything but the historical context and there are no specific examples provided. Elaborate level: Media competence is recognized as a benchmark of pedagogically applicable values such as maturity, autonomy and critical ability and the provided examples indicate uses in other relevant social areas outside of the content framework of a history didactical seminar. Additionally, media competence is regarded as a matrix that enables learners to obtain knowledge

106

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

about the media and evaluate that knowledge through a reflective scope. This is accomplished by intellectually examining the potential dangers of its uses. Judging from the analysis of the portfolios, the predominant amount of statements made during the pre-test indicated a technology-oriented understanding of media competence (basic 79 per cent, intermediate 9 per cent, elaborate 0 per cent, non-determinable 12 per cent. Consequently, no statements could be assigned to the elaborate level). After the post-test, the rating changed drastically. Only 5 per cent of the statements remained on a basic level, whereas 21 per cent attained the intermediate level and 74 per cent managed for at least two of their statements to be assigned to the elaborate level. This was reflected in statements (generalized representation of statements and percentages) like, e.g. ‘Now, I am unable to watch the news or documentaries without recognising the manipulative or biased display of facts or situations’ (56 per cent); ‘I often discover examples in general media coverages that should be evaluated from a media-critical standpoint’ (88 per cent); ‘With regards to public formation of opinion, lessons should consider the dangers of digitalisation’ (91 per cent); ‘Digital tools should be employed to open up traditional lesson formats’ (95 per cent).

Future plans and conclusion In conclusion, it can be said that the results showed a strong effect on beliefs and attitude changes of teacher students towards forms of political communication on social media and in TV. This raised their awareness and transformed their actions, when it came to lesson planning, not only to focus on technological aspects when using ICT, but also to consider the impact of digital media/ mass media on the society and the political decision-making process. A transformation can also be seen by the ways the PSTs made use of historical documentaries, how they planned to integrate them in their teaching  – and most important of all: how they want to foster the competencies of their pupils to research, choose and reflect on political public relations in their social media live. However, it became clear that the workload of students needs to be considered, especially given the autodidactically working period during the cutting process. Because of the demands by politicians to incorporate media education into lessons and given the positive experiences during this video project, the

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

107

university has decided to implement mandatory workshops and courses in video and audio editing for all PSTs. This, simultaneously, provides the chance for other didactical fields to offer media education through such authentic and situated learning scenarios.

References Bernsen, D., & Kerber, U. (Eds.) (2017), Praxishandbuch Historisches Lernen und Medienbildung im digitalen Zeitalter. Bonn: bpb Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Bonfadelli, H., & Friemel, T. N. (2011), Medienwirkungsforschung, 4th edn. Konstanz: UTB. Braun, Nadja. (2017), Visual History – Visuelle Rhetorik bei Bild und Bewegtbild verstehen. In Daniel Bernsen & Ulf Kerber (Hrsg.): Praxishandbuch Historisches Lernen und Medienbildung im digitalen Zeitalter. Lizenzausgabe für die Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung. Bonn: Schriftenreihe / Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, Band 10045, S. 119–126. Bredekamp, H. (2011), Theorie des Bildakts, 1st edn. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (2018), Musik – Der Herzschlag des Films | bpb. Available online: http://www.bpb.de/lernen/projekte/filmbildung/56110/musik (Accessed 1 November 2018). Chik, A. (2014), Visual literacy. Themenschwerpunkt: Multiliteralität. Available online: http://periodicals.narr.de/index.php/flul/article/download/2152/2053. Cordell, D. (2016), Using Images to Teach Critical Thinking Skills: Visual Literacy and Digital Photography. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited. Coventry, Michael et al. (2006), Ways of Seeing: Evidence and Learning in the History Classroom. Confronting Prior Visual Knowledge, Beliefs, and Habits: “Seeing” beyond the Surface. The Journal of American History, 92, H. 4. Domsich, J. (1991), Visualisierung – ein kulturelles Defizit?: Der Konflikt von Sprache, Schrift und Bild. Wien: Böhlau. Frau-Meigs, D. (2006), Media education: A kit for teachers, students, parents and professionals. Available online: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001492/ 149278e.pdf (Accessed 5 January 2015). Madison Social Text Group. (1979), The new right and media. Social Text: Theory / Culture / Ideology, 1(1), S. 169. Hamann, C. (2006), Bild - Abbild -Schlüsselbild: Zur Vergegenwärtigung von Vergangenheit durch Fotografien. Praxis Geschichte, 19(1), 4–9. Herzig, Bardo, & Grafe, Silke. (2010), Entwicklung von Bildungsstandards für die Medienbildung -Grundlagen und Beispiele. In Bardo Herzig (Eds.), Medienkompetenz und Web 2.0. 1 (2010). Aufl. Wiesbaden (Jahrbuch Medienpädagogik): VS Verl. für Sozialwissenschaft, S. 103–120.

108

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Hohberg, Almuth. (1999), Film und Computer – Ästhetische Auswirkungen der digitalen Bilderzeugung. Dissertation, https://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/ep/0002/ article/download/2704/2611/, aufgerufen am 12.10.2018. Holzwarth, P. (2013), Fotografische Wirklichkeitskonstruktion im Spannungsfeld von Bildgestaltung und Bildmanipulation. 1-22 Seiten/MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, Heft 23: Visuelle Kompetenz: Bilddidaktische Zugänge zum Umgang mit Fotografie. Hüther, J. (2005), Mediendidaktik. In J. Hüther & B. Schorb (Eds.), Grundbegriffe Medienpädagogik (pp. 234–240), 4th edn. München: kopaed. Jeismann, K. -E. (1997), Geschichtsbewusstsein – theorie. In K. Bergmann, K. Fröhlich, A. Kuhn, J. Rüsen & G. Schneider (Eds.), Handbuch der Geschichtsdidaktik (p. 42), 5th edn. Seelze-Velber: Kallmeyer. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17. Kerber, U. (2016), Historische Medienbildung als theoretisches KompetenzStrukturmodell für eine Integration der Medienbildung in die Fachdidaktik des Faches Geschichte in Baden-Württemberg. Dissertation, Pädagogische Hochschule Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe. Kleinhans, B. (2016), Filme im Geschichtsunterricht – Formate, Methoden, Ziele Reclams Sachlexikon des Films. (2007), 2nd edn. Stuttgart: Reclam. Koebner, Thomas (Ed.) (2007), Reclams Sachlexikon des Films. 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl. Stuttgart: Reclam. Korda, A. (2016), Learning from ‘good pictures’: Walter Crane’s picture books and visual literacy. Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal Visual Enquiry, 32(4), 327–339. Luhmann, N. (2004), Die Realität der Massenmedien, 3rd edn. Wiesbaden: VS: Verl. für Sozialwissenschaften. Marcus, A. S., Metzger, S. A., Paxton, R. J., & Stoddard, J. D. (2018), Teaching History with Film: Strategies for Secondary Social Studies, 2nd edn. Milton: Routledge. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1995), Picture Theory, Essays on Verbal a Visual Representation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mobbs, D., Weiskopf, N., Lau, H. C., Featherstone, E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006), The Kuleshov effect: The influence of contextual framing on emotional attributions. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(2), 95–106. Moeller, J., & de Vreese, C. (2013), The differential role of the media as an agent of political socialization in Europe. European Journal of Communication, 28(3), 309–325. Monaco, J. (2000), How to Read a Film: The World of Movies Media and Multimedia; Language History Theory, 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press. Münkler, H. (2001), Terrorismus als Kommunikationsstrategie. Nagle, A. (2017), Kill All Normies: The Online Culture Wars from Tumblr and 4chan to the Alt-Right and Trump, Alresford: Zero Books/John Hunt Publishing.

Video Documentaries in History and Social Science

109

Näpel, O. (2012), Film und geschichte: ‘Histotainment’ im Geschichtsunterricht. In M. Barricelli & M. Lücke (Eds.), Handbuch Praxis des Geschichtsunterrichts (pp. 146–171). Schwalbach: Wochenschau. Pandel, Hans-Jürgen. (2011), Bildinterpretation. 2. Aufl. Schwalbach/Ts: Wochenschau. Park, Y. (2011), A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78–102. Paul, Gerhard. (2006), Von der Historischen Bildkunde zur Visual History. Eine Einführung*. In Gerhard Paul (Ed.), Visual History. Ein Studienbuch. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, S. 7–36. Petersen, Thomas, & Schwender , Clemens et al. (2011), Die Entschlüsselung der Bilder. Methoden zur Erforschung visueller Kommunikation: ein Handbuch. Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag. Radtke, S. P. (2009), Handbuch visuelle Mediengestaltung, 5th edn. Berlin: Cornelsen. Saupe, Achim. (2017), Historische Authentizität. Individuen und Gesellschaften auf der Suche nach dem Selbst – ein Forschungsbericht, www.hsozkult.de/literaturereview/ id/forschungsberichte-2444. Schättler, P. (2011), Ein Bild lügt mehr als tausend Worte – über den Heiligenschein fotografischer Dokumente früher und heute. Available online: http://bit.ly/2EXaauw (Accessed 13 February 2018). Schenk, Michael (2002), Medienwirkungsforschung. 2., vollständig überarb. Aufl. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schmidt, S. J. (2003), Medienkulturwissenschaft. In A. Nünning & V. Nünning (Eds.), Konzepte der Kulturwissenschaften: Theoretische Grundlagen – Ansätze – Perspektiven (pp. 351–369). Stuttgart [UA]: Metzler. Stoddard, J. D., Marcus, A. S., & Hicks, D. (2017), Teaching Difficult History through Film. London, New York: Routledge. Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (Eds.) (2011), Political Public Relations: Principles and Applications. New York: Routledge. Taylor, P. M., Lake, P., Milton, A., Peacey, J., & Gajda, A. (2013), Munitions of the Mind: A History of Propaganda. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Wallin, P., & Adawi, T. (2017), The reflective diary as a method for the formative assessment of self-regulated learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(4), 507–521. Weber, S. (2002), Was heißt ‘Medien konstruieren Wirklichkeit?’: Von einem ontologischen zu einem empirischen Verständnis von Konstruktion. Available online: http://bit.ly/2oABc3Q. Winkler, H. (1992), Der filmische Raum und der Zuschauer: ‘Apparatus’ – Semantik – ‘Ideology’. Heidelberg: Winter. Wulff, Hans Jürgen (1999), Darstellen und Mitteilen. Elemente der Pragmasemiotik des Films. Tübingen: Narr.

110

Part One Commentary The first section of this book has showcased a number of responses to the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) initiative from an ‘insiders’ perspective. The network and resources established by the MTTEP team were designed to bring about change and transformation at a systemic level across teacher education institutions in different countries. In presenting here the responses to the project, the issues and complexities that were associated with them are also discussed. Chapters 1 and 3 provide research insights into what PSTs think and value about the use of mobile learning and the ways that they have adapted behaviour or challenged attitudes that they come across in the different learning contexts of their professional teacher education programmes. Chapters 2, 4 and 5 offer accounts of different ways in which participant teacher educators in the MTTEP project responded to their national contexts and worked to enhance their PSTs’ understanding of mobile learning. Chapter 1 discusses many of the issues that are echoed throughout Section One. The particular significance of Chapter 1 is that it reports on a two-year, longitudinal study, which allows the data to reflect the different stages in the learning of PSTs and their fluctuating attitudes towards their use of mobile technologies. Foregrounded in this chapter is the tension between internal, attitudinal factors of PSTs, university tutors and ISTs. PSTs bloomed in their attitudes and understanding of the affordances of mobile technology while in the university phase of their training, boosted by the modelling of good practice by university tutors. However, these attitudes were challenged when the PSTs were out ‘in the wild’ at their school placements, coming up against what Ertmer et al. (2012) define as external factors, outside the immediate control of teachers, such as a lack of hardware and inadequate infrastructure. The theme of tension is also central in Chapter 3, where Kearney and his colleagues note the crucial

112

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

contribution of university tutors in their engagement with the internal factors that impact on their students such as their attitudes towards technology and pedagogical beliefs and also the support they are able to offer developing skills to navigate and manage the complex landscape that is the context of current teaching. Chapters 1 and 3 also explore what PSTs value about mobile devices. These can be characterized by two of the key constructs of the iPAC model: personalization and collaboration (Kearney et al. 2012). In Chapter 1, Hopkins notes how PSTs like the collaborative aspects of mobile learning, such as the portability to transfer resources and just-in-time access to the internet as well as the facility to use devices for record-keeping, note-taking, resource finding and sharing. So too in Chapter 3, Kearney and his colleagues note the value of personalization and collaboration using mobiles devices to PSTs. This chapter paints a landscape in which PSTs have, of their own volition, created personal learning networks (PLNs) that support them between and across the learning contexts of their training and find the collaborative affordances of their devices of great support to them through their professional journeys. One very interesting element of this study, that surprised the authors themselves, was the student agency of seamless usage of PLNs across all five contexts that the PSTs found themselves, between a whole variety of formal and informal settings. The similarity between the Chinese and Australian PSTs here is striking. Equally, both sets of students identified themselves as lacking confidence when interacting with ISTs in their PLNs. Chapters 2, 4 and 5 present case studies of projects undertaken by participants in the MTTEP project. Useful as a way of interpreting these case studies is Burden, Schuck, Kearney and Hall’s interpretation of the term ‘innovation’ with regard to educational practice (2019). They conducted research that reports the results of a systematic literature review conducted by the Designing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies (DEIMP) project, a follow-up on to the MTTEP initiative (see www.deimpeu.com). This review explains how the concept of ‘innovation’ can be understood with regard to the use of mobile technology with school-age learners. From the results of this review the authors propose that innovation be understood as a continuum between classroom practices using mobile learning as ‘sustaining innovations’ that simply adapt preexisting ideas with the new medium and at the other end ‘disruptive innovations’ in which dominant practices are transformed and bring about a paradigm shift (Burden et al. 2019). This continuum is a way in which to reflect on these three chapters presented in Section One. The aspects that feed into placing a pedagogy

Part One Commentary

113

on the continuum include the nature of the task, the context of the learning, the relationship between teacher and student, and the extent of student agency. Burden et al. (2019b) identified from the literature a table of twenty-one design principles for mobile technologies by which to judge where on the spectrum of innovation use of mobile technologies might be judged. The project recounted in Chapter 2 challenged PSTs to produce the type of hyperlinked text that they usually consume, such as entries in Wikipedia. In working to produce multilinear texts, the PSTs struggled to work against their habitual print acculturation, and some of them found this problematic. On the spectrum of innovation, this case study provides a version of a traditional activity, in that it was predominantly an adaptation of an existing approach, enhancing an existing practice of collaborative work on texts but one which prepared PSTs for a future in which mobility of content is the norm. In Chapters 4 and 5, we see activities that are high in context awareness, so that the learning is adapted to environmental stimuli, and are involved in constructing artefacts. Chapter 4 presents a project that was planned around high degrees of collaboration, with PSTs from the UK and college students from Norway working together to co-author eBooks. The task was authentic and the resources relevant, something that Kearney and colleagues note in Chapter 3 as imperative for PSTs to embrace when working on mobile learning. This case study can be assessed as fairly high on the innovation spectrum, as many of the design principles that define Burden et al.’s (2019b) concept of innovation can be applied and mobile devices were seen as ‘indispensable’ to undertaking the task. Chapter 5 returns to many of the challenges offered by the data in Kearney’s study in Chapter 3. Kearney and his colleagues argue that if PSTs are to flourish in their use of mobile learning, the tasks must be authentic and resources relevant to them. In Chapter 5, Kerber presents work done in Karlsruhe that is highly authentic and current. Addressing the problem of ‘Fake news’ head-on, based on established principles of film and media analysis, Kerber challenged his PSTs to create material that would be used in an app offering tours for tourists of the city of Karlsruhe. Utilizing archival material and their own, collected, images and data, the PSTs made a trail around the town, exploring the history and culture. The work in this case study moves towards the ‘disruptive’ end of the innovation spectrum (Burden et al. 2019a) as many of the features of the design can be seen in this work, especially the rarer principles such as intergenerational and community-based learning. Selwyn explains that disruptive innovation is using technology to do ‘fundamentally different things’ (2017: 32), and using this app creation in totally authentic context is what Kreber managed to get his PSTs to do.

114

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

In conclusion, the different case studies presented in this section exemplify the different ways in which participants in the MTTEP project explored the intersection between mobile learning and their own teacher training contexts. Chapters 1 and 3 provide research insights into PSTs’ adoption of mobile technology into their pedagogical practice and the internal and external factors (Ertmer et al. 2012) that impact on PSTs thinking about mobile learning. Chapters 2, 4 and 5 offer accounts of different ways in which they experimented with the different affordances of mobile learning to enhance the skills of their PSTs and prepare them for the uncertain landscape of their future careers.

References Burden, K., Kearney, M., & Schuck, S. (2019a), Is the use of mobile devices in schools really innovative? What does the evidence say? Impact. Journal of the Chartered College of Teaching, https://impact.chartered.college/article/mobile-devices-schoolsreally-innovative-what-does-evidence-say/ Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Hall, T. (2019b), Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 138, 83–100. Ertmer, P., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012), Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers in Education, 59(2), 423–435. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17. Selwyn, N. (2017), Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Part Two

Mobile Learning in Teacher Education beyond the MTTEP Project In this section the focus remains on the core theme of the volume, transforming teacher education through the mediation and affordances of mobile technologies, but the scope shifts beyond the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) project, which was the specific focus of Section One, to explore how the use of mobile technologies is impacting upon teacher educators around the world. The following six chapters in this section illustrate a diverse range of approaches and strategies adopted by teacher educators to integrate the use of mobile technologies in ways that engage and strengthen the teaching strategies of their pre-service students. Although not directly involved in the MTTEP project themselves, the case studies in this section resonate with many of the themes covered in Section One, not least the adoption of the iPAC framework as a theoretical lens for understanding and interpreting their particular contexts and issues. Based on data available at the beginning of 2019 it is estimated there are almost 4 million apps located in the two major app stores, Google Play and the Apple Store.1 The Apple Store alone hosts over 82,000 educational apps and if we assume this figure is at least matched by the larger Google Play store, there are probably at least 200,000 educational apps available for teachers. Faced with this volume of educational mobile apps teachers are understandably confused and uncertain as to which of these are valuable and useful for the context in which they work and therefore it is not surprising that PSTs are also daunted by the task of selecting suitable apps to use with their students. This challenge is the focus of Chapter 6 which explores how teacher educators in Turkey have worked (https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/).

1

116

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

with their own PSTs to assist them in evaluating the affordances of educational apps based on usability testing. This resonates with one of the principal outputs of the MTTEP project which featured the creation of a pedagogical rubric for evaluating the educational value of mobile apps.2 Contrasting with this non-discipline-specific case study, Chapter 7 investigates the impact of mobile technologies and augmented/virtual realities on religious studies PSTs located in the University of Wurzburg in Germany. The emerging importance and potential value of augmented and virtual reality software and apps for teachers in school are the focus of this chapter which explores how PSTs and ISTs learn about and use these technologies in quite distinctive ways. The authors contrast how a location-based app like ActionBound (https:// en.actionbound.com/) and a virtual app like ThingLink (https://www.thinglink. com/), are used by PSTs and ISTs respectively to address the core skills of the religious studies curriculum which include authentic discussion and analysis of religious questions, debates and the ability to observe different points of view from both an inside and outside perspective. Using the iPAC framework as a lens to evaluate these respective apps, the authors conclude that the real value of augmented and virtual reality software for teacher education is likely to be around the production and construction of mobile learning scenarios rather than simple consumption activities which is where the software is usually pitched by software developers and designers. This case study begins to unravel the complexities associated with the use and implementation of mobile learning in teacher education by contrasting the cautious, somewhat risk-averse attitudes of ISTs with the more expansive and adventurous approach adopted by their PSTs. This addresses one of the core themes of this volume by exploring the cultural and infrastructure considerations that may impede the transformational narrative evident in many of the case studies in Section One. This theme is addressed directly by the authors of Chapter 10 and is returned to directly in Chapter 11 where we consider the factors that might facilitate or impede the transformational potential of mobile devices in teacher education. Chapter 8 also features a German case study but in this case the focus is on the use of digital media and media literacy in the classroom and the role of mobile technologies in making this more accessible and more natural for students. It explores how PSTs are supported and prepared in using mobile devices (in this

http://www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com/app-rubric1.html

2

Mobile Learning in Teacher Education Beyond the MTTEP Project

117

case iPads) to create video artefacts (e.g. movie trailers) and to develop a deeper understanding and appreciation of the importance of media both as an item of consumption and as a means of production. As with many of the case studies in this volume, the flexibility and immediacy of mobile technologies (e.g. instant start-up compared to desktop computers and even laptops) proved to be an important affordance for students when using them, enabling learners to use their devices seamlessly across different contexts, times and spaces. In Chapter 9, Richard Baldwin from the University of Boras in Sweden returns to an enduring and central aspect of teacher education, namely selfreflection and the issues associated with mobile technologies to support PSTs in creating their own videos as the basis for reflection during their school placements. Although this chapter does not reference the iPAC framework explicitly to analyse this process, it is evident that the exercise enables students to create highly customized and bespoke reflections about their own practice by using their mobile device, a feature of the Personalisation construct in the iPAC framework. This case study also illustrates the boundary crossing affordances of mobile technologies (Pimmer 2016) as PSTs combine the digital videos produced on their mobile phones, with traditional analogue paper-based assessments to produce a hybrid artefact. In the penultimate chapter of the book (Chapter 10) a team of teacher educators and researchers from the National University of Ireland, Galway, reports the emerging outcomes of a large-scale five-year experiment to explore the micro- and macro-level infrastructure issues associated with the ubiquitous adoption of iPads by an entire cohort of PSTs. This chapter encapsulates many of the themes and issues that are central to the book in that it examines how a small-scale initiative to equip a single cohort of students with personal mobile devices can be nurtured and grown with institutional support to become a much larger initiative that has expanded to have national and international ramifications. It emphasizes the need to combine both micro-level initiatives undertaken by individuals on the ground with macro-level infrastructural initiatives to ensure the small steps are nurtured and flourish. Perhaps more than any of the other case studies in this volume, this chapter foregrounds the complexity and difficulties associated with the adoption of mobile learning in teacher education, but it also highlights the gains and benefits that a successful implementation can reap. It points out in practice how a project like MTTEP, designed to pump prime mobile learning in teacher education, can be sustained and made scalable on a much larger canvas.

118

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Finally, in Chapter 11, the volume editors employ a futures research methodology to reflect on the case studies presented in each of the previous chapters. Using these case studies as the basis of a horizon scan, the authors identify and prioritize the trends and drivers that appear to be significant in the use of mobile technologies in teacher education. Two of these are judged to be particularly powerful in the current climate and these are used to create four contrasting, but appealing future scenarios. The authors of the other chapters in this volume were invited to rank and provide feedback on each of the four scenarios and this data is analysed by the volume authors to draw conclusions related to the topic of transformation, the theme of the entire volume.

References Pimmer, C. (2016), Mobile learning as boundary crossing: An alternative route to technology-enhanced learning? Interactive Learning Environments, 24(5), 979–990.

6

Usability Testing in Teacher Education: Exploring the Pedagogical Affordances of Mobile Apps with Pre-service Teachers Evrim Baran

Iowa State University, USA

Tugba Altan

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Erdem Uygun

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Introduction: Research questions and focus The recent interest in integrating educational mobile apps into teaching keeps growing. If pre-service teachers are expected to integrate mobile learning and technologies into their future teaching contexts, they need to be equipped with necessary knowledge and skills to do so (Baran 2014). Mobile learning can enhance pre-service teachers’ learning (Tami 2016) and equip them with necessary knowledge and skills to use mobile tools in their own teaching (Ally et al. 2014). Mobile tools offer opportunities for creating portable, contextual, authentic and social learning environments. Because mobile tools are easy to carry, they can extend learning beyond classrooms enabling access to learning content anywhere and anytime (Townsend 2015; Holden 2016; Noriega 2016; Crompton 2017). Mobile learning environments can provide contextual learning opportunities having students learn in real-life contexts (Kearney & Maher 2013; Edmonds & Smith 2017). For example, students’ scientific inquiry can be supported with mobile tools’ capabilities in observing, collecting and recording data in various forms (Arabacioglu & Unver 2016). Mobile learning environments can enhance social interaction enabling collaboration and information exchange between students and teachers (Baran et al. 2016). Despite numerous benefits, challenges related to low bandwidth, limited internet and

120

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

mobile device ownership in some contexts, difficulty in producing crossplatform systems and high expenses in creating context-aware learning systems may limit effective integration of mobile devices (Brown & Mbati 2015). Research notes that teachers are not adequately informed about the value and pedagogical affordances of mobile tools and the integration of these technologies into their classes (Kearney et al. 2012; Burden & Kearney 2017). This is particularly critical at the pre-service teacher education level when pre-service teachers need to explore the potentials and pedagogical benefits of mobile tools and applications for their future classrooms (Baran 2014; Baran et al. 2016). While recent research emphasizes the importance of pre-service teachers’ understanding of the affordances and constraints of technologies for teaching within a particular subject area (Mishra & Koehler 2006), there is limited research on teacher training models that help pre-service teachers investigate the potentials of mobile tools for their future teaching contexts. Cochrane (2012) pointed out several strategies in mobile integration such as integrating technology into course content and assessment, modelling pedagogical use, creating a supportive learning community, providing technological and pedagogical support, and creating sustained interaction that facilitates the reconceptualization of the roles of teachers and students. Mobile learning experiences can be integrated into the pre-service teacher education programmes to enhance connectivity and collaboration among teacher candidates, teacher educators and supervisors; help access teacher education content anytime anywhere; promote on-the-spot reflection; and assist in sharing classroom practices (Baran 2014). Evaluation activities can help pre-service teachers examine the affordances of mobile learning environments and explore the connections between mobile pedagogy, content and technological features (Baran et al. 2016). Our research integrated the ‘usability testing method’ as a pedagogical tool to help pre-service teachers investigate the educational potentials of mobile apps. Specifically, we helped them explore the criteria for evaluating educational mobile apps as they completed a series of tasks in each mobile app. In this chapter, we present our pedagogical method and pre-service teachers’ insights on integrating mobile apps into educational settings.

Use and purpose of mobile technology This case study was conducted to extend the knowledge about the strategies for integrating mobile learning activities into teacher education. We conducted

Usability Testing in Teacher Education

121

usability tests and interviews to observe pre-service teachers’ interactions with selected educational mobile apps and to gather their thoughts on using those apps in their teaching. Usability testing is a method that allows evaluating a product by people who are representative of a target audience based on several usability criteria. This process helps to expose the users with the issues and challenges while using a product and creates a basis for revisions to design and develop more user-friendly products (Rubin & Chisnell 2008). The usability tests were conducted within a reserved room in the Faculty of Education at a public university in Turkey. A total of nineteen user studies were conducted, each lasted 60–90 minutes. Fourth-year pre-service teachers (six male and thirteen female) participated in the usability sessions and their ages ranged between 21 and 24. They studied in the departments of elementary science education (n = 4), elementary math education (n = 4), English language education (n = 6) and computer education (n = 5). Prior to the study, pre-service teachers took two semesters of school experience including observing, reflecting and teaching in real-classroom settings as part of their teacher education curriculum. Seventeen pre-service teachers owned smartphones and they reported using them mostly for sending and checking emails, taking and sharing pictures, and searching on the web. None of the preservice teachers utilized educational mobile apps for learning and teaching but used Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter apps on their phones on a daily basis. We observed and recorded pre-service teachers and their actions as they interacted with the selected educational mobile apps and completed the given tasks during the usability sessions. After an extensive search in databases such as the IOS App Store and Google Play, we selected twenty-two free mobile apps that covered science, mathematics, computer education and English as a foreign language (EFL) content domains, received high ratings, and included different interactions with the content. These apps represented a variety of learner actions in different content domains, such as Project Noah (Science-Biology), Monster Physics (Chemistry), Toontastic (EFL-storytelling), Geogebra (Mathematics-Geometry), Scratch (ComputerProgramming). During the usability sessions, we presented pre-service teachers with a series of tasks to help them explore the apps’ affordances and features. Example tasks included drawing a line with given coordinates in Geogebra or adding a new spotting in Project Noah. Once pre-service teachers completed all the tasks for each mobile app, a debriefing interview was conducted asking questions related to their thoughts on the usability of selected educational mobile app in their content area, the problems they encountered when using the mobile apps, educational potential of mobile apps in their teaching, and the issues and

122

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

challenges of integrating mobile learning into teacher education programmes and their future classes. Questions included: ‘Would you use this app in your courses? Why or why not?’, ‘What issues and challenges would you encounter in your classes?’, ‘What kind of support would you need?’, ‘What are your thoughts on usage of mobile apps at teacher education?’. The usability procedures and the interviews were video- and audio-recorded.

