From Constructivist Educational Technology to Mobile Constructivism: How mobile learning serves constructivism?

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 1, 56 - 75, 31.12.2020

Umit Yakar , Ayfer Sülü , Mehmet Porgalı , Nuran Çalış

https://doi.org/10.17985/ijare.818487

Cited By: 5

Abstract

Constructivist theory of learning suggests that individuals construct meaning through authentic experiences and social interactions. Thanks to the ample learning experiences and opportunities for unlimited interaction anywhere, anytime, mobile technologies have given birth to a concept called mobile learning. However, there seems a need to ground mobile learning on constructivist learning principles, i.e. define a new scope for constructivism: “mobile constructivism.” This paper aimed to explore the relationship between constructivism and mobile learning and how they serve each other. To this end, articles which have based mobile learning activities on constructivist learning principles were reviewed systematically. Results were synthesized and discussed under four major themes: the expansive potential of constructivist educational technology, integrating different kinds of constructivism in mobile learning, social consequences of mobile learning; and elemental principles of “mobile constructivism”

Keywords

constructivism, mobile learning, social constructivism, mobile constructivism

References

• Amineh, R.J & Asl, H.D. (2015). Review of Constructivism and Social Constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1 (1), 9- 16.
• Aburezeq, I. M., & Ishtaiwa, F. F. (2013). The impact of WhatsApp on interaction in an Arabic language teaching course. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 6(3), 165.
• Alzahrani, H. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of utilizing mobile technology in vocabulary development for language learners. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol, 6.
• Amry, A. B. (2014). The impact of WhatsApp mobile social learning on the achievement and attitudes of female students compared with face to face learning in the classroom. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 10(22), 116-136
• Andujar-Vaca, A. & Matinez, M.S. (2017). Mobile instant messaging: WhatsApp and its potential to develop oral skills. Media Education Research Journal, 50 (25), 43-52.
• Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostam, E. (2010). The effect of Mobile Assisted Language Learning (MALL) on grammatical accuracy of EFL students. MEXTESOL, 34 (2), 1-10.
• Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17(4), 17-32
• Barry, S., Murphy, K., & Drew, S. (2015). From deconstructive misalignment to constructive alignment: Exploring student uses of mobile technologies in university classrooms. Computers & Education, 81, 202-210.
• Blake, B. & Pope, T. (2008). Developmental psychology: Incorporating Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories in classrooms. Journal of cross-disciplinary perspectives in education, 1(1), 59-67.
• Boticki, I., & So, H. J. (2010, June). Quiet captures: A tool for capturing the evidence of seamless learning with mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences-Volume 1 (pp. 500-507). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
• Bozkurt, D. Ö. A. (2015). Mobil öğrenme: her zaman, her yerde kesintisiz öğrenme deneyimi. Açıköğretim Uygulamaları ve Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 65-81.
• Chai, J. X., & Fan, K. K. (2016). Mobile inverted constructivism: Education of interaction technology in social media. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(5), 1425-1442.
• Chan, T.W., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, Sharples, M., Brown, T., ... & Soloway, E. (2006). One-to-one technology-enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(01), 3-29.
• Chen, C. M., Liu, H., & Huang, H. Bin. (2019). Effects of a mobile game-based English vocabulary learning app on learners’ perceptions and learning performance: A case study of Taiwanese EFL learners. ReCALL, 31(2), 170–188.
• Chen, I. J., Chang, C. C., & Yen, J. C. (2012). Effects of presentation mode on mobile language learning: A performance efficiency perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(1).
• Chung, H. H., Chen, S. C., ve Kuo, M. H. (2015). A study of EFL college students’ acceptance of mobile learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 333-339.
• Cobb, P., & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4), 175-190.
• Cobcroft, R. S., Towers, S. J., Smith, J. E., & Bruns, A. (2006) Mobile learning in review: Opportunities and challenges for learners, teachers, and institutions. In Brown, A (Ed.) Learning on the Move: Proceedings of the Online Learning and Teaching Conference 2006. Queensland University of Technology, CD ROM, pp. 21-30.
• Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 2-14.
• Doolittle, P.E. & Camp, W.G. (1999). Constructivism: The Career and Technical Education Perspective. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 16, 23-46.
• Doolittle, P.E. & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a Theoretical Foundation for the Use of Technology in Social Studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 31 (1), 72-104.
• Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism: Implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research for Educational Communications and Technology. NY: Macmillan Library Reference USA.
• El-Hussein, M. O. M., ve Cronje, J. C. (2010). Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Journal of Educational Technology ve Society, 13(3), 12-21.
• Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
• Fahlman, D. (2013). Examining informal learning using mobile devices in the healthcare workplace. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 39(4), 2-21.
• Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice, 2, 8-33.
• Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(4), 261-275
• Garner, B. K. (2008). When students seem stalled. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 32-38.
• Geddes, S. (2004). Mobile learning in the 21st century: benefit for learners. Knowledge Tree e-Journal, 30(3): 214–28.
• Gheytasi, M., Azizifar, A., ve Gowhary, H. (2015). The effect of smartphone on the reading comprehension proficiency of Iranian EFL learners. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 225-230.
• Gilakjani, A. P., Lai-Mei, L., & Ismail, H. N. (2013). Teachers' use of technology and constructivism. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 5(4), 49-63.
• Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). Introducing systematic reviews. In Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.) An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (pp.1-16). London: Sage.
• Habel, C. & Stubbs, M. (2014). Mobile phone voting for participation and engagement in a large compulsory law course. Research in Learning Technology, 22, 1-15.
• Hannafin, M. J., & Hill, J. R. (2002). Epistemology and the design of learning environments. In R. A. Reiser, & Dempsey, J. V. (Ed.), Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M., Najafi, V., & Nesari, A. J. (2011). What is mobile learning? Challenges and capabilities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2477-2481.
• Hu, Z. (2013). Emerging vocabulary learning: from a perspective of activities facilitated by mobile devices. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 44-54.
• Hughes, G. (2010). Identity and belonging in social learning groups: The importance of distinguishing social, operational and knowledge-related identity congruence. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 47-63.
• Hwang, G. J., Wu, P. H., ve Ke, H. R. (2011). An interactive concept map approach to supporting mobile learning activities for natural science courses. Computers ve Education, 57(4), 2272-2280.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Evaluation constructivistic learning. Educational Technology, 31, 28–33. Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Jones, A., & Issroff, K. (2007). Motivation and mobile devices: Exploring the role of appropriation and coping strategies. Research in Learning Technology, 15(3) 247–258.
• Keppell, M. (2014). Personalised Learning strategies for higher education. International Perspectives on Higher Education Research (12). JAI Press, Bingley, WA. United Kingdom 3-21.
• Kuh, G.D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135-148.
• Kukulska-Hulme, Agnes (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL, 21(2), pp.157–165.
• Lan,Y.F, .& Tsai, P.W. (2011). Using mobile-memo to support knowledge acquisition and post-question in a mobile learning environment. US-China Education Review A5, 632-638.
• Looi, C.-K., Wong, L.-H., & Song, Y. (2013). Mobile computer supported collaborative learning. In C. Hmelo-Silver, A. O'Donnell, C. Chan & C. Chinn (Eds.), The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 420-436). New York: Routledge.
• Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning: An international perspective on next generation technology enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), The Handbook of Mobile Learning (pp. 95-108). New York: Routledge.
• Muhammed, A. A. (2014). The impact of mobiles on language learning on the part of English foreign language (EFL) university students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136(1), 104-108.
• Mvududu NH & Thiel-Burgess J. (2012). Constructivism in practice: the case for English language learners. International Journal of Education, 4(3), 108-118.
• Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning. In NESTA Futurelab Literature review series (Report 11). Retrieved May 5, 2017, from http:/ / archive. futurelab.org.uk/ resources/ publications-reports-articles/ literature- reviews/ Literature-Review203
• Ogunduyile, A. (2013). Towards the integration of mobile phones in the teaching of English language in secondary schools in Akure, Nigeria. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1149-1153.
• Otero, N., Milrad, M. & Rogers, Y. (2011) Challenges in designing seamless-learning scenarios: affective and emotional effects on external representations. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 5(1), 15-27.
• Ozdamli, F. (2013). Effectiveness of cloud systems and social networks in improving self-directed learning abilities and developing positive seamless learning perceptions. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 19(5), 602-618.
• Palmárová, V., & Lovászová, G. (2012). Mobile technology used in an adventurous outdoor learning activity: a case study. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 44, 64-71.
• Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
• Phumeechanya, N., & Wannapiroon, P. (2013). Ubiquitous scaffold learning environment using problem-based learning to enhance problem- solving skills and context awareness. International Journal on Integrating Technology in Education (IJITE) 2(4), 23-33.
• Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the horizon, 9(5).
• Richards, R. (2012). Exploring formative assessment with a project using mobile phones. Ubiquitous Learning: An International Journal 4(2), 91-102.
• Scanlon, E. (2014). Mobile Learning: Location, collaboration and scaffolding inquiry. In M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Increasing Access through Mobile Learning, Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University: 85-95.
• Song, Y. & Kong Siu C. (2017). Affordances and constraints of BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) for learning and teaching in higher education: Teachers' perspectives. Internet and Higher Education, 32, 39–46.
• Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The Educational Potential of E-Portfolios – Supporting Personal Development and Reflective Learning. London: Routledge.
• 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.
• Şad, S.N., & Ebner, M. (Editors) (2017). Digital Tools for Seamless Learning. USA: IGI Global. Thinley, P., Geva, S., & Reye, J. (2014). Tablets (iPad ) for mLearning in the context of social constructivism to institute an effective learning environment. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 8(2), 291–306.
• von Glasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe & J. Gale, Constructivism in Education, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum: 3-16.
• Walker, L., & Logan, A. (2008). Learner engagement. NESTA Futurelab. Retrieved May 5, 2017 from www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/documents/other_ research_reports/Learner_Engagement.pdf Wang, S. (2014). Collaboration factors and quality of learning experience on interactive mobile assisted social e-learning. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Teachnology 13(2), 24-34.
• Wong, L.H., & Looi, C.K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381.
• Wong, L.H., Chin, C.K., Tan, C.L., & Liu, M. (2010). Students' Personal and Social Meaning Making in a Chinese Idiom Mobile Learning Environment. Educational Technology and Society, 13 (4), 15-26.