Coming Back!!!

22 04 2009

Hello world!

My absence from the edublogosphere (is it still called that?  Was it ever called that? :D ) was noted by many of you, and on behalf of the curveballs that life threw me I would like to humbly apologise for the almost-one-year since my last post.

As old friends do, however, let’s catch up!  I hope very much that the year that’s passed has been kind to you and that you’ve been enjoying a happy and successful 2009 thus far.  This year has brought sweeping changes in my life, one of the most significant being a new job with significantly bigger possibilities for me to put into practice many of the ideas and possibilities for mobile learning that I’ve shared with you here over the last three years.

I’m now working as an E-Learning Designer at the University of Canberra’s Teaching and Learning Centre (”TLC” – I  really <3 its acronym :) ).  It’s a fantastic team and I’m absolutely loving it… and I’m also very much enjoying working on a university campus that’s full of life every day.  The University of Canberra recently implemented Moodle as its Learning Management System, and it has been warmly received by both academics and students alike.

In addition to an excellent online learning environment, there’s considerable interest in mobile learning at UC. My new team is currently investigating the possibility of making Moodle accessible via mobile devices, and a number of lecturers are already exploring podcasts and vodcasts.  One of the more exciting discoveries I made when I started here was the use of a tool called Votapedia, which allows teachers to get instant responses from students in the manner of “audience response systems” – simply using students’ mobile phones to dial a number and hang up.  Caller ID means that each student can only vote once… and the results can be instantly aggregated and displayed.  Best of all, because the call never connects, the system is free!

M-learning itself has taken off in a big way over the last year.  Most exciting to me was the sudden interest in the use of QR Codes in teaching and learning that has taken hold around the world.  I may have been the first to see the potential of QR Codes as a means of providing authentic, situated learning experiences way back at the start of 2006, and I’ve been thrilled by others who have taken up the idea and run with it.

The netbook is the another thing I’ve been getting excited about.  Highly functional, mobile computing became incredibly affordable during the last 12 months, and the shared “dream” of the Alan Kay’s Dynabook and Nicholas Negroponte’s OLPC – with every learner equipped with a portable, digital learning platform – is edging ever nearer in developing and first-world countries alike.

Hmmm… that will do for a start!  But I promise to start writing here again regularly with some of the dozens of opportunities and possibilities that have come to light recently for mobile learning practitioners everywhere!




Free M-Learning Applications

30 04 2008

It’s fantastic for students to have access to powerful software tools that help them develop their skills; and it’s even better if the software is free. A prolific developer of mobile applications, Tea Vui Huang, provides the tools he develops for free via his website; and many of his applications are either very useful for education, or are made-for-education. Here is just one his tools, (which are generally authored for the Symbian mobile phone platform):

The TVH-72g Graphing Calculator

It’s brilliant. The developer “gets” so many of the reasons that mobile phones can be powerful learning tools. Quoting from his site:

“…the use of graphing calculators is being incorporated into the education syllabus of mathematic subjects such as algebra, trigonometry and calculus. Graphing calculators are more expensive than the already costly scientific calculators… (but) to paraphrase One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) association’s message – Students can do a lot of self-learning. A common handheld device found these days is the mobile phone, and most students have one – even if it’s an entry-level model.

Though it maybe unexpected, entry-level mobiles these days do have the processing power and display screen appropriate for emulating a graphing calculator. Take for example a HP 49g+ graphing calculator with a resolution of 131 x 80 pixels, and contrast it with an entry-level Sony Ericsson J300i with a resolution of 128 x 128 pixels. Mid-range cell phones offer even higher resolutions of 176 x 220 pixels (that’s over 3.5 times more pixels than the HP 49g+).

Cost-wise, the commonly recommended graphing calculator for educational purposes is the US$100+ TI-83 Plus, US$130+ TI-84 Plus and the US$150+ HP 49g+. In comparison, an entry-level Sony Ericsson J300i retails for US$75+, or free with a 2-year service agreement.

If anything, CNN reported in January 2006 that Microsoft founder and Chairman Bill Gates believes cell phones are a better way than laptops to bring computing to the masses in developing nations.”

