Pedagogies, perspectives, and practices: Mobile learning through the experiences of faculty developers and instructional designers in centers for teaching and learning

to become more concrete, and support discovery and sense-making of complex environments. According to Johnson (2002), contextual teaching and learning is a matter of connecting the content of academic subject matter with the context of daily life. She wrote, “Context deserves our thoughtful attention. ... [and] content should be studied in context” (Johnson, 2002, p. 16). These three similar theories (authentic learning theory, situated learning theory, contextual learning theory) can provide rich, legitimate, and contextual learning 51 experiences when implemented from a learner centered paradigm. In addition, when these theories inform a learner-centered approach to teaching, they offer constructivist ways for students to learn using mobile devices. Constructivist Theory One of the most popular approaches to learning, and one that provides a set of theories informing educational practitioners today, is constructivism (Anderson, 2010). Associated with early research done by John Dewey and Jean Piaget, constructivism has been explained, defined, and characterized by many practitioners and researchers with little consistency among them (Anderson, 2010). A constructivist practitioner believes the learner makes his or her own meaning from their unique experiences with the environment. In essence, knowledge does not exist independently or objectively from the learner but is created actively by the learner in a recursive, non-linear process. As the name implies, social constructivism offers a socially constructed view of how one creates knowledge. In this view, the learner creates meaning as a result of interacting with others and engaging in social activities such as those found in communities of practice or within public domains of knowledge (Fox, 2008). As Tobin and Tippins (1993) explained, Knowledge is personally constructed, but socially mediated. ... From the outset, an organism constructs knowledge in the presence of others who are able to perturb the environment in such a way that a learner’s experiences are constrained by the presence of others. (p. 6) A social constructivist view takes into consideration not only what is going on inside the learner’s mind but how the meaning is shaped, validated, and shared with others, all the while incorporating the new experience into an already existing framework. In a similar vein, Vrasidas (2000) posited that knowledge is constructed through social interaction and in the learner's mind, such that if this knowledge in not processed 52 in the learner’s mind or related to his or her experiences, the knowledge is meaningless. In social constructivism, there is an emphasis on shared meaning; knowledge is socially and culturally constructed by the individual, while previous learning serves as cornerstones upon which new knowledge is created or existing knowledge is modified. Most notably, learners create meaning from the contexts of their experiences as active participants and owners of their learning. Anderson wrote (2010), “Constructivists also stress the contextual nature of learning and argue that learning happens most effectively when the task and context are authentic and hold meaning for the learners” (p. 27). He added that constructivist learning activities are best focused on ill-structured problems, problems that are open ended and messy, forcing learners “ to develop their capacity to develop effective problem-solving behaviors across multiple contexts” (Anderson, 2010, p. 2). Because mobile learning offers “just-for-me,” contextually rich learning opportunities, it is aptly suited for a constructivist theory of learning and a constructivist teaching approach. Constructivists who believe that learning arises out of an individual’s need to make meaning out of specific situations recognize that this meaning is unique due to an individual’s varying experiences in the world (Carlile & Jordan, 2005). The constructivist approach to teaching supports a learner-centered paradigm and “stresses the centrality of the learner, and the fostering of independent learning through the use of negotiated learning strategies ” (Carlile & Jordan, 2005, p. 19). A constructivist grounded approach understands a student’s autonomy; thus, the instructor acts merely as a guide, facilitator, or moderator, assisting the student’s own discovery of meaning and understanding rather than accumulating information (Carlile & Jordan, 2005). 