1. Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: a research agenda
1.1. Mediating experiential learning with moble devices
1.1.1. challenge of experiential model
1.1.1.1. Untitled
1.1.1.2. experiential learning’
1.1.1.3. Challenge
1.1.1.4. Experience
1.1.1.5. Reflecting
1.1.1.6. Planning
1.1.1.7. Applying:
1.1.1.8. Untitled
1.1.1.8.1. Learning occurs through the process of experience
1.1.1.8.2. Knowledge is created ‘through a transformation of experience’
1.1.2. Untitled
1.1.3. A seamless learning framework
1.1.4. Methodological issues for seamless learning research
1.1.5. Technical issues for seamless learning research
1.1.6. Assessment issues for seamless learning research
1.1.7. Discussion and conclusion
1.1.8. Untitled
1.1.8.1. Portability and versatility of mobile devices has significant potential in promoting a pedagogical shift from didactic teacher-centred to participatory student-centred learning
1.1.9. Acknowledgements
1.1.10. References
2. Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media
2.1. Introduction
2.1.1. IT in higher education states that students are driving the adoption of mobile computing devices, such as cellphones, smartphones, and tablet computers, in higher education,
2.2. Foundations of mobile learning
2.2.1. Learning delivered and supported by mobile computing devices
2.2.1.1. Focus on actual mobility of the device.
2.2.1.2. Transportable, such as cellphones and smartphones, and these may include tablet computers, laptop computers, and netbooks
2.2.2. Learning is formal and informal
2.2.2.1. Formal learning, by design, is where learners are engaging with materials developed by a teacher to be used during a program of instruction in an educational environment, highly structured, institutionally sponsored, and generally recognized in terms of a certificate or a credit upon completion
2.2.2.2. Informal learning is often defined as learning that results “from daily work-related, family or leisure activities” (Halliday-Wynes & Beddie, 2009, p. 3).
2.2.3. Learning is context aware and authentic
2.2.3.1. mobile learning, content canbe more context aware, authentic, and situated in the surroundingswhere the learning is more meaningful to the learner.
2.3. Social media
2.3.1. Defines as “a group of Internet based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of user generated content”
2.3.2. social aspect of the term “implies that it exists in a social space”
2.4. Applications of mobile learning & social media
2.4.1. Engaging learners
2.4.1.1. Untitled
2.4.1.2. Content
2.4.1.3. Instructors
2.4.1.4. Classmates
2.4.1.5. Untitled
2.4.1.5.1. Access/Communicate
2.4.2. Fostering collaborative learning
2.4.2.1. Create new meaning and understanding
2.4.2.2. Collaborate
2.4.2.3. Discuss content with classmates and instructors
2.4.3. Authentic learning on the move
2.4.3.1. microblog
2.4.3.2. Geotag
2.4.3.3. Take photographs
2.4.3.4. Create video/audio
2.4.3.5. receive or send text messages
2.5. Methodology
2.5.1. 5.1. Context and participants
2.5.2. 5.2. Data collection
2.5.3. 5.3. Data analysis
2.5.4. 5.4. Rigor & trustworthiness
2.6. Findings and interpretations
2.6.1. Student Advantages
2.6.1.1. Accessing information quickly
2.6.1.2. Communication Learning
2.6.1.2.1. Recording video
2.6.1.2.2. Voice memos
2.6.1.2.3. Untitled
2.6.1.2.4. Instructor
2.6.1.2.5. Classmate
2.6.1.2.6. Untitled
2.6.1.3. Situated learning
2.6.1.3.1. Learning takes place in the same context in which it is applied, typically in a real world setting
2.6.1.3.2. Highly situated and contextualized
2.6.2. Moble Learning Issues
2.6.2.1. Anti-technology instructors in other classes
2.6.2.1.1. instructors who were unwilling to effectively incorporate technology in their courses and felt that thos einstructors were not attempting to assist their students in interactingwith and participating in the course content