Issues and challenges The purpose of the usability tests was to help pre-service teachers explore the potentials of mobile apps in teaching and critically evaluate their pedagogical potentials. This evaluation method offered a number of benefits. The usability testing activity scaffolded pre-service teachers’ mobile app exploration and brainstorming about potential classroom integration scenarios. Examining several issues regarding the technical usability of the apps such as the interface, content and functions, pre-service teachers were able to focus on certain usability characteristics. Pre-service teachers also focused on the elements of pedagogical usability, such as learner control, motivation and learner activity. Presenting them with both domain specific and general apps increased their awareness of the availability of a variety of mobile apps in education. Usability sessions were effective in helping pre-service teachers’ exploration of mobile apps’ pedagogical affordances. However, limitations regarding time, selected educational apps, pre-service teachers’ prior experiences with these platforms and the use of think-aloud process presented a number of challenges. First, the usability tests were implemented during a limited time period that could have constrained the scope of their exploration. If given more time to interact with the app before the usability tests, pre-service teachers could have provided broader insights on their affordances and usability. Second, considering the limited time allocated for each usability test, pre-service teachers could only explore selected apps. This could have limited their investigation of different interactions provided in other apps, particularly in the paid apps. Their limited insights on mobile apps’ contextual and connective capabilities could be a result of such limited exposure. Third, without prior experiences in using these platforms, pre-service teachers could only report their interactions about early explorations. If given more time to explore these apps before the tests, they could have provided broader insights on their educational uses. Finally, during the exploration, think-aloud process was used to ask pre-service teachers to

Usability Testing in Teacher Education

123

verbalize their thoughts as they worked their way through the tasks. Some preservice teachers found it challenging because of their lack of familiarity with the method. Sometimes think-aloud technique did not work as pre-service teachers were lost in thought while following the tasks. As they were not accustomed to this technique, teacher educators should demonstrate an example of how to follow a task with the think-aloud technique and remind participants to think aloud during usability sessions when they become silent. Teacher educators can also conduct retrospective interviews with pre-service teachers after taking observation notes during the usability sessions and ask them detailed questions related to what they observe in sessions at the end of the usability tests. While the usability method presented a number of challenges, all pre-service teachers noted that they were going to continue exploring the educational mobile apps for their future classroom use. As stated above, pre-service teachers had limited experiences with educational mobiles, and for many, the testing context was their first encounter of an educational mobile app. The questions during the usability tests helped their explorations about interface design, navigation and error prevention methods. They were also constantly encouraged to evaluate the pedagogical affordances of mobile apps, understanding the issues related to motivation, the connections between content, pedagogy and assessment techniques. Such experience can contribute to their future evaluations of educational mobile apps in their teaching contexts.

Impact of mobile technology use At the end of each usability session, pre-service teachers were asked about the benefits and challenges of integrating educational mobile apps in classrooms and in teacher education programmes. Their responses were analysed under three categories: (1) the advantages of integrating mobile apps into learning environments, (2) the challenges of integrating mobile apps into learning environments and (3) pre-service teachers’ evaluation of their teacher education programmes in terms of opportunities to learn with mobile technologies.

The advantages of integrating mobile apps into learning environments Pre-service teachers valued the pedagogical affordances of mobile apps, such as using time effectively in classrooms, providing opportunities for learning

124

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

anytime anywhere, mobilizing school learning and contributing to the teaching processes. One pre-service teacher emphasized using time effectively in the classroom when integrating mobile tools into classroom activities: ‘Because the app [Geoboard] gives feedback, we don’t need to review each student activity separately. This can save us time in classrooms.’ Another pre-service teacher stated: ‘The app will definitely help us save time in classrooms and we can dedicate our time to other learning activities.’ He noted that completing math examples on mobile apps can help teachers focus on other tasks such as asking students more questions to gather their thoughts about the content. Extending classrooms with anytime anywhere learning opportunities was another highlight of mobile apps’ pedagogical affordance. One of the pre-service teachers expressed his interest in using a school-wide mobile learning app to connect teachers with students and their parents. He noted: ‘If a question comes to teacher’s mind at night, he/she types the question in there [mobile app] … Children get notification, a new question is in the app … Such an application … It can be very nice if we can provide students to use it actively a mobile school app that allows mobilizing school learning.’ Pre-service teachers also reported the contributions of mobile apps in teaching process with opportunities to give just-in-time feedback, create engaging lessons, facilitate learning, allow interactivity while learning, increase student’s learning pace and spend spare time in an efficient way. One of the preservice teachers indicated that tablets facilitate learning in the classroom because they provide a flexible environment to study. She continued: ‘Mobile apps are easy to implement in classrooms. We don’t need to use paper and pen. Once you draw or write on paper, it is harder to go back. On tablets, students can draw however they want and it can enhance their creativity.’ One pre-service teacher also noted that using mobile tools (e.g. Nova Elements app) in classrooms may help teachers in integrating interactive content representations to their teaching.

The challenges of integrating mobile apps into learning environments Pre-service teachers reported a number of challenges related to the integration of mobile apps into the classrooms, such as classroom management, teacher’s attitudes towards using mobile technologies and the disadvantages of mobile technologies in classrooms. One pre-service teacher stated that students’ lack of ICT skills may cause issues when using mobile devices in the class and affect classroom management: ‘It may be though in terms of classroom management. A teacher has at least 20 students in class. She needs to answer their questions.

Usability Testing in Teacher Education

125

If students don’t have such technologies at home and start using them in classes for the first time, they may face problems and ask technical questions. This may impact the flow of the classroom.’ Another pre-service teacher noted issues related to students’ behaviours while using mobile technologies in the classrooms: ‘I may have some problems related to classroom management. Students may be interacting about the content in the app and that may disrupt the flow of the class. If another student is left behind, it would be hard to control. So, instead of just using demonstration technique, students can do more interactive exercises with the apps.’ One of the pre-service teachers also stated that teachers should set time limits to review students’ work during the class time. Pre-service teachers noted the importance of teachers’ attitudes towards using mobile technologies in classrooms and stated that negative attitudes towards technology integration would limit their successful integration. Other challenges described were related to the disadvantages of mobile technologies in classrooms, such as usability problems, screen size and instructional limitations. One pre-service teacher stated that he had some concerns about giving tablets to young children: So, mobile apps for English Language School (ELS) are of course helpful. But, we also need to know the limits of these technologies as teachers. Our students also need to have a certain consciousness about their appropriate use. Because, this new generation of students are deeply immersed into these technologies and spend more time with these than they do play outside. I guess that computer addiction will jump by 100% after 10 years. Because, when I observe little kids around us, I can see tablets in their hands at the age of 2 years, before they even go to school … I think, it’s a little bit risky to equip classes with tablets. I’m a little bit confused about this situation.

Another pre-service teacher noted that mobile technologies may appeal students at the beginning of the integration process, and students perceive the device or mobile apps as a game or an entertainment. But she indicated that these issues may be handled after some time. Mobile apps’ usability problems and their screen size were other noted challenges. One pre-service teacher indicated that touch screen was not helpful for some activities such as drawing graphics in math. She commented: ‘The points of -3 and 4 … This also helps me identify the point. I am very distressed now because it is touch screen. I couldn’t identify the point now. I think I would be more comfortable with the cursor, at least with the help of a mouse.’ One pre-service teacher also stated that the tools inside the mobile app were not easy as in the PC version: ‘The tools are a little bit easier on the computer [version]. Because, I can solve the problem easily by using the mouse.’

126

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Besides these major challenges, pre-service teachers also indicated students’ limited access to technologies, lack of appropriate evaluation tools to measure the effects of mobile technologies on education, student’s lack of attitudes, parents’ lack of interest and transparency as other challenges that may be encountered during the integration process.

Pre-service teachers’ evaluation of their teacher education programmes in terms of opportunities to learn with mobile technologies After pre-service teachers explored the pedagogical potentials of mobile apps during the usability sessions, they were asked to evaluate their teacher education programmes in terms of the opportunities presented for learning with mobile tools and technologies. Pre-service teachers noted the limited exposure to mobile learning and mobile technologies in their programmes as one of the major limitations in helping them explore their potentials. One of the pre-service teachers stated: ‘Using an iPad, using a mobile app, it’s not a skill which I acquired at the university. I learned by my own efforts, from my friends etc. My friend had an iPad and so, I used it.’ Another pre-service teacher noted the importance of their exposure to mobile technologies in teacher education courses: ‘When I become a teacher in the future, I will spend extra time to explore how to use it. But, if I have enough knowledge on using mobile technology in my teacher education program, I will implement something I already know and it will save time for me and for my students in the future.’ Pre-service teachers suggested that teacher education programmes should have an appropriate curriculum to teach technology integration and provide various materials and activities for courses to help them experience technology integration both at the university and in the field training. They also stated that different departments at the Faculty of Education can collaborate to prepare courses or materials related to technology integration for pre-service teachers. According to the pre-service teachers, decision-making on when and how to use mobile technologies in classroom, competencies for technology integration and creating meaningful learning tasks for students during the integration process were among the important factors for successful integration. They highlighted that mobile technologies should be used when it’s necessary to teach the learning content in a better way. One pre-service teacher stated that she can use technology to present concrete examples or activities for students when it’s

Usability Testing in Teacher Education

127

necessary: ‘I will use technology [in my class] but not for every topic. When it’s needed … There are some topics to be covered from abstract to concrete, for example, we’ve just examined, space and chemical elements topics … They are always printed words on paper, but how does it happen? For example, electrons are moving, it demonstrates it here [in mobile app] a little bit. I can use it for these topics but I certainly can’t use for all [the curriculum].’ Another preservice teacher stated: ‘It’s not like “Let’s open this [mobile app] and look at the phrasal verbs.” We should create a task for children and provide them to use it in a meaningful way as teachers.’ Pre-service teachers emphasized in-service teachers’ competencies for technology integration as the most critical prerequisite for successful implementation of mobile tools in classrooms. One pre-service teacher noted: ‘How well are in-service teachers going to integrate technologies is very important. Ministry of Education is equipping classes with tablets but I heard that there are certain things that are done or like children use it just for playing games … I think that in-service teacher training is also critical. It’s an important issue as well as equipping classes with tablets and developing apps.’ Pre-service teachers noted the importance of technology knowledge for meaningful integration. One pre-service teacher stated: ‘A new generation of students surrounded with these technologies are now entering the classrooms. Teachers should be skilled in using these technologies efficiently in classrooms. They should attend to the professional development programs and their knowledge level should be monitored.’

Recommendations The case study showed that the pre-service teachers developed awareness about the benefits and challenges of integrating mobile technologies into learning environments as well as their potential pedagogical use. For example, they appreciated the added values as using time effectively in classrooms, providing opportunities for learning anytime anywhere, mobilizing school learning and contributing to the teaching processes. The challenges they reported for using mobile technologies in classrooms consisted of classroom management, teacher’s attitudes towards using mobile technologies and the disadvantages of mobile technologies in classrooms related to usability issues. Pre-service teachers noted the critical factors such as decision-making on when and how to use mobile technologies in classroom, competency of teachers’ skills for

128

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

technology integration, and creating meaningful learning tasks for students during integration process for in-class integration of mobile technologies. Preservice teachers’ exploration of the affordances of mobile apps with pre-given tasks in usability sessions helped them brainstorm and think critically about their integration, pedagogical and technical design. We expect that their selfawareness on how to use mobile technologies in the classroom might improve and our perspective involving usability testing might inspire them to find creative solutions on how to use mobile technologies in their future classes.

Future plans Pre-service teachers need to experience learning and teaching in mobile learning environments to be able to make informed decisions about their potential use in future classrooms. Research highlighted the affordances of using mobile learning activities in teacher education programmes (Baran 2014). By using a mobile app, it was possible to create collaborative, contextualized and active learning experiences for pre-service teachers (Kärki et al. 2018). Mobile devices facilitated collaboration among pre-service teachers for preparing lessons (Townsend 2015). Pre-service teachers connect a larger network creating a ‘collective outcome or revised knowledge and skills’ (Naylor & Gibbs 2015: 445). In their meta-analysis, Krull and Duart (2017) presented current trends on research on mobile learning in higher education including (1) evaluating the effects of mobile tools on enhancing student learning; (2) exploring the potentials of utilizing them in learning; (3) their effects on affective domain such as student motivation, beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and values; (4) designing frameworks or systems; (5) developing or enhancing pedagogical approaches, models, theories or frameworks for them; and (6) their influence on age, gender, ability, experience, learning style and culture. However, they indicated that research on strategies and challenges for integrating mobile learning into higher education is limited. Our case study presents a number of recommendations for future work. The pre-service teachers reported issues as the limited exposure to mobile learning and mobile technologies in their programmes related to integrating mobile technologies into teacher education programmes. One of the major limitations was helping them explore their potentials and the pre-service teachers noted the lack of experiences provided in teacher education courses on the exploration of mobile tools for teaching and learning. As they emphasized the critical role

Usability Testing in Teacher Education

129

of teacher education programmes, they suggested an appropriate curriculum to teach technology integration and providing various materials and activities for courses to help them experience technology integration both at the university and in the field training for teacher education programmes. In this respect, our case study presents the usability testing as a teacher training method to help pre-service teachers explore both affordances and challenges of using mobile technologies in classrooms and their potentials for integrating those technologies into education. Usability testing can be implemented in teacher education programmes across different content, methods and technology courses. Teacher educators, in-service teachers, mentors and pre-service teachers can participate in the process exploring creative ways for in-class integrations of mobile technologies. Collaboration among different departments in teacher education programmes can result in creating well-designed courses and aiding materials to help access teacher education content anytime anywhere, promote on-the-spot reflection and assist in sharing classroom practices. Our future plans include extending usability tests to in-service teacher education contexts, as their authentic teaching experiences might lead to more detailed perspectives about the potential use of mobile apps in teaching and learning. Studies with in-service teachers who are from different teaching areas and different grades may also generate domain and grade-specific pedagogical ideas and strategies at utilizing mobile apps in classrooms.

References Ally, M., Grimus, M., & Ebner, M. (2014), Preparing teachers for a mobile world, to improve access to education. PROSPECTS, 44(1), 43–59. Arabacioglu, S., & Unver, A. O. (2016), Supporting inquiry based laboratory practices with mobile learning to enhance students’ process skills in Science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(2), 216–231. Baran, E. (2014), A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Baran, E., Uygun, E., & Altan, T. (2016), Examining pre-service teachers’ criteria for evaluating educational mobile apps. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1117–1141. Brown, T., & Mbati, L. (2015), Mobile learning: Moving past the myths and embracing the opportunities. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 115–135. Burden, K. J., & Kearney, M. (2017), Investigating and critiquing teacher educators’ mobile learning practices. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 110–125.

130

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Cochrane, T. (2012), Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 65–82. Crompton, H.(2017), Using mobile learning to support students’ understanding in geometry: A design-based research study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 207–219. Edmonds, R., & Smith, S. (2017), From playing to designing: Enhancing educational experiences with location-based mobile learning games. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6). https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/3583. Holden, J. (2016), Mobile inquiry-as-play in mathematics teacher education. On the Horizon, 24(1), 71–81. Kärki, T., Keinänen, H., Tuominen, A., Hoikkala, M., Matikainen, E., & Maijala, H. (2018), Meaningful learning with mobile devices: Pre-service class teachers’ experiences of mobile learning in the outdoors. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 27(2), 251–263. Kearney, M., & Maher, D. (2013), Mobile learning in maths teacher education: Using iPads to support pre-service teachers’ professional development. Australian Educational Computing, 27(3), 76–84. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P/(2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17. Krull, G., & Duart, J. (2017), Research trends in mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review of articles (2011–2015). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(7). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v8i4.3991. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Naylor, A., & Gibbs, J. (2015), Using iPads as a learning tool in cross-curricular collaborative initial teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 41(4), 442–446. Noriega, H. R. (2016), Mobile learning to improve writing in ESL teaching. TEFLIN Journal: A Publication on the Teaching and Learning of English, 27(2), 182–202. Rubin, J., & Chisnell, D. (2008), Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests. 2nd edn. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley. Tami, S. (2016), Patterns of mobile technology use in teaching: The teacher perspective. I-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3), 1. Townsend, P. B. (2015), Mob learning: Digital communities for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tertiary students. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2), 20–44.

7

Virtual and Augmented Reality and Mobile Technologies in Religious Education Jens Palkowitsch-Kühl

Faculty of Human Sciences of the Julius-Maximilians-University Würzburg, Germany

Karsten Müller

The Institute of Religious Education, Hassia, Germany

The potential of virtual and augmented reality in education scenarios In recent years, the buzzwords of ‘virtual’ und ‘augmented’ worlds have been given more and more room in societal discourse. Without a doubt, a pioneering role was played by Oculus Rift in the area of immersive virtual worlds and by games such as Ingress, Pokémon GO and Harry Potter Wizards Unite where the use of augmented worlds is concerned. Even if virtual reality (VR) has already been created and entered by digital games, a qualitative difference in the degree of immersion may be recognized since the development of dedicated VR hardware (e.g. Sony PlayStation VR, HTC Vive). By way of VR glasses (head-mounted displays (HMDs), spatial tracking and controllers), hardware especially devised for VR environments enables an immersion in virtual worlds in a 360-degree mode. The term ‘virtual reality’ refers to the contents of VR systems, which ‘consist of 3D objects that show dynamic behavior and are able to respond to user input’ (Jung 2013: 66). The VR environment is a space in which ‘the participant-observer is totally immersed in and able to interact with, a completely synthetic world. Such a world may mimic the properties of some real-world environments, either existing or fictional’ (Milgram & Kishino 1994: 1321). More than that, in these virtual worlds, the laws of Physics may be suspended or newly defined. Virtual realities can thus create new spaces, in which ordinary everyday experiences can be seen under new aspects.

132

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Generally, ‘augmented reality’ is understood as ‘the enhancement of reality through artificial virtual contents’ (cf. Hsieh & Lin 2011; Broll 2013: 241–242). ‘This brings about a merging of reality and virtuality’ (Broll 2013: 242). It is not only the expansion of visual perception that is at the centre of this, all senses can be appealed to, as outlined by this definition: Augmented reality is an (immediate, interactive, and real-time capable) expansion of the perception of one’s real environment by virtual contents (for any and all senses), which, in their manifestation and impression, orient themselves by reality as far as possible, so that in the extreme case (and if desired), a differentiation between real and virtual (sensory) impressions is no longer possible (Broll 2013: 246)

This does not merely mean that there is a superimposition with additional contents, but that one may interact with this superimposition (cf. Höllerer & Feiner 2004), which may lead to the emergence of new forms of human-computer interaction (HCI) (Ludwig & Reimann 2005). Milgram and Kishino (1994) point out that there also exist intermediate forms, by introducing the concept of mixed reality (MR). They use it to describe the various gradations between the ‘real’ and the perfectly ‘virtual’ environment brought about by technologies becoming more and more immersive. The concept, then, includes both augmented reality (AR) and augmented virtuality (AV) (Milgram & Kishino 1994). Following this brief overview of the technological development, we will now address the question, which possibility spaces these technologies may offer for (religious) educational work and how we can integrate them into teacher education and training. For the first step, we will generally describe the possibilities offered by VR/AR in education scenarios at schools, to be followed by a second step outlining how we prepared pre-service and in-service teachers for the challenges of these new technologies. For this purpose, teachers had to create, try out and reflect their own teaching and learning scenarios in the area of Church space education, using the Actionbound and Thinglink applications.

The use of VR/AR in religious education scenarios Recently, the possible innovative potential of digital media for the educational sector has been systematically analysed (Reusser 2003; Herzig & Grafe 2006). The objects in focus were, among others, multi-mediality, interactivity, adaptivity, autonomous co-operation, decentralization, new opportunities of synchronous/

VR and AR in Religious Education

133

asynchronous communication and co-operation, real-time, effective access to authentic information, and simplified learning in authentic contexts. As Prasse (2012) observes: On the basis of these characteristics and potentials, it becomes clear how the innovative possibilities of ICT [Information and Communication Technologies] can comprehensively support a way of learning from complex and authentic problems or tasks in co-operative forms of work that is real-time, self-directed, and discovering. (2012: 15)

Prasse notes that especially constructivist learning scenarios can benefit from the potential of digital media. In this context, it is especially simulation spaces, which, if openly embedded in classwork, open up opportunities for a self-directed approach to learning contents. For teaching and learning scenarios explicitly utilizing virtual-, augmented- and mixed-reality options, Donally (2018) sketches out how learners may profit from these immersive technologies. Among other advantages, they offer authentic learning experiences and the opportunity to explore spaces outside the classroom while remaining in the classroom, and they create new spaces of collaboration and communication (cf. Donally 2018: 10). In addition, immersive technologies can integrate learners with specific physical or learning needs so that they can contribute to their inclusion (cf. Cascales-Martínez et al. 2017). Martín-Gutiérrez et al. (2017: 479–480) name four major benefits which speak in favour of using VR/AR applications in education scenarios: ●●

●●

●●

Virtual technologies increase students’ motivation and engagement. Students have an immersive experience and feel as protagonists, while studying 3-D models that enhance their learning experience. Virtual technologies allow a constructivist approach of learning. Students are free to interact with virtual objects and other students. As a result, students can investigate, experiment and obtain feedback, resulting in an experience that improves their learning. Virtual technologies are now affordable and accessible. Recent technological advances ease access to VR/AR with smartphones, tablets and videogame devices. Complex devices are not a requirement anymore, and students can access to shared VR contents through common online platforms such as YouTube. In addition, disabled students have easier access to virtual environments and are able to interact with virtual objects and other students.

134 ●●

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Virtual technologies allow more interaction than conventional learning materials. By using VR/AR, students feel immersed while interacting with concepts, objects and processes by using headsets, tactile gloves and motion sensors. This immersion permits to experiment environments with realistic objects that could not be accessible otherwise (Martín-Gutiérrez et al. 2017: 479–480).

Out of these various potential ascriptions of VR/AR applications for educational work, at least two constitute a certain applicability to didactic concepts of teaching religion. What counts in religious education is, on the one hand, authentic discussion and analysis (Furió et al. 2013; cf. Juan et al. 2014; Albrecht et al. 2013) of the subjects in question (cf. performative didactics of religion, etc.), and on the other, a differentiated view located between inside and outside perspective (cf. interreligious dialogue, e.g. Schambeck 2013; Schweitzer 2014; respectively, didactics of perspective change, e.g. Selman 1984; Bucher 2006; Dressler 2006; Käbisch 2014). Both areas appear to favour AR and VR applications. The refugee movement towards the European Union continuing since 2011 in consequence of the civil war in Syria may serve as an example. It is hardly possible to put oneself in the situation of a refugee, to imagine the conditions in holding camps and the hardships encountered along the various escape routes. Virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed realities may open up new sites of learning here, in which students are able to share these experiences and to make them communicable. The idea of perspective change then does not stand still on a cognitive level; AR, VR and MR enable emotions and sensations – empathy (cf. Donally 2018: 15).

AR, VR, MR and mobile learning The idea of creating and entering augmented and virtual learning spaces may be supplemented by the principles of mobile learning in several facets. Kearney et al. (2012) summarize that mobile learning (m-learning) in all its definitions refers to ‘the process of learning mediated by a mobile device’ (Kearney et al. 2012). An essential change compared to traditional learning scenarios is constituted by the shifting of the factors of space and time (cf. Kearney et al. 2012). In m-learning, new sites may emerge, e.g. by virtually manifesting themselves. M-learning options may also be used independent of and detached from time structures. Most of the time, it does not require a definite place or room to conduct learning activities (cf. Traxler 2009: 7).

VR and AR in Religious Education

135

When utilizing AR and VR technologies in teaching and learning scenarios, it is fundamental to distinguish between two aspects: first, the consumer perspective, in which learners enter the learning spaces and perform predefined tasks; and second, the producer perspective, in which learners design and organize the learning spaces themselves. Both scenarios presuppose mobile end devices, for consumption, e.g. via screen or MHD, and for independent design, e.g. by recording sound, images or videos.

Initial questions and methodology of case studies At the heart of current research, therefore, there is the question which teaching and learning scenarios teacher students, teachers in training (preservice teachers) and veteran (in-service) teachers at schools create with the aid of mobile end devices. The focus in the design of the scenarios is on the utilization of augmented and virtual realities. In addition, we want to assess the estimated learning outcome of students, particularly in the subject of religion. In this, we restrict ourselves to the use of smartphones and tablets as sketched out above. Namely, students make use of real-time recording via camera to display contents on their screens, on the one hand. These contents will not always be projected directly on the environment but call up activities on the smartphone. On the other hand, smartphones and VR glasses are used as HMDs, in order to show a virtual environment based on 360-degree images. In the sense of augmented virtuality (AV), this environment features additional contents. The applications (apps) used in the case studies will first be briefly introduced and then be classified in the categories Instructive/Manipulable/Constructive, according to Goodwin & Highfield (2012: 2), on a 1-to-5 scale (1 = Instructive, 3 = Manipulable, 5 = Constructive). In addition, applications are evaluated following the iPAC Rubric for Evaluating Educational Apps (Burden & Kearney 2017b). Prasse (2012) criticizes the exclusive consideration of programme types. For these classifications ‘may show a certain potential for a more strongly directive and instructional or a more strongly constructivist and problemoriented approach – a guarantor for an appropriate didactic embedding they are not’ (Prasse 2012: 17). The utilization of VR/AR in education scenarios can, according to Twining (2002), take on different modes. In the computer practice

136

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

framework, he developed a classification of the modes of computer usage in three stages: supportive (no new quality), extending (new quality, but also imaginable without computer use) or transforming (new quality, not possible without the computer). In this regard, Prasse (2012: 21) states that most applications can accommodate all three modes and that therefore the application context must be moved closer into the centre of investigations. Responding to the problem described, the mobile pedagogical framework (MPF) analytical tool takes a more differentiated view on didactic embedding.

The iPAC analytical tool Originally developed by Kearney et al. (2012), the iPAC framework, focusing especially on the area of mobile learning, serves as a possible analytical pattern, which we are trying to apply to the cases presented here. In this, we are hoping to get an idea of which level the task quality achieves. The framework identifies three ‘Signature Pedagogies’ (cf. Kearney et al. 2015; Burden & Kearney 2017a), which essentially characterize learning with mobile devices: Personalization, Authenticity and Collaboration (cf. Kearney et al. 2012). The central keywords of ‘Time’ and ‘Space’ point out that mobile learning is not necessarily restricted by formal or time-bound structures, thus enabling ubiquitous learning (cf. Schuck et al. 2017). The constructs may be defined as follows (see Figure 7.1): ●●

●●

●●

Personalization refers to the aspect of self-directed, autonomous learning. It questions to what extent learners themselves can (co-)design their learning process with regard to location, space, time and content and, moreover, to what extent the competences to be learned are determined by students themselves, and to what extent the entire learning process is individualized with regard to the learners (cf. Burden & Kearney 2017b). Authenticity summarizes aspects of meaningful learning. The question therefore is to what extent learning situations have been created which appear authentic and evolve life-relevant and personal significances and interpretations (cf. Burden & Kearney 2017b). Collaboration includes the aspects of learning that stand for cooperation with the aid of mobile end devices. The focus on conversation investigates the question to what extent students communicate via mobile devices. A perspective on data sharing wants to find out to what extent students exchange and respectively further develop data among themselves.

VR and AR in Religious Education

137

Figure 7.1  The sub-constructions of the iPAC framework: http://www. mobilelearningtoolkit.com/ipac-sub-constructs.html.

The differentiated perspectives of the framework enable a contextual view of the scenarios, as well as a focus on the associated teacher-student roles in the case studies. The classification of (learning) activities draws on the descriptions of Kearney et al. (2012). In the Sub-scale Agency of the Scale Personalization, they refer to activities as low activity, when they are externally controlled, and as high activity, when they are based on negotiated learning, for instance, in relation to the goals and the content. ‘They may have control over the place (physical or virtual), pace and time they learn, and can enjoy autonomy over their learning content’ (Kearney et al. 2012: 9). Accordingly, the aspect of autonomous learning is of central significance here. The definitions of the other Sub-scales may be found in Kearney et al. (2012) and Burden and Kearney (2017a).

Case studies: AR/VR in teacher education and training This section presents a case study in which pre-service teachers and in-service teachers designed learning scenarios for the use of mobile end devices in the classroom. Specifically, the app Actionbound was used to design augmented

138

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

learning scenarios, while virtual learning scenarios were created using Thinglink. Exploratively and exemplarily, the case study sketches out possibilities of integrating mobile end devices into religious learning contexts. The case study and its setting will be outlined in detail below; the case presentation will be descriptive. Different perspectives on the learning scenarios are described based on the observations of the workshop leaders and on the feedback from participants. The number of participants admittedly was quite small, yet the case may be seen as a first starting point in the exploration of the opportunity spaces of mobile end devices and the use of VR/AR in teacher education and training and in the actual teaching of religion in the classroom.

Actionbound The name Actionbound is inspired by the classic terminology of experiential/ adventure education, such as ‘outward bound’ (frame of reference: nature, the outdoors) and ‘city bound’ (frame of reference: urban environment). The application facilitates the design and creation of one’s own exploration tours. The method, the website and the app received the German Educational Media Award in 2016. As the laudation emphasized: ‘The possibilities of the digital rally are many and diverse. Actionbound is a great instrument for social-spacerelated children and youth work in inclusion-educational settings.’ Actionbound (https://de.actionbound.com/testimonials#digita) is classified among the socalled serious games. With the browser-based Bound Creator, users create their own mobile adventures, treasure hunts and interactive guides, which can then be played on the smartphone. The relevant app is available for the iOS and Android mobile operating systems. Actionbound includes playful elements of a scavenger hunt, while aiming to convey information and promote education. In this entertaining learning experience, all necessary information appears on the display, guiding the players from station to station. So it becomes possible to make the players ‘walk’ a digitally prepared obstacle course, during which participants become creative on their own, contributing their own ideas. These interactive discovery routes are called ‘Bounds’. Quite a range of task formats are available for the creation of a Bound (cf. Nord & Palkowitsch-Kühl 2017), all geared towards the participation of the players. They are intended to provide their own creative impulses during the rally, making full use of the productive technological potentials of their smartphones/tablets. At the end of the rally, the finished digital products are uploaded to the Actionbound server and may be called up by the Bound creators.