The developer’s view of m-learning is spot on – mobile phones are cheaper and often more powerful than graphing calculators; and most students already own them. And the quality of the graphs created by this free tool are excellent. Here is a comparison of the output from this application on a low-cost handset, compared with graphing output from a real graphing calculator (the HP49g+):

http://teavuihuang.com/tvh-72g/TVH-72_HP49g.jpg

Download this tool using your mobile web browser from http://teavuihuang.com/tvh-72g/download.php, or from the project’s web page. Other applications available to use for educators and students include podcasting, photography, and document-creating tools – even a small application that allows a user to create the basic curves for generating 3D Maya models.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




A Brief History of Learning With Mobile Computers

30 11 2007

The idea of using computerised mobile devices to support learning was formally conceptualised a surprisingly long time ago. In his 2002 paper “Disruptive Devices: Mobile Technology for Conversational Learning,” Sharples identifies Alan Kay’s Dynabook, conceived in the early 1970s, as the first serious attempt to design a computer-mediated mobile learning platform. And what an attempt it was. Although the Dynabook was a concept, the ripples of the project – and Alan Kay’s (non-portable, “interim”) Dynabook prototypes – can still be felt today, and will probably be felt for decades to come. The incredible modern-day legacy of Kay’s work at Xerox Paolo-Alto Research Labs (PARC) includes:

  • the development of personal computers,
  • object-oriented languages and programming generally,
  • the development of graphical user interfaces
  • the object-oriented Smalltalk programming language (today the underlying programming language of countless applications, including current ground-breaking educational platforms such as Edusim, a virtual world application in Croquet [which was also co-founded by Kay]), and
  • the One Laptop Per Child initiative (with which Alan Kay was actively involved, and which utilises the Smalltalk language and many of Kay’s original ideas for computer-based learning).

Just as groundbreaking as the technology itself was Alan Kay’s vision for how the technology would be used to support learning. His vision for the Dynabook was based in the then-nascent philosophies of (Social) Constructivism: the theories and models of learning being developed by his contemporaries Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner and Seymour Papert, (who had studied with developmental psychologist Jean Piaget ). Sharples (2002 p.3) distills the features of effective learning in constructivist terms via the essential elements of construction, conversation and control:

“Effective learning involves constructing an understanding, relating new experiences to existing knowledge . Central to this is conversation, with teachers, with other learners, with ourselves as we question our concepts, and with the world as we carry out experiments and explorations and interpret the results. And we become empowered as learners when we are in control of the process, actively pursuing knowledge rather than passively consuming it.” [Emphasis added]

Sharples’ mLearn 2007 presentation on the history of mobile learning summarises how the Dynabook concept would have accomplished these requirements, technically and pedagogically. It was to be an interactive machine that would be small and light enough to be carried everywhere by learners. It would have “book-like” qualities in terms of display, yet its interface would be dynamic, with the ability to create, edit and store visual, textual, and audio content. It would have high-bandwidth communication, both locally and globally, and it would cost under $500. It would be personal, interactive, and would support learning through play, collaborative learning, informal learning, dynamic simulations, and “anytime, anywhere” learning.

Amazing thinking for 1972. Many of Kay’s original ideas for the Dynabook simply weren’t possible at the time he conceived them, but have recently come to fruition – such as the Squeak Smalltalk environment which enables children to create and learn using computers (implemented on the OLPC, but boasting cross-platform capabilities). Here’s a real example of Squeak being used as a learning tool.

Both technically and pedagogically, Kay’s Dynabook was decades ahead of its time, as evidenced by Sharples’ early attempts at developing a mobile learning platform in 2002. Sharples’ “HandLeR” device was, at least, genuinely portable: a compact 800×600 tablet computer with a 233MHz processor, a physically attached camera, a wireless networking card, and a mobile phone card boasting a data connection rate of 9.6kbps(!) – rather expensive components at the time! Bob Harrison’s recollection of the 2002 inaugural mLearn conference (where his presentation entitled “Learn to Go” was accompanied by 12 Toshiba laptops on a trolley!) reflects Sharples’ initial struggles with making technology-assisted learning truly mobile. It’s interesting to consider that an average mobile phone today could exceed most of the specifications of Sharples’ prototype, which was put together just 5 years ago – at a fraction of the cost, and in a vastly more compact physical form.