2.6.2.2. Device challenges
2.6.2.3. Devices as a distraction
2.6.2.3.1. Social networking applications that were not being used for class potentially threatened their concentration.
3. Using Computers as MetaCognitive Tools toFoster Students’ Self-Regulated Learning
3.1. How do students use hypermedia
3.1.1. Scafflolding
3.1.1.1. Conditiuons
3.1.1.2. Transfer
3.1.2. Effective Scaffolding
3.1.3. SRL and Scaffolding
3.1.4. Exteral Regulating
3.2. Using scaffolding In Multimedia
3.2.1. systematically and dynamically providing scaffolding of key learningprocesses during learning
3.2.2. understanding of how learners can effectively learn within such environments
3.2.3. how scaffolds can be implemented in hypermedia environments in order to adapt to students’ individual learning needs
3.2.4. Methodological
3.2.4.1. mixed-methodology product /process learning
3.2.4.1.1. randomly assigned scaffolding conditions
3.2.4.1.2. process data lab and classroom research think-aloud protocol methodology and classroom discourse
3.2.4.2. Pre and Post test
3.2.4.3. Qualitative shifts in students’ conceptual understanding
3.3. Empirical Results
3.3.1. learning about a challenging science topic with hypermedia can be facilitated if a human provides them with adaptive content and process scaffolding designed to regulate their learning.
3.3.2. Self Regulated Learning
3.3.2.1. Untitled
3.4. characterization of the complexity of self- and externally-regulated learning processes and the corresponding hierarchy of feedback loops during learning in laboratory studies and in learner-centered science classrooms
3.5. provide the empirical basis for the design oftechnology-based learning environments as metacognitive tools to fosterstudents’ learning of conceptually challenging science topics
4. Learning and Collective Knowledge ConstructionWith Social Media: A Process-Oriented Perspective
4.1. SOCIAL MEDIA IN EDUCATION
4.1.1. Comparison of Some Characteristics of the Internet Context With the Educational Context in Terms of Social Media Adaptability
4.2. Processes Oriented Perspective
4.2.1. Individual and Collective Knowledge
4.2.2. Systems Theoretical Considerations
4.3. Internalization and Externalization as Enablers of System Development
4.3.1. Dynamic processes of learning and knowledge construction.
4.3.1.1. internalization is an active process ofaccommodation and assimilation, that is, a permanentequilibration between the perceived external stimuli andthe internal cognitive structures
4.3.2. Interplay of Externalization and Internalization
4.3.2.1. Externalization and internalization are the two main ingredientsof individual learning and collective knowledge constructionwith social media.
4.4. Self organization
4.4.1. Self-Organization in the Social System
4.4.1.1. Triggers and Moderators of Externalization
4.4.1.2. self-organized social systems rules and roles developover time.
4.4.1.3. Triggers and Moderators of Internalization
4.4.2. Wikipedia
4.4.2.1. Structure (e.g., itsrules and role structure) has been developed over time bythe community itself
4.4.2.2. Oeberst et al. (2014) self-organization in a social system in terms of the rules that were developed within the Wikipedia community
4.5. Interplay of Externalization and Internalization
4.6. Summary
4.6.1. Social media should not just be implemented in a class as tools for curricular learning. Instead, social media need to be recognized and used as the central catalysts of activities in self-organized communities
5. The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades
5.1. The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades
5.2. Introduction
5.2.1. Twitter can be used to engage students in ways that are important for their academic and psychosocial development.
5.2.2. Social media in higher education
5.2.2.1. Does educationally relevant social media improve student engagement
5.2.2.1.1. Does encouraging the use of Twitter for educationally relevant purposes have on semester grades?
5.2.2.1.2. Does encouraging the use of Twitter for educationally relevant purposes have on student engagement?
5.2.2.2. Defined: Social media are a collection of Internet websites,services, and practices that support collaboration,community building, participation, and sharing.
5.3. Methods
5.3.1. Variable use of Twitter
5.3.2. Validated Instrument
5.3.3. Random assignment
5.3.4. Experimental and group
5.4. Experimental procedure Use of Twitter
5.5. Educationally relevant Twitter activities
5.5.1. Organizing service learning projects
5.5.2. Helping students connect with each other and with instructors
5.5.3. Book discussion
5.5.4. Class reminders
5.5.5. Required assignments
5.5.6. Optional assignments
5.5.7. Campus event reminders
5.5.8. Organizing study groups
5.5.9. Providing academic and personal support
5.5.10. Formative Feedback (low-stress way to ask questions)
5.5.11. Continuity of class discussions