I read something interesting that sparked off a though chain. The article http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/do_mobile_games_have_a_place_in_the_classroom.php is a reaction to something from MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11466 which deals with the design of mobile games for learning.
After being very gung ho about the entire concept of mobile learning and collaboration, a few thoughts struck me:
- If people are in the same class room WHY would a teacher/facilitator want to have the students use mobile phones to communicate/collaborate with someone sitting in the next seat or even in the same room?? It is quite scary to think that the students of the future will need mobile phones to communicate and learn from a person sitting in close proximity.
- Of the clinching factors mentioned “…portability, context sensitivity, connectivity, and ubiquity…” arguably perhaps only connectivity is available in combination with the other factors in a mobile device when compared to other means. All the rest can be achieved if the instruction is designed well enough. Could we not design an activity which does not demand an expensive device like a PSP, iPhone, or even a high end phone? Instead what about designing a learning activity which relies on people to work together on paper, on a computer, or even a blackboard exchanging ideas and analyzing information and outcomes in real-time?
- It is easy to get excited by the prospect of using the mobile channel for learning. However, except for instances where the learning audience is distinctly separated by geography AND on the move, this medium does not hold it’s own.
- On the flip side Adrian David Cheok mentions in his comment that "
What do you think?
1 comment:
Hey,
Just went through the write up.
Interesting qs.
My two cents -
mLearning depends a lot on the audience, really. Started off targeting the Sales people and the 'upwardly mobile' who are literally mobile - always on the move. Now these guys are the upper crust and aren't expected to take classroom training or an hr's worth WBT. Cos a) they're trained b) they've had 15-30 yrs to pick up all sortsa skills.
So they need snippets or tips, which work well when imparted via a PDA or any of the latest gizmo.
Now this is the standard explanation.
Flash fwd to the present and univs are experimenting with anything and everything to ensure classes are taugt. So along with classroom sessions with the n number of credits, you also have those who are the 'working students'. Once again, they're on the move - from office to subway to univ and back again. Not enuff time to sit for all the lectures. Might as well as carry podcasts or 'm-casts?' with them and just go to the univ to submit their assignments.
MAke sense?
So - why shudn't we simply go back to the collaborative approach. Sure. We all love it. It's the best and traditional approach to training. But who's got the time? does that call for Blended approach - best of both worlds or a certain approach to making 'Scotch'? :-) You then have what I mentioned above. Assignments and tutoring the basic stuff in the class and the droning off the subjects by way of PDAs or podcasts.
And people are making money developing training to be deployed on these equipments. So what's in it for traditional IDs - Newer tactic of getting inside the learner's head. Where decades ago, there weren't many options and the user did have years to adapt to a certain technology. nowadays, everyday brings with it a new technology and one has to adapt with a snap of one's fingers. Now trying to develop something for an adapting and everchanging target audience will pose a challenge to us IDs.
Does any of this make sense. These are just random thoughts.
Cheers!
Priya
Post a Comment