Although small, pocket-sized “electronic organisers” were available in the 1990s, these had, at best, a three line text-only display. Palm Pilot PDAs, introduced in 1996, were the first multi-purpose, customisable handhelds suitable for a range of creative learning activities; and in 2001, SRI International awarded over 100 “Palm Education Pioneer” grants to US teachers who had a vision of how Palm handhelds could be used to improve teaching and learning. Many of the findings of the PEP grants have been confirmed by later “handheld learning” studies. Examples of pertinent findings include the strengths and weaknesses of various models for allocating handheld computers to students, to the degree of success with which various learning activities (e.g. inquiry-based learning or extended writing) can be accomplished using handheld devices.

In the last two years, however, worldwide sales of PDAs have declined, partly as a result of the introduction of smartphones (which converge advanced application, information and media capabilities with mobile phone functionality) and mobile phones (which increasingly generally incorporate the most basic functions of a PDA, even in entry-level models). For educators, the booming popularity of mobile phones has introduced a new paradigm to consider. Due to the expense of mobile computing equipment, past models of mobile learning have almost always meant providing students with the hardware and/or software to accomplish learning activities. But the vast majority of students already own their own mobile phone. Many recent mobile learning approaches have attempted to embrace the use of students’ own devices, despite the inherent issues of attempting to design learning activities that are equally accessible on a multitude of different, non-standardised, makes and models of handset.

Today’s handheld mobile devices have specifications and capabilities that resemble those of desktop personal computers built just ten years ago . The current crop of PDAs and smartphones have high resolution displays, processor speeds in excess of 600MHz, and memory capabilities exceeding those of premium hard drives from the mid-1990s. Instead of requiring an add-on webcam, current mobile devices often have built-in cameras, as well as the ability to create and edit documents and media: they have become powerful tools for enabling learners to create, collect, and share content.

The other new market that has reduced the demand for PDAs is in ultra-mobile and ultra-portable computers: UMPCs, tablet PCs, and small form-factor laptops. Of particular note in terms of education are the One Laptop Per Child project and similar commercial models (such as the Intel Classmate and the Asus EEE) generated by the initial ovation that greeted Nicholas Negroponte’s vision for cheap, rugged laptops for learning.

The current generation of mobile devices have brought us closer to realising Alan Kay’s vision of cheap, integrated, connected, computers supporting constructivist learning activities. As I’ve previously blogged, they can provide a digital, connected learning environment, offering compactness and convenience of information, remote and instant access to a range of people and resources, and data capabilities that were never previously possible.

Despite these advances, I don’t believe we’ve yet created Alan Kay’s visionary Dynabook. I am certain, however, that we are getting closer every day…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




Gizmodo and Laptop compare the XO to the EEE

28 11 2007

According to Gizmodo, “people” are comparing the US$400 Asus EEE with the sub-$200 XO OLPC:

OLPC’s XO Laptop and Asus’s Eee PC have been bloody rivals in people’s minds, whether or not the totally comparison’s fair… Laptop Mag aims to settle a running thread in our own comments: Which super cheap laptop reigns supreme?… In their conclusion, Laptop kicks XO … and hard: … So if you’re buying for yourself, Eee’s the best bet by a good stretch.

Oh dear. The thing is, the XO was never meant to be bought “for oneself” – from its inception, it was intended to be bought in lots of several thousand, for children in developing countries only. The fact that it’s been made available in the US for a limited period of time is merely to advance this eventual goal.

So this really is a short-sighted comparision, rather like comparing a screwdriver with a hammer. These two machines are aimed at completely different markets, and the XO has many practical aspects for reaching its intended market that were completely missed by the Laptop review.

One important aspect that was missed is durability. I’ve seen demonstrations of the XO dropped repeatedly from a height and running without problems. What a student would do with half a dozen small, shiny bits of EEE if they accidentally or intentionally attempted the same thing with it, I’m not sure.

