The Examples of M-Learning in Science

From contemporary perspective of science education, science teachers are looking for ways to demonstrate the scientific experiments or micro-phenomenon in classroom or let learners observe the nature phenomenon outside classroom, and transform learners’

experience of learning science into learning by doing it. Those ways are much more meaningful and useful for learners (G. Vavoula et al., 2005). In this section, how the mobile learning makes meaningful and useful science learning come true in and outside classroom is presented. Moreover, these examples are based on the existing learning theories mentioned in section 1.2.2.

(1) Behaviourist learning: Wessels, Fries, Horz, Scheele, and Effelsberg introduced a highly interactive lecture. Teacher could interact with students by using mobile devices in wireless network environment. In the lecture, question was posted, and students’ answers were evaluted and presented as graph on the mobile devices. In this environment, students paid more attention to the lecture and the interactivity in the lecture and students’ learning became better (Wessels, Fries, Horz, Scheele, & Effelsberg, 2007).

(2) Constructivist learning: Dufresne, Gerace, Leonard, Mestre and Wenk reported a successful classroom communication system which was considered based on the constructivist learning. Defresen et al described their experience in teaching first year physics students in the US with the classroom communication system called ‘Classtalk’. There were three main equipments in this system: palmtop computers for students, a center computer for teacher, and the network to connect them. The ‘Classtalk’ helped teacher to do the

following works:

 To present the questions for the small group discussion, to collect the answers or ideas from the small groups, and to show the whole class the group discussion results.

 Not only to collect student’ answer but also to display the histogram of students’ answers.

With the ‘Classtalk’, students are able to work collaboratively to clarify their understanding of the physics materials (which is also fit the existing learning theories mentioned in section 1.2.2). Moreover, students were engaged in active learning and more interactive in classroom. Equally important, students were positive about ‘Classtalk’ and believed that they had learn more than they had in traditional lecture. Besides, teacher devoted less time to lecture in classroom, while the students devoted more time in classroom to develop their knowledge for physics. The role of teacher was more to a coach than an information giver (Dufresne et al., 1996).

(3) Situated learning: Chen, Kao, Yu and Sheu described a mobile butterfly-watching learning (BWL) system. In this system, each individual learner had a PDA which equipped with wireless network card and a small-sized camera. During the field trip to watch butterfly, a teacher carried a notebook computer with a WiFi wireless LAN card served as a local server.

And more, this notebook computer had a complete butterfly database. Each learner took a picture of a butterfly and the picture would be sent to the database via wireless network. A content-based butterfly-image retrieval technique was applied in the system and search for the most closely matching butterfly to the picture sent and its information. Then, this information

returned to the learner. To evaluate this BWL system, the control groups used a butterfly guide textbook and the experimental groups used the BWL system to learn the key features of butterflies in elementary school in Taiwan. The results showed that the experimental groups were able to identify more key features of butterflies than control groups (Chen et al., 2004).

(4) Collaborative learning: Cortez et al proposed a Mobile Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (MCSCL) system which promoted students’

collaborative learning without losing face-to-face contact. The system evaluation took place in high school physics class in Chile. In experimental groups, teacher taught the materials first and then applied the collaborative activity with the MCSCL system to class. During the collaborative activity with the MCSCL system, teacher downloaded the activity from website to pocket PC, and transmitted the activity to students’ pocket PCs via MANET (mobile ad hoc network or mobile mesh network). Students were arranged in groups of three and worked together for the activity. When the activity finished, teacher could collect students’ results from their pocket PCs into teacher’s pocket PC, and then transmitted those results to computer and analyzed them. Cortez et al obtained statistically significant results showing that teaching and learning with the MCSCL system enabled the students to construct new knowledge based upon the previous knowledge provided by teacher (Cortez et al., 2004).

(5) Informal and lifelong learning: Wellington made differentiations of informal science learning and formal science learning as Table 1 (Wellington, 1990).

Table 1: The Features of Informal and Informal Science Learning.

Informal Science Learning Formal Science Learning

Voluntary Compulsory

Haphazard, unstructured, unsequenced Structured, sequenced Non-assessed, non-certified Assessed, certified

Open-ended, learner-led, learner-centred More closed, teacher-led, teacher-centred Outside of formal settings Classroom and institution-based

Unplanned Planned

Undirected, not legislated for Legislated and directed (controlled)

Here a practical example will be presented. The International centre of Digital Content at Liverpool John Moores University in United Kingdom proposed a PDA application for personal education of breast cancer patients (Wood, Keen, Basu, & Robertshaw, 2003). The functions of this application involved the delivery of text, images, videos, and those delivered information fit to individual patient’s needs. Patients could also take notes within this application and discuss with doctor when they visited hospital. However, there is no evaluation of this personal education application so far.

(6) Learning and teaching support: Corlett, Sharples, Bull and Chan described a 10-month trail of university students using a mobile learning organiser. The organiser was an mobile application which could install in students’ mobile devices, and let students manager their their learning such as attending lectures, reading course contents, reciving for exams and meeting course dealines in this organiser. After the 10-month trail, they found out this

organiser was demanded for mobile learning especially for providing course content and timetable information (Corlett, Sharples, Bull, & Chan, 2005).