Article

 Critique

Affordances  of  mobile  technologies  for  experiential  learning:  the  interplay  of  technology  and  
pedagogical  practices
C.-­‐H.  Lai,  J.-­‐C.  Yang,  F.-­‐C.  Chen,  C.-­‐W.  Ho  &  T.-­‐W.  Chan

Theoretical  Perspective

The  authors  of  this  article  provided  a  thoughtful  and  rational  conceptual  framework  as  they  

explored  the  connection  between  mobile  technology  and  pedagogical  practices.  From  the  

beginning  of  the  article,  the  authors  laid  out  a  clear  goal  for  the  study  which  was  to  examine  

the  possibility  of  a  support  system  for  experiential  learning  when  using  mobile  devices.  

Mobile  technology  for  this  study  was  clearly  identified  as  being  personal  digital  assistants  

(PDAs).    Further,  several  affordances  of  mobile  technology  were  described  in  detail    and  will  

be  highlighted  later  in  this  critique.  To  restate,  the  overall  conceptual  framework  as  

communicated  in  the  article  appears  to  be  examining  experiential  learning  by  providing  a  

support  system  based  on  a  specific  technology  which  is  identified  as  mobile  devices.  From  

this  framework,  the  researchers  laid  out  a  plan  to  design  a  lesson  (learning  flow)  that  

allowed  students  to  experiment  and  learn  in  their  local  school  garden.  An  experiment  design  

was  constructed  to  collect  data  and  relevant  information  that  would  compare  the  

knowledge  creation  of  two  test  groups  (5th  grade  classes).    One  group  had  access  to  the  

mobile  devices  and  the  other  group  experienced  the  same  learning  flow  but  did  not  have  

access  to  those  devices.  As  noted,  the  conceptual  framework  was  clearly  articulated  from  

the  general  concept  down  to  the  practical  steps  of  the  process.

1! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

Among  the  competing  pedagogical  theories  and  beliefs  in  education,  experiential  learning  is  

not  only  of  high  current  interest  but  also  can  be  a  difficult  methodology  to  develop  

effectively.  The  authors  defined  experiential  learning  for  their  study  as    utilizing  “experience  

in  a  unique  context  to  facilitate  knowledge  acquisition  and  creation.”    This  definition  

encompasses  several  other  relevant  approaches  including  discovery  learning,  observational  

learning,  and  constructivism.    Not  only  is  the  topic  of  great  interest  throughout  the  

educational  community  because  of  the  potential  impact  on  student  engagement  and  

achievement  but  this  study  goes  one  step  beyond  examining  the  approach.  The  researchers  

looked  to  support  the  theory  by  a  technological  system  and  learning  flow  that  would  

complement  the  experiential  learning  process.  This  additional  perspective  can  provide  

information  about  the  types  of  tools  that  are  provided  in  an  educational  setting  and  how  

they  can  help  support  pedagogy.  It  also  can  provide  useful  information  for  teacher  training  

and  how  educators  can  be  better  prepared  to  create  lessons  with  similar  technology  

support  structures.  Finally,  the  topic  is  not  without  its  controversy.    By  focusing  on  the  

support  structure  within  a  learning  theory,  and  not  the  specific  content,  the  results  of  this  

study  could  have  a  dramatic  impact  on  teaching  styles  if  the  results  can  be  generalized.  This  

work  could  help  in  the  debate  of  whether  technology  use  with  conventional  content  can  

have  a  direct  positive  impact  on  student  achievement  and  knowledge  creation.