Then there’s the battery life and lifecycle. The XO can carefully conserve its battery using its black-and-white “reflective” mode, and last a full day of school. It can be charged using solar or manual power, and you can buy extra (or replacement) batteries for $10. The EEE can’t do any of those things.

These are practical – if not vital – considerations for developing countries without flourishing tech-support departments or reliable electricity supplies. The XO elegantly screws itself into a niche in this respect. The EEE bangs its way in like a hammer: with more power, to be sure, but with rather less finesse.

I’m not saying the XO is perfect… but I just don’t think the comparison by Gizmodo and Laptop is at all fair!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




Some M-Learning Finds from the 2007 Edublog Awards

28 11 2007

One of the best things about the annual Edublog Awards is that they provide a terrific collection of new educationally-oriented blogs- many of which I’ve never seen before. Browsing through the various categories is an opportunity to discover valuable new resources and networks. While I’m already a big fan of many well-established nominees (particularly my competitors in the Best Individual Blog section!), here are some of my latest “finds” – newly-discovered blogs who’ve posted on mobile learning:

  • In the LeaderTalk blog (nominated for Best Group Blog), Sean Martinson contributes his well-considered thoughts – and supporting materials – on whether mobile phones should be banned in schools, and Tim Laeur provides his thoughts on the role of Amazon’s new Kindle e-book reader in modern educational settings.
  • The TechLearning blog (also nominated for Best Group Blog) provides some nice commentary on the 2007 Horizon Report, including a quote on mobile phones in educational settings: “There is a time these will be as much a part of education as a bookbag”. Amen…
  • On dy/dan (nominated for Best New Blog) there’s a really interesting conversation in the post and comments on the pros and cons of podcasting. It challenges a lot of my own assumptions about the utility of podcasts, but it’s terrific to see various points of view!
  • Sheesh. The Butterfly Effect (also nominated for Best New Blog) documents a viral mobile game titled “The Coolest Girl in School” which purportedly encourages girls to take drugs and fall pregnant to improve their game statistics. There’s obviously a cautionary tale here, as well as a challenge – can we develop alternative viral games which provide positive and affirming simulations?
  • Rather a lot of m-learning articles on the Edte.ch blog, (nominated for Best Resource Sharing Blog)… covering things like RFID tags in uniforms, the (not) OLPC, and “the obligatory iPhone in education post“. Noice! :)

More finds as I trawl through the rest of the nominees!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,




OLPC XO Laptop getting glowing reviews…

8 10 2007

The alway-entertaining David Pogue (New York Times) has reviewed the One Laptop Per Child XO Laptop and his official verdict is “it’s amazing”. If you’re wondering what the fuss is all about, check out his video review here or in the video player below. I *really* want to try out the XO for myself, but sadly, the “Give One, Get One” offer appears to be restricted to the USA. :(

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , ,




Complete schematics for sub-$150 handheld (learning?) device

21 03 2007

In my last post, I picked up Dr. Paul Trafford’s idea for a $100 PDA, and he was gracious enough to add his comment:

Your thoughts on a $100 One-PDA-A-Learner are very welcome. Many thanks for picking this up. My musings on OxPDA are now more than 2 years old and since then connectivity has improved a lot, so my wishes should probably be revised.

An affordable Linux-based PDA sounds a good candidate, but brand new equipment always comes at a considerable premium. If it is to work I think it is important to bring in experiences from a broad range of initiatives, each of which can contribute at least some lessons. One project that offered much promise a few years ago was the Simputer, but it didn’t prove as cost-effective as hoped.

I’d be ecstatic to see Paul’s revised thoughts on what a $100 PDA might incorporate today, given advancements in technology in the last two years. I agree with Paul that brand new equipment generally carries abit of a price tag, but this is often the result of manufacturer, wholesale, and retail markups – a hurdle side-stepped by the creators of the OLPC by controlling their own manufacturing and distribution, rather than purchase a marked-up consumer model. Having control over design and manufacturing also meant the OLPC machines could be designed from the ground up to support pedagogical objectives – rather than the usual consumer entertainment or business objectives.

