The idea of the paper presented is to clear out the confusion between the authenticity and mobile learning, as well as identify the importance of the two concepts. The paper was developed through the statement of data, the definition of the concepts, and the conclusion.
Statement of Data
One of the problems that were stated in the article is the confusion and paradox a survey conducted from schools and universities. There is said to be an 82% or with a descriptive equivalent of ‘high’ authenticity to the result of the test describing the construct of authenticity in a learning scenario where teachers had utilized mobile technologies for pedagogical purposes. However, it was said to be “inauthentic” and paradoxical since the result turned out ‘high’, yet it was rather inauthentic for their [schools and universities] settings.
This paradox then became the focal point of the paper, clearing out the confusion and stating the differences among concepts of authenticity and mobile learning within the paper. Additionally, there was an initiative to clearly identify the rarely articulated underlying concepts and approaches of authenticity to learning theories alongside mobile learning.
Definition
As described in the paper, Authenticity came from the Greek term authentikos that mean “undisputed origin” like the words genuine and original. Given these definitions, we can then relate it to the topic of the article that although authentic learning is usually invoked with mobile learning, scenarios in this ubiquitous platform are but simulated and not interacted directly. This idea would create confusion since the definition of authenticity and the concept it is applied on does not really coincide.
Moreover, authentic learning describes the context of learning activity participated by students to re-enact and practice the tasks in and for a real-world scenario. Furthermore, it was stated that authentic learning needs to tackle real-world problems located in the contexts that mimic the works of professionals and discipline experts.
As the paper went further, models for authentic mobile learning were presented discussing context, planning design, and personal relevance.
In conclusion, the basis for comparison between schools and universities and genuine real-world settings in terms of context for learnings is no longer applicable. Therefore, the paper proposes a learning design possible for mobile environments. The proposal discusses the conceptual model, as well as the three critical vectors that highlight the authenticity of any learning mobile experience.
What stood out to me is that the rapid change in technology does not only affect per se, but it also affects other disciplines given that technology is interdisciplinary. Given that, even in the field of learning and its pedagogies, there is a need for environments and designs to adjust to technologies. Though I am aware of the mobile environment and the learning pedagogies, the topic between the paradox of authenticity and mobile learning is new to me.
In terms of the arguments presented within the paper, I do agree that there is a need to propose a new learning design that would emphasize the authenticity in mobile learning since the simulation that exists in these technologies conflicts with the traditional learning design that seeks to interact and portray the real-world setting.
Overall, the paper broadened my idea of learning pedagogies. It challenges me to further look for possible ways to replicate the realness of the real-world scenario in a simulated environment. This interesting topic helps me to understand that all disciplines that involve with technology adjust and there is also a need for them to catch-up.
Null and Void 