The  researchers  provided  relevant  research  and  background  information  to  help  clarify  their  

investigation  and  tie  together  current  approaches  with  theories  that  have  endured  for  

multiple  decades.  For  example,  Dewey’s  “learning  by  doing”  theory  from  the  1930s  talks  

about  the  value  of  active  learning.  Linking  past  experiences  with  new  content  and  contexts  

2! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

is  a  significant  part  of  the  optimal  learning  concepts  discussed  in  Kolb’s  experiential  learning  

theory.    This  theory  is  discussed  in  detail  and  formed  the  basis  for  the    pedagogical  

foundation  in  this  research.  As  we  move  down  the  conceptual  framework  from  the  learning  

theory  to  a  support  system,  the  authors  also  provide  background  research  about  the  

application  of  mobile  technology  to  learning  including  references  to  the  G1:1  project,  the  

MOBIlearn  project,  and  the  M-­‐learning  project.  Most  of  this  and  similar  research  claims  

benefits  to  learning  achievement  through  the  utilization  of  mobile  technology.  However,  it  is  

also  noted  by  the  authors  that  mobile  technology  does  not  work  on  its  own  but  rather  is  

part  of  a  complicated  system  which  is  influenced  by  other  social  and  cultural  factors.  After  

connecting  research  about  mobile  devices  and  learning  the  authors  continued  to  provide  

definitions  and  research  supporting  the  conceptual  framework.  Affordance  is  defined  as  the  

relationship  between  an  object  of  physical  properties  and  the  characteristics  of  the  user  that  

enables  particular  interactions  between  the  user  and  object  (Gibson,  1977).    Educational  

affordance  is  further  clarified  for  an  educational  setting  as  the  relationship  between  the  

properties  of  an  educational  intervention  and  the  characteristics  of  the  learner  that  enables  

particular  kinds  of  learning  by  him  or  her  (Kirschner,  2002).  The  connection  between  the  

author’s  research  interest  and  analogous  research  and  theories  is  clear  and  relevant.  

Research  Design  and  Analysis

This  study  explored  the  possibility  of  technological  support  for  experiential  learning  with  

mobile  devices.  Researchers  conducted  this  study  using  an  experimental  study  design  with  a  

convenience  sample.  The  author’s  hypothesis  stated  that  mobile  technologies  can  increase  

3! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

knowledge  creation  through  experiential  learning  beyond  that  which  is  achieved  with  

traditional  methods  (paper  and  pencil).  Therefore,  the  null  hypothesis  would  suppose  that  

mobile  technologies  would  have  no  impact  or  a  negative  impact  on  knowledge  creation.  The  

group  was  a  small  convenience  sample  selected  from  one  school  and  consisting  of  two  fifth-­‐

grade  classrooms.  The  quantity,  gender,  and  grade  level  of  participants  were  noted.  The  

overall  number  of  students  participating  was  66  (one  class  of  34  and  one  class  of  32)  with  a  

relatively  equal  distribution  between  boys  and  girls.  The  small  convenience  sample  would  

not  lead  to  extensive  generalization  to  larger  populations.  Due  to  a  single  grade  level,  small  

number  of  students,  and  small  number  of  classes,  the  results  of  the  study  need  to  be  

carefully  applied  to  other  situations.  Little  additional  information  is  provided  about  the  

students  such  as  demographic  information,  achievement  information,  or  classroom  designs  

(e.g.,  special  education,  gifted,  charter  school).    The  lack  of  specific  details  in  the  participant  

section  makes  it  more  difficult  to  generalize  the  results.    

The  listed  procedure  was  clear  and  noted  the  structure  of  having  a  pre-­‐test,  main  activity,  

post-­‐test,  and  questionnaire.  Discussion  of  the  results  of  the  study  used  this  structure  

effectively.  The  results  section  listed  the  items  for  the  questionnaire  but  not  the  form  itself.    

The  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐test  were  noted  to  be  identical  in  their  content  and  consisted  of  eight  

multiple-­‐choice  questions.  One  design  distinction  was  that  one  group  of  fifth-­‐grade  students  

received  an  additional  90  minute  course  on  the  use  of  the  PDAs  after  the  pre-­‐test.  It  was  not  

addressed  whether  the  authors  thought  that  this  additional  training  or  level  of  exposure  

could  have  affected  the  results  or  how  they  might  have  thought  the  lesson  flow  would  have  

been  altered  without  this  training  (if  students  were  left  to  discover  how  to  use  the  devices  

4! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

on  their  own  for  example).  The  learning  flow  gave  all  students  the  same  information  about  

the  content  and  asked  them  to  perform  the  same  tasks  in  a  consistent  overall  experience.  