So… what if we could make this thing from scratch, and cut out the mark-ups? What if the project was run as an open-source platform, enabling its hardware and software to be continuously revised and improved by a community of developers? To inspire ideas about what might one day be, I refer to the Chumby project, (which I’ve previously blogged), an open-source handheld computing platform being developed as a from-scratch device with an expected retail cost of under US$150 – I reckon that would put the actual parts and manufacturing cost around $100.

Because it’s an open source project, all of the Chumby hardware schematics and component lists (indeed, even a blueprint of the PCB and assembly drawing) are freely available to their developer community, as well as the Linux-based OS that it runs. The documentation demonstrates that putting together a $100 handheld device from scratch is highly feasible. The Chumby concept certainly isn’t my idea of an ideal handheld learning device; but it does provide some inspiration for a working model of how such a device might be designed, refined, and implemented.

So… what would *you* like to see in an ideal handheld learning device? Ideally, such a question should be answered in pedagogical, rather than technological, terms, with every bit of incorporated technology in the design underpinned by a set of learning objectives or opportunities it facilitates, and justified on a (educational) return-on-investment basis.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




A $100 One-PDA-A-Learner (OPAL?)

20 03 2007

Dr. Paul Trafford of Oxford University has got me thinking with his idea for a $100 PDA for education. He’s already put together the figures to show that it’s already possible – yes, right now – to put together a $100 PDA package for students (even his older figures from last year put the package price under US$150, the current cost of manufacturing an OLPC laptop), which could include a local version of Wikipedia, packaged up for complete searching and reference using Tomeraider software.

Seeing as he’s managed to put together a $100 learner PDA without the global consortium the OLPC project has entailed, he now has me thinking what one could put together in a custom $100 PDA, built and designed from scratch, and based on an open platform architecture. After all, it’s already possible to build a complete, though basic, mobile phone handset for $25… and an open-platform, Linux-based handheld device was recently launched by electronics company Grundig, featuring a 2-megapixel camera, sleek clamshell design, mp3 player, microSD expandable memory, FM radio, and wireless connectivity – all achieved with a single chip (minimising production costs). The feasibility of a Linux-based handheld device is further supported by the fact that most Motorola phones have been running Linux as their OS since 2003, not to mention many Samsung models. Even GPS can (and has been) be integrated with a Linux-based handheld device, and according to some analysts, Linux is expected to be one of the dominant OSes in the handheld market by 2010

Dr. Trafford has his own wishlists for what might be included in such a tool – veering away from a telephone-like device towards more of a PDA-like device, and I agree that a PDA-type interface could provide a good deal more flexiblity in terms of learning activities and interfaces.

Whatever the form factor, I personally would like to see an informationally connected – or at least, Internet connected – low cost device, which leads me to the latest internet buzz over the development of a “Google phone“. Among Google’s 20-odd research projects, they’ve confirmed they are working on an informationally-connected handheld device:

Isabel Aguilera, head of Google’s Iberian operations, was quoted last week in Spanish news site Noticias.com as acknowledging the existence of a part-time project by some Google engineers to develop a mobile phone.

In her interview at http://tinyurl.com/2feypv/, translated from Spanish, the Google executive said her company “has been investigating” developing a mobile phone that works both as an internet access device and as a way to extend internet use to emerging markets customers.

A handheld internet access device? From the world’s current leader in information access and connectivity? Designed for emerging market cutomers (i.e. low cost)? From an educator’s perspective, this sounds like an exciting prospect, and should investigation lead Google to actual design and implementation, I’ll certainly be following any news keenly. Google have been making it abundantly clear that mobile technology is their current priority for continued growth, and have proven it through their creation of mobile widgets for mail, maps, news, and searching; their recent purchase of Neven Vision also hints at their interest in creating new tools that will enable the use of image recognition to perform “visual searches” and discover information about objects using a camera phone.

It’s all very interesting to think about. I’m mulling Dr. Trafford’s ideas around in my head, and I’ll certainly blog some ideas of my own as they synthesise more substantially.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




Making M-Learning Mobile, Open, and Ubiquitous

7 03 2007

Stephen Downes responds to my last post discussing the difference between mobile learning and mobile technology:

None of these conditions have anything to do with being mobile (indeed, the definition explicitly excludes mobility as a consideration). And it just happens to favour closed, proprietary platforms that access restricted networks over open or open source platforms that communicate via open protocols on a peer-to-peer or networked basis (in other words – it favours, for no good reason, telephone-like devices over computer-like devices).

This is an interesting interpretation of my “definition,” which reads as follows:

Mobile learning is about the mobility of learning, and not merely the mobility of technology, which is a different thing altogether…

How we achieve that mobility of learning must consider the context of the learning, and not just the use of mobile technology, if it is to achieve its full potential.

This conjecture (which is derived from that of Sharples et al., itself derived from the outcomes of the MobiLearn 2004 Conference), supports the idea that merely making a resource available on mobile technology may not actually constitute mobile learning – any more than putting information in a book or on a web page is learning. Attention to *how* the resource will be used – including social context of that use – supports learner *engagement* with the resource, and facilitates learning processes.

The statement “mobile learning is about the mobility of learning, and not merely the mobility of technology” certainly doesn’t explicitly exclude mobility as a consideration, but rather focusses on the mobility of the learning experience, rather than the portability of the hardware. The alternative definition – focussing on the mobility of the technology, rather than the learning – preferences the highly specced laptop full of resources that is usually switched off in the learner’s bag, over using the connected, communicative and creative device that is always on, in the learner’s hand.

Furthermore, this definition of m-learning certainly doesn’t favour any particular platform, hardware, or proprietary standard; it favours transparency of technology and ubiquity and ease of access to learning – factors, to my mind, that actually support open standards and encourage learner engagement. Placing mobile learning above mobile technology embraces the concept of using the most appropriate medium to achieve the objectives of learning, and making the technology as transparent and free of impediments to that learning as possible. Furthermore, Stephen’s claims of closed-ness and proprietariness in handheld devices don’t really align with current handheld technology. Stephen claims:

“it just happens to favour closed, proprietary platforms that access restricted networks over open or open source platforms that communicate via open protocols on a peer-to-peer or networked basis (in other words – it favours, for no good reason, telephone-like devices over computer-like devices).”

Reading this statement, one might ask what it is that a laptop can do that is more open and less proprietary than what can be achieved using a mobile device? PDAs, mobile phones and even media players can run open-source operating systems such as Linux. They can (and almost without exception, do) run open-source applications written in open-source languages such as Java. They can network and communicate, peer-to-peer, using free, open protocols including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. Photographs taken with handheld devices are saved in the ubiquitous JPG format; the most commonly supported audio format by all handheld devices is the non-DRM encumbered MP3 format; and there is a wealth of free and open source software available for all handheld devices.

Indeed, with the growing power, capabilities, and openness of desktop computers now in handheld devices, is it any wonder that companies like Google perceive handheld mobile devices as key drivers of the next stage of our society’s technological growth? And with such a boom of opportunities in the hands of our learners, won’t they expect the same handheld, mobile opportunities for quality, personalisation, access and convenience in their learning?

As educators, we are no longer the “Sage on the Stage,” to dictate to our learners what and how they will learn. Whether we are the “Guide on the Side” or the “Hack at the Back,” it is not in our mandate nor our ability to lead the way in which our learners choose to interact with their world. Rather, we must astutely observe their path and be there along the way to provide guidance and support where opportunity allows.

That opportunity for learning is often at the shops, where a student is buying milk; in the woods, as they jog through the trees; or at their workplace, which may not have computers, but will certainly have plenty of opportunities for learning.

In every such case, learning can be provided via the devices they already have with them – always on, in their pockets. It would be a shame to overlook, or underestimate, such opportunities.

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




Does Mobile Technology equate with Mobile Learning?

6 03 2007

Eminent education researcher and commentator Stephen Downes has brought up a very relevant issue that’s sometimes missed or glossed over in all this talk of mobile learning. Picking up on my previous post, where I wrote “laptops fall outside of my personal definition of “mobile learning,” due to their size,” Stephen responded:

<snip>How, I wonder, is a mobile phone or a PDA more mobile than these computers?

I have always defined ‘mobile computing’ to include whatever you could carry about reasonably conveniently. The OLPCs certainly qualify.

Although I say that laptops aren’t within my definition of mobile learning, it’s not because they can’t be used for mobile learning (they certainly can), but because of differences in how laptops are treated and accessed by learners compared with devices such as PDAs, mobile phones, and media players. My view of m-learning is more about the ubiquity, context and mobility of access (to learning), rather than the portability of technology or computing, per se.

To understand why I’ve drawn my “boundaries” where I have, let’s first consider how mobile devices such as cellphones and iPods blend into the lifestyle and culture of their users. Most people I know don’t carry a laptop everywhere, but they won’t leave home without their cellphone. Furthermore, most young people also carry a media player with them everywhere (or use the one incorporated into their cellphone). And why not? They’re highly functional and very light and compact, which is why they’re now ubiquitous “lifestyle” devices, with the potential to seamlessly support and blend work and play – ideal for incorporating informal or opportunistic learning strategies.

Not only do most users consider these devices to be essential lifestyle tools, but it’s (generally) considered socially acceptable to use these devices in public places. Whipping out a laptop in an art gallery is a rather more intrusive proposition than a mobile phone or PDA; and “audio guides” have already been used in art galleries and museums for decades. The social aspect of mobile learning has important ramifications for learning ubiquity: because even if learners *could* do a certain mobile learning activity, they may (and probably will) pass on a learning opportunity if it will make them look uncool or nerdy.

Further, consider how easy it is to listen to an audio recording on a iPod, take a picture with a camera phone, or access information on a PDA. No worries, right? You could do any of these things walking on a street or standing in a train. That’s ubiquitous learning. Now consider doing any of these things on the street with a laptop computer, and you’ll understand my distinction between a “mobile” device and a mobile access device. Mobile phones, PDAs, and media players allow for convenient, instant learning opportunities through a high level of mobile accessibility.

Even if the learner is currently in possession of a laptop, and willing to use it to engage in a learning activity, consider that the battery life of the average laptop is a couple of hours, with replacement batteries weighing almost a kilo in many cases; whereas handheld devices, with lower power requirements, can operate fully for half a day or more, and can utilise small, light, portable batteries weighing about as much as a couple of AAs, to extend usage further if required.

Finally, there’s the cost factor. Video-capable media players, which will also transport study resources, assignments and documents, can be bought for well under A$200. Almost everyone has a mobile phone, and if the results of a recent student survey at my institute can be believed, the majority of these mobile phones have advanced capabilities including a camera, internet access, picture messaging and email – and you can get a smartphone with all of these capabilities for free (on contract, or for about A$200 without a contract). Most of the time, however, no purchase will be neccesary, as the learner will already own a mobile phone and media player. A basic colour PDA can be bought for under A$200. Interestingly, the current manufacturing cost of the OLPC is about A$200, but, of course, the OLPC won’t be available to most of our learning institutions, making a PDA an attractive, low-cost alternative mobile computing platform.

That said, the OLPCs certainly break some of the paradigms of laptop computers as we currently know them – particularly with regards to power requirements and affordability/availability; and their smaller size certainly makes them more portable (and potentially ubiquitous) than other laptops.

I certainly recognise that the OLPC is different to other laptops in many respects, and I also recognise that other “mobile” devices such as laptops can be used for mobile learning; just as a notebook and pen, or a cassette walkman, are perfectly acceptable mobile learning tools in my book. :)

So it might seem that I’m focussed on quite a tight “definition” of m-learning, but it is not one that is blinded to the wider possibilities of mobile learning (I hope). Mobile learning is, after all, about the mobility of learning, and not merely the mobility of technology, which is a different thing altogether; but how we achieve that mobility of learning must consider the context of the learning, and not just the use of mobile technology, if it is to achieve its full potential.

Just my thoughts… please feel free to comment, critique, or add your own ideas. :)

technorati tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,