MOBILE LEARNING CONTENT AUTHORING TOOLS (MLCATs): A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Raymond Mugwanya

Gary Marsden

(HPI Research School, University of Cape Town, SA)

AFRICOMM 2009 – Maputo

Dec 3 -4, 2009

BACKGROUND

qMobile and ubiquitous learning is emerging as the next generation ofeducation environments.

qThe use of authoring tools is not a simple task for academics who wishto author electronic content.

qMLCATs should empower academics to easily author content that isconsumable on mobiles.

qA variety of both Commercial and Non Commercial tools exist.

BACKGROUND…

qNumerous articles have been published in journals and conferences.

qReview MLCATs

qGoal is to:

§ Classify and summarize research relevant to MLCATs

§ Provide a framework for integration and classification of articles

§ Derive suggestions for M-Learning researchers

PROCEDURE

qWe did a literature search based on keywords i.e. ‘mobile learning and content authoring tool*’

qWe surveyed articles from 2000 to 2009.

qThis review only incorporates journal and conference papers

PROCEDURE FOR SELECTION OF ARTICLES

MLCAT ARTICLES BY PUBLICATION YEAR

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Publication year

CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK

qBest practices for instructional design and content development for M-Learning http://www.mobilearn.org/download/results/public_deliverables/MOBIlearn_D4.2_Final.pdf

qWe identify three broad dimensions i.e.

vTechnology

vPedagogy

vUsability

CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORK…

qWe further subdivide the dimensions as follows:

üTechnology (system type, authoring techniques and technologies used, tool Availability, ICTD relation, tool purpose and Multimedia support)

üPedagogy (standards and learning style support )

üUsability (existence of an intuitive graphical user interface and accessibility)

RESULTS OF CLASSIFICATION

Dim.Tool

Sys. Typ. AV. ICTD Stds. LS GUI Acc.

[29] T W ?? Yes Yes Yes ??

[46] T W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[61] A W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[37] A W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[52] T C ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[35] N ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[25] ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[36] T ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[57] T D ?? Yes Yes ?? ??

[3]T

C?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[3] T W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[3] T C ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

RESULTS OF CLASSIFICATION…

Dim.Tool

Sys. Typ. AV. ICTD Stds. LS GUI Acc.

[51] T W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[7] T W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[44] T W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[17] T ?? ?? ?? Yes ?? ??

[42] T C ?? Yes Yes Yes ??

[64] A P ?? Yes ?? ?? ??

[9] V W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[48] T ?? ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[62] V W ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

[20]??

W?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[50] ?? W ?? ?? ?? Yes ??

[24] V C ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

SOME IMPLICATIONS

ØThe need for ICT4D tools to be developed within the contexts ofthe users in order for successful adoption of these technologies.

ØThe varieties of tool implementations explored are mainlytechnology driven hence the need to study and align therelationship between authoring technology, pedagogy concerns andusability.

SOME IMPLICATIONS….

ØAbility to track students progress in mobile environments, providefeedback mechanisms and improve interactivity.

ØThe need for tools that empower academics who are the domainexperts to easily create content without the need for interventionby tool experts.

OBRIGADO!!!