VR and AR in Religious Education

139

As an ongoing project in Media Education, Actionbound has consistently been developed further since 2012, with the object of bringing together current digital usage scenarios of adolescents in one application and to make it usable under the aspects of participation, mobile internet and augmented reality, in order to enable a playful kind of learning in usually play-free contexts, such as the classroom. This Gamification principle can be supported by the active integration of Geodata. In GPS-guided missions, players may be confronted with learning contents in pre-defined locations. These location-based games can also be characterized by the terms ‘Geotainment’ and ‘Mobile Learning’. While Actionbound is available free of charge for private use, costs for various license models will be incurred for use in the business and the education sector. Based on the model of Goodwin and Highfield (2012: 2), Actionbound can be classified in the category of ‘Manipulable Apps’ (‘allow for guided discovery and experimentation, but within a pre-determined context or framework’ and ‘required more cognitive involvement than Instructive Apps, but less than Constructive Apps’ (Goodwin & Highfield 2012: 2) and subclass ‘Constructive/ Manipulable’. Although the application also provides instructional elements (e.g. multiple choice), for a correct classification the variety of task types ‘which allow users to create their own content or digital artefact’ (Goodwin & Highfield 2012: 2) is decisive. Learners can be much more involved in the teaching-learning process through Actionbound when working on the Bound Creator, creating a Bound by themselves. When using the app, a high creative participation is also possible but always takes place within a given setting; this course is determined by the creator. When classifying the Actionbound application in the iPAC Rubric for Evaluating Educational Apps (Burden & Kearney 2017b), the authors judge that the following averages can be defined. Use of the app/Bound Creator: Personalization: 1.3/2.3, Authenticity: 2.3/2.3, Collaboration: 2.3/2.3. Including the Bound Creator in teaching-learning scenarios means that significantly higher personalization values can be achieved. In order to calculate the values, both authors assigned the application in the areas of the iPAC framework to the scale and category of Burden and Kearny (2017) and calculated the mean value of both. Higher values mean a greater approval of the respective category.

Thinglink Thinglink (http://thinglinkblog.com/about-us/) is an internet platform for images, videos and 360-degree photographs, which may then be supplemented by interactive contents (rich-media tags). Interactive contents may comprise

140

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

links, images, sound recordings, texts, videos or iFrame embeddings. The latter may consist of, e.g. GoogleMaps, weather data or GoogleForms. Another option would be the integration of social media channels such as Twitter. Access to the media is browser based and therefore cross-platform. A special VR mode enables the use of HMDs connected to smartphones. The creator of an image is free to make it available to others so that virtual field trips may be created even without 360-degree shots of one’s own. In keeping with its motto ‘Explore’, Thinglink first invites exploration and discovery. With ‘Modify’, users ‘Clone’ and ‘Remix’ existing images and tours; with ‘Create’, they independently design their own works. Thinglink itself describes the didactic application following the SAMR Model (Puentedura 2012) in that the app enables and supports teachers to design and develop digital learning experiences. In the free-of-charge version, interactive content may be added to ordinary images; the fee-based version also allows this for 360-degree photographs. Referring to the classification model of Goodwin and Highfield (2012), it may be assigned to the category of Manipulable Apps. These applications ‘allow for guided discovery and experimentation, but within a pre-determined context or framework. These Apps required more cognitive involvement than Instructive Apps, but less than Constructive Apps’ (Goodwin & Highfield 2012: 2). Even if the freedoms offered by the scope of didactic options are high, it must be differentiated whether learners only view 360-degree images or whether they actually design them themselves. Generally, one could say that in viewer mode, the individual negotiation processes of the software are at a lower level than in producer mode. Both, however, are extremely dependent on the learning scenario. For individual tasks may also be integrated via iFrame into pre-defined virtual environments in Thinglink. And in the independent design of a 360-degree image, the teacher’s specifications and framings may restrict creative freedoms (cf. Prasse 2012). Placing the Teleport 360 Editor application within the iPAC Rubric for Evaluating Educational Apps (Burden & Kearney 2017b), the authors calculate that following mean values may be determined: Personalization: 2.3, Authenticity: 2.0, Collaboration: 2.3.

Case: Digital pioneers In November 2017, a seminar with the title ‘Digital Pioneers’ took place at JuliusMaximilian University at Würzburg, led by Karsten Müller and Jens PalkowitschKühl. During a two-day workshop, students in education (pre-service teachers) and

VR and AR in Religious Education

141

teachers already active at schools (in-service teachers) were to experience virtual and augmented spaces for themselves and to learn how to create them as well. Participants included five students from semesters 3 to 7 and two veteran schoolteachers. The goal of this advanced-training seminar was the design of a teaching and learning scenario based on a Bound and integrating virtual learning spaces.

Organization and implementation: Four phases Phase 1: Introductions and acquiring personal experience with AR/VR At first, participants were asked to introduce themselves in virtual spaces, on a Padlet (https://de.padlet.com/). Using loaned devices and their own smartphones, they created brief profiles of themselves: name, photo, status group, previous experience with AR/VR. After this, the QR-Code Rally (http:// reformationzweinull.de/) was implemented. By scanning QR codes, task texts became visible on the display. After testing this first form of AR, the ‘Reformation 2.0’ (cf. Müller 2016) Actionbound was built up, with participants entering the bound and going through first stations. Roughly forty minutes of testing was followed by a reflection round, which pointed out both innovative and problematic aspects of the two possible applications. In the VR area, participants initially entered a church using Google Cardboard viewers and the application Thinglink, with twenty minutes for individual exploration. They then investigated ‘Google Expeditions’, alternating as expedition leaders and participants.

Phase 2: Designing small AR/VR elements The objective was to gain first experiences in the guided creation of AR and VR contents. At first, all participants created their own VR sample with the aid of the Aurasma application (https://www.aurasma.com/, now renamed HP Reveal https://www.hpreveal.com/), to be presented to and discussed with the group. Then 360-degree photographs and videos were created using two 360-degree cameras. The photos were uploaded to different platforms such as kuula.co or roundme.com and the various advantages and disadvantages were analysed. Furthermore, participants were given a brief technical introduction to the Actionbound application.

Phase 3: Creating a learning scenario with AR/VR During the main phase of the training seminar, participants created their own learning scenario using AR and VR. In three small groups of 3–4 persons each,

142

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

an interactive Bound to Christ Church in Kassel was created (max. 3–4 stations). In this, the groups proceeded as follows: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Review literature and find theme (e.g. space, symbols, actions) Which competences are participants to acquire and respectively expand in the Bound? Which software and which hardware will be utilized? Implementation into a learning scenario.

Phase 4: Presentation and reflection The finished products were then presented, with the respective other groups playing the various scenarios which were then reflected with a view to the aspects of iPAC in a shared feedback session. Additionally, pre-service teachers and students subsequently wrote follow-ups as term papers. The focus of reflection was predominantly on the last elements of the seminar, the generation of the learning scenarios and the created scenarios themselves. The latter will be described first. Work results will then be analysed according to the iPAC framework, supplemented by the self-reflections of the students and respectively teachers who underwent the training.

Example of a group-created teaching and learning scenario Using Actionbound, the groups prepared various tasks for students, which they had to solve taking recourse to the self-created 360-degree church tours. In these 360-degree tours, students enter Christuskirche in Kassel and are then able to view sites selected by the teachers. After linking the two tools, it is no longer necessary to be directly on-site to solve the group’s riddles. Due to the VR tours, the Bound could now be carried out independent of location as well. One of the groups created a linearly arranged Group Bound so that students had to work individual stations consecutively as a team. Running through Christuskirche in Kassel, the Bound deals with elements of the church space and its lifeworld anchoring with the learners. In addition to the Bound, teachers created a virtual round tour, which must be walked again and again to solve the tasks. One task reads: Put on the VR glasses and look around you from the perspective of someone attending divine service sitting in a pew. How do you feel? Which emotions does this call up in you? Think about this and then exchange impressions in the

VR and AR in Religious Education

143

group. Which expectations on a successful divine service do you have? Make an audio recording that gives everyone a chance to speak their mind.

A 360-degree photograph from the perspective of a church pew provides the background. The audio recording will be saved.

Challenges and opportunities Both during and after the implementation of the case study, pre-service and in-service participant teachers were interviewed on their experiences and assessments regarding the use of the technology and the applicable methodology/ didactics; active teachers were questioned orally, students in the form of a written term paper.

Technology While the education students had fewer problems with the technological implementation (VR cameras, smartphones, MacBooks) of the virtual environment (360-degree photos, upload, processing, linking, supplementing with further details), in-service teachers encountered several difficulties. Despite having been familiarized with the technology in the introductory phase, they were lacking fundamental skills which came naturally to the students (e.g. uploading photographs to the computer, creating hotspots, copying and pasting texts). The Bound Creator can only be accessed via a browser, and its structure is quite complex so that a display size of at least 10″ is required. The Bound was therefore created on a PC. An app for tablets is available for Thinglink but was not used by the PST, as the images of one 360-degree camera had to be stitched on a Windows PC or a Samsung device. Two of three groups were able to finish their project within the given time frame; the project of Group 3 (in-service teachers) was not completed. In-service teachers quickly showed frustration when the construction of a digital learning path did not work out immediately. Due to the intuitive user interfaces, integration of media files was, all in all, successful; finding license-free visual and auditory materials, however, was felt to be difficult, especially by the in-service teachers. Compared to PSTs, they clearly discussed the issue of data protection more sensitively as well. All digitally created products which showed participants in a clearly recognizable way were viewed very sceptically. Similarly, accessing location information (GPS) was seen critically. It was this very function which showed the highest error frequency in the application (quality of the GPS

144

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

module, environmental factors), next to the smartphone camera, which proved error-prone, for instance, when it came to scanning QR codes. Problems also appear with Thinglink, when a gyroscope is required for viewing the tours with HMDs. In the context of follow-up work, it was particularly appreciated that all results during the Bound are backed up and analysed automatically and may be called up again at a later date. In sum, what may be said for both applications is that, apart from applicationspecific skills (GPS, gyroscope, stitching), basic skills (drag and drop) are crucial for technological implementation. However, the option of embedding motivating multimedia (audio and/or video recordings) and partially interactive elements (riddles) in the applications via intuitive user interfaces was unanimously appreciated. Framework conditions, however, such as data protection, copyright and a workable internet connection, were the subjects of controversial discussion.

Didactics/Pedagogy One pre-service teacher commented how by implementing new media, classroom and learning activities are no longer bound to a specific place, respectively to a specific time. Students are now able to explore Christ Church by means of a virtual tour, without leaving the classroom. Students can remain a little longer at any given station, if difficulties arise. The follow-up work on the teaching unit at home also enables the adaption of learning time.

Learning time and the learning site may be defined in a new way. For the explorative appropriation of the elements and objects of the church interior via mobile devices (cf. Kerber 2012) participants had to decide before which elements they deemed worthy of depiction and from which perspective they should be shown. Using Actionbound, locations of explicit didactic significance may be made accessible to be experienced by students, yet any other location may also become a significant learning site through an interactively enhanced Bound (cf. Burden & Kearney 2016: 32). In addition, integrated virtual tours may open up new learning spaces (cf. Burden & Kearney 2016: 31). In the context of Agency, a sub-construct of Personalization in the iPAC framework, the pre-service teachers results differ in that learners are not free to choose the site, since certain elements (QR codes) are affixed to the specific space. They may, however, freely determine their learning time. The learning contents of the Bound are prescribed from outside (‘mediating’), and the forms

VR and AR in Religious Education

145

of solutions are clearly defined: quiz, text input, image, etc. Other than this, there is no individual adjustment of the Bound. A different group of PSTs decided in favour of a more flexible variant of Actionbound: ‘We made sure to work not only with multiple choice, but with open questions as well.’ Students may themselves determine the sequence in which they handle tasks, tasks being preset in terms of goals and approaches (e.g. photograph). VR integration permits location-independent playing of the Bound and opens up new perspectives. In Actionbound, Customization, the second sub-construct of the Personalization construct in the iPAC framework, is accomplished by the high variance of task types, which not only appeal to different sensory channels but possibly even lead up to elements of experiential/adventure education. Actionbound also grants students great creative leeway. For teachers, this means a differentiation potential equally as large, which enables them to accommodate different paces of learning in a heterogeneous student body and different educational needs of learners: ‘Students learn to work self-directedly [sic] and to motivate themselves to interact with classmates, e.g. in solving riddles together.’ Again and again, the opportunities for creation and design provided by the applications were seen in a highly positive light, since they do not merely make learners take on the role of consumers, but also of producers, which activates, especially through the game character of Actionbound, them much more efficiently (cf. Burden & Hopkins 2016: 16). Under the construct of Authenticity, it becomes evident that the access tools are somewhat less than realistic, as the Actionbound application does not guide a real activity; rather, it serves to create a simulated task. Yet still the site is congruent with the learning contents, since they relate to the site, and students therefore learn in a realistic environment on the basis of a concrete situation. Learning contents then appear lifeworld related, with students intended to take on the perspectives of others and to investigate the significance of worship for themselves. Building on elementary experience for the everyday life of the students, they are able to interiorize unit contents in a life-relevant fashion, by way of their own experience (Schweitzer 2003). Next to the vivid impression of place and the playful elements, investigations on the subject level are possible as well, which, in turn, offer the opportunity of a deepening existential transfer. Teachers emphasized, however, that it was imperative that this content potential be developed by follow-up classwork and by the responsible teacher. In particular, the applications were viewed as alternatives to cognitive teaching methods.

146

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Analysis based on the Collaboration construct shows that, in Group Bounds, learners gather around their smartphone or tablet screen and participate in faceto-face peer discussions about the tasks displayed on the screen. An exchange with persons online or outside the learning context is not implemented. In individual tasks, learners create and design digital products (still images, audio commentaries), which they may then publish on the Bound website. Participants also noted that their own roles had changed for them as well: during the creation of the Bound and the tours, teachers perform the function of guidance to a much higher degree, in the sense of a moderation, while remaining instructors with regard to the didactic setting. It is they who determine the goals of the tasks and respectively the hotspots. During implementation, teachers fade into the background, at intervals or completely, because guidance is provided by the application itself. This gives them more room for the direct support of individual learners. Teachers remained important especially for the elements of the didactic setting that were viable for religious education (cf. Burden & Hopkins 2016: 17). For a didactic assessment of the two applications, moreover, it is of central importance that the potential follow-up work on experiences, impressions and results prevents digital media use from being perceived as a merely entertaining diversion, without any didactic deepening and continuity. Above all, participants saw evaluation, deepening and continuous learning progress as the provinces of the teacher. To summarize, what teachers thought particularly promising was the methodological possibility that learners enhance classwork in a participatory fashion; with regard to an existential transfer of the learning topic, they become subjects in education processes (Authenticity) (cf. Burden & Kearney 2016: 39). It is especially the aspect of Collaboration, which simultaneously might promote social learning.

Conclusion and outlook This case study shows that virtual (church) spaces can represent a learning space that is independent of location and time, if teaching and learning scenarios are designed in such a way that they integrate VR and AR applications. Thus, with the aid of mobile devices, augmented realities may transform classrooms into new spaces (cf. Burden & Kearney 2016: 40), by storing additional information in them. Depending on the created scenario, VR applications also make it possible to permit learners themselves to select which information they need in a ‘pervasive learning environment’ (cf. Kearney et al. 2012).

VR and AR in Religious Education

147

When designing such scenarios, pre-service teachers and in-service teachers showed a general degree of openness, yet the in-service teachers regarded the technological implementation with some scepticism and the pre-service teachers with enthusiasm. This changed over the course of the training seminar, due to coaching by the workshop leaders, which is a tendency that has been noted by other experts in m-learning, for example see Burden and Hopkins (2016). It seems that Personalization was strong (i.e. agency and customization) and that the participants appreciated the authentic investigations of issues and locations that are lifeworld relevant. Via AR/VR applications, extracurricular, interreligious learning sites as described, e.g. by Schweitzer (2014), may be expanded infinitely. Using AR, VR and MR applications, interreligious learning finds new, informal educational spaces, which are no longer institutionally predetermined. The ‘Inside Syrian Lives’ (https://youvisit.com/rescue) project of the International Rescue Committee (IRC) represents an example of how such a perspective change can be successful. A perspective change appears to be particularly exciting in the areas of religion, respectively religious practices, for instance, when students act in a performative manner (e.g. creating still images), when they actually take on the perspective of a person at their prayers (e.g. using a Google Cardboard) or when they imagine how Martin Luther must have felt, praying to St. Anne during the thunderstorm. Phenomena and situations that seem to be nonreligious at first glance may also be taken into account, appearing in a new light when viewed from a religious perspective of interpretation. For it is precisely religion, which enables, ‘due to its educational power, the adoption of a certain view of the world […] thus opening up the perspective of an interpretation of world and self, in which the world and the self can be understood differently than in the everyday perspective of the lifeworld’ (Dressler 2006).

References Albrecht, U. V., Folta-Schoofs, K., Behrends, M., & Von Jan, U. (2013), Effects of mobile augmented reality learning compared to textbook learning on medical students: Randomized controlled pilot study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(8), e182. Broll, W. (2013), Augmentierte Realität. In Dörner, R., Broll, W., Grimm, P. & Jung, B. (Eds.), Virtual und Augmented Reality (VR/AR) (pp. 241–294). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer. Bucher, A. (2006), ‘Die beten auch’. Zur Entwicklung der Perspektivenübernahme. Religion an höheren Schulen, 49 (4), 203–210.

148

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Burden, K., & Hopkins, P. (2016), Barriers and challenges facing pre-service teachers use of mobile technologies for teaching and learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 8(2), 1–20. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016), Conceptualising authentic mobile learning. In D. Churchill, J. Lu, T. Chiu & B. Fox (Eds.), Mobile Learning Design: Theories and Application (pp. 27–42). Singapore: Springer. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2017a), The mobile learning toolkit manual. University of Hull iBooks. Available online: https://books.apple.com/gb/book/the-toolkit/ id1236064983 (Accessed 20 October 2018). Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2017b), iPAC app evaluation rubric. MTTEP. Available online: http://richprocter.co.uk/survey/mttep/rubric/ (Accessed 20 October 2018). Cascales-Martínez, A., Martínez-Segura, M., Pérez-López, D., & Contero, M. (2017), Using an augmented reality enhanced tabletop system to promote learning of mathematics: A case study with students with special educational needs. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 355–380. Donally, J. (2018), Learning Transported. Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Reality für all classrooms. Portland: The International Society for Technology in Education. Dressler, B. (2006), Unterscheidungen. Religion und Bildung Theologische Literaturzeitung Forum, 18(19), 144–150. Furió, D., González-Gancedo, S., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I., & Rando, N. (2013), Evaluation of learning outcomes using an educational iPhone game vs. traditional game. Computers & Education, 64, 1–23. Goodwin, K., & Highfield, K. (2012) iTouch and iLearn: an examination of ‘educational’ Apps. Paper presented at the Early Education and Technology for Children conference, 14–16 March 2012, Salt Lake City, Utah. Herzig, B., & Grafe, S. (2006), Digitale Medien in der Bildung Standortbestimmung und Handlungsempfehlungen für die Zukunft. Studie zur Nutzung digitaler Medien in allgemeinbildenden Schulen in Deutschland. Bonn: Deutsche Telekom. Höllerer, T., & Feiner, S. (2004), Mobile Augmented Reality. Telegeoinformatics: Locationbased Computing and Services. London: Taylor and Francis Books Ltd. Hsieh, M.-C., & Lin, H.-C. (2011), A conceptual study for augmented reality e-learning system based on usability evaluation. Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering, 1, 5–7. Juan, M. C., Mendez-Lopez M., Perez-Hernandez, E., & Albiol-Perez, S. (2014), Augmented reality for the assessment of children’s spatial memory in real settings. PLoS ONE, 9(12) Available online: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113751 (Accessed 20 October 2018). Jung, B. (2013), Virtuelle Welten. In R. Dörner, W. Broll, P. Grimm, & B. Jung (Eds.), Virtual und Augmented Reality (VR/AR) (pp. 65–95). Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer. Käbisch, D. (2014), Religionsunterricht und Konfessionslosigkeit. Eine fachdidaktische Grundlegung, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

VR and AR in Religious Education

149

Kerber, U. (2012), Entdeckendes Lernen mit digitalen Werkzeugen und Web 2.0 im Geschichtsunterricht. In L. Sabine Endeckendes Lernen: Ein Unterrichtsprinzip (pp. 78–93). Baltmansweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015), Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1). Available online: http://journals.coaction.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/14406 (Accessed 20 October 2018). Ludwig, C., & Reimann, C. (2005), Augmented reality: Information at focus. Cooperative Computing & Communication Laboratory, 4(1). Universität Paderborn. Martin-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017), Virtual technologies in education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13 (2), 469–486. Milgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994), A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Information and Systems, 77(12), 1321–1329. Müller, K. (2016), Mit dem Smartphone auf den Spuren Luthers. Ein medienpädagogisches Projekt für den Religionsunterricht und die Konfirmandenarbeit. rpi-Impulse, 16(2), 15–16. Nord, I., & Palkowitsch-Kühl, J. (2017), RELab digital – A project on religious education in a mediatized world (English). Online – Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet, 12(1), 93–124. Prasse, D. (2012), Bedingungen Innovativen Handelns an Schulen. Münster: Waxmann. Puentedura, R. R. (2012), The SAMR model: Background and exemplars. Available online: http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/000073.html (Accessed 20 October 2018). Reusser, K. (2003), ‘E-Learning’ als Katalysator und Werkzeug didaktischer Innovation. Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung, 21(2), 176–191. Schambeck, M. (2013), Interreligiöse Kompetenz. Basiswissen für Studium, Ausbildung und Beruf, Göttingen. Schuck, S., Kearney, M., & Burden, K. (2017), Exploring mobile learning in the third space. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26(2), 121–137. Schweitzer, F. (2003), Elementarisierung im Religionsunterricht: Erfahrungen, Perspektiven, Beispiele. Neukirchen-Vluyn, S.: Mit weiteren Beiträgen von Karl Ernst Nipkow, 9–30. Schweitzer, F. (2014), Interreligiöse Bildung. Religiöse Vielfalt als religionspädagogische Herausforderung und Chance, Gütersloh Verlashaus, Random House GmbH, Munchen. Selman, R. L. (1984), Die Entwicklung sozialen Verstehens. Frankfurt a.M: Entwicklungspsychologische und klinische Untersuchungen. Traxler, J. (2009), Learning in a mobile age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(1), 1–12. Twining, P. (2002), Conceptualising computer use in education: Introducing the computer practice framework (CPF). British Educational Research Journal, 28, 95–110.

150

8

Using Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media Michael Reder, Thomas Rudel

Wildermuth Gymnasium, Kreismedienzentrum Tübingen, Germany

Introduction In this case study, mobile technology was integral to exploring verbal and nonverbal communication in film and additionally the film’s cross-cultural impact. Being able to fundamentally understand cinematic devices and their effects and the knowledge how to use them creatively is and remains indispensable for orientation in the world of moving images. Film education in all its formats makes an undeniably important current contribution to comprehensive audiovisual literacy for everybody. Film, in general, is the narrative leading medium for children and adolescents (LKM 2015) and it fulfils three key functions in terms of growing up: individuation, socialization and enculturation (Abraham & Kepser 2009). Reference point is the children’s and juvenile’s living environment starting with audiovisual storytelling in early childhood and continues into adulthood. Film teaches students a wide range of skills. The most valuable film education activities enhance critical thinking, cultural awareness and creative abilities, and as soon as students are involved in filmmaking, collaboration and cooperation in teams are essential (Film: 21st Century Literacy 2010). Filmmaking is teamwork. With regard to the world of media and technology, which is shaped by access to an abundance of information, rapid changes in technology tools and the ability to collaborate and make individual contributions on an unprecedented scale, effective citizens and (future) workers must be able to exhibit a range of functional and critical thinking skills, such as Information Literacy, Media Literacy and ICT (Information, Communications and Technology) Literacy.

152

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

It is obvious that the so-called 4Cs (communication, collaboration, creativity, critical reflection), as the principles for professional and consequently for educational development, are mirrored here. In 2002 the partnership for twenty-first-century skills (P21) was established as a non-profit organization by an association of business people, educators and politicians. P21 identified a comprehensive set of skills that, along with content mastery, are essential for the complex life and working environment of the twenty-first century: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Content knowledge (English, reading or language arts, world languages, arts, mathematics, economics, science, geography, history, government and civics) (global awareness, financial, economic, business and entrepreneurial literacy). Learning and innovation skills (creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem-solving, communication, collaboration). Information, media and technology skills (Information Literacy, Media Literacy, ICT Literacy). Life and career skills (flexibility and adaptability, initiative and selfdirection, social and cross-cultural skills, productivity and accountability, leadership and responsibility) (http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21framework).

In German classrooms film studies used to be based on literature and therefore films were not taught as independent media; instead they were dealt with using traditional methods, as for example teacher-guided discussions after viewing the complete film, and they were mainly seen in comparison with reference to the literary model, the novel or play the film is based on. This approach is usually an analytical-cognitive one (i.e. with a major focus on theoretical receptive aspects). Not only is there a literary narrative model, but in film, similar to the plays staged in theatres, there is a plurality of medial elements (Surkamp 2010). Therefore, film should be seen as a self-contained medium, a separate genre in literature (Faulstich 2013). As a consequence, approaches to film are different today; they consist of various instances, subject matters, organizational forms and problem areas (Faulstich 2013). According to the Länderkonferenz Medienbildung (2015) the areas of competences and cultural knowledge regarding film at school are in detail: ●●

●●

Film production: production, sound and image editing, presentation. Using/consuming films: watching, effect and impact, critical evaluation.

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media ●●

●●

153

Film analysis: aesthetics of films, language of film and design, context of film, history and theory of film. Film as an element of the media society: film as an economic factor, its political function, sociocultural impact, legal parameters/framework.

Through a coordinated approach, which involves watching and deconstructing film as well as making film, students learn how media is constructed. They have to make their own choices, discuss these choices with their peers and teacher regarding the use of different media, artistic, authorial visions related to the content to be presented and the audience to be reached. This conglomerate of elements leads to a film aesthetic, ergo, a rather holistic approach (see Figure 8.1). Movies are composite media that consist of images, speech, music, sounds. Thus, the film-aesthetic competence enables learners to judge the respective optical, linguistic and additional acoustic codes of a film in their sometimes simultaneous information diversity and polyvalence. This creates a summative concept of the media that cannot be reduced to individual parts (Surkamp

Figure 8.1  Model of film analysis (Reder/Rudel).

154

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

2010). Acquiring film-aesthetic skills means using films as aesthetic artefacts in a receptive, reflective and productive way, i.e. perceiving, understanding, using and shaping them (Surkamp 2010). The acquisition of these skills should ideally transform people in modern societies from consumers to prosumers, i.e. producers and consumers (Toffler 1981). In addition to receptive, productive and communicative competences, films in foreign language teaching also provide access to authentic, cultural content, since they depict the target language contextualized in images, situations and human encounters. Additionally, due to the specific way of reception, cognitive and emotional senses are simultaneously addressed; films very often are easier to comprehend for learners than texts based on written or spoken language only (Henseler et al. 2011).

Short films in language learning, why? Showing full-length feature films in class, however, is very often not possible given the timetable constraints. In contrast, a short film can easily be shown in a lesson, since it offers a complete narrative in a short space of time. Therefore, it can be watched several times with a different focus or pre-planned activity to develop the skills mentioned earlier. Accordingly, students are able to acquire detailed familiarity with the film and to critically engage with the material on a meaningful level. Short films are characterized by gaps, hints and shortages. Thus, interpreting them from different perspectives can be taken advantage of, and, because of their open implication, different topics and basic questions can be dealt with (Abraham 2013). Some of these short films offer little or no dialogue and can be easily exploited in language learning for different levels. In addition to analysing language, they also give students the opportunity to add language by creating their own written, spoken dialogues or inner monologues to the film scenes. To develop teacher trainees’ and teachers’ awareness of verbal and non-verbal communication in film, the short film The Ball by Katja Roberts (eleven minutes) was chosen and thoroughly examined in the course of this case study. We chose to conduct the unit as if we taught pupils at a secondary school in grade 10 or 11. The idea was to have them experience everything from a pupil’s perspective.

But firstly, what is the film about? It is a film about an approximately 10-year-old girl, Amy, playing football between backyard sheds somewhere in the north of England and a boy, Jack,

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

155

watching her. The two of them resourcefully try to get in touch with each other, but every attempt fails since the boy avoids any closer contact. But in a situation of conflict, in which Amy is being mobbed by a group of girls, Jack, who is silent, surprisingly saves her as a knight in his shiny armour and her glorious hero, and they eventually succeed in communicating with each other. The central themes are loneliness, isolation, communication, friendship, mobbing, conflicts, exclusion, youth culture, inclusion, hearing-impaired people and sign language. Spoken language is only one possibility to express oneself. In this film it also plays an important part, since it is the weapon the girls clique chooses against Amy, but it is also the communication channel Amy tries to establish to get in touch with Jack. Besides communication there are different symbols, leitmotifs and aesthetic codes which are used in the film: e.g. the ball, which overcomes distances and tries to establish any kind of connection, communication or friendship between Amy and Jack when it rolls over towards him. Then there is the colour red as a signal colour. Amy’s jersey is red, which makes her the focal point of our attention, since the rest of her environment is rather colourless. Even Jack’s T-shirt is red at the beginning, maybe representing their connection. Then there are many different metaphors like doors and windows, a hole in the fence, the image of the beauty and the beast, and a laser sword as media references among others.

