You are here:

Extensibility of a hybrid approach toward mobile embedded learning space with web2.0 technologies
PROCEEDINGS

, , , Seoul National Univ., Korea (South)

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Denver, Colorado, USA ISBN 978-1-880094-95-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC

Full Text

Abstract

In order to get a better understanding of learning space extensibility, we have studied the concept and the conceptual framework of hybrid learning space which is mobile embedded. In mobile embedded learning space, in which more than two spaces are chemically mixed as a larger learning space, learner can create their own learning space wherever and whenever. It emphasized the hybrid approach that each learning spaces such as physical, virtual, or mobile are not separated but reciprocal and seamless, the influence being single, and the transition from formal to informal learning. Some suggestions for the learning technologists when they design for hybrid learning spaces which is mobile embedded are as follows: Necessity of content strategy in mobile embedded learning spaces; Integration of Net gen-based design through a self-direction in learning; Consideration of affordance-based design for mobile embedded learning spaces.

Citation

Lee, S., Kim, Y.J. & Park, S. (2012). Extensibility of a hybrid approach toward mobile embedded learning space with web2.0 technologies. In T. Amiel & B. Wilson (Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia 2012--World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 950-956). Denver, Colorado, USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 2, 2020 from .

© 2012 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Brown, M. & Lippincott, J. (2003). Learning spaces: more than meets the eye. EDUCAUSE QUARTERLY, 2003-1, 14-16.
  2. Brokett, R.G., & Hiemstra, R. (1991). Self-direction in adult learning: perspectives on theory research and practice. NY: Routhlege. Cannon Design, VS Furniture, & Brucau Design (2010). The Third Teacher: 79 Ways You Can Use Design to Transform Teaching& Learning (1st Ed.). New York: Abrams. Available at http://www.thethirdteacher.com
  3. Cormode, G. & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between web1.0 and web2.0. First Monday, 13(6), Jun 2008.
  4. Ellis, R.K. (2009). Field guide to Learning Management Systems. ASTD's Source for E-Learning 2009, Learning Circuits.
  5. Enriquez, J.G. (2011). Studying2.0: study habits, places and tools of university students. Proceeding on the Computer Assisted Learning 2011, Manchester, UK, 13-15 April, 2011
  6. Gibson, J.J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
  7. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. (2009). Web2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now?. Educational Research, 38(4), 246-259.
  8. Halvorson, K. (2009). Content strategy for the web. Berkeley: New Riders.
  9. Hunley, S. & Schaller, M. (2006). Assessing learning spaces. In Oblinger, D.G. (eds.) Learning spaces. Denver, Colorado: EDUCAUSE.
  10. JISC InfoNet. (2006). Designing spaces for effective learning. UK: HEFCE.-955 DASHDASH
  11. Lee, S.H. (2011). The structure analysis of factors affecting on self-directed learning on web-based distance education. Unpublished thesis for the master degree. Seoul National University.
  12. Long, P.D., & Ehrmann, S.C. (2005). Future of the learning space: breaking out of the box. EDUCAUSE Review July-August 2005, 42-58.
  13. Lopez, H. & Gee, L. (2006). Learning studios project: Estrella Mountain Community College. In Oblinger, D.G. (eds.) Learning spaces. Denver, Colorado: EDUCAUSE.
  14. Maier, J.R.A., & Fadel, G.M. (2009). Affordance based design: a relational theory for design. Res Eng Design, 20, 13 – 27
  15. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. (2007). Social software and participatory learing: pedagogical choices with
  16. Pata, K. & Laanpere, M. (2011). An Ecological Meta-Design framework for open learning ecosystems. Unpublished paper in ECER’ 2011, Berlin, Germany,13-16, September, 2011.
  17. Scottish Funding Council. (2006). Spaces for Learning: a review of learning spaces in further and higher education. Available at http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/Resources/external-resources/sfc-spaces-for-learning
  18. Shamai, S. (1991). Sense of place: an empirical measurement. Geoforum, 22(3), 347-358.
  19. Smith, R. (2008). Technology-Rich Physical Space Design: An overview of JISC Activities. Available at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/bpelearnspacesv1.aspx
  20. Skill, T.D., & Young, B.A. (2002). Embracing the hybrid model: working at the intersections of virtual and physical learning spaces. In Chism, N. & Brckford, D. (eds). The importance of physical space in creating supportive learning environments. San Francisco, CA: JOSSEY-BASS.
  21. Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis‘ placement’ of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 502-511.
  22. Wahlstedt, A., Pekkola, S., & Niemelä, M. (2008). From e-learning space to e-learning place. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(6), 1020-1030.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections