Preface
In my research and review of several peer reviewed articles in these book, show that higher education faces major challenges both pedagogically and technically (Amhag, 2011; 2012; 2013a; 2013b; 2016a; 2016b; 2017; 2020; Amhag, Hellström & Stigmar, 2019; Amhag & Jakobsson, 2009). In the articles provides several opportunities to design and teach for self-directed and motivated higher education with smart pedagogy in a resource-enriched virtual learning environment, VLE through technology-embedded blended prerequisite and activities across various dimensions, including the notion that students can learn self-directed at anywhere and anytime, and easily switch learning contexts to another or a variety of scenarios. These blended learning activities combines both in- and out-off the university and during practical training in the profession by using face-to-face, F2F classroom lessons, teacher-recorded flipped lesson videos and mobile online webinars F2F with chat communications that contribute to increase internationalization, globalization and digitization of higher education.
An important factor for successful integration of virtual and mobile learning activities in higher education is, above all, that teachers can identify the pedagogical and the technological benefits in their teaching and learning contexts with wearable tools to enhance student-centered learning and active participation at anytime and anywhere. Therefore, the perception of teachers in higher education are of great significance because they have a fundamental role in teaching and serve as role models for virtual and mobile learning activities among students with different wearable tools, lecture material, lecture recordings, online face-to-face webinars, F2F, chat, discussion forums, and other online resources i.e. interactive white-board (Amhag, 2016a; 2016b; 2017; 2020). The following questions would be answered in each chapter:
• In what way can teachers a) design and b) use different virtual and mobile learning activities and wearable tools that are appropriate for student-centered learning and active participation?
• How do the students experience the virtual and mobile activities and the wearable tools for their learning?
• In what way can the virtual and mobile activities and tools be analyzed comparing to the students’ performance?
In Chapter 1, focus is on Smart Mobile Learning Activities in higher education. There is no existing tool that evaluates teachers’ perceptions of mobile learning (m‐learning), therefore innovative solutions are needed of using wearable tools for student-centered learning and active participation. Important is the use of smart education and smart technology to develop professionally the courses in higher education about underlying pedagogical perspectives and didactic strategies (Amhag, 2016a; 206b; Baran, 2014). Methodically, illustrates two frameworks, one with three distinctive features of m-learning (Kearney, Schuck, Burden & Aubusson, 2012) and one with dialogic levels, to highlight and explore the experiences of mobile learning. Theoretically, the analysis of 40 students’ contributions (N=919) (Amhag, 2011; 2012; Amhag & Jakobsson, 2009) is based on Bakhtin’s (1981; 1986/2004) specific approach to understand dialogues and Toulmin’s argument pattern, TAP (1958). The results show that teachers’ digital competence consists of, among other things, dealing with different digital devices and its software to use wearable technology for pedagogical purposes and to enhance student-centred learning. Central is to enhance understanding of the skills, dispositions, assignments, tutoring and examinations with focus on knowledge for teaching-learning contexts where students’ communication and active participation with resource-enriched and technology-embedded activities is increasingly pivotal.
In Chapter 2 focus is on Smart Mobile Learning Environment in higher education to promote academic studies and professional training in higher education, both blended prerequisite and activities across various dimensions (Amhag & Jakobsson, 2009; Chen et al., 2016; Couros, 2006; Gros, 2016). The design of a smart mobile learning hub, MLH goes beyond simply adding new teaching, learning, and assessment strategies to an existing course. Instead, it is shown as a portfolio for smart learning and how it can be organized through a smart mobile learning environment (Hwang, 2014; Hwang, Lai & Wang, 2015; Spector, 2014). Methodically, it illustrates and analyses a smart mobile learning hub, MLH for student-centered learning both in- and
out-off the university and during practical training in the profession by using smart devices such as mobile laptop, tablet or smartphone (Amhag, 2016a; 2016b). Theoretically, the analysis joins the research tradition of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (Wenger, 1998), complemented with Computer Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1977; 1982; 1984; 2002; Compeau & Higgins, 1995). The excerpts demonstrate that is it highly important for the design of a smart learning environment to motivate different students, recognising their competencies, learning styles and interests for academic studies, both theoretically and practically for the future profession.
In Chapter 3 focus is on Smart Learning With Seamless Activities in higher education and the design of smart education both in and out of classroom in online webinars with verbal face-to-face, F2F communications and parallel textual chat exchanges with other students and teachers for their seamless flipped learning and teaching (Amhag, 2016a; 2016b; 2017; 2020; Chen, Cheng & Chew, 2016). The chapter demonstrates in representative excerpts seamless activities and how they can increase student-centered learning and bridge between smart pedagogy and intelligent technologies in different professional teaching practices. Methodically these conditions are compared by using wireless technologies such as laptops, tablets, and smartphones accessible from different locations at anytime and anywhere (Hwang, 2014; Zhu, Yu & Riezebos, 2016). Theoretically, the analysis is based on the concept of mobile-assisted seamless learning activities, MSL based on six dimensions of actual learning (Wong, Chai, Aw & King, 2015; Wong & Looi, 2011). The results are raising some challenges and implications presented by using smart learning environment to expand smart learning, active participation and collaboration across different contexts for creation of smart education.