Procedure The first stage was to guide teacher trainees in meta-analysis – classic film deconstruction (camera position, moves, angles, sound and editing of scenes) – along with content-based analysis of the plot, the setting and the characters, to understand the media question of how and where a director directs/guides our attention to (Faulstich 2013). The second stage for this work was to focus on narrative and cross-cultural, sociologic and genre-specific aspects of the film, and the third stage of extended students’ understanding of the narrative (Faulstich 2013) and its overall structure compared to Freytag’s Pyramid (Freytag 1863) or if applicable the Hollywood success model in narratology and comparative mythology, the heroic journey according to which many popular mainstream movies are designed (Campbell 1949). Facial expressions, gestures and body language usually support communication. In the Western world non-verbal symbols and signals are similarly interpreted and support dialogs in films (Henseler et al. 2011). As shown in the film, it can even, at least partly, replace spoken language if there are physical limitations. Reception of films demands active viewers. Student-

156

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

oriented, creative methods help to get viewers involved. Methodologically speaking there are in general three different basic types of activities to access films: pre-viewing, while-viewing and post-viewing activities (Henseler et al. 2011). Typical examples for pre-viewing activities are discussions in buzz groups collecting quality criteria for good films (What makes a good film?), analysing posters or brainstorming central topics. Whenever we teach film, we try to facilitate the use of mobile technology as soon as possible, e.g. in pre-viewing activities. Here in this case, we started out with the assignment to do research on the means of film analysis and models of communication or, alternatively, the students could create their own models first and develop their own hypothesis about successful communication (How does communication between people work?). This way of working enabled students to work at their own speed and divide their labour collaboratively, enabling students to split up into groups of ‘experts’ working on film analysis and communication models simultaneously. Subsequently, when the students started their own production, they were able to form new groups with experts from each group (Mattes 2011). After sharing their individual knowledge, they had to negotiate how to rearrange their ideas in an appropriate way and suggest how to make their film. But before they could do this, they had to present their results, either as by using a presentation tool (Keynote, PowerPoint or similar tools) and/or visualizing them for their peers in a mind map (simple mind/inspiration map). At this point an excursion on how to design and give a presentation would have been possible. The results contained communication theories based on a sender-recipient basis like Laswell’s model (https://www.communicationtheory.org/lasswells-model/), or the Johari window model (https://www.communicationtheory.org/the-johariwindow-model/), or Schulz van Thun’s four-field communication model (https://www.schulz-von-thun.de/die-modelle/das-kommunikationsquadrat) including different elements of film analysis, like camera moves, angles etc. As a next step before watching the film, we asked the students to turn the following blurb text into a trailer: Amy, about ten years old, is playing soccer between terraced houses and garage doors in a run-down working class neighbourhood. Jack, a new neighbour’s son, is watching her from his window. The two make contact with each other in an ingenious way, but Jack avoids any direct encounter. When he resolutely campaigns for Amy in a conflict situation, the opportunity for rapprochement arises.

Students used the app iMovie Trailer on iPads which supported them by providing a pre-installed framework for storyboarding, enabling the students

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

157

to immediately start negotiating different shots or their chosen constellation of characters and the design of various scenes in matters of lighting. Sound is another pre-set element in the app, but sound elements can easily be removed, changed or enriched by dialogues or a narrator’s or commentator’s voice-over. Using the iPAC framework as a guide (Kearney et al. 2012), the app iMovie allows and even demands student-collaboration to a high extent. Creating films is teamwork; thus communication between group members is an essential condition. At the same time students can choose their own speed of working together and how they share tasks in the activity where and whenever they want, which shows that there is a high degree of student agency and potential to personalize the task and the use of the app. Last but not least a real film was shot in which everybody could participate and therefore identify with. The final product is relevant and the app itself and respectively the camera and the microphone are used in a realistic, authentic way as means or tool for an observer and interpreter of scenes. After watching and analysing the short film, pre-service teachers (PSTs) compared their previous findings with those they gained from their classical analysis and added elements to their presentations respectively to their mind maps. The final activity was to add inner monologues either from Amy’s or Jack’s as a voice-over to the original movie (e.g. ‘I did this and you understood that ….’). By only adding an additional soundtrack, the student films turned into new, interesting versions of the original. A change of perspective and a certain individual way to interpret the original action, with a stream of consciousness, added an additional dimension, which could not have been brought about without tablets. In terms of Puentedura’s SAMR model (2014), which is used to identify the level of technology integration in a classroom, here, in this case the original traditional film analysis approach was first enhanced by digital devices; we substituted the way to do research and augmented way of presenting results. But in the following steps we transformed the original task by modifying and even redefining it. By using technology, we created assignments and achieved results which would not have been possible without technology, as for example filming a trailer or adding a voice-over to a film.

Use and purpose of mobile technology The benefit of using mobile technology, especially tablet computers (here iPads) for this work in school or teacher’s training is that one device has many

158

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

functions. It is like a Swiss pocketknife, a so-called all-in-one device. On the one hand, the transfer of any data from one app to any other app is rather simple and can mostly be managed via the camera roll on the device itself. Technologically speaking the devices and most of the basic apps do not require much instruction and can be operated intuitively just by trying them out in their functionality. As a consequence, the pupils and teacher trainees can immediately start working on their assignments; that is, their focus is on the content or the task given and not on the technology. Technology should not push content-based working into the background so now with multifunctional devices, operating and mastering them is simple and pupils and teacher trainees do it intuitively or very often they know similar apps and their functions from their daily routines with their smartphones, so that serious content-based working is possible right from the beginning. Furthermore, mobile devices are mobile and all the film groups could work inside and outside of the classroom, even outside of the building, independent of any location, since for most of the tasks, Wi-Fi was not required. In general, the step-by-step-approach of planning and directing an audiovisual project starts with capturing and visualizing the idea, for example in a movie pitch or a mind map of the core idea, the genre, the themes and structural elements. The second step typically is to design the film treatment to outline the story and character aspects. Usually they read like a short story and can be seen as a first draft. Then as the third step the script is written, followed by the storyboard, then the film is shot, the raw material edited and finally the film is presented. Except for the premiere of the film all the work stages can be completed within a tablet computer. In general, according to Beem (2018), the benefits of mobile devices can be summarized in the 4Cs of mobile learning: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Content: Students can read documents, watch videos and listen to recorded media in a portable format. Compute: Through applications, devices can be used to perform calculations, run programs and deliver computed solutions to student queries. Capture: Devices can be used to easily record sound, video, images and other information, all of which can be stored or shared. Communicate: Students can communicate with students, teachers and others through text, audio and video (Beem 2018).

Utilizing all four C’s of mobile learning can help you focus on lesson plans and expand the way in which students use the devices. What’s more, different

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

159

types of learning are represented; visual learners benefit from photo and video applications, for example, while auditory learners find a facility with recorded assignments. The ways you can utilize a mobile device are as varied as the capabilities for the device itself. Students might record and edit a music video in an afternoon, play memory games with images displayed on cell phones, or do a texting communication exercise requiring one group to describe a drawing to a group in another room, which then tries to replicate it based on the written instructions. Beyond simple functions, custom applications are designed to facilitate the learning process (Beem 2018).

Relevance of filmmaking at school and at teacher education Core curricula in Germany consist of content- and process-related areas of expertise, which are interwoven and related to each other. Process-related competences are the procedures understood and mastered by the students in order to be able to acquire knowledge. These include, on the one hand, general knowledge and skills as a basis and, on the other hand, they represent the goal, e.g. to know, understand, apply symbolic or technical terms; to know and to use methods and procedures of self-learning and reflection methods and learning processes; to recognize and elaborate the context and using it in problem-solving. Content-related competences are about the knowledge students should acquire in a specific subject matter. In German or the foreign languages, the process-related competences are the general cultural techniques: speaking and listening, writing and reading. The competence area ‘speaking and listening’ covers the various forms of communication. ‘Speaking’ includes knowledge and mastery of language norms and rules of conversation as well as a clear articulation, practical-rhetorical abilities and the safe handling of different presentation techniques for topic- and target-oriented speaking in public. The ability to ‘listen’ as an expression of a higher cognitive skill, especially intentional and purposeful listening, is a central goal of language teaching. Successful communication in the personal and academic field always requires both: ability to speak and the willingness to listen. ‘Writing’: Formal and substantive correctness of the language, guiding principles for competence acquisition, independent judgements as well as stylistic confidence establish a lasting personal growth of writing. In addition, the students have the experience to express their individuality in texts and to discover writing as a means of problem-solving, to develop ideas and new perspectives, and not least to develop joy in writing.

160

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

‘Reading’: German and foreign language classes focus on the methods of text analysis and the process of understanding texts. The students learn strategies and methods for analysing and interpreting literary texts, non-fictional texts as well as non-linear texts in various media forms. Content-related skills refer, on the one hand, to literary texts and media and, on the other hand, on usage and reflection of and about language. In matters of media, this is a very wide definition of literature, which includes literary forms that go beyond traditional reading, such as films and their screenplays, storyboards, video clips and others, and open up further literary adaptations for the pupils. The increasing complexity of our media-based society makes reflective media education an important key qualification and thus a core area of ​​school education. Media are an elementary part of the daily life of pupils, which influences their relation to themselves and the world around them and thus their identity. Precisely because this influence is growing steadily, school has the central task of further developing media awareness and media literacy of the students and thus giving them a reflected approach to it to enable a wide variety of media formats. This means constructively using the communicative, productive and creative possibilities of media offerings, both for one’s own development and in communication with others. On the other hand, this also means developing an awareness of the manipulative power of media and its effects on the basis of analytical distancing. The German and foreign language classes should teach the methodical instruments, the strategies and working techniques as well as the necessary knowledge; thus the students understand and use, analyse, interpret and discuss texts of different media forms. This not only means that students can purposefully and critically deal with information and their mediation. They can perceive, analyse and understand literary, theatrical, auditory, pictorial, audiovisual and mixed-media texts as objects with their own aesthetic design. An expanded textual concept forms the basis for this. The promotion of media literacy is therefore directly linked to the promotion of reading literacy (Bildungsplan 2016). Analogously the curricula for teacher trainees reflect the same standards and process- and content-based skills. Teacher trainees apply genre-specific principles and methods of literary didactics. In doing so, they use analytical as well as production- and activity-oriented procedures and also integrate various forms of literature (theatre, readings, film) into their lessons (Ausbildungsplan 2016). With reference to the film chosen, in teacher training this knowledge about successful communication in films and in classrooms is of immense value. On the one hand, teachers learn how to teach students in ‘reading’ films and

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

161

making films in model lessons. On the other hand, teachers technically learn how to make movies (camera positions, camera angle, camera moves, etc., and their impact on viewers) and to apply this knowledge for recording themselves in the classroom either for explanatory films on different subject matters or for supervision purposes in order to get feedback by peers (peer evaluation) or teacher trainers.

Issues and challenges On the one hand, the fundamental necessity to implement media education in general, and here film education in particular, into the curricula of all schools, school types and age groups in German curricula meets some of the needs and requirements of modern and contemporary education in the twenty-first century and was acknowledged in 2016. On the other hand, schools have been left behind in matters of digitalization. In many schools there is a lack of or even no equipment which enables teachers and pupils to work together in any contemporary, modern way. Bandwidth or broadband connections are insufficient and the devices, which are in use, are either old or there are not enough. Wi-Fi is another, very controversial, topic for some schools, since parents, teachers and administrators are concerned that the radiation emitted by access points could prompt health issues. For example, at Wildermuth-Gymnasium in Tübingen there are about forty desktop computers in two computer labs plus there are two computer carts, each with twenty laptops for our 1100 pupils from grades 5–12. Another limiting factor is that officially there is no Wi-Fi for the entire school. Not even BYOD would work. But we have whiteboards in almost every classroom, which can be used – of course mostly by teachers – for presentations and for internet access. Consequently, access to technology for pupils is very limited and therefore modern, contemporary learning is difficult. I as a media-pedagogical advisor can always get latest technology from the media centre and bring it to my classroom to have students work with it, but this is not possible for most of my colleagues. Whereas many of them do not really want to implement technology of any kind into their lessons, they do not feel confident to use it, or the tech-network is not reliable and most importantly they say that they would need further education to get to know how they could do it. Even in teachers training classes some colleagues hesitate to teach how to use technology in classrooms and therefore not all of our young in-service teachers have gone through a course of technology-based teaching and learning. But we

162

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

should not forget that the use of technology does not automatically turn a lesson into a modern one. Our thesis: New technology does not trigger modern digital didactic. A good example is the attempt to integrate smartboards into classrooms hoping that every initiated activity in the classroom would measure up with the criteria of modern learning. But for most pupils and teachers the lessons and therefore the teaching and learning process are still teacher-centred, ex cathedra, and have not changed at all. Learner activity is low.

What is modern, contemporary learning and teaching? It is very interesting to start with a look into traditional ways of teaching and learning of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Johan Amos Comenius defined education as an artful instruction that teaches wisdom to one’s mind, language and hands. Jean Jacques Rousseau, in his novel Émile, ou De l’éducation, is not really in favour of the book-based school, but instead he promotes a sensual-holistic approach to learning. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi’s thesis is that you do not learn to act by talking about other people’s actions, but by acting on your own in an action-oriented way with heart, head and hand (Meyer 1994). These holistic ideas suggest that learning is always a practical activity; this is, it is always linked to places, occasions, conditions, context and the personality of the learner and teacher. If at all even in theory-based learning, knowledge can only be acquired with heart, head and hand (Meyer 1994). Thus teaching methodological theory knowledge should be presented in such a way that it can be acquired in a holistic-experiential learning process. As shown that is by no means new, but especially in a modern, contemporary learning setting, these ideas are experiencing a certain renaissance. Philippe Wampfler (2017) describes modern, contemporary learning first of all as an activity which is meaningful, collaborative; it forms learning networks and documents learning progress in these networks; it is autonomous (independent from place or time) and personalized; it considers criticism as a resource; it makes use of interactive media; it takes place in projects; and it is guarded, not instructed. Taking all these requirements into consideration, we have to rethink how school education is organized and conducted. Wampfler does not explicitly mention the use digital devices as one of these criteria of modern learning, but it is evident that especially mobile devices, as state-of-the-art technology, are very helpful to fulfil these principles. Tablets

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

163

enable students to learn wherever and whenever they want. Pupils are really mobile and can easily carry them anywhere. Everybody can learn at his individual speed and collaboration with others is easy, even if there is a spatial distance between them, as long as there is a goods network infrastructure. If we, one day, started to think beyond the barriers of single subjects like math, foreign languages or sciences and started to give students authentic project assignments, learning would eventually become more like tasks designed in professional fields with focus on problem-solving and therefore more authentic. To change learning would mean to transform the role of the teacher too. A teacher used to be an omniscient expert who passed his knowledge on to pupils. In addition, she/he was an educator and role model. The aims of education were diligence, discipline, order and obedience. The whole learning process was highly hierarchically structured. With the idea of contemporary, modern learning, which in our opinion is currently digital, the learning process has completely to be changed and with it the role of the teacher. A modern teacher is rather an advisor in the process of learning, an organizer of learning opportunities, a moderator in different scenarios, a manager of learning networks or a mediator in conflictual situations or, in the best case, a confidant. Based on the twentyfirst-century skills that pupils should acquire at school, modern learning and teaching goals are independent and critical thinking, creativity, the ability to develop ideas together with others, problem-solving and the ability to get along with constructive criticism. Learning itself is becoming a more and more democratic process; knowledge is accessible to everyone, anywhere and at all times. Every pupil can do research on almost anything regardless of place and time, but he might need help and advice on how to find out the right result, how to distinguish between fake results and the truth, and finally how to organize and present these results in an appropriate way. As shown earlier, these are important, higher-order, process-related skills. As a consequence, we need to rethink the architecture of schools, school buildings and classrooms, too. Pupils sitting at desks positioned next and behind to each other do not correspond with modern ways of working and learning together; collaboration is hardly possible; communication is only with the teacher in front or the neighbour. Modern teaching and learning needs new classroom arrangements with open learning spaces. A good example is Albrecht-Ernst-Gymnasium in Oettingen, Germany. There, in a modern learning environment, flexible classroom spaces organically integrate digital mobile technology in order to help pupils and teachers to better engage into the subject matter and to facilitate the mix of independent, small-group and whole-

164

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

class learning. Additionally, by transforming shared areas such as hallways or auditoriums into supplementary learning spaces, the school offers their teachers new opportunities to foster collaboration between pupils who feel more comfortable outside of the classroom, in open spaces where they can choose to use smaller cubicles. Characteristically, a modern learning environment integrates three fundamental elements: digital mobile devices connected to a network, such as tablets or even smartphones (BYOD); audiovisual tools like projectors or touchscreen displays; and furniture that allows students to learn in different ways – centralized, decentralized, time- and location-independent. The combination of well-designed rooms and modern teaching scenarios unfold their full effect, allowing students to learn more independently and individually. But classrooms equipped with flexible furniture and mobile devices are the one thing, teaching and learning in a meaningful way another. Above all, digital education means educating teachers and students on how to creatively and productively use mobile devices for their lessons and significantly make use of modern surroundings. Effective professional training and development is the golden key to getting teachers and their pupils on board. Some courage and many opportunities to try things out are also part of it. Even the best modern learning environment implementations won’t be without mistakes.

Effects and impact On the one hand, we are teachers at our secondary schools, where we teach classes from grades 5–12 in our major subjects (English (ESL), Physical Education, German, Geography and media education); all of our case studies are based on our experience in real classrooms. Secondly, on the hand we are media-pedagogical advisors for teachers and schools at the Tübingen media centre and conduct classes at different types of school, from primary up to vocational training classes in the field of media, to pupils as well as teachers. Additionally, we conduct workshops for educators all over Germany, in which we exemplarily show some of our case studies as best practice models to promote mobile learning with tablets. On occasion we are invited by the teacher’s training seminar Tübingen to conduct classes with trainees in media education and in how to integrate mobile technology into learning and teaching. These case studies serve as practical examples and demonstrate that results are feasible and achievable for everyone. Whenever we do these

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

165

workshops with teacher trainees, we mostly get very positive feedback and can see a lot of enthusiasm in our future teachers. In-service teachers very often tend to ask for the added value of the use of tablets in classrooms. To us, this question reveals many uncertainties and mental reservations. We usually come up with explanations on how modern, contemporary education could be like, how the role of teacher (and the pupil) might change and how modern learning spaces could lead to better results. But many colleagues are still very sceptical. Axel Krommer (2018) talks about new targets and goals that can be achieved by using mobile technology, which could not be reached without it. He uses an analogy of how the invention of the aeroplane enabled people to consider new destinations which were completely beyond their imagination previously. That does not mean to give up old technologies and old goals; it only means that new goals need new means, tools or devices. If you want to go to the bakery you still walk or go by bike, but if you want to go to Madagascar, you will probably rather take the plane (Krommer 2018). To us the crucial question is, why should we not use mobile technology? It is available and all the time all around us. Sceptics and alarmists like Spitzer (2018) want to prevent the use of digital mobile technology at schools, as it just happened in France, because they would make our kids stupid, fat, sad, depressed. Digital media lead to isolation and threaten society as a whole. Digital media are in the hands of a few corporations that have only one thing in mind: to make users addicted in order to be able to manipulate them, for example, through advertising (Spitzer 2018). But digital devices are part of our society, of our culture. They are modern means of communication. They are part of the daily life of adolescents, the generation of the digital natives. Their use has become a general cultural technique. Excluding and ignoring such an important element of the daily life of young people at school cannot lead to deliberate, purposeful and moderate handling of these devices. A further aspect, which we frequently have to discuss, is the claim that pedagogy comes before technology. It is also manifested in the KMK paper (KMK 2016). Again Krommer (2018) has a suitable answer: From the field of general didactics there has been a rational alternative to the short-sighted ‘X comes before Y’ models for more than half a century. It is based on the insight that teaching is a multidimensional process of the greatest complexity of factors that can theoretically only be justified by pointing out the interdependencies between the specific factors. Instead of continuing to claim ‘pedagogy before technology’, and to tend to ignore the influence of technology on pedagogy and the influence of media on culture and society, it is therefore

166

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

important to analyse the interdependencies of the factors that constitute learning under the conditions of digitality (Krommer 2018). As a conclusion these case studies show how important and useful mobile digital devices can be and how they can foster the learning and teaching process. They have, despite all the criticism, become an indispensable part of our lives. We use digital devices everyday and everywhere, in professional and in recreational fields. We think that schools are obliged to help pupils to find the benefits of these tools as well as a reflective and responsible way to deal with the challenges that come along with them.

Future plans and conclusion Schools and school districts In Germany a governmental programme is planning to provide subsidies for schools and school districts to enhance the infrastructure for digital learning and teaching at schools. First of all, broadband connection with fibre-optic technology should be available at every school, Wi-Fi structures should be improved and especially mobile devices should be integrated. The essential precondition is an individual media concept and development plan (Medienentwicklungsplan, MEP), a step-by-step process or roadmap for technology implementation, which outlines how to plan, implement and sustain the use of technology within a school to advance teaching and learning. Teachers in technology-enriched classrooms and schools use digital mobile tools to help all students learn and grow by personalizing student learning and differentiating instruction to address the needs of struggling students, including students with disabilities. Case studies and best practice examples, which give details of the experiences of other districts and schools as they implemented and expanded technology use, are very helpful and guide schools through this systemic planning process and develop professional learning opportunities within the school.

Teachers and teacher training Institutions responsible for teacher training and professional development of teachers have to take into account that if we want to evoke twenty-first-century skills like collaboration, communication, critical thinking and creativity in pupils, we have to train our teachers accordingly. Teachers have to take on new

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

167

roles; they become facilitators of knowledge, instructional designers, coaches and mentors. At the same time they need to use new didactic approaches and have to apply new methods in order to meet the requirements of modern learning and teaching. Teachers should become more open to multiple perspectives on problems and willing to experiment in their teaching methods and use innovative ways which include mobile technology to be flexible and adaptable to new demands. Benefits of mobile education are that content can be individualized and customized to each pupil. Mobile devices demand a high degree of interaction and can therefore result in a higher engagement of learners, which leads to an improved educational experience.

Pupils The digital classroom requires a shift from a teacher-centred to pupil-centred environment. Mobile learning and teaching can happen anywhere at any time. By expanding the classroom beyond the four walls of a classroom into the community, learning is changing into a combination of self-study with interactions between learners, peers and teachers, and it can be used to facilitate learning in traditional ways, on-campus, or it can happen at home, e.g. flipped classroom. This pupil-centred approach of learning requires pupils to be actively involved and take more responsibility for their own learning. Learners are required to become proficient with the technology mandatory for classwork. They have to use new means of communication with both peers and teachers. They have to strengthen their interdependency through collaboration with their peers and use background knowledge which they have to interpret, implement, analyse and evaluate in order to create a new product. Subsequently we need to find new forms of assignments and new ways of assessing the results. If pupils are engaged in authentic tasks that have a connection to the real world, they should be allowed to collaborate and communicate to solve the problems given together and reflect on the outcome. We need to give students the opportunity to take ownership for their learning. They should move towards becoming developers of their own learning rather than consumers of learning content given to them.

References Abraham, U. (2013), Kurzspielfilme im Deutschunterricht. In Praxis Deutsch 237/2013 herausgegeben von Abraham. Seelze: U. Friedrich.

168

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Abraham, U., & Kepser, M. (2009), Literaturdidaktik Deutsch. Eine Einführung. 3rd edn. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Ausbildungsplan (2016), Vorbereitungsdienst für die Laufbahn des höheren Schuldienstes an Gymnasien. http://llpa-bw.de/site/pbs-bw-new/get/documents/ KULTUS.Dachmandant/KULTUS/Dienststellen/llpa-bw/pdf/160323%20 Ausbildungsplan%202016_März%20-%20final.pdf (Accessed 29 November 2018). Beem, J. (2018), An Introduction to Mobile Learning. https://www.teachthought.com/ technology/a-beginners-guide-to-mobile-learning/ (Accessed 29 November 2018). Bildungsplan (2016), http://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/Startseite (Accessed 29 November 2018). Campbell, J. (1949), The Hero with a Thousand Faces (3rd edn. 2008). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Faulstich, W. (2013), Grundkurs Filmanalyse (3rd edn. 2013). Paderborn: Fink Verlag. Film: 21st Century Literacy Consortium (2010), Integrating Film into Education. https://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/downloads/film-21st-century-literacyadvocacy-report.pdf (Accessed 29 November 2018). Freytag, G. (1863), Die Technik des Dramas. Darmstadt: unveränderter Nachdruck (1969). Henseler, R, Möller, S., & Surkamp, C. (2011), Filme im Englischunterricht. Grundlagen, Methoden. Kallmeyer, Seelze: Genres. The Johari Window Model (2019), Available online: https://www.communicationtheory. org/the-johari-window-model/ (Accessed 29 July 2019). Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 1, 20. Krommer, A. (2018), Warum der Grundsatz “Pädagogik vor Technik” bestenfalls trivial ist. In A. Krommer (Ed.), Bildung unter Bedingungen der Digitalität. Argumente – Gedanken – Notizen, 16 04.2018. https://axelkrommer.com/2018/04/16/warumder-grundsatz-paedagogik-vor-technik-bestenfalls-trivial-ist/#more-638 (Accessed 29 November 2018). Kultusministerkonferenz (2016), Bildung in der digitalen Welt. Strategie der Kultusministerkonferenz. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 08. 12.2016. Berlin: Eigendruck. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/veroeffentlichungen_ beschluesse/2016/2016_12_08Bildung-in-der-digitalen-Welt.pdf (Accessed 29 November 2018). Laswell’s model (2019), Available online: www.communicationtheory.org/lasswellsmodel/ (Accessed 29 July 2019). LKM Länderkonferenz Medienbildung (Ed.) (2015), Filmbildung. Kompetenzorientiertes Konzept für schulische Filmbildung. https://www.visionkino. de/fileadmin/user_upload/lehrplan/Kompetenzorientiertes_Konzept_Filmbildung_ fu%CC%88r_die_Schule_2009.pdf (Accessed 29 November 2018). Mattes, W. (2011), Methoden für den Unterricht: Kompakte Übersicht für Lehrende und Lernende. Neuauflage, Braunschweig: Schöningh Verlag im Westermann Schulbuch Auflage.

Mobile Technology to Enhance the Teaching of Media

169

Meyer, H. (1994), UnterrichtsMethoden I. Theorieband. 6. Berlin: Aufl. Cornelsen. Partnership for 21st Century Learning (P21®) (o. J.): Framework for 21st century learning. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework (Accessed 29 November 2018). Puentedura, R., & Spark PDX (2014), (Video) https://youtu.be/qN4J6AfbpbA (Accessed 29 November 2018). Schulz van Thun’s Four Field Communication Model (2019), Available online: https:// www.schulz-von-thun.de/die-modelle/das-kommunikationsquadrat (Accessed 29 July 2019). Spitzer, M. (2018), Die Smartphone-Epidemie: Gefahren für Gesundheit. Stuttgart: Bildung und Gesellschaft Klett-Cotta. Surkamp, C. (2010), Zur Bedeuting Filmästhetischer Kompetenz aus Sicht der unterschiedlichen Fächer. In M. Kepser (Ed.), Fächer der schulischen Filmbildung: Deutsch, Englisch (pp. 85–108). München: Geschichte u.a. kopaed. Toffler, A. (1981), The Third Wave. London: Pan Books Ltd. Wampfler, P. (2017), Zeitgemäßes Lernen. In P. Wampfler (Ed.), Schule Social Media, 5 November 2017. https://schulesocialmedia.com/2017/10/31/grafik-zeitgemaesseslernen/

170

9

Using Video for Self-reflection in Teacher Training Education Richard Baldwin

University of Borås, Sweden

The use of video in teacher education The use of video technology in teacher education can be seen as a response to some of the criticisms made of the features of teacher training. One of these criticisms is that theories of learning are too abstract and lack the vitality and engagement of the classroom. Loughran (2006), for example, suggests that the pedagogy of teacher education must go way beyond the transmission of information about teaching. In a similar way, Masats and Dooly (2011:1152) argue that we need to go beyond demonstrating ‘teacher strategies’ and that ‘teacher training should encourage pre-service and in-service teachers to learn how to observe, reflect and think critically on their own teaching strategies’. Furthermore, it is often argued that one of the key challenges of pre-service teacher education is to bridge the gap between theory and practice (Masats & Dooly 2011; Seidel et al. 2013). Many argue that video technology is a way of bridging the gap and can thereby help to transform teacher education and professional development (Smith & Krumsvik 2007; Lazarus & Olivero 2009). Summarizing the research in the field, Orland-Barak and Maskit (2017: 52) conclude that video technology can help expose and confront gaps between what student teachers, teachers and mentors say they learn, think they  do and actually do. As such the use of video as a reflection tool not only  opens up new perspectives for observation in learning to teach and

172

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

mentoring but also contributes to creating more relevant connections between theory and practice.