However,  an  attributable  distinction  between  the  two  groups  was  in  the  tools  that  were  

used  to  complete  the  tasks  such  as  one  group  being  allowed  to  take  photographs  while  the  

other  group  sketched  the  image  of  the  flower.  From  the  description  of  the  process  and  

learning  flow,  it  appears  that  the  students  had  a  consistent  experience  despite  the  

technology  that  they  had  available  to  them.  This  consistency  allows  the  researchers  to  focus  

directly  on  the  impact  of  the  technology  variable.    Prior  to  the  post-­‐test,  the  final  portion  of  

the  learning  flow  required  students  to  generate  a  report.  The  statements  within  those  

reports  from  the  students  were  analyzed  based  on  two  main  categories:  knowledge  

creation  and  knowledge  acquired.  The  article  provided  a  clear  description  of  how  they  

categorized  knowledge  creation  or  knowledge  acquired  statements.  This  process  can  

obviously  lead  to  a  subjective  coding  based  on  who  is  analyzing  the  material.  It  is  not  noted  

in  the  article  who  was  doing  the  coding    nor  the  method  in  which  it  occurred.  After  the  data  

were  gathered  a  one-­‐tailed  t-­‐test  was  conducted.  Using  a  one-­‐tailed  approach  seems  

suitable  since  there  was  one  direction  of  interest  as  indicated  in  their  hypothesis  that  

“mobile  technologies  can  increase  knowledge  creation.”  However,  the  article  provided  little  

additional  detail  about  the  t-­‐test  method  and  some  questions  remain  about  the  application  

for  these  data.  Correct  answers  on  a  test  are  not  continuous  variables  since  there  are  not  

unlimited  outcomes  within  the  range.  The  students  were  not  randomly  assigned  to  groups  

and  the  authors  do  not  discuss  the  assumptions  with  the  variance  between  the  groups.  

Although  the  purpose  of  the  t-­‐test  can  be  to  find  differences  between  the  means  of  two  

groups,  it  seems  that  several  assumptions  of  the  t-­‐test  are  not  addressed  or  are  violated.  

5! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

The  questionnaire  had  37  items,  had  four  main  parts,  used  a  Likert  scale  and  gathered  

information  about  students  attitude  about  the  learning  flow  in  general,  and  the  supporting  

technology  in  particular.  It  was  noted  that  there  was  one  "trick  question"  included  for  

validity  purposes.  I  would  question  the  limited  scope  as  additional  questions  would  seem  

reasonable  to  enhance  validity.  A  problem  can  occur  where  people  may  become  influenced  

by  the  way  they  have  answered  previous  questions.  For  example,  if  they  have  agreed  several  

times  in  a  row,  they  may  continue  to  agree.  This  patterning  can  be  broken  up  by  asking  

reversal  questions,  where  the  sense  of  of  the  question  is  reversed.  With  only  one  trick,  or  

reversal  question,  this  would  not  be  possible.  

The  study’s  design  and  analysis  appear  adequate  in  their  scope  and  detail  aside  from  the  

items  mentioned  previously  regarding  coding  of  the  final  report,  assumptions  of  the  t-­‐test,  

and  the  limited  reversal  questions  in  the  questionnaire.  The  variables  in  the  study  were  

limited  to  whether  or  not  the  individual  use  of  mobile  device  during  the  learning  flow.  Not  

enough  information  was  provided  to  establish  that  the  variables  are  normally  distributed  

within  each  group  and  the  variation  of  scores  in  the  two  groups  is  not  reliably  different.  

