Running head: WEBLIOGRAPHY #5

Webliography #5 Joseph C. Greene Liberty University

WEBLIOGRAPHY #5 Summary Pfeiffer, Gemballa, Jarodzka, Scheiter, and Gerjets (2009) designed a study to compare the effects of differing types of mobile learning in similar scenarios. The sample group contained 35 students, 22 female and 13 male, that were divided randomly into static and dynamic mobile material groups. The groups took part in a university field course in biology where they were to identify fish species while snorkeling. The groups were provided with identical mobile devices that delivered the same audio material via DVD and were the same length with the difference being that one group had static images of the fish while the other group had dynamic video. Testing was done after the initial classroom sessions and after the snorkeling sessions to measure improvement. The course was taken over three days and contained eight units. Students were given a questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale to measure opinion of snorkeling and DVD use. An ANOVA (mixed-design) assessment was given to evaluate improvement between the tests. Likewise a Bonferroni adjusted post-hoc test was used. T-tests were added to increase understanding of the results. Both groups showed improvement but each assessment showed greater improvement among the group with the dynamic images. The tests showed increased improvement from the rates of those learning without mobile devices, and with other static helps, in previous years. Mobile learning can be implied to be showing value as an enhancement to traditional curricula but further study needs to be done. Critique The authors seem to form opinions that are in contradiction with their own findings. With only one narrow study they claim that mobile learning, specifically with dynamic content,

WEBLIOGRAPHY #5 improves learning. They then state that there is no notable difference between dynamic and static presentations on the mobile devices despite the testing results seeming to show that there is. The authors are correct in stating that the study does show cause for further study in situated learning scenarios and that mobile devices show promise as a source of enhancement for traditional education. The study itself is extremely narrow. As such, it carries little value in transferring the results to other learning situations. There is not valid reason given for why there was not a control group that received no mobile device help to use in comparison to both groups used in the study. This would have saved the somewhat irrelevant look back to results from prior years and likely have given a more complete picture of the difference in more comparable students. The authors pose no help to those who may wish to replicate the study in other disciplines and seem wholly unconcerned with anything more than proving themselves right. A longer, broader study would likely offer more useful information. References

Pfeiffer, V. D. I., Gemballa, S., Jarodzka, H., Scheiter, K., & Gerjets, P. (2009). Situated learning in the mobile age: mobile devices on a field trip to the sea. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 17(3), 187-199. DOI:10.1080/09687760903247666