You are here:

Mobile Inquiry-based Learning: Relationship among levels of inquiry, learners’ autonomy and environmental interaction
PROCEEDING

, , , , Welten Institute ; , Delft University of Technology ; ; , Ewha Womans Univeristy

World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, in Concordia University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA ISBN 978-1-939797-36-0

Full Text

Abstract

This paper aims to further unpack the notion of mobile inquiry-based learning with a focus on the relationship between levels of inquiry, learners’ autonomy and environmental interaction in outdoor learning. Specifically, it provides a literature review and a retrospective analysis of the empirical studies on mobile inquiry-based learning at two institutions in two countries. The goal of this paper is two-fold: i) To review the effect of the different levels of inquiry, task types and technological mediation on learners’ autonomy and learners’ interaction with the environment in mobile learning and ii) To revisit the notion of environment interaction in outdoor learning spaces (open and enclosed spaces). An initial retrospective analysis of our empirical studies on mobile inquiry-based learning reiterated two core findings: 1. Different levels of inquiry not only shaped learners’ interaction with the physical affordances of the rich real world platform but also learners’ environmental interaction in enclosed- and open-outdoor learning spaces; 2. Technological mediation plays a crucial role in enabling learners to overcome the constraints of time, space and location interaction. In this after-action-review, we identify and discuss the intricate relationship between levels of inquiry, the constituting contextual elements of the outdoor learning environment, learners’ autonomy and learners’ interaction with the outdoor environment. How learners leverage the physical, material and social resources in the outdoor learning context to construct and to negotiate meaning (individually or with learning peers).

Citation

Tan, E., Rusman, E., Firssova, O., Ternier, S., Specht, M., Klemke, R. & So, H.J. (2018). Mobile Inquiry-based Learning: Relationship among levels of inquiry, learners’ autonomy and environmental interaction. In D. Parsons, R. Power, A. Palalas, H. Hambrock & K. MacCallum (Eds.), Proceedings of 17th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 22-29). Concordia University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved December 10, 2023 from .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Barab, S.A., & Hay, K.E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102.
  2. Black, A.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self determination theory perspective. Science education, 84(6), 740-756.
  3. Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1993). Stolen knowledge. Educational Technology, 33 (3), 10-15.
  4. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 33-42.
  5. Chinn, C.A., & Hmelo‐Silver, C.E. (2002). Authentic inquiry: Introduction to the special section. Science Education, 86(2), 171-174.
  6. Choi, J.I., & Hannafin, M. (1995). Situated cognition and learning environments: Roles, structures, and implications for design. Educational technology research and development, 43(2), 53-69.
  7. De Jong, T. (2006). Computer simulations-Technological Advances in Inquiry Learning. Science, 312, 532-533.
  8. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science education, 84(3), 287-312.
  9. Duschl, R.A., & Grandy, R.E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation, 1-37.
  10. Firssova, O., Kalz, M., Börner, D., Prinsen, F., Rusman, E., Ternier, S., & Specht, M. (2014, September). Mobile inquiry-based learning with sensor-data in the school: Effects on student motivation. In European Conference on Technology.
  11. Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile Learning projects – a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 307–331.
  12. Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Evaluating constructivistic learning. Educational technology, 31(9), 28-33.
  13. Lim, M., & Barton, A. (2006). Science learning and a sense of place in an urban middle school. Cultural Studies in Science Education 1(1), 107-142.
  14. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Lim, M. & Barton, A. (2006). Science learning and a sense of place in an urban middle school. Cultural Studies in Science Education 1(1), 107-142.
  16. Orion, N. (1993). A model for the development and implementation of field trips as an integral part of the science curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 93 (6), 325-331.
  17. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factoring that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1997-1119.
  18. Orion, N., Hofstein, A., Tamir, P., & Giddings, G.J. (1997). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities. Science Education, 81 (2), 161-171.
  19. Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2009). Mobile learning: structures, agency, practices. Springer Science & Business Media.
  20. Pachler, N., Bachmair, B., & Cook, J. (2010). Mobile learning: Structures, agency, practices. New York: Springer.
  21. Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 345-375.
  22. Sharples, M., Taylor, J. & Vavoula, G. (2005, October). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Paper presented at the 4th World conference on mLearning, Cape Town, Africa.
  23. So, H.J. & Tan, E. (2014). Designing the situation for pervasive knowledge building: Future school experiences. In Tan, S.C., So, H.J. And J. Yeo, J. (Eds.), Knowledge creation in education, (pp. 123-142). Singapore: Springer.
  24. Specht, M., Ternier, S., & Greller, W. (2011). Dimensions of mobile augmented reality for learning: a first inventory. Journal of The Research Center For Educational Technology, 7(1).
  25. Suárez, Á., Ternier, S., Prinsen, F., & Specht, M. (2016, September). Nurturing communities of inquiry: A formative study of the DojoIBL platform. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (pp. 292-305). Springer,
  26. Tan, E. & So, H.J. (2011). Location-based collaborative learning at a Geography trail: Examining the relationship among task design, facilitation and discourse types. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake, & N. Law. (Eds.). In the proceedings of CSCL 2011 conference: Connecting computer-supported collaborative learning to policy and practice, Volume 1, (pp.41-48). Hong Kong: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  27. Tan, E. & So, H.J. (2015). How learners employ semiotic resources for collaborative meaning-making in outdoor mobile learning. In Lindwall, O., Häkkinen, P., Koschman, T. Tchounikine, P. & Ludvigsen, S. (Eds.) (2015). Exploring the Material Conditions of Learning: The Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) Conference 2015, Volume 1, (pp. 268-275). Gothenburg, Sweden: The International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  28. Tan, E., & So, H.J. (2016). Students’ Use of Knowledge Resources in Environmental Interaction on an Outdoor Learning Trail. In Looi, C.K., Polman, J.L., Cress, U., and Reimann, P. (Eds.) (2016). Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016, Volume 2, (pp. 745-752).
  29. Ternier, S., Klemke, R., Kalz, M., Van Ulzen, P., & Specht, M. (2012). ARLearn: Augmented Reality Meets Augmented Virtuality. Journal of Universal Computer Science. 18(15), 2143-2164.
  30. Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal, Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1 (1), 81-102.
  31. Westera, W. (2011). On the Changing Nature of Learning Context: Anticipating the Virtual Extensions of the World. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 201-212.
  32. Wong, L.H., & Looi, C.K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364-2381.
  33. Wong, L.H., Milrad, M., & Specht, M. (Eds.). (2015). Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity. Singapore: Springer.

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