53 Because of its highly personal and unfettered nature, mobile learning lends itself well to constructivist pedagogy. Its anytime, anywhere, and just-for-me affordances make it conducive to activities that are spontaneous, creative, interactive, contextual and self-directed. As Schwartz, Lindgren, and Lewis (2009) explained, constructivism “enables us to consider students’ abilities to create new knowledge when they are outside of instruction and we no longer have control over precise instructional variables” (p. 35). Jonassen (2009) echoed this sentiment when discussing learning in the classroom or in the “wild” as a “complex, stochastic process” where “we delude ourselves into thinking that we can control meaning-making processes” (p. 28). Challenges Implementing Mobile Learning in Higher Education Technology implementation and integration can be challenging for both classroom and online instructors (Bingimlas, 2009; Groff & Mouza, 2008; Wedman & Diggs, 2001). Issues surrounding the technology itself, students’ accessibility to the technology (e.g., ownership of a mobile device with wireless access), and the instructor’s own technology proficiency and comfort with technology integration can pose daunting hurdles, not to mention how the nature of the university’s infrastructure, online security, and wireless capabilities can impact technology implementation. Kukulska-Hulme (2007) believed many of the barriers to the implementation of mobile learning are usability based and perhaps discipline specific. She wrote, Usability is typically considered from the point of view of issues or problems encountered by users, but good usability essentially means that learning can proceed without obstacles and might even be enhanced by the availability of certain features. (para. 2) 54 She listed several usability concerns that can cause barriers to mobile learning: the size and weight of the device, its small screen size, short battery life, limited memory capacity, network speed and reliability, and software that is appropriate for mobile devices. These barriers or conditions, which inhibit the implementation or ongoing use of mobile technology, can be examined from two perspectives: first order barriers and second order barriers (Ertmer, 1999). According to Ertmer (1999), first-order barriers are those limitations or hurdles that are external to instructors and others implementing the technology. These extrinsic hurdles “include lack of access to computers and software, insufficient time to plan instruction and inadequate technical and administrative support” (Ertmer, 1999, p. 48). Second-order barriers are the internal feelings, attitudes, and beliefs of instructors and those implementing new technologies that inhibit or prevent implementation. Secondorder barriers are “intrinsic to teachers and include beliefs about teaching, beliefs about computers, established classroom practices, and unwillingness to change” (Ertmer, 1999, p. 48). Lack of confidence, competence, fear of failure (Bingimlas, 2009), and fear that students will not learn as effectively are other examples of intrinsic barriers to emerging technology implementation. While great strides have been made in technology integration over the past few years, many of the external (first-order) and internal (second-order) barriers remain when it comes to faculty use of emerging technologies. Al-Bataineh and Brooks (2003) pointed out some of the issues that plagued early computer adoption in the classroom are still relevant today: “properly trained staff, adequate equipment, ongoing funding, and the successful integration of technology in order to maximize learning” (p. 473). In a similar 55 finding, Groff and Mouza (2008) discovered the most foreseeable hurdle for teachers using technology in the classroom was their lack of knowledge, skills, and experience with that technology in addition to the time it would take to acquire the necessary skills to use the technology. Faculty are extremely pressed for time and therefore might decline to learn and implement new technology because their time is scarce and/or they are not incentivized to do so (Rhoton, 2007). In addition to time, another barrier to the use of emerging technology in teaching practices is the disruption it might cause to the instructor’s tried and true pedagogy--a second-order or internal belief barrier. Groff and Mouza (2008) acknowledged that “computer-related instructional tasks require teachers to confront their pedagogical beliefs” (p. 30). Challenging a faculty member’s pedagogy and philosophical beliefs about ways in which students learn and engage could be threatening and disruptive. Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil (2007) posited that the benefits of mobile learning demand new pedagogies and new approaches to delivering and facilitating instruction. However, faculty members might not be ready to have their pedagogical approaches and beliefs challenged and questioned in order to integrate emerging technologies into their practice. Corbeil and Valdes-Corbeil also warned that the same old and boring content may be repackaged and presented as new and high-tech, when in actuality nothing really changed. Pachler et al. (2010) claimed that challenges to mobile learning arise from what they call “a transgression of boundaries” (p. 340), a trespassing that speaks to first-order (external) barriers. The school has been, and still is, an institutional site, which insists on maintaining forms, frames and boundaries: of knowledge, of authority, of site/space/l