Video technology provides a way of addressing some of the criticisms of teacher education by allowing a more direct engagement with the classroom and providing the possibility of capturing, viewing and reviewing processes of teaching and learning. In the case of pre-service teachers, the process of filming and then using the footage to analyse aspects of teaching means that they are put in a situation where they are required to be active in relation to teaching in several respects: recording, selecting sequences of interest, motivating their choices and commenting on what is made available for inspection (Säljö 2009). Research has shown that video can provide a resource for documentation that can potentially lead to a reflective perspective on teaching. Video can allow the teacher or student teacher to reflect away from the immediacy of experience and help to enable a deeper analysis from an ‘outside in’ perspective (Bengtsson 1995). Research has shown that video technology as a reflective tool can help pre-service teachers to reflect more deeply and overtly on their practice (Sherin 2003; Smith & Krumsvik 2007; Lazarus & Olivero 2009). Sherin (2003:20), for example, found that the watching of video footage allowed pre-service teachers to improve their ability to analyse lessons by providing ‘a shift of analysis from a chronological description of a lesson to a description that highlighted key elements of what took place’. Smith and Krumsvik (2007) argue that an important aspect of the use of video technology in teacher education is that it provides both teacher educators and pre-service teachers with ‘hands-on’ experience with ICT and multimodality, thereby increasing their digital competence. The use of video also speaks to the digitally literate generation of students, both within teacher education and in the practice field. Added to this is the fact that the pre-service students that are the focus of this chapter used mobile technology both to film their teaching practice and as part of the reflection process. Mobile technology has become for many people an essential means for connecting with the world in general and with their social environment in particular. Aubusson et al. (2009:233), among others, argue that mobile technology is ideally suited to allow reflection-inaction and to capture the spontaneity of learning moments, pointing to the positive influence that artefacts captured through the use of mobile technologies can have on enabling the ‘sharing, analysis and synthesis of classroom experiences by teachers and students’, which in turn can lead to the improvement of the classroom learning environment.

Using Video for Self-Reflection

173

Issues and challenges connected to the use of video as a means of reflection There are a number of challenges connected to the use of video as a means of reflection. Lazarus and Olivero (2009:262–265) discuss the following problem areas: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Seeing oneself in practice is not an easy process. Creating a video-embedded paper can be difficult. The process may be more time-consuming than writing a traditional essay. Having to cut down lessons to essential elements is difficult. The camera does not always pick up what the writer wants/hopes for. One may miss significant moments in the lesson which the author has chosen to omit or was unaware of. Reflecting on progress may be desirable but is not always easy. There may be ethical issues of privacy and confidentiality attached to the filming process.

An important issue raised in some of the literature is the question of the level of support that teacher students might require in the reflection process itself. Reflecting on one’s own performance is difficult and can be a challenging process. Sitzmann et al. (2010: 180) suggest: Accurately self-assessing one’s performance is intrinsically difficult. Learners must have a clear understanding of the performance domain in question. They also must be willing to consider all aspects of their knowledge levels (not just the favorable) and to overcome the egocentrism that results in people assuming they are above average in most aspects of their lives.

Kleinknech and Gröschner (2016: 46) argue that pre-service teachers need help, suggesting: Pre-service teachers who have limited practical experience and theoretical knowledge … need instructional support and direct scaffolding to benefit from video-based learning opportunities more than in-service teachers. We assume that this is especially true when preservice or student teachers analyse their own practices, which has been described as a meaningful … but also cognitive and emotionally challenging process.

As far as the types of guidance and support provided in the reflection process, feedback from teacher trainers as well as student colleagues can play an important

174

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

role. Kleinknech and Gröschner (2016) found that prompts and structured peer and expert comments might be helpful in learning to give and deal with feedback that is regarded as one of the most important tools for learning and professional development during the teacher’s career. It offers one possibility to broaden preservice teachers’ self-reflection and especially to help them to evaluate situations in a more balanced manner and explain their evaluations in a rather structured, analytical, and (self-)critical way. (p. 54)

The use of video in the local setting Brouwer (2011: 3) outlines three areas of application for video technology in teacher education: orientation, support and assessment. The focus of this chapter is on support, the second area of application. In this application, teachers or student teachers enable themselves to be filmed and then use the footage to analyse their own teaching in private or in cooperation with colleagues. In the case study presented in this chapter, video technology was introduced into two courses within a pre-service teacher trainer programme at the University of Boras, Sweden, in 2015. The courses were for pre-service teachers studying to become teachers of both English and Swedish. As part of their teaching placement, the pre-service teachers were required to arrange for one or more of their lessons to be video-recorded. The introduction of the video technology aspect was motivated by the belief that its use could support the student teachers’ reflective processes. The pre-service teachers used mobile technology to capture moments from the lessons that they had held during their teaching placement. After filming, they reviewed and edited the video footage using video editing software. Once the editing process was complete, they then created a digital paper that included a total of about five minutes embedded video, which was published and uploaded to a teaching platform. As far as the contents of the papers were concerned, the task involved analysing and reflecting on the chosen film sequences. The preservice teachers were asked to reflect on what learning they felt was occurring in the chosen film clips and connect their reflections to wider literature on teaching and learning as necessary. Once the papers were written, the pre-service teachers were required to orally present them (along with the video recordings) to their student colleagues and a course teacher, as well as take part in an analysis and group discussion based on the contents of each of the papers presented. Finally,

Using Video for Self-Reflection

175

and before being assessed, they were able to amend the contents of their paper if necessary, based on the points raised during the discussions. For the students taking the Swedish course, the paper and presentation were in the Swedish language, while in the English course, the paper and presentation were in English.

Research questions The research presented here concerns firstly the kinds of issues taken up in the pre-service teachers’ reflection papers, including the relationship between text and video and the references made to theories of teaching and learning in the reflection process part of the text. The second question concerns the effect and impact on two groups of pre-service teachers of creating and using a video as a basis for reflection during their initial teacher training education.

The data produced Data on the contents of the video-embedded papers was produced through an analysis of the content within individual papers, in particular content relating to reflections that concerned aspects of teaching and learning. Data on the effect and impact on pre-service teachers was produced from comments made in the video-embedded papers themselves, as well as in an online questionnaire that the 50 per cent of all the students filled in after they had written, presented and discussed their papers.

The kinds of reflections made in the student papers This section contains a brief overview of the kinds of reflections made in the pre-service teachers’ video-embedded papers. The overview shows that all of the papers included description of events, but also some kind of reflection. All the students discussed areas for improvement. More generally, the reflections in the papers covered both positive and negative aspects, but with negative comments being the most common. The kinds of reflection associated with the film clips chosen by the preservice teachers varied in nature. Some, for example, wrote they saw things

176

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

in the film clips that they had not known about before and therefore had led to reflection. Others included film clips that showed moments in class that they remembered as being a moment for reflection at the time of filming or that showed the consequences of a change that they had made as a result of reflections made while teaching. In these texts, the pre-service teachers used the film clips to illustrate a point or as an example of an issue that resulted in some kind of change made earlier. In a few texts, the reflections made in the text do not appear to have any direct reference to the film clips chosen in the texts themselves. In these texts, the film clips are described rather than reflected on. A few pre-service teachers connected their reflections to the demands of the school curriculum, and only a few of the texts included references to theories of teaching and learning in the reflection process part of the text. In the eighteen papers written as part of the Swedish course, the main themes addressed by the students in their papers were as follows. Where more than one pre-service teacher reflected on a particular theme, the number of persons is shown in brackets: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Speed of delivery (3) Whiteboard organization (2) Physical position in classroom (2) Suitability of the lesson Covering key lesson stages/concepts (3) Body language (5) Confidence in role as teacher Level of preparation (2) Interaction with pupils (7) Variation in teaching methods (2) Types of questions asked to pupils (4) Clearness of instructions (4) Timing and order of activities (2) Pupil participation.

In the nine papers written as part of the English course, the main themes addressed by the pre-service teachers in their papers were as follows. Where more than one pre-service teacher reflected on a particular theme, the number of persons is shown in brackets: ●●

Trying strategies to get pupils to speak English (2)

Using Video for Self-Reflection ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

177

Whiteboard organization The types of question asked to pupils Trying to include all the pupils in the classroom The student teachers own level of English (3) The amount of target language use in class Lesson structure Adapting the lesson plan.

Evidence of the effect and impact on student teachers The pre-service teachers’ reaction to using the video as a method of reflection was overwhelmingly positive. All of the individuals who completed the questionnaire felt that they had managed to understand classroom situations better because of the use of video. Furthermore, all of those who completed the questionnaire believed that video could be an aid to better understanding how theory could be used in practice. Finally, everyone who completed the survey felt that video should be used more often in connection with the practicum. In the comments made by pre-service teachers, some were initially somewhat negative to the task, with a number of them saying that they felt the task was difficult and had made them feel nervous. Others felt they were unsure of what the task was about. One respondent admitted that they had felt incredibly nervous but added, ‘I’m glad we did it because it’s really only when things are difficult that you learn.’ Others wrote that despite their initial fears, the task was worthwhile. One pre-service teacher wrote, for example: It was a daunting task. The idea of ​​having to film and watch yourself on film was difficult in the beginning, but that quickly changed when the benefits of the task became clear.

Another felt: This was both one of the hardest and most educational assignments I have done. I was uncomfortable looking at myself in the videos, as I believe most of us would be. But after a while when I had looked at the videos a couple of times it started to become interesting. I became aware of things which in the future will improve both my English and my teaching.

178

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

The benefits of analysing the video footage were taken up by many of the preservice teachers. One concluded that it had been useful to ‘reflect and see how you are in class, what to think about and what to fix’. Another confessed: In the beginning I was a little bit sceptical of this task. I thought it would not show me much, but I was wrong. If I had not recorded myself I would not have seen my own development as clearly.

Another felt that the filming process has helped me to reflect in a completely different way, the reflections felt more real after analyzing myself with help of a film clip. You see yourself in a much clearer way and it has helped me a lot.

Another respondent suggested that it ‘was extremely rewarding to see myself in situations which both were comfortable and uncomfortable. It has helped me to improve’. Many of the pre-service teachers felt that creating the videoembedded paper had enabled them to see positive aspects of their teaching. One individual claimed that ‘if I had not recorded myself I would not have seen my own development as clearly’. Another commented: I often doubt myself when it comes to English, although this task have opened up my eyes and shown me that I have developed, even if it is a tiny, tiny bit.

Many of the pre-service teachers felt that working with the task had been an important learning experience. One felt that the examination had been ‘the best task we have had during the teaching placement periods so far’. Many of the respondents felt that the process had helped them see their development towards becoming a teacher; and in the words of one student, show ‘progression and giving insight into what’s good and what needs to be improved’. Another respondent made the point that the process had made them focus more on their own role as an educator rather than on their teaching placement supervisor’s ‘unique way of teaching’. Another argued that the process had helped bring theory and practice closer together. The individual argued: There is a difference between planning a moment and then actually performing it. When standing in front of the class, interaction is needed to make students feel part of their education and by filming a lesson, you can see how planning works out in practice. I absolutely believe that it is a way of understanding how theory can be used in practice.

According to the same person, the video footage had made it helpful to ‘see how I interact with the pupils, how I took onboard their suggestions, and a feeling for how they responded to my lesson’.

Using Video for Self-Reflection

179

The benefits of presenting their papers to each other in a follow-up session were taken up by a number of the pre-service teachers. One noted that ‘when we showed each other our films it felt very rewarding and not at all as scary as I initially thought’. Another suggested, ‘The follow-up activity where we shared good and bad experiences made me feel better because it showed that one was not alone with the kind of difficulties I had had.’ One of the respondents concluded that ‘it was helpful to evaluate not just my own but also others role as a teacher.’ The comments from the pre-service teachers suggest that the followup session provided an important basis for self-reflection and progression. Feedback from classmates, as well as teachers, was appreciated. According to one student, getting ‘feedback from classmates and the teacher was of great benefit as they can see stuff which I couldn’t see myself ’. The influence of the completed task on the relationship between the teaching placement and the rest of the students’ education was taken up by one of the pre-service teachers. The respondent suggested that completed papers captured ‘concrete “proof ” … of unique situations during the teaching placement which otherwise might fall into oblivion in an academic text’. Another developed similar arguments, suggesting that the contents of the papers could not only be used as a means for showing pre-service teachers’ development, but also as input and reflection on the contents of the education programme itself. The fact that the pre-service teachers in many cases were only able to film themselves and not their interactions with pupils was taken up as a negative aspect by many of the students. In one comment a respondent felt: It was a shame that we did not get to film the pupils. The material that you really would like to have is the interaction with the students.

Another made the same point, suggesting: In order to develop more as a teacher, it is probably necessary to allow our pupils to be filmed – it is after all our pupils that we are here for.

Many of the respondents felt that the use of video as a means of reflection should be a more integral part of their education. One student expressed the wish that ‘we use video papers more often. It was so informative and very positive for my development.’ Another felt: It has never been so clear to me what I need to work on and what I am actually doing well. Without doubt video papers should be an integral part of the teaching placement as well as the rest of education at the University.

180

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Discussion The findings presented in this chapter show that video technology can help pre-service teachers to analyse and reflect on the lessons carried out during their teaching placement. The comments made by pre-service teachers within their video-embedded papers and in an online questionnaire show that they were without exception positive to the idea of using video as a method of reflection. As such, the findings presented in this chapter are in line with those in previous studies which have shown that video can help pre-service teachers to reflect more deeply on their practice. The kinds of issues reflected on in the papers written by the pre-service teachers studying the course in Swedish included such themes as body language, interaction with pupils, the types of questions asked to pupils and the clearness of instructions. The pre-service teachers studying the course in English took up similar issues but also took up issues such as strategies to get pupils to speak English, the amount of English spoken in class as well as introspective reflections on their own level of English production. It appears that the use of the English as a foreign language in the lessons that were recorded led to more focus being put on the level and scope of the language used in class. The findings show too, however, that the relationship between text and video differed between pre-service teachers. Some of the pre-service teachers described seeing things in the film clips which they had not known about before and that the film clips had acted as a catalyst for reflection. At the other end of the scale, the reflections made did not have any clear connection to the film clips chosen. The video clips included were mainly described in the text rather than reflected on. Only a few of the texts included references to theories of teaching and learning in the reflection process part of the text. These findings echo those found in previous research. Lazarus and Olivero (2009), for example, found that pre-service teacher reflection was evident in all the video-embedded papers they studied but that the level and depth of reflection included was variable. This raises the important issue of how much freedom pre-service teachers are allowed to have in deciding on the contents of their video-embedded papers. In the two courses discussed in this case study, the participants were given complete freedom to decide on what issues they decided to reflect on in their papers. However, there is perhaps merit in suggesting that some of the participants in this study could have benefited from more support with the reflection process generally, both in terms of clearer instructions and/ or scaffolding. As Sitzmann et al. (2010) have pointed out, self-reflection is a

Using Video for Self-Reflection

181

difficult and challenging process and student teachers probably need a clearer understanding of the performance question. The benefits of presenting their papers to other pre-service teachers, as well as the teacher trainer, in a follow-up session were taken up by many. The feedback provided by classmates and teacher created new areas for reflection on aspects of the classroom situation which they had been unable to see themselves. As one of the teacher trainers who took part in the follow-up activities, I can vouch for the importance of discussing the contents of papers in small groups, which more often than not enabled the discussions to take place at a higher conceptual level and brought aspects of theory and practice closer together. As Kleinknech and Gröschner (2016) have noted, peer and expert comments can broaden preservice teachers’ self-reflection and help them to evaluate situations in a more balanced, analytical and critical way.

Future plans for extending this case study Many of the pre-service teachers in this study felt that there should be an increased use of video as an aid to reflection in their education. As a result of the positive response to the tasks, similar types of examination involving the use of video technology have been introduced in more and more areas within the teacher education programme at the university. For some of the pre-service teachers, this means that they will be able to complete two video-aided reflections and have the opportunity to reflect on their progress between the two filming opportunities. As far as research aspects of this case study are concerned, a further study is in progress where the nature and quality of the pre-service teachers’ reflection on their professional practice will be examined in more detail. The study involves attempts to give pre-service teachers support in the reflection process connected to the use of video. In addition to the use of video technology, a didactic tool that visualizes ethics in teaching was used to help students in their reflective process. Finally, there are a number of ethical issues of privacy and confidentiality attached to the filming process involved in the examination tasks completed by the pre-service teachers in this study. In their comments, a number of the participants complained that they were only able to film themselves and not their interactions with pupils and which they regarded as being negative. It seems unlikely that these matters will be any easier to negotiate in the future. Since the study, the General Data Protection Regulation has been introduced in Europe, introducing stronger rules on data protection and meaning that people

182

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

have more control over their personal data. These matters will probably make filming within schools more and more difficult to arrange and will unfortunately negatively affect the possibilities of including examinations based on the use of video technology during the teaching placement in the future.

References Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2009), Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: Benefits, obstacles, and issues. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 233–247. Bengtsson. J. (1995), What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 23–32. Brouwer, N. (2011), Imaging teacher learning: A review on the use of digital video for preservice teacher education and professional development. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Kleinknecht, M., & Gröschner, A. (2016), Fostering preservice teachers’ noticing with structured video feedback: Results of an online- and video-based intervention study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 45–56. Lazarus, E., & Olivero, F. (2009), Videopapers as a tool for reflection on practice in initial teacher education, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(3), 255–267. Loughran, J. J. (2006), Developing a Pedagogy of Teacher Education: Understanding Teaching and Learning about Teaching. London: Routledge. Masats, D., & Dooly, M. (2011), Rethinking the use of video in teacher education: A holistic approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1151–1162. Orland-Barak, L., & Maskit, D. (2017), Methodologies of Mediation in Professional Learning. Cham: Springer. Säljö, R. (2009), Videopapers and the emergence of analytical perspective on teaching practices. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(3), 315–323. Seidel, T., Blomberg, G., & Renkl, A. (2013), Instructional strategies for using video in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 56–65. Sherin, M. (2003), New perspectives on the role of video in teacher education. In Jere Brophy (Ed.), Using Video in Teacher Education (Advances in Research on Teaching, Volume 10) (pp. 1–27). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010), Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(2), 169–191. Smith, K., & Krumsvik, R. (2007), Video papers – A means for documenting practitioners’ reflections on practical experiences: The story of two teacher educators, Research in Comparative and International Education, 2(4), 272–282.

10

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland Infrastructuring the MiTE ecosystem for learning by collaborative design Séan Ó Grádaigh, Brendan Mac Mahon, Sinéad Ní Ghuidhir, Tony Hall National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

Introduction Mobile learning in teacher education is a frontier but developing field of educational technology research (Baran 2014). This chapter offers insights into, and lessons learned from, systematizing the deployment of mobile learning in teacher education in the School of Education at the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG). ‘Infrastructuring’ is a term used by Penuel (2015; 2019) in design-based implementation research (DBIR) to describe multi-level initiatives that endeavour to support truly transformational innovation in education, particularly where key stakeholders, principally teachers, are engaged in collaborative design (codesign). To effect and sustain meaningful, impactful change and innovation in education, a focus on co-design – with and for learners and educators – is imperative. Consequently, according to the DBIR paradigm, for change to be lasting and transformative, it must be initiated, propagated and sustained at multiple important levels. These can include, among others, the social, curricular, technological, political and material (e.g. built/physical learning environment) aspects that formatively influence the equity and quality of learning in classrooms, schools and other complex, naturalistic educational contexts. However, it can be argued that innovative educational technology initiatives can often happen in ‘splendid isolation’, in niches or specialized contexts, and

184

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

the crucial ‘joining-of-the-dots’ that is needed at multiple levels does not take place, thus rendering the innovation limited in its scope and sustainability. We present in this chapter a long-term vision and integrated endeavour to create lasting and impactful educational change with technology, through connected and complementary internal and external initiatives to embed and advance mobile technology in teacher education. First, in terms of local impacts at the proximal (McKenney & Reeves 2018) level, we outline the deployment of mobile learning for teacher education in the School of Education at the National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG), particularly within the Máistir Gairmiúil san Oideachas (MGO), the national flagship programme in Ireland for teacher education through the medium of the Irish language. The chapter discusses how mobile technology has been systematically designed and deployed to support all key professional educational aspects of the MGO programme, with a specific focus on pre-service teachers’ learning by design (e.g. Mac Mahon et al. 2018). We illustrate how a bespoke ecosystem is being developed to support learning, teaching and assessment throughout this professional teacher education programme, which has resulted in the MGO becoming the first European programme to be awarded Apple Distinguished Programme (and also uniquely achieving this accolade on three successive occasions), in 2014–2015, 2016–2018 and 2018–2021. In November 2018, the MGO programme, School of Education, NUI Galway was awarded the ADP (2018–2021) for an unprecedented third time. The ADP is Apple’s international, gold standard for mobile and technology-rich innovation in education and teaching, with application for the ADP Award by invitation only: ‘Apple Distinguished Schools are centres of leadership and educational excellence that demonstrate Apple’s vision for learning with technology – and we believe they are some of the most innovative schools in the world’ (Apple Education 2019). As well as an enumeration of the process of mobile learning design in context, a key goal is to propagate out, publish and share the local MGO innovation, and network with cognate, innovative initiatives in mobile teacher education internationally. Consequently, we reflect on the development of the Mobile Technology in Teacher Education (MiTE) international conferences, which originated from the MGO programme, and were conceived of and led by the first author, and other key aspects of external infrastructuring, namely the Designing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies (EU DEIMP) Project and the International Mobile Learning Network for Teachers Educators (IMoLeNTE), which are helping significantly to mobilize teacher educators’ practice and research in the emerging field of mobile learning design.

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

185

In this chapter, we conceptualize MiTE in terms of Penuel’s usage of the terminology of infrastructuring in DBIR. The use of the gerund ‘infrastructuring’ is noteworthy; as a verbal noun it connotes both the fact that there is now an established, extant systemic use of mobile learning in teacher education within our school, but also that the this ecosystem is also still emerging and taking shape, crucially being informed by key international developments including the annual, international MiTE Conference (2019 marked its fifth instantiation), European DEIMP Project (2017–2020) and, relatedly, the international IMoLeNTE network.

ICT and mobile education – Challenges and potential The chapter commences by briefly outlining the policy context for educational technology and critically how the lack of effective engagement of teachers – as codesigners – in educational innovation is highlighted, as a major barrier impeding the systemic use of technology to enhance equity and quality of learning in schools. Building from this, the chapter outlines the concepts and ontological frameworks that have informed the development of the MiTE ecosystem; these include iPAC, TPACK and SAMR. Thirdly, we report pre-service teachers’ feedback and reflections on the infrastructure for mobile innovation in teacher education in Ireland. A very significant factor in the successful adoption and implementation of educational innovations and technologies, particularly in the local, practice context of classrooms and schools, is teachers’ capacity and willingness to use educational technology – on a sustained and systematic basis – to enhance teaching, learning and assessment. In 2018, the EU again re-emphasized the pivotal role that teachers play in ensuring educational technology impacts effectively on learning in classrooms and schools and how education and educational leaders need compelling and clear examples and scenarios of the effective use of ICT in education: ‘It is most effective and sustainable when embraced by well-trained teachers and embedded in clear teaching goals’ (p.  2). Published in 2018, the EU’s Digital Education Action Plan focuses on three priority areas, with the first two being particularly apropos in terms of the mobile learning innovations outlined in this chapter. These target: (1) increasing the effectiveness of ICT use for learning and teaching and, relatedly, (2) developing and promoting ICT competences and skills. Historically, a major barrier impeding the successful adoption of educational technology in classrooms and schools has been the lack of support for teachers

186

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

to address the important socio-technical challenges they can encounter in deploying ICT successfully in their classrooms. Teachers require continuous professional development (CPD) that enables them to understand and work effectively with the pedagogical – as well as technological – implications and requirements of introducing innovations – such as mobile learning – in their classrooms. McKenney (2011) outlined key principles for the specific types of engagement and support teachers need, to help them to implement effectively educational technology in schools. These four salient principles are value-added (better than status quo), clear (participants can envision their involvement), compatible (with values, beliefs, surrounding educational context/system) and tolerant (withstands the natural variation of actual use). Once these principles are in place, it is possible to create a productive space for real and impactful, collaborative change with teachers – what McKenney calls a zone of proximal implementation. A recurring cause of failure historically for sustainable educational technology has been the lack of effective, participatory involvement of teachers in its conceptualization, deployment and development in schools. Furthermore, technology has often been foregrounded, without sufficient regard for the inherent socio-technical infrastructure of digital educational innovation, which necessarily entails significant pedagogical as well as technological aspects.

Learning by co-design in mobile teacher education While the increasing mobility of technology creates significant potential to enhance education, learning and teaching, it is erroneous to think that simply introducing innovative mobile technology into teacher education will necessarily lead to transformative change. Melhuish and Falloon (2010: 2) noted how it is ‘deterministic [to] assume that the presence of technologies will act as a catalyst for fundamental and sustained change and improvement’. Learning collaboratively and by design, however, can help significantly to embed and situate technology in educational practices, which can then mobilize and maintain innovation. Highlighting the potential of learning by design – as a dynamic, creative and generative context to promote innovative practice – Koehler et al. (2011:151) emphasized how ‘we argue that one of the best ways to learn about educational technology is to design educational technology’. Critically, learning by design challenges us to engage actively and creatively with the key socio-technical dimensions of teaching today, especially where these

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

187

are supported by innovative digital media and resources: ‘Through the design process, learners must constantly work at the nexus of content (what to teach), pedagogy (how to teach it), and technology (using what tools).’ Indeed, mobile technology holds the promise of truly transformative innovation in education, fundamentally through foregrounding and promoting social interactivity and connectivity in learning, the range of interactive apps and tools available through mobile devices and platforms today, and of course, the potential to change and augment significantly pedagogical practice in schools (and other learning environments) by reshaping the space-time boundaries of how, when and where learning takes place. However, participatory learning by design is imperative to engage teachers creatively and productively with mobile technology in order to enact change and innovation in their teaching practices. Critically, the US Department of Education’s Office of Educational Technology (2016) has highlighted how participatory and shared innovative practice – between pre-service teachers and faculty – is important to support optimal use of educational technology, notwithstanding pre-service teachers’ familiarity with, and usage of technology outside, the ITE context: It is inaccurate to assume that because pre-service teachers are tech savvy in their personal lives they will understand how to use technology effectively to support learning without specific training and practice. This expertise does not come through the completion of one educational technology course separate from other methods courses but through the inclusion of experiences with educational technology in all courses modeled by the faculty in teacher preparation programs.

As a consequence, the rationale for the introduction of mobile technology within the MGO initial teacher education programme was to answer a number of salient, interrelated questions. Taking learning by design as a key, orienting focus, and the iPad as the principal digital tool, the goal was to introduce innovation programme-wide and support and sustain innovative change and practice in initial teacher education. Thus, the key questions to emerge included: ●●

●●

●●

How can the iPad support student teachers’ professional learning and teaching on the MGO programme? What is the impact of the iPad on student teachers’ approaches to teaching, learning and assessment? What is the impact of the iPad on our own practice as lecturers and university

188

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

placement tutors (who support and assess student teachers’ performance during their teaching placement experiences in schools)? As well as a participatory, learning-by-design approach, the introduction of mobile learning was also undertaken in a principled fashion, underpinned by key contemporary concepts and theories of mobile learning in education and teacher education.

Key conceptual frameworks for mobile learning in teacher education In design research in education, it can be helpful to draw on multiple concepts and theories of learning, innovation and technology, as the challenges of educational change are typically conceptualized as involving ‘multiple dependent variables’ (Barab & Squire 2004: 3) or ‘many actors and factors’. As a result, no one theory is likely to be sufficient to illustrate the complexity and diversity that characterize educational innovation; drawing on a range of concepts can potentially lend a richer description than can relying on one alone. Multi-ontological frameworks are often essential to understand the mix of different variables that matter when we try to innovate and change educational practice, particularly when we talk about the challenge of infrastructuring, where change and its impacts are likely to be multifarious and multi-level. Drawing on a range of relevant concepts and theories can help us to understand the complexity and challenge of the problems of educational change and innovation in a more comprehensive manner, hopefully contributing to a greater chance of success with the educational technology.

A principled approach to mobile co-design with pre-service teachers Three key theories have prevailed in the design thinking underpinning the development and refinement of the MGO mobile teacher innovation. These are iPAC, SAMR and TPACK. Originally developed in 2012 by Kearney, Schuck, Burden and Aubusson, the iPAC framework encompasses three principal constructs for illustrating

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

189

the specific innovative contributions of mobile technology in terms of mediating and supporting learning or signature pedagogies that make mobile learning distinctive. On the higher level, these include Personalization, Authenticity and Collaboration. On the operational level, the overarching constructs are broken down further into constituent sub-constructs, for example Personalization, which includes instant feedback, learner-negotiated, own place, own pace, etc. The mobile technology innovation within the MGO infrastructure reflects the iPAC constructs; the pre-service teachers engage in authentic, collaborative and personalized professional learning, supported and enhanced by the mobile technology. They use the iPad across all key aspects of their teacher education programme. A key principle of the MGO programme design is ubiquity, and because the student teachers use the technology every day, in an integrated fashion in their programme, it becomes a habitual aspect of their professional learning and development. Significantly, this is in contrast with more traditional/typical design of teacher education – where educational technology is taught in an isolated fashion – and it is up to the teachers subsequently to make sense of the use of ICT within their respective subject disciplines. The authentic integration of iPad into all aspects of the MGO pre-service teachers’ professional development and learning has had a considerable impact in supporting potentially transformational learning with technology, where the student teachers concurrently develop their skills in using mobile educational technology but also deepen their understanding of TPACK and the possibilities for innovation with technology within their respective subject teaching area. Furthermore, the integration of the technology throughout the programme has enabled collaborative design of innovation, challenging both the student teachers and faculty to navigate together a new direction for teacher education. In sum, the pre-service teachers become co-designers through the mobile technology. For example, the students undertake collaborative, multimedia assignments, e.g. shared iBook development, using Apple Pages and iBooks Author, and synchronous/real-time mobile school placement through iPad, enhanced with instant/immediate feedback from faculty. The MGO programme endeavours to embody the principles of Authenticity, Personalization and Collaboration through iPAC signature pedagogies, made possible by the authentic, programme-wide integration of mobile learning technology. The SAMR (Puentedura 2015) model describes the potential impact of educational innovation, moving from enhancement, where the technology

190

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

facilitates substitution and augmentation of existing practices, to transformation, where the innovation truly and significantly modifies and redefines learning, teaching and assessment (in ways that would be inconceivable without the introduction of the technology). The focus of the development of mobile learning technology within the MGO programme has been to promote and sustain truly transformative practice in initial teacher education, exploiting the novel and unique affordances of the iPad and supporting educational technology architecture, e.g. iTunesU. The third major theoretical orientation in the MGO and MiTE innovation is TPACK, developed by Koehler and Mishra (2009), which extends and builds on Shulman’s (1987) original PCK model. TPACK specifically supports our conceptualization and understanding of the key domains of teachers’ professional competence, specialist subject matter, and pedagogical and technological knowledge, which they need to teach effectively with educational technology. Therefore, a key focus of the MGO is to develop pre-service teachers’ TPACK so that they not only understand their subject area deeply, but also how new technology can be integrated within their teaching to support authentic, collaborative and personalized learning that is potentially transformational in its scope and impact.

