Mobile Social Media: Redefining Professional Development and Collaborative Scholarship

In today’s generation of learners in schools and universities, there is still a clear manifestation that the ubiquitous use of mobile technologies in classrooms are usually seen as hindrances in the learner’s education. However, in this paper, the researchers have rather focused on using this situation as an advantage and benefit of the learners.

It was described that the use of mobile devices inside classrooms are disruptive. Lecturers would frown and question this situation, “How can I stop students from updating their Facebook status on their phones while in class?” Nonetheless, there was an initiative to use it to encourage the use of mobile devices in learning environments and enable new pedagogical strategies.

The paper clearly points that the use of mobile devices has really been advantageous since there is an evident manifestation of its outputs such as rich-media production and the sharing of images, audio, and geolocation information. Using these outputs for the benefit of learning may also lead to the expanding of reach and equity of education, enabling learning anytime and anywhere, support to situated learning, and a bridge for formal and informal learning.

Additionally, there was a presentation of a framework built from various concepts and the aligning of theoretical frameworks such as the Pedagogy-Andragogy-Heutagogy (PAH) continuum, Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model and that through these concepts there is a possibility for mobile learning to enable authentic learning.

In the methodology of the paper, there is a focus on the ontological shift of paradigms from teacher-directed content delivery mode towards a student-determined learning paradigm (heutagogy). Then, there was an initiative to materialize the motives. A framework for implementation changes was plotted to determine the mobile social media project stages, timeframe, process, and outcome.

The paper also highlights the implementation framework which is the modeling of a community of practice, redefining pedagogy, and designing appropriate technology infrastructure. It was possible with the help of Google Plus and Hangouts applications. They then stated that one of the biggest shift is the revision of curriculum activities and assessments to suffice the need of mobile social media without affecting the concepts of currently existing practice and pedagogies.

Overall, the paper was able to produce a blooming output since they found out that establishing communities proved to be effective in supporting lecturers in the exploration and integration of mobile social media in the curriculum and pedagogies. It is but joyous to know that the paper is interested in using mobile learning as a catalyst for enabling new technologies. Also, it is praiseworthy to mention that the paper does not negate the concept of using mobile devices in learning environments because they do believe that there is a need to adjust with technology and its advantages can be integrated with learning disciplines and pedagogies. With the current situation, most generation in other countries are experiencing in their classrooms today, this paper would help to enlighten the minds of the lectures and consider the possibility of enhancing learning with mobile social media and try to remove the concept of disruptive nature of technologies in the learner’s education.

Authentic Learning

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.

RASE – A learning design framework

August Reflection

Strengths and Weaknesses
The strength of the framework is RASE itself. As stated in the early parts of the reading, mobile technology has truly been useful in the field of learning and education, especially for students. With mobile technologies, education is delivered effectively inside or outside the classroom; learning platforms have widened with the help of social media and cloud computing; and that learning has been empowered with interactive multimedia, such as video, graphics, audio, and integrated graphics. However, it was also stated that these paradigms are insufficient or as described in the text, “incomplete.” Nevertheless, it was emphasized that RASE, a comprehensive and applicable framework for learning design, can be integrated to the said learning technologies and utilized for a better context in teaching and learning.

Aside from that, the RASE framework emphasizes the following theoretical work and concepts that could be considered as a factor for its strength: (1) The constructivist learning framework, (2) Activity theory, (3) Problem solving, (4) Problem-based learning, (5) Rich environments for active learning, (5) Technology-based learning environments and conceptual change, (6) Interactive learning environments, (7) Collaborative knowledge building, and (8) Situated learning.

With regards to its weakness, as stated in section 1.2 of the reading, the RASE framework cannot stand with one concept applied alone. It is like how Resources is insufficient for the full achievement of the learning outcomes. Thus, there is a need for the other concepts – Activity, Support, and Evaluation – to be applied. This means that applying one concept solely is a weakness of the RASE framework and for it is effective as a learning design, it must be partnered with the other concepts.

Addressing the Weakness
The weakness may be addressed by combining the concepts with each other since the applying a sole concept is said to be ineffective. Also, the framework may not prove to be effective if not applied properly. Furthermore, it is good to consider to at least engage the students in the activity first, start planning the evaluation, followed by the provision of resources and support.

Best Setting of RASE
In the reading, the texts usually emphasized the words: classroom, students, teacher, and learning. Although generally, learning may or may not be inside the four corners of a classroom, RASE would best suit in a higher education classroom setting. Why?

If we would dissect and analyze the theoretical works and concepts of RASE, we would understand that the people behind it want to engage the students in a complex environment. For example, Jonassen believes in his Problem Solving concept that “learning is most effective in the context of the tasks in which students engage to solve ill-structured, authentic, complex and dynamic problems.” He added that the problems may be dilemmas, case studies, strategic decision-making, and planning. Also, in the concept of evaluation, it is stated, “Artefacts produced by students must undergo peer and expert review and a revision before final submission. This process may also involve learner/group presentations and peer/expert feedback.”

Therefore, the application of RASE would not be appropriate for high school students, even elementary students since it aims to engage students in complex problems and the outputs needed by the framework needs to have an expert review. However, it does not already mean it is not applicable to general education students. It is just that higher education students seem to have a lot of theoretical knowledge and basic foundations that they are fit for the application of RASE in a classroom setting.

Learnings and Future Application
Overall, I have learned that mobile technologies that aim to augment learning is best partnered with a reliable and comprehensible framework for learning design such as RASE. Also, I have understood that applying a concept of RASE alone is not enough and that all four components should be integrated with each other. I aim to use the framework is not only in the context of mobile learning but even in simple topic reporting in class.