Additional  statistics  regarding  the  students  should  be  included  as  noted.  This  would  allow  

the  reader  to  understand  all  the  factors  that  could  contribute  to  the  outcomes.    Finally,  the  

qualitative  data  that  were  collected  through  the  questionnaire  provided  significant  

information  for  understanding  the  learning  flow  and  the  sequencing  of  events.  This  provided  

additional  information  from  the  stated  research  question  that  was  discussed  by  the  

researchers  and  used  to  give  future  recommendations.

6! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

Interpretations  and  Implications  of  Results  

 In  the  abstract  the  authors  wrote  that  “results  indicate  that  mobile  technologies  are  

effective  in  improving  knowledge  creation  during  experiential  learning.”    These  results  were  

supported  by  a  design  structure  and  related  data  collection.  The  study  found  that  learning  

achievement  scores  of  the  group  with  the  mobile  devices  were  significantly  higher  than  

those  without  them.  The  researchers  proposed  that  the  students  with  the  PDAs  created  

more  knowledge  than  did  the  students  without  the  PDAs.  The  authors  discussed  the  

difference  between  knowledge  creation  and  knowledge  acquisition.  This  distinction  is  a  

critical  part  of  understanding  the  conceptual  limitation  of  the  results.  For  example,  the  

students  had  access  to  the  Internet  in  order  to  further  develop  understanding  and  conduct  

deeper  investigations.  This  process  alone  would  be  knowledge  acquisition  and  would  not  

reflect  the  stated  results.  However,  the  article  does  give  examples  and  methods  for  how  

they  distinguish  between  these  two  critical  categories.  The  results  in  the  questionnaire  

indicate  that  some  issues  were  discovered  including  the  differences  between  photo  taking  

and  sketching,  the  effectiveness  of  the  learning  prompts,  and  the  motivation  level  of  

students  with  or  without  the  mobile  devices.  Additionally,  the  questionnaire  also  provided  

feedback  about  the  six  stage  learning  flow  which  all  students  experienced.  Although  each  

group  had  different  supporting  media,  it  was  noted  that  order  of  the  flow  made  an  impact  

on  student  responses  of  whether  they  found  the  stage  helpful,  frustrating,  or  enjoyable.  The  

author’s  conclusion  and  discussion  of  limitations  are  consistent  with  the  reported  results  

7! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930

and  is  directly  tied  into  the  original  research  question.  Despite  some  issues  with  the  methods  

as  described  in  the  previous  section,  the  author’s  discussion  in  the  article  was  

comprehensive  and  covered  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  the  study.  The  

author  could  have  connected  the  results  back  to  the  related  theories  in  the  beginning  part  

of  the  article  (whether  it  was  the  mobile  device  impact  on  learning  projects  or  the  

experiential  learning  theories).  The  results  and  conclusions  remain  consistent  to  the  overall  

focus  of  experiential  learning  and  the  integration  of  technology;  however,  specific  

references  back  to  previous  research  are  not  detailed.  The  authors  also  list  three  factors  for  

considerations  for  future  experiments  that  provide  a  good  reflection  of  the  process.

The  reflection  on  both  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  results  demonstrated  that  it  was  not  

necessarily  the  technology  itself  but  the  interplay  between  technology  and  pedagogical  

practice  that  afforded  possibilities  for  better  experiential  learning.  This  understanding  can  

have  a  significant  impact  on  future  teaching  practice.    Although  the  sample  size  was  limited  

and  generalizations  need  to  be  handled  carefully,  the  concepts  can  lead  to  further  research  

in  understanding  the  interplay  between  different  forms  of  technology  and  different  teaching  

practices.  These  findings  also  continue  to  provide  evidence  necessary  to  move  away  from  

the  idea  that  technology  will  improve  achievement  simply  because  it’s  in  the  hands  of  

students.  Simultaneously,  it  forces  readers  to  revisit  the  potential  positive  impacts  of  

technology  integration  in  purposeful  educational  contexts.

8! Chris Fahnoe - EPET 900/930