Overview of research evaluation study But how are pre-service teachers’ experiencing the internal infrastructuring of the local, innovative teacher education programme, mediated and enhanced by mobile learning technology? Having introduced the iPad into all core aspects of the MGO programme – school placement supervision and feedback, reflective practice and subject teaching innovation – a systematic research evaluation methodology was deployed to ascertain the pre-service teachers’ experiences and perspectives regarding the use of the iPad and mobile technology. All thirtyeight student teachers in the MGO participated in the purposive evaluation study, which was designed both to highlight the impacts and constraints of the mobile learning innovation, while also supporting iterative design and refinement of the teacher education programme itself. A mixed range of methods was used to determine the impact and effectiveness of the mobile learning innovation in Irish initial teacher education. These methods included focus groups, questionnaires, audio and video capture and reflections, resource design and development, and ethnographic style observation, including the recording of field notes.

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

191

Summary of findings – At the local level Overall, at the level of the local programme, the research evaluation study highlighted both the challenges and affordances created by the integration of the mobile learning technology within initial teacher education. Students reported significant benefits in terms of the organization of their learning, e.g. lesson plans and resources were easily accessible through Dropbox, and this feature was especially useful on school placement practice experience, where the pre-service teachers had easy portable access to course materials, which could be with them always, and which proved much easier to carry around on an iPad rather than a sizeable physical folder. In general, the pre-service teachers liked the economical teacher kit that using the iPad afforded them. Also, the mobile technology helped to create new opportunities and spaces for learning, offering immediate access to teaching and learning resources, irrespective of the MGO students’ location. Furthermore, it provided an excellent portable research tool, which enabled the pre-service teachers to extend and enrich their knowledge through immediate access to information referenced in lectures and workshops. Through the cloud architecture, they could also more easily share access to their lesson plans with their school placement tutors (faculty assessing them on their classroom teaching), which supported better monitoring, and immediate and ongoing feedback on their lesson plans and related resources. Enhanced opportunities were also created by the technology for peer learning. The communal cloud storage files created by the student teachers could be shared and further edited/re-edited; the pre-service teachers could take the resources, adapt and redesign them, thus putting their own stamp on them. In this, they reported how they were engaging deeply with their teaching subject, potentially learning things about their subject area, which they may not have known before; plus they also had a set of new, bespoke and interactive teaching resources. Through the iPad, the pre-service teachers could use Facetime and Facebook for support and advice on what did/did not work in the classroom. The affordances of the mobile technology were very evident, especially in terms of impact on pedagogy. Pupil motivation and engagement were enhanced through using creative apps, such as Keynote, Pages, Playtube and iTube. For example, in languages class, one of the MGO students used Facetime to connect their pupils with a class in France (which was easily facilitated through the iPad). Further pedagogical benefits included video recording of student activities,

192

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

which could support augmented feedback, and pupils making multimedia presentations, which could be peer-assessed. The Zoom facility on the iPad could also be used in science class as an interactive digital microscope, while apps like Explain Everything and Puppet Pals brought enhanced interactivity and creativity to lessons. Pre-service teachers also reported in the evaluation research how the iPad also significantly enhanced their reflective practice. The student teachers were required to complete written as well as video-recorded reflections, highlighting key moments and stories of learning emerging from their school-based teaching practice. Students unanimously reported that they found the critical video reflection most helpful; the portfolio of video recordings on their iPad also enabled them to review, chart and see their progression as early career practitioners. There were also ancillary, school-wide benefits to the use of mobile learning technology by the MGO students. Principals and staff in the pre-service teachers’ placement schools were often impressed, particularly with the innovative TPACK resources and interactive apps. On the negative side, however, it was reported how extant school culture could prevail negatively upon the innovative use of mobile technology in schools. Some teachers took the view of ‘who does she think she is?’ and ‘we didn’t have iPads, all we had was a marker’, in respect of the pre-service teachers’ use of the iPad in class, and teachers could also be more concerned with drilling students to complete exam papers, without using innovative teaching, nor technology, to promote student interest and understanding. A particularly powerful aspect of the mobile learning innovation was not the technology alone, but rather the technology being used to support collaborative learning by design. Significant evidence in the evaluation data, reported by pre-service teachers, illustrated how the creative use of the iPad – supported through the MGO programme – helped to prompt and enhance the students to think creatively, collaboratively and innovatively about their teaching subject. For example, the pre-service teachers remarked how ‘all of us learning from one another’; ‘I found better ways to teach it’; ‘I was learning about the syllabus as well as ways to teach’; ‘thinking of my own class and tailoring resources’; and ‘that process helped to bring everything together’. These comments really underscore the significant impact the mobile learning innovation had on the MGO students’ TPACK and how collaborative design through the iPad helped to deepen their understanding both of their subject area and of interactive, technology-enhanced ways of teaching.

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

193

Significant challenges also emerged in the analysis of the research data, particularly regarding the constraints of school IT infrastructure, e.g. quality of Wi-Fi coverage, on the use of iPad and related innovative technology. The pre-service teachers also remarked on the significant investment of time needed to create interactive, bespoke resources for class, and pupils’ expectations that if learning was interactive and enjoyable it couldn’t be serious. The research at this point highlighted, not so much a ‘digital divide’ as a ‘digital use divide’, between passive and active use of technology. Critical to the success of innovation with mobile learning technology in education is for the emphasis to be on promoting and supporting pupils’ collaborative design and creativity.

Mobile learning post-initial teacher education A follow-up study sought to determine the MGO NQTs’ experiences having graduated from university and entered the teaching profession in Ireland. Key questions included, having completed the innovative MGO programme, how were they experiencing their first year in the teaching profession? In particular, were they still using the iPad as frequently and widely in their teaching practices, to promote and support creativity and collaboration in their classroom? A follow-up questionnaire was administered to the thirty-eight newly qualified teachers (NQTs), supplemented by interviews with twelve purposively selected participants from the group (all employed as teachers). Ireland’s Digital Strategy (2015–2020) specifically notes the importance of digital technology across the so-called three i’s of the teacher education continuum: initial, induction and inservice, and how ‘use of ICT for teaching, learning and assessment is embedded at each stage of the continuum of teacher education, i.e. Initial Teacher Education, Induction and Continuous Professional Development’(29). Of the whole group, 97 per cent of the graduated MGOs were currently teaching; 58 per cent of respondents were teaching in an Irish-medium context, while 23 per cent were teaching in contexts where pupils and schools had 1:1 iPad schemes. All of the thirty-eight NQTs responded. A particularly noteworthy finding from the follow-up study was that, although there was variability across the ICT access, resources and infrastructures of the NQTs’ schools, they were being seen as agents of change by their teaching colleagues and school principals. Coming from the deep and innovative foundation they received in educational technology through the MGO

194

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

programme, 60 per cent of the NQTs were regarded as experts by staff, while 68 per cent had provided ICT advice to colleagues, and indeed 26 per cent had provided some form of in-service in school. Seventy-seven per cent had also reported sharing resources with fellow teachers (e.g. through Dropbox). On entering full-time teaching, all of the NQTs continued to use the iPad they had purchased at the start of their initial teacher education programme. It was noted 48 per cent were still using the iPad for planning and administration, and 74 per cent reported using the technology for teaching, learning and assessment, with 52 per cent using it every day or almost every day. And 81 per cent of respondent MGOs were still in contact with their classmates, with 39 per cent actively sharing resources. In their use of the mobile technology for teaching and learning post-ITE, practice ranged from substitutive to transformative. For example, at the substitutive level, the MGO NQTs reported simply making multimedia presentations through the iPad, while at the truly innovative and transformative level, excellent practice in terms of TPACK was evident, e.g. pupils making multimedia presentations of experiments – with voice-overs – and uploading/sharing videos (through Google Drive). The MGO NQTs reported significant benefits to learning and assessment from the use of mobile technology in the classroom. However, barriers relating to culture and school context, and overemphasis on ‘traditional’, rote learning and examinations, which were evident in school placement, persisted. Furthermore, the NQTs strongly conveyed the clear need for CPD among practising teachers, with 93 per cent reporting they had received no technology training as part of their induction. We now conclude this section of the chapter by selecting and highlighting insightful quotes provided by the MGOs in the NQT follow-up study. These quotes afford us a very useful, critical insight into the barriers and challenges that remain in expanding and propagating the zone of proximal implementation generated by innovative teacher education programmes, like NUI Galway’s MGO, out into the education system as whole. Firstly, the endemic culture of notes, with its focus on summative, terminal examinations, prevailed negatively upon the NQTs’ ability to extend the innovativeness of the teacher education programme into their classrooms. The culture of notes in conflict with what I learned last year on course about technology 6th years are looking at me and saying ‘Why are you not giving us notes? Why are you trying to do fun stuff with us?’ They are looking for notes, notes, notes.

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

195

Relatedly, there is pressure from parents, school management and the pupils themselves, centred on exam performance, especially in the third and final years of secondary schooling, when the Irish education system is preoccupied with preparation for high-stakes, state examinations. Particularly with 3rd and 6th yrs. there is pressure from parents, principal and students to achieve good grades and there is a formula in each subject regarding the things you should be studying. So sometimes I just focus on that. We use the exam papers, they practice, I correct. You have to do this because you have to do the State exams. You have no choice and there is nothing in relation to presentations or student creativity taken into consideration, in my opinion. 6th yrs. want points [for college entry] and there is little you can do about it.

The NQTs noted the significant potential of the iPad as a powerful digital tool to enhance interactivity, engagement and learning in class, but how the overarching educational system and overemphasis on rote learning; perfected, pre-prepared answers; and points for college entry limited possibilities for mobile learning in the classroom. I prefer when I am using the iPad in class and it is interactive and everyone is participating but the points system is in conflict with this. They know that teachers in other schools around the country are giving perfect answers that students are learning off by heart. If we want A1s we have to do some of that also and I don’t think it is a good thing.  ey want notes and results only … students get high marks without group Th work. I could go in with or without the iPad and have the same impact on their learning … a great resource but without the relationship with students you are going nowhere.

These key quotes from the MGO students are illustrative of the wider cultural barriers in the educational system that currently constrain and impact significantly on the infrastructuring of innovative mobile learning with technology beyond the ITE context.

External MiTE infrastructuring A key aspect of the MiTE infrastructure at the NUI Galway is the MiTE Conference. A pioneering development in Irish and international teacher education, which originated from within the MGO, initiated and chaired by the

196

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

lead author on this book chapter, MiTE has grown to become the preeminent, flagship international conference in the emerging and exciting domain of mobile technology in teacher education. While the MGO programme constitutes the crucial internal infrastructuring for mobile innovation in teacher education locally and nationally, the MiTE Conference critically has provided the basis for connecting with, and indeed developing, a wider international community and cadre of researchers and practitioners, committed to the deployment of mobile technology in teacher education. The external MiTE infrastructuring – particularly through the conference – is a highly significant dimension of the extant and ongoing design and promotion of mobility in teacher education. We now outline some of the key design features of the MiTE Conference and how it has emerged and evolved since the inaugural conference, which was hosted in Galway in January in 2015. By overviewing the provenance, history and development of the annual MiTE Conference in this section, we hope to be able to illustrate how the dynamic field of mobile learning in teacher education is changing, while highlighting the key contribution of the international networking that has emerged from MiTE to the broader, overall infrastructuring of innovations with educational technology. Conceived of, and chaired, by the lead author, the MiTE Conference emerged directly to address a significant gap in the field as well as bring together a growing and emerging community of practitioners and researchers, interested in the use of mobile technology in teacher education. A key part of the rationale was also to position and augment the innovative work being undertaken within the MGO programme and School of Education, NUI Galway. In 2015, there did not exist a coherent, focused international research community exploring and examining the potential and role of mobile devices, apps and architectures, specifically in the context of teacher education. Also, the technology had advanced and evolved considerably since the early days of m-learning, but there was no single community examining m-learning in the key educational-professional domain of teacher education. This was especially important at the time, because it is well established in the research that for innovations to persist and take hold in education, including the integration of technology, teachers must be properly supported and collaborated with as educational professionals in order to embed effectively innovative practice across the three i’s of the teacher education continuum: initial, induction and in-service/professional development (PD).

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

197

The creation of an international conference for teacher educators represented a crucial, landmark development at a key time for mobile learning, as highly usable, portable and adaptable apps and technologies were emerging, led by and given new impetus by the development of the Apple iPad. As the first, foundational conference in the field, it is noteworthy to discuss how the MiTE Conference was originally, and still is, organized. The first day is the Academic Platform, where papers reporting peer-reviewed, researchoriented papers (long, short and poster) are presented and discussed in parallel sessions. The second day, Practitioner Platform provides the opportunity for delegates to engage in interactive demonstrations/showcases and workshops, which help directly to develop attendees’ TPACK competences in how innovative mobile technology – including but not exclusively the iPad – can be used to enhance learning, teaching and assessment. Following the inaugural and second conference in Galway in 2015 and subsequently in 2016, the third conference took place in Los Angeles in January 2017, while the 2018 conference returned to Galway. The fifth Annual MiTE Conference was hosted at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), 18–19th January 2019, reflecting the truly international MiTE profile and community. Related to and dually supported by/supporting MiTE, there are two further key developments, which have contributed significantly in terms of external infrastructuring for mobile innovation in teacher education. These are the EU project, Designing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies (DEIMP, 2017– 2020), which emerged from the landmark EU Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) project, and the International Mobile Learning Network for Teacher Educators (IMoLeNTE). It is not possible within the constraints of a book chapter to discuss all aspects of the complex infrastructuring of mobile innovation, but these two key initiatives are especially notable in helping to support, expand and develop the potential of mobile learning technology, specifically in the context of teacher education. DEIMP is an EU Erasmus+ project coordinated by leading European researchers in the field, led by Professor Kevin Burden, which will develop a MOOC, app, video scenarios and other salient resources to support the expanding community of mobile teacher educators, and their capacity to embed innovative mobile technology within their practice and research, in order to augment key aspects of teacher education, including subject teaching methodologies.

198

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Convened at the fourth Annual MiTE Conference in Galway in 2018, the IMoLeNTE network represents a first professional association for mobile teacher educators, supporting the growing community of practitioners and researchers to coordinate – on an international level – the advancement of mobile technologies within teacher education contexts.

Concluding reflections Penuel (2019:10) notes that the ultimate goal of infrastructuring design is to render our research practices and outcomes more participatory, equitable and impactful. Layered, multi-level design is imperative to try to promulgate truly transformational change in education – whether mediated by educational technology or not. Rather, infrastructuring efforts demand that we also redesign educational infrastructures that influence implementation to be more equitable (Penuel 2015). When we ‘design across levels’ in this way, we are engaged in a special kind of design research my colleagues and I call DesignBased Implementation Research (DBIR; Fishman, Penuel, Allen, Cheng, & Sabell, 2013), so named because we are concerned with developing knowledge, tools, and practices related to equitable implementation of innovations and the capacity of partnerships to improve outcomes through inclusive research and development processes. McKenney (2018) noted how issues of scale are increasingly important in our efforts to design for real, lasting and sustainable educational change. All parts of the MiTE infrastructure are not yet in place, nor is it entirely clear at this moment which further key elements need to be prioritized and developed, and indeed some elements are more advanced and coordinated than others, particularly at the local programme level. However, the ecosystem developed within and from the MGO programme stands as an exemplar for how we can start to achieve real change in how teachers engage with and deploy technology – particularly mobile technology – in their classrooms and teaching practices. As the programme and integration of mobile technology matures, it is increasingly evident that multi-level infrastructuring is crucial to sustaining and promoting the real achievements and changes that are so far realized. It is not sufficient to localize change just within the ITE programme; by supporting its propagation out into the research and practice communities, mutual benefits and enhancements can be achieved. Infrastructuring sustainably at multiple levels can be extremely time- and resource-intensive. However, the MGO and

Mobilizing Teacher Education in Ireland

199

MiTE represent an exemplar model of mobile learning in teacher education – research, practice and technology – and how these can be joined up to support and augment each other. By taking an ecosystem perspective between our local innovations (e.g. MGO) and key external developments (e.g. MiTE, IMoLeNTE, DEIMP, MTTEP) we can support mutual sustainment of key aspects of infrastructure – both internal and external. By widening the sphere of collaborative design – where we truly work and learn together shoulder to shoulder – with teachers and our colleagues in research, industry and policy – we can start to infrastructure effective innovation with mobile technology in teacher education, both within teacher education programmes and out into the schools and wider, professional educational community and society. As well as the now well-established and internationally renowned local innovation within the MGO programme, our experiences underscore the imperative to ‘network out’, into the research and technology communities, maintaining across all our work that crucial three-sided emphasis on the researcher, practitioner and technologist. This is especially important today, in an age where the teacher as researcher and evidence-informed practice are becoming more important, and mobile technology is truly creating significant new potential for us to mediate and support enhanced learning, teaching and assessment, in teacher education, and beyond: in classrooms and schools.

References Apple Education (2019), Apple distinguished schools. Available online: https://www. apple.com/au/education/apple-distinguished-schools/ (Accessed 19 January 2019). Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004), Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. Baran, E. (2014), A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17–32. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009), What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education (CITE), 9(1), 60–70. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Bouck, E. C., Deschryver, M., Kereluik, K., Seob Shin, T., & Graves Wolf, L. (2011), Deep-play: Developing TPACK for 21st century teachers. International Journal of Learning Technology, 6(2), 146–163. Mac Mahon, B., Grádaigh, S. Ó., & Ghuidhir, S. N. (2018). From iTE to NQT: Evaluating Newly Qualified Teachers' Use of Mobile Technology in Their First Two Years of Teaching. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 8–19.

200

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

McKenney, S. (2011), Designing and researching technology enhanced learning for the zone of proximal implementation. Available online: https://dspace.ou.nl/ bitstream/1820/4030/1/ASLD-2011-ZoneProximalImplementation.pdf (Accessed 12 January 2018). McKenney, S. (2018), How can the learning sciences (better) impact policy and practice? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 271, 1–7. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2018), Conducting Educational Design Research, 2nd edn. London & New York: Routledge. Melhuish, K., & Falloon, G. (2010), Looking to the future: M-learning with the iPad. Computers in New Zealand Schools: Learning, Leading, Technology, 22:3. Available online: https://www.otago.ac.nz/cdelt/otago064509.pdf (Accessed 12 January 2018). Penuel, W. R. (2015), Infrastructuring as a practice for promoting transformation and equity in design-based implementation research. Keynote presented at the 11th Annual International Conference of the International Society for Design and Development in Education (ISDDE), University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 22 September 2015. Available online: http://learndbir.org/talks-and-papers/ infrastructuring-as-a-practice-for-promoting-transformation-and-equity-in-designbased-implementation-research-2015 (Accessed 13 January 2019). Penuel, W .R. (2019). “Co-design as Infrastructuring with Attention to Power: Building Collective Capacity for Equitable Teaching and Learning Through DesignBased Implementation Research”. In Pieters, J., Voogt, J., & Pareja Roblin, N. (Eds.), Collaborative Curriculum Design for Sustainable Innovation and Teacher Learning. Springer: US, pp. 387–401. Available online: https://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-20062-6_21 (Accessed 11 December 2019). Puentedura, R.R. (2015), SAMR: A brief introduction. Available online: http://hippasus. com/rrpweblog/archives/2015/10/SAMR_ABriefIntro.pdf (Accessed 12 January 2018). Shulman, L. S. (1987), Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. US Department of Education (Office of Educational Technology) (2016), Section 2: Teaching with technology. Available online: https://tech.ed.gov/netp/teaching/ (Accessed 12 January 2018).

11

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures Kevin Burden University of Hull Amanda Naylor University of York

Introduction Each of the previous chapters has featured an individual case study based on the adoption, use and impact of mobile technologies in different contexts and settings of teacher education, in and beyond Europe. Collectively, these case studies suggest multiple and sometimes divergent trajectories for mobile learning in teacher education and raise a number of pertinent questions which this final chapter addresses. In particular, this rich and varied assortment of individual case studies, drawn from both the context of a European Erasmus+ strategic partnership project (see Section One) and from projects inspired by, but not directly related to, it (see Section Two), invites discussion and debate around the future direction of teacher education and mobile technologies. In this final chapter we adopt a futures thinking methodology to consider the wider issues and perspectives offered in the previous case studies.

Theoretical perspective: Futures thinking Predicting the future is an easy but risky business and in hindsight many a would-be Nostradamus has probably regretted their urge to do so. This is particularly evident in the world of technology where the pace of change and urgency to innovate makes predictions especially hazardous. Although there is little actual evidence to suggest he ever made this claim, IBM chairman, Thomas Watson, will forever be remembered for his less-than-accurate forecast that the

202

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

world would only ever need five computers. Watson is not alone in this respect and the history of technology is littered with misplaced and sometimes grossly misjudged predictions about the viability of future technologies including the telephone (widely dismissed in the nineteenth century as an unnecessary luxury), the automobile, wireless, television, communication satellites, and more recently, the internet, online shopping and the mobile phone. This chapter is not concerned with predictions or second-guessing the future. Rather the purpose of this final chapter is to engage readers in discussion and reflection around a multiplicity of possible futures in order to encourage divergent perspectives and positions around mobile learning in teacher education that might otherwise be neglected, overlooked or under-represented (Snoek 2003). To achieve this we adopt a methodology called futures scenario planning which is one of a range of tools and approaches educators are turning to in order to reimagine the future (Schuck et al. 2018). This is an important approach because it can engage a diverse and broad range of stakeholders from practitioners through to policy-makers since it uses more accessible methods and tools, including lateral and creative thinking processes that traditional prediction-making methods neglect or even scorn (Snoek 2003). Scenarios are described by Snoek as ‘presentations of multiple possible futures’ (2013:311), and these have been used in a variety of different contexts mainly in business and commerce (Shell 2003), although they are also used in the military for planning and role-playing purposes (Cann 2010). Until recently their use in education contexts was uncommon but this is beginning to change, initially with Snoek’s pioneering work (2003), which itself builds on work undertaken by the OECD (2001) and more recently in STEM teacher education (Burden & Kearney 2016) and teacher education more generally (Aubusson & Schuck 2013; Aubusson et al. 2016; Burden et al. 2016; Schuck et al. 2018). Unlike traditional predictions which tend towards a single, binding vision of the future, scenarios take into account the complexity and unpredictability of the postmodern world and aim towards the production of multiple futures that can serve as beacons for multiple departure and arrival points. Fundamental to this methodology is the recognition of how unpredictable and complex the postmodern world is and how, therefore, there needs to be scope for discussion and debate around alternative futures rather than a single one. Put another way, traditional approaches to predicting the future are convergent, akin to ‘forecasting’, which leads to a single point of arrival. Scenario planning is divergent, comparable to ‘foresighting’, which leads to alternative scenarios for the future and multiple points for further exploration (Codd et al. 2002; Schuck et al. 2018).

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

203

Forecasting and foresighting Some features of the future, particularly those associated with the physical world, are highly predictable such as the rise and fall of the tides, the rising and setting of the sun, the annual cycle of the seasons and the rare, but metronomic arrival of distant comets. These are predictable because they are part of a sequence which repeats itself regularly. However, it is generally the case that predictions become more difficult the further into the future they are projected which is clearly evident in predictions about the weather. Predicting the weather tomorrow is far more certain than predicting it in a year or more. Education, however, is not a physical construct but rather a complex social ecosystem that does not follow regular, systematic sequences making it very difficult to predict how it will develop in the future (see Schuck et al. 2018: ch. 6). Therefore when futurologists try to imagine how complex social systems like education might develop in the future, they generally adopt one of two approaches: forecasting and foresighting. Forecasting is concerned with predictions about the future and it is concerned with accuracy. Weather forecasting is a good example. It relies upon current trends and historical data collected over a long period of time to predict the future trajectory of the weather, and weather forecasters are easily judged on the accuracy of their forecasts. Foresighting is not concerned about accuracy or about predicting a single future. This is not its purpose. The purpose of foresighting is to reveal alternative futures which may be multiple and may never come to pass. It is not concerned with predicting but rather with imagining and in this respect foresighting is more suited to work that is concerned with transformation – the focus of this book – since it is a methodology to generate discussion, debate and alternative perspectives (Schuck et al. 2018: ch. 6). It should be noted that foresighting is not crystal ball gazing since it involves a rigorous and credible methodology that uses data as evidence to inform the creation of multiple futures. There are a number of different methods that can be used in foresighting which include horizon scanning to collect a broad range of information about emerging issues, driver analysis which aims to single out those trends that may be most significant in influencing the future, Delphi panels which involve the use of experts to rank or make informed judgements about evidence presented to them, scenario planning which seeks to generate multiple scenarios that may be used for either exploratory or predictive activities, and finally, backcasting that works backwards from an imagined future/s to identify likely landmarks and actions that will need to have been achieved to realize it. Space precludes a fuller explanation of each of these methods (see Schuck et al.

204

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

2018; chapter 6 for a full explanation) and this chapter focuses on the use of driver analysis and scenario planning as methods to imagine possible teacher education futures involving the use of mobile technologies.

Identifying ‘drivers’ One of the first steps involved in futures thinking is to identify the drivers and trends that are likely to impact upon events going forwards. ‘Drivers’ are derived from the trends, themes and inherent issues that underpin all complex issues, in this case the use of mobile technologies in teacher education. They are the factors that are likely to ‘drive’ change in the future, and one of the critical steps in futures methodology is to determine which of the many drivers are the most critical. This is referred to as the process of driver analysis and Iverson (2006) recommends three steps in this process: identification, consolidation and prioritization of trends. Identification of trends usually involves an analysis of the literature in any given field and subsequent consultation with key experts or stakeholders through instruments such as Delphi panels and focus groups. In this case we have used the preceding ten chapters as our literature base and have consulted with each of the chapter authors as experts and key stakeholders in the field of mobile learning in teacher education. Based on our analysis of the case studies in this volume (see Chapters 1–10) we identified the following themes and trends: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Ownership of mobile technology: is it owned and controlled by the individual as a personal technology, or is it the property of the institution, used or loaned to the student as a corporate device? Tension between different phases and contexts of initial teacher education: in some phases and contexts of ITE (e.g. in the university phase) students are permitted to use mobile devices but in some (e.g. school placements) they are banned from doing so. Tension between training approaches for the use of technology: are PSTs explicitly taught how to use mobile technologies and is this training mandatory or is it left to the individual student to learn how to use them? Assumptions about the digital savviness of PSTs: can we assume PSTs join the programme as digital natives, fully aware and capable of using digital technologies like their mobile device for learning (Prensky 2001), or is this naive and simplistic?

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

205

Consumer or producers of knowledge: do we encourage PSTs to use their mobile device to consumer information (e.g. to search for content knowledge) or to create it as an original contribution to pedagogical knowledge? Tension between traditional media (e.g. text) and multimodal forms of media: what notion or definition of literacy are PSTs prepared for during their teacher education programmes and how does this align with their experiences in school placements? Interaction/relationship between PSTs and in-service teachers: how are PSTs who are prepared to use mobile technologies in schools received by teachers who may be more cautious or less aware? Creating new and blended spaces using m-learning in the classroom: do PSTs understand what blended learning means and are they aware of how to design for it using the affordances of mobile technologies? Technical and infrastructural challenges associated with mobile technologies: often PSTs are faced with technical challenges like access to Wi-Fi in their school placements compared to their university phases. Perceptions about the value and importance of mobile learning: do stakeholders (e.g. parents and students) value the kind of learning approaches that mobile technologies afford (e.g. gamification) compared to traditional approaches of teaching and learning? Complexity of relationship between pedagogy and technology: understanding the subtle interplay that exists between mobile technologies and how best to exploit it.

These are a few of the prevalent themes and pertinent issues that arose from our scanning of the various case studies in this volume and the associated research literature that informed them. After identifying these trends and issues in the case studies we followed Iverson’s advice to consolidate and reduce them into more succinct categories, using the chapter authors as an expert panel to confirm and modify our consolidations. The consolidated themes look like this: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Ownership and control of the technology Mindsets, attitudes and perceptions of different stakeholders towards mobile learning Challenges and barriers associated with mobile learning in teacher education Reconceptualization of space and place for learning afforded by new technologies Changing conceptualizations of knowledge and knowing.

206

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Finally, we attempted to prioritize the drivers that had been identified, seeking to identify the more impactful drivers but also drivers that were likely to be divergent in nature with the possibility of multiple outcomes and futures (Aubusson & Schuck 2013). In prioritizing the drivers we selected the following two as being particularly important and also because they were potentially divergent in terms of how stakeholders would respond to them. 1. Mindsets, attitudes and perceptions of different stakeholders towards mobile learning This broad category included the mindsets and attitudes of teacher education institutions and schools, as well as those of individuals such as teacher educators, teachers, students and parents. The case studies presented in Chapters 1–10 and the research literature suggest attitudes and mindsets towards mobile learning in teacher education are divergent and range broadly from those who embrace and welcome the opportunities afforded through the use of mobile technologies, to those who are resistant or openly hostile to such incursions in the classroom. We identified the binaries for this driver as ‘fixed/marginalised’ and ‘open/embracing’. 2. Ownership of mobile technology This broad category brought together a number of themes and issues evident in the case studies around ownership and agency when mobile devices are used in teacher education. The ownership issues centred on how PSTs access mobile technologies. This varied considerably in the case studies and included models in which the institution purchased the devices for students; purchased devices for use as class sets to be loaned to students, or left students to use their own devices, in some cases encouraging PSTs to do so (e.g. Bring Your Own Device). Implicit in these decisions and actions by institutions is the issue of control and agency: who controls the device and under what conditions are PSTs allowed or encouraged to use them? The ownership category is therefore inextricably linked with the issue of student agency and autonomy.

Scenario planning There are various recommendations and approaches for creating or building future scenarios depending on the purpose and intention of the exercise associated with it. Schuck et al. (2018) identify three purposes for scenarios: exploratory, predictive and normative. In this instance we have followed the guidance for

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

207

creating exploratory future scenarios since these are often recommended when little is known about a situation or it is the intention to deliberately pose contrasting alternatives. Both of these were germane in this instance. In creating our future scenarios we followed Snoek’s advice (2003) to create a two-dimensional model which is shown below (see Figure 11.1). This was created by using the two drivers prioritized above and juxtapositioning them against each other to create four quadrants (1–4) which we developed into scenarios. Each of the drivers was situated along a continuum with the binaries at each end highlighting the most extreme positions. In the case of the first driver which we describe as ‘institutional attitudes to mobiles’ the two binary positions are ‘marginalised’ and ‘embraced’. This was a prevalent theme collected in many of the case studies where the attitude of the institution and in particular the organization’s leadership were seen to vary between embracing and welcoming the active use and adoption of mobile technologies as a tool for learning by PSTs, compared to one in which it was neglected, marginalized or, in some extreme cases, even banned from being used in the institution. The second driver, which we describe as ‘ownership of technology’ captures the debates and arguments presented in some of the case studies about how to provide and support the use of mobile technology in the institution. This ranged from institutions that had adopted a highly centralized, corporate approach to the issue where mobile technologies were provided and controlled by the institution itself, through to those more liberal institutions where students were encouraged to bring and use their own mobile devices as part of the learning (BYOD).

Figure 11.1  Scenario planning quadrants.

208

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

In juxtapositioning these two drivers against each other (see Figure 11.1) we created four quadrants (1, 2, 3 and 4) and then wrote a future scenario for each. Following the advice of Snoek (2003) we were careful to portray each of the scenarios as positively as we could and we avoided, where possible, making judgement calls that might suggest some scenarios were more or less favourable than another. Each of the four scenarios is presented below along with the dominant features or characteristics upon which it was constructed.

The four futures scenarios for mobile learning in teacher education

Scenario 1: Embrace/corporate This scenario envisages an initial teacher education context in which the ITE institution embraces the potentiality of mobile learning by providing PSTs with a mobile device to use as part of their programme. These devices are highly regulated and controlled by the institution which uses mobile device management software (MDM) to ensure apps, software and regulated websites are always available to users. Students have little or no opportunity to customize their device which is closely regulated, monitored and managed by the institution. Consequently the organization is eager to ensure the expenditure on the technology is value for money and ensure all tutors are trained and understand how to use the device as the institution requires it to be used. In this manner, there is a high degree of safety and security for the institution and risk is minimized. The system is very cost-effective in terms of how the technology is managed (e.g. apps can be easily deployed to numerous devices quickly) and students/staff rarely, if ever, face technical problems associated with the device or software used on it. Devices are easy to monitor by the institution and misuse is minimized or non-existent. Equity of ownership is ensured as all students have access to a device which is standard to everybody during the programme. This also means students with special educational needs, such as sight or hearing impairments, are fully catered for as the institution ensures these features of the mobile device are fully functioning and staff are aware of how to utilize them. Such a scenario enables the usage of mobile devices by PSTs to be well planned and time regulated and demonstrates value for money for tutors, students and the institution. The managed solution approach to mobile learning taken by the university enables tutors and students to benefit from being kept up to date with the technology, without unnecessary input of time and effort by individuals. This approach also addresses some of the concerns that schools have faced with mobile devices that have frequently led to them being banned.

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

209

Features of the scenario: ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

Institution supports use of mobiles and controls it by issuing equipment. It provides high degree of safety and security. It addresses issues associated with equity of ownership. It ensures SEND catered for using adaptive technology. Well-planned and organized/time regulated scenario shows value for money. Managed solution means more efficient, easier-to-deploy apps, and ways to control misuse and locate deviants.

Scenario 2: Embraced/personal In this scenario, the ITE institution takes a positive and supportive attitude towards the use of mobile technology in its various programmes, embracing them as learning tools, promoting their benefits positively, but not actively managing them. The institution recognizes and embraces the fact that mobile learning is ubiquitous and therefore encourages students to bring and use their own mobile devices in what amounts to a Bring Your Own Device scheme (BYOD). This is seen by the institution to be the most progressive way forwards since it instils in students the need to be autonomous learners who can exercise greater agency in how they use and adapt their mobile device for different contexts and settings. The institution invests heavily in the infrastructure to support mobile learning, ensuring students and staff have pervasive access to a robust and reliable Wi-Fi network. However, everything else about the management and ownership of the mobile device itself is left to the individual, who owns it anyway. Given the ubiquitous ownership of personal mobile devices by PSTs, the institution promotes a co-construction model of learning in which students and staff construct knowledge and understanding collaboratively. Mobile devices are not used significantly to retrieve existing knowledge (i.e. consumption) but rather as a means to construct new forms of knowledge building on the work of previous cohorts (i.e. co-construction). University tutors and PSTs work together using their mobile devices as a knowledge creation tool to create video, multimedia texts and other nontextual narratives. In this scenario the power relationship between the PST and university tutor is more equal and democratic. The seamless nature of these devices and their ability to transcend fixed boundaries affords opportunities for PSTs to engage in co-construction in multiple spaces, not just the formal confines of the university. This allows learning to be more spontaneous and involves a wider cross-section of players including museums, community groups and other non-formal learning organizations. The main form of

210

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

recognition for this learning is the formal university accreditation process, but increasingly PSTs will also value the recognition gained by publishing different outcomes, such as eBooks or website content creation, beyond the institution.

Features of the scenario: 1. High levels of self-initiated work such as personal learning networks (see Chapter 4) 2. High degrees of student agency and autonomy 3. Use of mobiles in multiple spaces – used to cross boundaries 4. Highly customized learning 5. Spontaneity of access 6. Less emphasis on memorization for subject knowledge 7. More equal power distribution – collegial

Scenario 3: Marginalized/managed In this scenario students have considerable choice and agency about how they learn and the professional identity they wish to adopt as teachers. This might be one that embraces the use and adoption of technology, but equally it might be one in which they reject the technology drivers described in this chapter and opt to return to a pre-digital, analogue landscape. PSTs are encouraged to use a wide variety of different media and modes to achieve this, and technology is not privileged over traditional methods such as paper, drawing or art. The ITE provider promotes a neutral approach to learning with technology and supports this by offering students a range of different technologies including traditional print media, books, audiovisual resources and digital technologies, although there is no formal requirement for PSTs to use technology as part of their learning. Those who wish to do so can borrow equipment that is provided by the institution such as laptops or tablets. These devices are highly managed by the institution to avoid the need for students to take responsibility for managing and installing apps and to overcome potential security and privacy problems associated with mobiles. There is little need to students to develop sophisticated search techniques, which may be wasteful of time, since the devices are pre-equipped with the resources students will need (e.g. core reading materials).

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

Features of the scenario: ●●

●●

●●

Devices are available (but highly managed/locked out). Students are left to decide if they wish to use them. No support offered from the institution to use them.

Scenario 4: Personal/marginalized In this scenario, PSTs play an active role in using their personal mobile devices to develop their own personal learning networks outside and beyond the institution which neither supports nor bans the use of these devices. Although their university tutors are unaware of this, PSTs identify a wide range of social media apps and tools to forge their own networks and to work collaboratively with their peers and increasingly with experts external to the institution. This makes their learning more authentic and meaningful for them as they are able to access real experts in their own discipline area such as an astronaut from NASA or veteran of the Vietnam War. Supported by high levels of personal ownership – students prefer to use their own mobile phone rather than equipment loaned to them by the institution – student teachers turn increasingly for support, advice and guidance from agencies and stakeholders external to the university and in doing so they develop contacts and networks which will serve them well when they gain full-time employment. Since the institutions issue little or no guidance on which apps, tools and digital resources to use as PSTs, students become highly autonomous and independent, developing transferable skills that are valuable in many different contexts. In this process of self-learning and collaboration students gain many forms of recognition awarded by external agencies upon completion of real-life activities, such as community awards gained while students investigate the issue of poverty and homelessness. Students value these forms of recognition just as highly as the formally accredited recognitions issued by the university itself, as do employers like schools. Students are expected to reinforce and develop their own subject knowledge for teaching independently of the university and use their mobile devices extensively to collect knowledge which they verify through their personal learning network.

211

212

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Features of the scenario: ●●

●●

●●

●●

Students do own thing outside of institution. They form their own personal learning networks (PLNs). They use mainly social apps – high degree of collaboration (informal). They rely on each other’s expertise and others, not the institution.

Delphi panel Our final step in this process of futures thinking was to engage a Delphi panel of experts and stakeholders to study and comment on the scenarios we had created. The Delphi method brings together experts and recognized authorities on a particular issue or topic to address complex and sometimes controversial issues. The method usually involves several rounds of questionnaires and results are aggregated and then fed-back to the panel for further rounds of discussion and questioning. Sometimes this results in a consensus of opinions but this is not essential and a Delphi panel can also reach a non-unanimous position on a particular topic. In this instance the case study authors were used as the Delphi panel since they had each contributed a chapter to this volume and had a vested interest in exploring possible futures around mobile learning in teacher education. They were all experts and practitioners in the use of mobile technologies in teacher education but they brought with them divergent perspectives, thereby avoiding the dangers of groupthink, which is a criticism sometimes levelled against focus groups (Smithson 2000). We invited each of the authors in the volume to participate in an anonymous survey to feedback on the four scenarios we had created. We asked them the following questions: ●●

●●

Rank each of the four scenarios in terms of their desirability (1 = low and 10 = high) and feasibility (1 = low and 10 = high). Which of the four scenarios do you think is most likely to resemble teacher education in ten years’ time and what are your reasons for selecting this?

Discussion Seventeen of the chapter authors participated in this exercise and Figure 11.2 reveals how they ranked the four scenarios in terms of desirability and feasibility.

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

213

The four circles represent the average combined ranking/place for each of these two criteria. Scenario 2 was judged to be both the most desirable and feasible of the four scenarios. This is an interesting outcome because in many similar exercises we have run, the most desirable outcome has not always been judged to be the most feasible (see for example Burden & Kearney 2016). In this case however, there was almost unanimous agreement about Scenario 2 which is evident in Figure 11.3 that illustrates the amount of deviation from the average score. Other than one outlier who ranked Scenario 2 as entirely undesirable and unfeasible, all of the other participants ranked it roughly the same, placing it as reasonably desirable and feasible. The amount of deviation from the average score for Scenario 2 was relatively small. The remaining three scenarios were clustered into a relatively confined space, midway up the feasibility vector and towards the middle and lower end of the

Figure 11.2  Feedback from Delphi panel on Scenarios 1–4 (Courtesy of Mentimeter AB).

214

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

desirability vector (see Figure 11.2). Although the average ranking for these three scenarios was tightly clustered, Scenarios 1, 3 and 4 generated a far higher degree of deviation from the norm than Scenario 2, judging from the patterns shown in Figure 11.4.

Figure 11.3  Divergent scores for Scenario 2 (Courtesy of Mentimeter AB).

Figure 11.4  Scenarios 1, 3 and 4 (Courtesy of Mentimeter AB).

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

215

When we explore which of the four scenarios participants expected to be the most likely future for teacher education in ten years’ time the results are somewhat different. Whereas Scenario 2, in which the institution embraces and supports the adoption of mobile devices by their PSTs, encouraging them to use their own device, was seen as the most desirable, and somewhat surprisingly the most feasible scenario, Scenario 4 was seen as the most likely to transpire within the next ten years (nine of the seventeen voted this the most likely outcome in ten years’ time). Scenario 4 describes a future in which the institution has little interest or role in promoting and supporting the use and provision of any technology and leaves this entirely to the individual student to navigate and understand. In this scenario PSTs exploit the vacuum created by the institutional indifference to use their own mobile devices, perhaps covertly, in order to build their own personal support networks which circumvent the apparent indifference and ignorance of the institution. This scenario was not seen as very desirable or terribly feasible from a contemporary perspective (see Figure 11.2) but it was deemed to be the most likely future in ten years’ time. In some ways this scenario echoes the warnings of researchers investigating the apparent apathy of many ITE institutions towards the use of mobile technologies and the age of mobility more generally (see Royle et al. 2014). It could be interpreted as the doomsday scenario for ITE since it suggests PSTs have circumnavigated the indifference of their institution towards the use of technology and have filled the vacuum themselves by using their personal technologies to access what they see as more authentic, real-world expertise that is external to the institution. This development has been postulated as a possible future in a number of recent studies which found ITE institutions reluctant to meet the demands that PSTs expect in terms of technology use (Burden & Kearney 2016). This somewhat dystopian view of initial teacher education was seen as more than likely by a number of the chapter authors who commented on how PSTs could ‘use their own device and presumably they are more familiar with this software and apps etc. than being given one by the institution. They can develop their own professional networks with peers, teachers and external agencies’ (participant 3). The overly bureaucratic nature of many institutions and their narrow focus on curriculum standards and content was also cited by a number of participants in the survey as the most likely factor that is already driving many institutions to abandon PSTs to use and understand mobile technologies by themselves. But for others, Scenario 4 was selected for more positive reasons because it minimized the amount of interference that institutions exert on PSTs in relation

216

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

to their use of mobile technologies. Some saw this as a beneficial future because it granted students more autonomy and agency which they considered to be better aligned to the goals and aspirations of twenty-first-century learning: ‘in scenario 4 PSTs are highly autonomous and can develop the networks that they want to rather than being directed by the institution staff, although some direction for professional bodies may be useful. The transferable skills they develop will be useful’ (participant 8). Although the majority of authors considered Scenario 4 to be the most likely future for initial teacher education within the next ten years, a number of authors also considered the possibility that Scenario 2 would prevail. In the context of Germany, for example, where state legislation often curtails or restricts the use of mobile devices and the internet in schools and colleges, a number of authors felt Scenario 2 was the direction of travel, although it would take some time to arrive. While Scenario 4 encouraged PSTs to demonstrate high levels of independence and autonomy in respect to their use of mobile technologies, Scenario 2 was often preferred as it combined these desirable personal traits of PSTs with a degree of institutional paternalism and control that would act as a necessary counterbalance. It was also noted how Scenario 2 would build upon the technologies that PSTs are already familiar with, thereby reducing the need for time-consuming professional development offered by the institution at present. This may indeed be recognized as a benefit and efficiency gain for ITE institutions under this future scenario although recent research around the digital skills of so-called digital natives raises concerns as to whether the skill sets PSTs develop by using their own technologies are those needed to use these technologies in a teaching context (Lei 2009). Finally, some participants also commented on the value of the exercise in terms of projecting their thoughts and focus forward towards possible futures for teacher education and mobile technologies. A number of authors commented on their frustration at wanting to combine elements of some scenarios with others in order to develop their own customized future perspective beyond the scenarios on offer. This is, of course, precisely what scenario planning aims to achieve since it is intended to provoke discussion and disagreement and open up, rather than close down, possibilities for multiple futures. The exercise also encouraged participants to consider current conditions and trends more carefully than might otherwise have been the case in order to negotiate a way towards one of their preferred futures. Had time allowed we might then have run a backcasting exercise whereby we asked partisans to work back from a projected

Mobile Technologies, Pedagogies and Futures

217

future such as Scenario 4 to identify likely steps or staging posts that would need to be achieved if it was to be brought about (see Schuck et al. 2018: ch.6).

Conclusions This chapter has explored four future scenarios for mobile learning in teacher education that are rooted in current themes, trends and debates as evidenced in each of the case studies that constitute this volume. They are not, of course, the only possible futures we might envisage in regard to this topic and the selection of different drivers as variables for the scenario planning process would invariably have resulted in vastly different and possibly even contradictory futures. Many observers and futurologists point out how the future is not a fixed point in time, or space, but rather a vision or ideal that is created collectively and the tools and methods illustrated in this chapter demonstrate how this can be put into practice and used as a dynamic resource to move educators forwards in how they think and act upon topics like the place of mobile technologies in learning. In this respect they are invaluable for guiding our thinking and actions about innovation and transformation, the title and focus of this volume and the topic we return to in the concluding chapter.

References Aubusson, P., & Schuck, S. (2013), Teacher education futures: Today’s trends, tomorrow’s expectations. Teacher Development, 17(3), 322–333. Aubusson, P., Panizzon, D., & Corrigan, D. (2016), Science education futures: ‘Great potential. Could do better. Needs to try harder’. Research in Science Education, 46(2), 203–221. Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2016), Future scenarios for mobile science. Learning, Research in Science Education, 46(2), 287–308. Burden, K., Aubusson, P., Brindley, S., & Schuck, S. (2016), Changing knowledge, changing technology: Implications for teacher education futures. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(1), 4–16. Cann, A. (2010), Scenario based strategic planning in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers civil works program. IWR White Paper, http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/ docs/iwrreports/ScenarioBasedStrategicPlanning.pdf

218

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

Codd, J. A., Brown, M., Clark, J., McPherson, H., O’Neill, J., O’Neill, H., Waitere, Ang, & Zepke, N. (2002), Review of Future-Focused Research on Teaching and Learning. Wellington: Ministry of Education New Zealand. Iversen, J. S. (2006), Futures thinking methodologies and options for education. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Schooling for Tomorrow: Think Scenarios, Rethink Education, 107–122. Lei, J. (2009), Digital natives as preservice teachers: What technology preparation is needed? Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 25(3), 87–97. OECD. (2001), Schooling for Tomorrow, What Schools for the Future. Paris: OECD. Prensky, M. (2001), Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. Royle, K., Stager, S., & Traxler, J. (2014), Teacher development with mobiles: Comparative critical factors. Prospects, 44(1), 29–42. Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., Burden, K., & Brindley, S. (2018), Uncertainty in Teacher Education Futures: Scenarios, Politics and STEM. Singapore: Springer. Shell. (2003), Scenarios: An Explorer’s Guide. London, Shell. Smithson, J. (2000), Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), 103–119. Snoek, M. (2003), The use and methodology of scenario making. European Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1), 9–19. Snoek, M. (2013), From splendid isolation to crossed boundaries? The futures of teacher education in the light of activity theory. Teacher Development, 17(3), 307–321.

Part Two Commentary

The case studies presented in this section are from an international spread of contexts – Germany, Turkey, Sweden and Ireland. What is striking between these four contexts is what unites them, rather than what differentiates them. All of them touch on the question – what is the best way to train PSTs and ISTs to utilize mobile technology effectively in their classrooms? The authors of Chapter 10 cite the US Department of Education’s warning that although PSTs may be familiar with the use of technology, this does not mean that they understand how to use it effectively in classrooms. A further issue that is raised between these chapters is, how can PSTs and ISTs be best supported in the selection and utilization of appropriate apps from the bewildering array that are available in Google Play and the Appstore? Some of the work presented in Chapter 10, based on the case study at the National University of Ireland, Galway, is presented as a starting point to answer these questions. In this chapter, the authors consider how to tackle systemic integration of mobile learning across a whole course and cohort of students – who work on placement in various schools across a wider geographic area, much like the case study presented in Chapter 1 at the University of Hull. In their presentation of their ‘ecosystem’ these authors refer to the EU’s 2018 Digital action plan, in which it is identified that in implementing any digital programme, teachers are ‘pivotal’ and that change does not happen in an evolutionary fashion but needs to be prioritized, planned with a ‘Digital action plan’ which necessitates continuous CPD for teachers. Most interestingly, the authors cite McKenney (2011) taking the Vygotskian notion of a ZPD and adapting this into a digital ZPD or ‘zone of proximal implementation’, in which key principles for specific types of support and activity to encourage the effective implementation of educational technology in schools.

220

Transforming Teacher Education with Mobile Technologies

A recurring cause of failure historically for sustainable educational technology has been the lack of effective, participatory involvement of teachers in its conceptualisation, deployment and development in schools. Further, technology has often been foregrounded, without sufficient regard for the inherent sociotechnical infrastructure of digital educational innovation, which necessarily entails significant pedagogical as well as technological aspects.

It is these issues that Section Two presents a variety of responses to in various, international teacher training contexts. In addressing the question, how do we train PSTs and ISTs to use mobile technology in the classroom, Chapters 7 and 8 demonstrate work done by media specialists in Germany using particular apps in relation to their PSTs and ISTs. The focus of Chapter 8 is the importance of minimizing the effect of the technology and maximizing the significance of the pedagogy. In foregrounding the concept of media literacy, the PSTs and ISTs develop their capacities with various apps to both produce and consume media. This is also the theme in Chapter 7, where intensive work was done in the context of teaching religious studies using AR/VR using mobile technology. In both instances, the complexity of the technology was absolutely not the focus of the work. Both case studies are high in collaboration. The introduction to this section poses the question, which apps should we use, and how? In effect, what do we train PSTs and ISTs in, in relation to mobile technology, with the ‘perfect storm’ of uncertainty. Chapters 7 and 8 have shown us how the careful selection of apps, by experts in their fields, can minimize any impediment from external factors to the growth of PSTs and ISTs expertise. In investigating this question further, Chapter 6 discusses usability testing with a cohort of PSTs to explore what potential they could see in a variety of apps chosen by their university tutors. What is presented here, interestingly, is the attitudes of the PSTs towards the apps, and how and what they anticipate will be their usage in their teaching contexts. It is not really a question of what apps, although this is important; it is more a question of nurturing the internal factors, the mindset, of PSTs and ISTs. Another theme that recurs throughout these chapters is the relationship between mobile technology and teacher identity. Chapter 8 directly addresses this by arguing that through using mobile technology, learning becomes more democratic, as ‘knowledge is accessible to everyone, anywhere and at all times. Every student can do research on almost anything regardless of place and time’

Part Two Commentary

221

(Chapter 8). So consequently the role of the teacher is that of ‘an advisor in the process of learning, an organiser of learning opportunities, a moderator in different scenarios, a manager of learning networks, or a mediator in conflictual situations’ (ditto). The authors of Chapter 6 state that teachers are the gatekeepers of implementing mobile technology in schools so that PSTs’ attitudes towards it are key. The data gathered from their PSTs regarding the challenges impacted on their conceptions of what being a teacher comprised – controlling the pace of the classroom, behaviour management and the relationship between teacher and students. Chapter 9 focuses specifically on using mobile technology on the developing identity of PSTs and how they use it to impact on their reflection over their course. The significance of the authenticity of the data captured by the mobile technology, in pinpointing the gap between what teachers (and by extension PSTs) say they do and what they actually do, was crucial for the PSTs in Sweden to develop their skills in self-reflection. Aubusson et al. (2009) argue that mobile technology captures the spontaneity of interactions in the classroom, which is what is reflected in the data from this case study, which is what is signalled in the introduction to this section as ‘highly customised and bespoke’ reflection on their own practice. An important aspect of teaching pedagogy that can be enhanced by the use of mobile technology is the inclusion of learners with specific physical or learning needs. In Chapter 7, the authors refer to the argument of CascalesMartinez et al. (2017) in relation to their use of virtual and augmented reality, in which opportunities for students can be extended virtually far beyond the walls of the classroom environment. Equally in Chapter 8, the authors argue for the benefits of mobile technology being able to personalize student learning and differentiate instructions to address the needs of struggling students, including students with disabilities. Chapter 10 case study presents the ‘ecosystem’ created at the National University of Ireland, Galway – where mobile technology is embedded throughout – microlevel initiatives and macro-level infrastructural activities. The chapter presents a holistic strategy to bring about transformation. In following their PSTs on after they had graduates from Galway, many had already become in their first year of training experts for their schools and demonstrators of good practice. This section has explored a variety of responses across different, international contexts to the challenges of how to work with PSTs and ISTs in integrating mobile technology effectively into school pedagogical practice.

222

Conclusion

One of the central themes of this volume has been the mediating impact of mobile technologies when they are used in a principled and thoughtful manner, underpinned by sound theoretical concepts such as the iPAC framework. Another has been their potential to transform the practices and structures of teacher education. The importance and relevance of the transformation agenda for teacher education were emphasized in the Introduction to this edition and many of the individual case studies demonstrate the significance and importance of this issue as a driver of change at a local level within individual institutions of teacher education. Therefore this final chapter draws together the individual narratives around innovation and transformation in order to address a key question upon which the volume is predicated: To what extent are mobile digital technologies transforming the structures and practices of teacher education? In addressing this question this volumes draws upon a number of international case studies that include several that are explicitly underpinned and bounded by their involvement in the same transnational innovation project (see Section One), and several in Section Two that were not, although many of these were influenced either consciously or unconsciously, by the philosophy and impact of the Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies project (MTTEP). Taken collectively, the case studies in Sections One and Two reveal the complexity of the transformation agenda in teacher education and the difficulties associated with systemic institutional change when technology is involved. These issues are foregrounded in the case studies described by Hopkins (Chapter 1) and by O’Gradigh et al. (Chapter 10). Both identify similar barriers and challenges associated with the introduction of mobile technologies at a systemic level, including the many tensions that need to be considered such as those between the ITE institution and the school placements where PSTs hone their craft; the tension generated by the need of teacher educators to ensure their

224

Conclusion

PSTs are ‘school ready’ when they complete their short programmes while also prepared for the future that is likely to be digital; and the increasing tension between subject knowledge, which has been privileged as an individual cognitive trait PSTs must demonstrate and master in order to gain teaching accreditation, and the inexorable shift to a ‘just-in-time’ conceptualization of what a teacher needs to know brought about by instant access to Google and similar search engines, accessed instantaneously through mobile devices. These and many of the other case studies in this volume highlight a paradox that exists at the heart of innovative projects like MTTEP, designed and aimed at bringing about digital transformation at a systemic level in ITE and by implication, the schools partnered and working with them. It was assumed that transforming teacher education through the use of mobile technologies and their various affordances would leverage broader change and impact than working with individual teachers, or even schools, since ITE has a system-wide responsibility and reach to prepare and train the next generation of teachers. But in hindsight this assumption is problematic because PSTs are not primarily concerned or motivated by the transformation agenda, at least not during their ITE programmes, when the focus is more usually associated with survival, acculturation into the dominant cultures of the teaching, and gaining accreditation which usually involves some process of certification. This generates a tension which is evident in many of the case studies in this volume and suggests that even if the use of mobile technologies is embraced and celebrated by individual teacher educators, it cannot be automatically assumed this will rub off on their PSTs who may, for entirely rational and understandable reasons, be more risk averse and conservative in their approach to mobile technologies. Indeed this raises difficult questions about the validity and value of the ‘digital native’ narrative (see Prensky 2009) which has already been challenged in academic circles (Bennett & Maton 2010) but is also relevant in the context of teacher education as highlighted, for example in the case study featuring NUI, Galway (see Chapter 10). It is becoming increasingly apparent that the digital savviness that PSTs might claim and display in their personal lives is no guarantee that they are ready or capable of using these knowledges and skill sets in the same way to support their own learning, let alone their teaching. Nonetheless, and putting aside the issues that might flow from this paradox, the professional development needs of teacher educators in respect to mobile technologies, and indeed any new form of teaching innovation, are paramount in transforming teacher education and this issue is highlighted in most, if not all, of the case studies presented in this volume. Professional development for

Conclusion

225

teacher educators in the pedagogical application of digital mobile technologies, not just technical training, is a constant theme emerging from many of the case studies and the need for teacher educators to role model the use of these devices explicitly for their PSTs is highlighted by many of the authors in this volume as a prerequisite for their effective deployment and wider adoption (e.g. see Chapter 4). This requires more than simple technical training in the use of mobile technologies and suggests institutions need to develop a holistic, institution-wide strategy to the issue that enables teacher educators to develop their skills and competencies in using mobile technologies alongside pedagogical considerations and conversations which highlight how this will support and enhance what is taught and how it is learned. When we consider the issue of transformation and the metrics that are available to measure it, we invariably need to ask ourselves what is being transformed and how. In the context of this volume on teacher education and mobile technologies we have framed this question from a sociocultural perspective since this underpins our own philosophy of how digital and mobile technologies in particular mediate learning as cultural artefacts in a social context, through the time and space continuum which sits at the heart of the iPAC framework (Kearney et al. 2012). The Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies project operationalized these theoretical constructs into a set of concrete tools, instruments and resources that are available as a mobile learning toolkit (see www.mobilelearningtoolkit.com) and the survey instruments can be used to establish a baseline of current mobile learning practices in an institution that can be used to establish how far practices and structures have been transformed over a given period. Many of the case studies in this volume draw upon the iPAC framework and some of the practical instruments to do this and the constructs of Personalization and Collaboration stand out prominently, particularly in the Section One case studies. In these case studies it is evident that the use of mobile technologies has made learning more customized and has incentivized students to be more independent and more able to exercise choice and agency, both sub-constructs of the Personalization construct. There is also evidence in these case studies that students are more collaborative when they use mobile devices which enable them to share digital resources more readily and to engage in more digital conversations with each other and with their tutors. The Authenticity construct, however, is less evident in the Section One chapters, although Chapter 5 does illustrate how PSTs are able to construct their own town trails using a location-based app (Actionbound) which taps into the situated nature of mobile learning and this is reinforced by the use of

226

Conclusion

augmented and virtual reality apps in some of the case studies in Section Two (see Chapters 7 and 8 for example). So in returning to our central question, what light do the case studies in this collected edition shed on the question of transformation and role of mobile technologies? In a previous section summary (see Section Two commentary) the ‘Innovation Continuum’ (Burden et al. 2019) was used as a yardstick to measure how innovative each of the case studies was, ranging from disruptive innovations, at the radical extreme, to sustaining innovations at the other. This continuum uses four innovation criteria, adapted from the work of Law et al. (2005), to evaluate the extent to which the use of technology is disruptive and transformative, and in this final section of the chapter we illustrate what these four criteria look like in terms of case studies from this volume in order to draw some final conclusions. The first of these four criteria relates to the nature of the task that teacher educators set their PSTs and in particular, the effectiveness of the use of the mobile technologies described in the innovation. Put another way, to what extent could the pedagogical innovation described in the case study be undertaken without the use of mobile technology? In several of the case studies the answer is simple and unequivocal because the pedagogical activity that is described would be difficult or impossible without the affordances that mobile technology confers. This is most obvious in the use of the augmented and virtual reality apps described in Chapters 7 and 8 and the use of location-based data (e.g. Actionbound described in Chapter 5) which relies on the tools and affordances of a mobile device to collect, render and present data in ways that would be impossible previously. This is also true, though to a lesser extent, in those case studies such as Chapter 4, where students are given the task of creating their own eBooks using their mobile device or using it to read the eBook, and Chapter 9, where students were able to use their mobile device to spontaneously capture video clips of teaching practice for later reflection, much as was predicted when the technology was still in its infancy (e.g. ref Aubusson et al. 2009). Not all of the chapters in this volume demonstrate this characteristic, and in many of the tasks that are described the use of a mobile device appears to have supported or enhanced how the task was undertaken but they might have been approached in other ways and a mobile device was not essential. This echoes the findings from recent mobile learning research that also reveals how few mobile learning pedagogies are absolutely dependent on the device and its affordances. In most of these instances the research found that mobile devices certainly enhanced the activity, often making it more effective and easier to undertake, but it was

Conclusion

227

only ‘mission critical’ in a handful of cases that were defined as ‘disruptive’ (see Burden et al. 2019). In the second of our four innovation criteria the focus is on the context of the learning and the extent to which this context exploits the malleability of time and space that mobile technologies afford. Put another way, is the activity essentially rooted in a traditional tethered context such as a classroom where students are all taught at the same time in the same mode, or is there flexibility and boundary crossing that exploits the affordances of mobile devices to work in untethered spaces and time slots? Some of the case studies presented in this volume illustrate aspects of this such as Chapter 1 where PSTs are actively encouraged to use a tablet device across multiple settings that include the ITE institution itself, their placement schools, and the social and personal spaces of their private lives. In Chapter 10 there are also examples of boundary crossing as Gaelic-speaking students use the flexibility of their mobile devices to create and publish their own eBooks in their native language, enabling them to cross between different cultural settings in ways which would be very difficult or impossible in a traditional publishing context where the Gaelic community is not judged to be a sufficiently large market to justify translated texts of this nature. Other examples include Chapter 5, where students travel to their local town context to make a town trail for use on a mobile device, and Chapter 7, where students use 360-degree video to capture aspects of a local church as part of a religious studies exercise. However, despite these examples that demonstrate how mobile technologies are able to support PSTs in working in and across different learning spaces, few of the case studies explore how the mode of learning itself can be reset with mobile technologies. Almost all of the case studies in this volume explore what is essentially a traditional face-to-face mode of learning and there is little sign of other modalities such as distance learning or virtual learning where PSTs use their devices to access expertise, support and guidance from experts without being physically co-located. The third and fourth of our innovation criteria overlap somewhat, the third focusing on the nature of the relationship between the educators and the PST and the fourth looking at the degree of active engagement and agency undertaken by the PST. In the first of these, the more radical or disruptive end of the continuum posits more informal relationships between the educator and the PST, sometimes referred to as facilitation rather than teaching per se. At this end of the continuum there is even a suggestion that mobile devices can act as a conduit giving PSTs access to other facilitators or experts outside of formal education such as members of the local community, remote experts who are

228

Conclusion

accessed by video conference or social groups who might crowdsource support through social media channels. In almost all of the case studies presented in this volume the relationship between the teacher (in most cases a teacher educator) and the PST is a mature one, more akin to facilitation than the traditional didacticism. This is evident in several of the case studies that explore the changing relationship between the teacher educator and the PST with regard to subject knowledge when PSTs have instant access to Google through their mobile device. This has a potentially democratizing effect that changes the traditional hierarchical relationship in ITE and this is especially evident in the Section One chapters where partners in the MTTEP project made a conscious effort to explore the co-development of mobile pedagogies between teacher and student (e.g. see Chapters 2, 4 and 5 as examples). Chapter 4 and Chapter 6 describe how PSTs work as proxy researchers alongside the teacher to investigate an issue using, or associated with, their mobile devices. Despite these changing relationships between teacher and student that could be associated with the use of mobile technologies, only a few of the case studies explore the more radical end of the continuum where external agents such as international experts or the local community are designed into the learning activity as facilitators or coaches. It is evident to some extent in Chapter 7 where students work with their local community to develop resources related to the local church and again in Chapter 5 where students use an app called Actionbound to develop a local town trail. However, on the whole, the relationships between teachers and students in most of the studies presented in this volume are familiar rather than disruptive. Finally, with criteria four we are making judgements about the role of the learner and the extent to which this is passive, which is equated with traditional pedagogies, or active, which is aligned with more radical or disruptive learning strategies (Law et al. 2005). Many research studies have proclaimed the greater opportunities afforded by mobile technologies to increase student agency and choice over where, when and how particular learning tasks are conceptualized and undertaken (Kearney et al. 2012). However it is increasingly apparent that neither teachers nor teacher educators always recognize such opportunities or design learning activities that enable students to demonstrate choice and agency (Kearney et al. 2015; Burden & Kearney 2017). The case studies presented in this volume do not follow this trend and most illustrate high and even exceptional degrees of students agency in terms of how they are allowed to shape their own learning supported by a mobile device. A particular example that stands out in this respect is the case study by Baldwin (Chapter 9) which highlights how PSTs in Sweden use their mobile device to capture short video clips of teaching

Conclusion

229

practice for critical reflection as part of an assignment. In this example PSTs are given considerable freedom to decide what instances of teaching they will capture with their mobile device and how they construct a meaningful and reflective narrative to explain their choice in a subsequent digital video paper. Using a media analogy, this combines the role of producer, director and editor in a documentary production and trusts PSTs with a high degree of responsibility and agency. Similar examples are evident in those case studies where PSTs are given the freedom to create, and in some cases co-create, a digital artefact as part of the learning process such as a digital eBook (see Chapter 4), a media narrative (Chapter 2) or a learning artefact such as a town trail (Chapter 5) or a video object (see Chapters 7 and 8). Taken together it is evident that the four innovation criteria we have selected and illustrated above are in fact closely interrelated and connected and issues of transformation are very complex and multifaceted: holistic rather than atomistic. Agency, for example (Criteria 4), depends heavily on the nature of the task (Criteria  1) since students cannot easily demonstrate choice in how they use a mobile device if the task has already been tightly prescribed or predetermined by the teacher. Transformation then is a somewhat elusive concept that may display some of its inherent features and colours in certain circumstances but is rarely evident in its full splendour in any single instance. All of the case studies in this volume highlight at least one transformational element based on the four innovation criteria we have adopted above but none of them display all four and this should not come as a complete surprise. Like turkeys voting for Christmas, it is unlikely teacher educators will endorse entirely disruptive scenarios that jeopardize the underlying paradigms upon which teacher education is currently constructed. Indeed it is difficult to image how society could currently handle such a disruptive transformation to its existing models of teacher education. Mobile technologies certainly sustain innovative pedagogies and practices in teacher education, occasionally supporting genuinely transformational learning experiences for PSTs, but judging from the evidence collected in this volume, these are not yet the norm.

References Aubusson, P., Schuck, S., & Burden, K. (2009), Mobile learning for teacher professional learning: benefits, obstacles and issues. ALT-J, 17(3), 233–247. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010), Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321–331.

230

Conclusion

Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2017), Investigating and critiquing teacher educators’ mobile learning practices. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 110–125. Burden, K., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., & Hall, T (2019), Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 138, 83–100. Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015), Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57. Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012), Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology 20, 14406. Law, N., Chow, Y., & Yuen, H. K. (2005), Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 38, 7–20. Prensky, M. (2009), H. sapiens digital: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5(3). Available online: https:// www.learntechlib.org/p/104264/ (Accessed 1 January 2020).

Index action learning groups 51 ActionBound app 116, 132, 138–9, 141–2, 144–5, 225–6, 228 Adawi, T. 104 Aiyegbayo, O 76 Albrecht-Ernst-Gymnasium 163 Apple Store 115 apps, use of 17, 19, 25, 67, 78, 81, 113, 115, 121–2, 135, 208, 220, 226. See also specific apps creative 139, 191 educational value 116 online coding interface 35 PLN 65, 68 social media (see social media) in university sessions 26 Aubusson, P. 54, 172, 188, 221 augmented reality (AR). See virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) Aurasma application 141 authenticity (m-learning) 5, 16, 53, 133, 136, 145, 189, 225 benefits 65–6 challenges and concerns 66–7 m-devices, use of 54 and media reality (see media reality, authenticity) relevant resources 54, 113 social media apps 65 truth and 89 automatic speech recognition (ASR) 47 backcasting 203 Baldwin, Richard 117, 228 The Ball (Roberts) 154–5 Baran, E. 76 Beem, J. 158 Big Data and Learning Analytics 3 Book Creator app 73, 77 Bound creators 138–9, 143 Bräunche, Otto 103 Bring Your Own Device scheme (BYOD) 161, 164, 207, 209

Brouwer, N. 174 Brox, H. 35, 44 Burden, K. 27, 54, 75, 112–13, 137, 139, 147, 188, 197 Caldwell, H. 54 Carpenter, J. P. 55 Cascales-Martínez, A. 221 Cobb, T. 35 Cochrane, T. 120 collaboration (m-learning) 5, 16, 53, 57, 112, 128–9, 136, 139, 146, 189, 225 benefits 60, 62–3 challenges and concerns 64 at The Deep 78 social media apps 61–2 collaborative design (co-design) 183 approach to mobile 188–90 learning by 186–8 collaborative writing environment 36 Classic Google Sites 36 issues and challenges 41, 44–5 levels 40 in wiki 45 Comenius, Johan Amos 162 communication, collaboration, creativity, critical reflection (4Cs) 152, 158 communication and information acquisition 88 Conole, G. 76 contemporary learning 162–4 context-aware learning systems 120 continuous professional development (CPD) 186, 194, 219 culture of notes 194 Cushing, A. 54 Davison, C. B. 76 Delphi panels 203–4, 212–13 design-based implementation research (DBIR) 183, 185

232 Designing and Evaluating Innovative Mobile Pedagogies (EU DEIMP) project 112, 184–5, 197 digital communication 87 digital education 164, 186, 220. See also mobile learning (m-learning) Digital Education Action Plan (EU) 185, 219 digital immigrants/visitors 17 digital literacy 74 digital media 106, 116, 132–3, 146, 165, 187 digital natives 165, 204, 216, 224 Digital Pioneers (case study) didactics/pedagogy 144–6 group-created teaching and learning 142–3 organization and implementation 141–2 technology 143–4 digital revolution 2 digital skills 74–5, 216 Digital Strategy (2015–2020), Ireland 193 digital technologies 2, 6, 45, 204, 210. See also mobile technology(ies) importance of 193 multilinear writing 35 and pedagogy 3, 17–19 subject/content knowledge 3 digital texts 34–5, 45, 47 DisKAver app 103 Donally, J. 133 Dooly, M. 171 driver analysis (futures) 203–4 consolidations 205 identification of trends 204 prioritization 206 themes and trends 204 Duart, J. 128 Dudeney, G. 34 e-portfolios 26, 104 categories 105–6 pre/post-test 106 E-Twinning platform 84 eBooks 12–14, 17, 28, 73, 77–8, 80–3, 113, 210, 226–7, 229 Edmodo 55 educational contexts (mobile technology)

Index in Norway 74–5 in the UK and Europe 75–6 Émile, ou De l’éducation (Rousseau) 162 empiric constructivism 95 Engen, B. K. 74 English Language School (ELS) 125 English PGCE tutor 28 English PSTs 13, 77–9, 83 Erasmus+ project (EU) 5, 74, 77, 81, 197, 201 Ertmer, P. 27, 111 ExpoQuest 103 face-to-face mode of learning 227 Facebook app 23, 52, 55–6, 59, 63–6, 121, 191 Facetime 20, 191 facilitation 227–8 Faculty of Education (University of Hull) 15, 15 n.1 Falloon, G. 186 film clips 176 film education. See media/film education filmmaking 151 content-related competences 159 principles and literary didactics 160 process-related competences 159 reading 160 speaking and listening 159 writing 159 Fisher, T. 19 forecasting approach 203 foresighting approach 203 four-field communication model 156 Freytag, G. 155 Gamification principle 139 Gee, P. 35 General Data Protection Regulation 181 Geoboard app 124 Geotainment 139 Germany, film studies 152, 159–61 Gillies, G. C. M. 75 Göktaş, Ö. 34, 76 golden age of education 1 Goodwin, K. 139–40 Google Cardboard 141, 147 Google Docs 37, 75 Google Play 115, 121, 219

Index Google Sites 42 creating links in 44 flexible interface 45 as writing tool 36–7 GoogleMaps 140 Grádaigh, S. Ó. 223 Grafe, S. 105 Gröschner, A. 173–4, 181 Gunder, A. 35 Haßler, B. 76 Hall, T. 112 Hansen, C. 74 Herzig, B. 105 Highfield, K. 139–40 historical documents (images) construction of meaning 99 contemporary witnesses 100 exemplarity 100 experts 100 filmic documents 100–1 image-sound gap 99 new and associative images 101 perspectivity 100 reconstruction/scenic quotes 101 history PSTs, mobile technology e-portfolio analysis 105–6 issues and challenges 103–4 students’ affective skills/beliefs, impact and 104–5 video documentary, creating 102–3 Hockly, N. 34 Hoem, Jon 13 Hopkins, P. 13, 27, 54, 112, 147, 223 horizon scanning 203 HP Reveal 141 human-computer interaction (HCI) 132 Hüther, Jürgen 105 hyperlinked texts 34, 113 hypertext narratives 33–4 case study 37–9 multipath texts for 36 pre/post-intervention questionnaire, responses 39–40 students’ understanding 42–4 writing process, students’ 40–1 hypertexts 34 readers’ frustration with 35 stories 35 hypertextual competence 34–6

233

iBooks 25, 28, 189 images and film 90, 113, 151. See also media/film education cliches 93–4 composition and design 92–3 creator 140 empty images 94 in historical documents (see historical documents (images)) key images 91–2 manipulation 91 immersive technologies 133 iMovie Trailer app 156 in-service teachers (ISTs) 52 authenticity 64–6 collaboration 60–4 issues 143, 147 lacked confidence 68, 112 professional development 11 PSTs and 14, 88, 132, 141, 205, 220 religious studies 116 risk-averse attitudes 116 technology integration 127 Information, Communication and Technology (ICT) 17–18, 106, 124, 133, 151, 189, 193–4 and mobile education 185–6 and multimodality 172 infrastructuring 183 challenge of 188 in DBIR 185 external MiTE 195–8 initial teacher education (ITE) 2, 11–12, 18 dystopian view 215 embrace/corporate scenario 208 m-learning practice 52–3, 67 MGO programme 187, 190 phases and contexts 204 innovation (educational practice) 83, 112–13, 183–8, 190, 196, 198, 220, 227, 229 Innovation Continuum 226 Inside Syrian Lives project 147 integration, mobile apps 119–20 advantages 123–4 challenges 124–6 strategies in 120 usability testing method (see usability testing method)

234

Index

International Mobile Learning Network for Teachers Educators (IMoLeNTE) 184–5, 197 Internet of Things (IoT) 3 IOS App Store 121 iPAC framework 5, 12, 103, 115, 136, 142, 185, 223, 225 iMovie Trailer app 157 impact 89–90 as lens 116 m-learning experiences, features 53 sub-constructs 53, 112, 137, 144–5, 188–9 UTS in 13 video documentary, creating 102–3 iPAC Rubric for Evaluating Educational Apps 135, 140 iPad Project 15 case studies 27–8 development phases (see project development phases (iPad)) findings and impact 21–7 pedagogy and digital technologies 18–19 professional learning 17–18 purpose 16 iPads, use 21, 25, 54, 75–6, 78–9, 81–2, 117, 126, 156–7, 187, 189–95, 197 iTunesU 190 Iversen, Sarah Hoem 13 Iverson, J. S. 204 Johari window model 156 ‘just-in-time’ conceptualization 59, 112, 124, 224 Kearney, M. 13, 16, 55, 75, 111–13, 134, 136–7, 139, 188 Kerber, U. 113 Kleinknech, M. 173–4, 181 Koehler, M. J. 186, 190 Kreber, Ulf 14 Krommer, Axel 165 Krull, G. 128 Krumsvic, R. J. 75 Krumsvik, R. 172 Kuleshov effect 94–5 Länderkonferenz Medienbildung 152 laptops 4, 16, 19, 22, 33–4, 45, 76–7, 80, 103, 161, 210

Laswell’s model 156 Law, N. 226 Lazaros, E. J. 76 Lazarus, E. 173, 180 Le Cornu, A. 23 LinkedIn 66 Loughran, J. J. 171 Maher, D. 55 Máistir Gairmiúil san Oideachas (MGO) programme 184, 188 iPAC framework 188–9 iPad 190, 192 NQTs 193–4 principle of 189 SAMR model 189–90 TPACK 190, 192 Mangen, A. 35 Manipulable Apps 139–40 Martín-Gutiérrez, J. 133 Masats, D. 171 Maskit, D. 171 McKenney, S. 186, 198, 219 media analogy 229 media and technology 151–2 media didactics 88, 105 media/film education 151 competences and cultural knowledge 152–3 effects and impact 164–6 film as aesthetic artefacts 154 filmmaking at school/teacher education 159–61 issues and challenges 161–2 mobile technology, use and purpose 157–9 model of analysis 153 modern/contemporary learning 162–4 pupils 167 schools and school districts 166 short films 154–7 teachers and teacher training 166–7 media literacy 151–2, 220 digital media and 116 mobile learning and 14, 88 promotion of 160 UNESCO TOOL KIT 88 media reality, authenticity cinematic strategies 96–7 dimensions, manipulation 98

Index empiric constructivism 95 Kuleshov effect 94–5 light and lighting direction 97 renaissance 96 sound and music, level 98 Melhuish, K. 186 Michel, J. W. T 90 microblogging (PSTs) 55 Miles, A. 34, 41 Mishra, P. 190 MiTE Conference 195 Academic Platform 197 Apple iPad 197 design features 196 developments 197 IMoLeNTE network 198 mobility, design and promotion 196 Practitioner Platform 197 at University of Technology Sydney (UTS) 197 mixed reality (MR) 132 and mobile learning 134–5 mobile apps 115 educational value 116 for ELS 125 integrating (see integration, mobile apps) mobile device management (MDM) software 208 mobile learning (m-learning) 51 authenticity (see authenticity (m-learning)) blended spaces using 205 collaboration (see collaboration (m-learning)) defining 16 Erasmus+ project 5 and media literacy 14, 88–9 personalization (see personalization (m-learning)) practices in teacher education 54–5 real-life contexts 119 School of Education (NUIG) (see School of Education (NUIG), mobile learning) signature pedagogies 5 sites 134 social interaction 119 technology, use (see mobile technology(ies))

235

toolkit 12 trends 128 UK PSTs and Norwegian students (case study) 77–84 value and importance 205 VR/AR/MR 134–5 mobile pedagogical framework (MPF) 136 mobile technology(ies) 11, 111. See also hypertext narratives benefits and opportunities, teacher educators 6 capabilities and features 4 ICT 18 impact 45–6 and institutions 225 mediation and affordances 115 ownership of 204, 206 professional learning 18 PSTs’ adoption of 114 sustaining innovations 5, 112 technical and infrastructural challenges 205 trends and drivers 118 untethered devices 4 use and purpose 33–4, 120–2 using, benefits and challenges 55–7 Mobile Technology in Teacher Education (MiTE) 184–5 ecosystem 185 infrastructure at NUIG (see MiTE Conference) TPACK 190 mobile tools 119 implementation in classrooms 127 integrating 124 pedagogical benefits 120 for reading digital texts 45 The Mobilising and Transforming Teacher Educators’ Pedagogies (MTTEP) project 6–7, 11, 15, 29, 45, 47, 75, 77, 111, 197, 223, 225 case study 52, 112 contextual factors and issues 12 element 13 impact 89–90 Norwegian students, impact 81, 83–4 objective 12 project partners (Norway) 13 sustainability, issue 12 modern learning environment 162–4

236

Index

MOOC (online mobile learning course) 12, 197 Moodle app 55 Müller, Karsten 140 multimedia assignments (co-design) 189 multipath narratives 36, 43–4, 47 National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) 183. See also School of Education (NUIG), mobile learning negotiated learning 137 newly qualified teachers (NQTs) 193–5 Nova Elements app 124 Obonyo, C. 54 Oculus Rift 131 Olivero, F. 173, 180 online collaborative tools 28 online PLNs 52, 55, 67–8 Orland-Barak, L. 171 Padlet 141 Pak, Yeonjoeng 90 Palkowitsch-Kühl, Jens 140 partnership for twenty-first-century skills (P21) 152 Pedagogical Framework for Mobile Learning model 90 pedagogy and technologies 3, 112 complexity of relationship 205 iPAC framework 5 professional learning 17–19 Pegrum, M. 54 Penuel, W. R. 185, 198 personal/professional learning networks (PLNs) 13, 51–2, 54–6, 59–61, 65–8, 112, 210–12 personalization (m-learning) 53, 57, 67, 80, 112, 117, 136, 139, 144, 147, 189, 225 benefits 60 and customization 5 social media apps 59 Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich 162 Pictural Turn 90 Pinterest 55, 59, 65 Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) programme 15 Post-PC Technologies 19 Prasse, D. 133, 135–6

pre-service teachers (PSTs) 3, 6–7, 52, 227–9. See also iPad Project digital books, production 36 digital savviness 204, 224 history (see history PSTs, mobile technology) hypertexts 36, 47 and ISTs 14, 88, 132, 141, 205, 219–20 for management activities 18 microblogging 55 mobile technology, use 111, 114, 204–6, 221, 226 Moodle and WeChat apps 55 pedagogical usability 122 perceptions, mobile technology 34 PGCE programme 15, 28 PLNs 13, 52 professional learning 16 religious studies 116 scenario planning (futures) 207–11, 215–16 self-reflection and issues 117 social media apps 52, 54–7, 67 using m-devices 54, 65 Pretsch, Peter 103 priming (media communication) 95 print culture 41 project development phases (iPad) February–June (2014) 21 school placements 20–1 September–June (2014–2015) 21 set-up and launch (university phases) 19–20 Project Noah 121 Puentedura, R. 157 QR-Code Rally 141 reality models 95 Rimmereide, H. E. 35 Roberts, Katja 154 Rousseau, Jean Jacques 162 Rustad, H. K. 35 Şad, S. N. 34, 76 SAMR model 89–90, 140, 157, 189–90 Saupe, Achim 96 scenario planning (futures) 203–4 divergent scores 214 embrace/corporate 208–9

Index embraced/personal 209–10 goals and aspirations 216 institutional attitudes to mobiles 207 marginalized/managed 210–11 ownership of technology 207 personal/marginalized 211–12 purposes 206 quadrants 207–8 two-dimensional model 207 School of Education (NUIG), mobile learning 183–4 approach to mobile co-design 188–90 conceptual frameworks 188 ‘digital divide’ 193 ecosystem 221 external MiTE infrastructuring 195–8 findings (at local level) 191–3 ICT and mobile education 185–6 learning by co-design 186–8 MGO programme 184 MiTE 184–5 post-initial teacher education 193–5 proximal implementation, zone 186 research evaluation study 190 Schuck, S. 112, 188, 206 Schweitzer, F. 147 Selwyn, N. 113 Sherin, M. 172 short films in language learning advantages 154 The Ball 154–5 procedure 155–7 Shulman, L. S. 190 silent images 94, 98 Sitzmann, T. 173, 180 smartphones/mobile phones 4, 17, 19, 22, 45, 76–7, 102, 121, 133, 135, 138, 140–1, 146, 158, 164 Smith, K. 172 Snoek, M. 202, 207–8 Søby, M. 74–5 social media 23, 52, 54–7, 87, 106, 211, 228 to authentic m-learning 65 to collaborative m-learning 61–2 and educational paradigms 74 integration 140 to personalized m-learning 59 socially construct reality 87 speaking and listening (cultural technique) 159

237

Spitzer, M. 165 subject/content knowledge 3, 26, 152, 205, 210–11, 224, 228 Sun, Z. 55 tablet devices 4, 16–17, 22, 27, 76, 79, 102–3, 124, 127, 133, 135, 138, 162–5, 210, 227 benefits 157–8 concerns 125 in Norwegian schools, impact 75 Thinglink 143 teacher education AR/VR in 137–40 challenges and opportunities 6 context of 1–2 filmmaking at school 159–61 futures scenarios 208–12 learning by co-design 186–8 mindsets and attitudes 206 mobile learning in (see mobile learning (m-learning)) programmes evaluation 126–7 technology and its role 2–4 uncertainty 11 video for self-reflection (see video for self-reflection (teacher education)) teacher educators 123, 129, 206, 229. See also iPad Project Chinese and English (survey) 56–67 international conference 197–8 iPads, issues (Ireland) 117 lack of confidence 75 mobile learning network 12, 14 mobile technologies, use 17, 115 needs of 223–5 next generation 2, 6 pedagogical practices 5–6 tools 16 teaching and learning 5, 54, 205 digital tools 90 group-created 142–3 history documentaries 89 iPads, use 75–6 with media technology 90 mobile apps 121, 129 modern, contemporary 162–4 Norwegian students 81, 83 and scepticism 75

238

Index

usage of devices 20, 24, 27 VR/AR/MR 132–3, 135 technologies (iPad Project), use attitudes and barriers 24, 27 experiences and expectations 22 project in university/placement schools 24–6 students perceiving 22–4 in undergraduate studies 23 Technology Outlook for Norwegian Schools project (2013–2018) 74 text to speech (TTS) interfaces 34, 47 Thinglink 116, 132, 139–40, 143–4 think-aloud technique 122–3 thinking methodology, futures 7, 201–2 Delphi panel 212 drivers, identifying 204–6 forecasting and foresighting 203–4 scenario planning (see scenario planning (futures)) Tømte, C. 74 TPACK model 3, 89, 185, 189–90, 192, 194, 197 Traxler, J. 16 Trust, T. 51 Twining, P. 135 Twitter 23, 52, 54–6, 59, 63, 65–6, 75, 121, 140 UK PSTs and Norwegian students (at The Deep) 73, 77 collaboration 78 eBooks 113 impacts 81–4 issues and challenges 78–81 UNESCO TOOL KIT of media literacy 88 University of Technology Sydney (UTS) 13 university tutors good practice 111 impact 82–3 iPad project 21 scenarios (futures) 209, 211 usability testing method 120 future plans 128–9 implementation 129 issues and challenges 122–3 meaningful learning tasks 128 mobile technology, use and purpose 120–2 teacher education programmes evaluation 126–7

van der Weel, A. 35 video artefacts 117 video for self-reflection (teacher education) 171, 221 data produced 175 digital competence 172 effect and impact on student teachers 177–9 expose and confront gaps 171–2 findings 180–1 future plans 181–2 issues and challenges 173–4 in the local setting 174–5 reflections in student papers 175–7 research questions 175 virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) 116, 131, 220, 226 Actionbound 138–9 defining AR 132 defining VR 131 Digital Pioneers (see Digital Pioneers (case study)) environment features 135 and mobile learning 134–5 modes of computer usage 136 in religious education scenarios 132–4 Thinglink 139–40 visual communication skills 90–4 Wallin, P. 104 Wampfler, Philippe 162 Wasson, B. 74 Watson, Thomas 201–2 Weber, S. 95 WeChat app 55, 59–60, 62–3, 66 What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG) interface 37 White, D. 23 Wikipedia 36–7, 41–2, 44–5, 113 Winkler, Harmut 96 writing and reading (cultural technique) 159–60 YouTube 23, 133 zone of proximal implementation (ZPD), notion 219

239

240

241

242