In Chapter 4 focus is on Peer Learning Activities in Smart Education and in what ways various peer learning methods can be a tool for students learning and development in a formative and creative way in smart higher education. The chapter describes various peer methods and peer learning activities (Amhag, 2013b; Boud, Cohen & Sampson, 2001a; 2001b; 2001c; Topping, 2005) and the way peer activities can contribute to complex types of academic works, which heavily relies on the active role of teachers when the nature of online settings promotes self-directed and self-regulated learning. Methodically, there is a comparative design of various peer learning strategies and activities and how they can contribute to student-centered learning for self-directed and motivated smart higher education. Theoretically, the comparative analysis is based on socio-cultural theory by using dimensions of community of practice (Wenger, 1998) and the zone of the proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978;
Del Rio and Alvarez, 2007) for student-centered learning to address the course content itself, i.e. what the student know, what they can do, and where they are aiming to be. The results demonstrate that the approach of peer learning activities is a key factor to consider and adapt the courses special features, its learning goals and learning outcomes, and the educational environment in which the peer learning activities will takes place, and in- and out of the university or both. Positively correlated with academic learning, the outcomes in a mobile setting have teachers’ strategies of time and place.
In Chapter 5 focus is on Peer Feedback Activities in Smart Education and how peer feedback processes can support student-centered learning toward higher-order thinking and critical ability (Evans, 2013; Topping, Smith, Swanson & Elliot, 2000; Wiliam, 2011; 2013). Important benefits of implementing peer feedback between students is that the feedback becomes available faster during the course, and that more analysis, strengths and weaknesses, or alternative strategies for improvement are available earlier than the teachers could ever provide, as well as an intermediate step for self-assessment is organized when they evaluate their own work. Methodically, various types of feedback are given, based on review of selected articles from previous research. The qualitative empirical data of feedback processes (N=155) among 22 students was grounded on criteria and guidance on feedback for collaborative learning (Amhag, 2013b). Methodically, the feedback design was grounded on criteria based on Dysthe, Hertzberg and Løkensgard Hoel (2011) and Sadlers (1998) three components of self-assessment. Theoretically, the two-phase analysis is grounded on the assessment cycle with six activities by Reinholz (2016) and the model of feedback by Hattie and Timperley (2007) with four levels of feedback to reduce the gap between where the students are, and where they are aiming to be. The results demonstrate that the power of the social value and development of peer feedback are one of the most critical and self-directed impacts on student-centered learning and higher-order thinking and critical ability in smart higher education.
In Chapter 6 focus is on Reflection and Self-Assessment in Smart Education to motivate reflection and self-assessment as a further integral part of the professional educational training with critical incidents about a situation, incident, or issue for encouraging the students to find their own ways of learning and to act and think critically and professionally (Amhag, 2020). The concept of reflection is common to a number of learning theories, but they have different meanings and implications and reflective methods are not often used (Dewey 1938/1997; Jordi, 2011; McIntosh, 2010; Schön, 1987). Methodically, selected reviewed articles show a number of different
focus and common terms of reflection and related ideas from theories by associated authors. Theoretically, the analysis of six students’ digital log journals during their school, created on practical training courses, is based on Bain, Ballantyne, Mills and Lesters (2002) five ‘R’s’ major levels of reflection: reporting, responding, relating, reasoning and reconstructing and Tomkins (2009) steps: noticing, making sense, and making meaning, as well as working with meaning. The qualitative data from the log journals demonstrate the importance of letting students have agency and mediate their subjective knowledge experiences in progression, in a resource-enriched learning environment with technology-embedded tools, to understand and make sense of experience in relation to self, others, and contextual conditions for personal and professional learning.
In Chapter 7 focus is on Virtual Learning in Smart Education to expand the knowledge about virtual learning environment, VLE and virtual reality, VR and how the learning processes can be a tool for motivated and student-centered learning in a resource-enriched environment with technology-embedded tools. Virtual reality, VR can be defined as a computer-generated simulation of a three-dimensional image or virtual learning environment, VLE with which a person can interact with different tools (Kennedy & Dunn, 2018). Methodologically, selected reviewed articles show that VLE and VR are a relatively broad concept and are often used in the areas of education, special education and motivation (Ott & Freina, 2015). Theoretically, the analysis of the answers of an open question (N=57) among teacher educators (N=105) about what kind of education they need for using a virtual learning environment with different tools (Amhag, Hellström, & Stigmar, 2019) is based on the TPACK model by Koehler, Mishra and Cain (2013) with a focus on the technological, pedagogical and content knowledge, as well as complemented with Gees (2007) five learning principles. The findings highlight that higher education and academic researchers have much to learn about teaching and learning in a virtual learning environment and in virtual reality that can enhance student-centered learning and discover the pedagogical surplus value in their own teaching and learning context through the use of technology in an educational purpose.
REFERENCES
Amhag, L. (2011). Students’ Argument Patterns in Asynchronous Dialogues for Learning. In Research Highlights in Technology and Teacher Education 2011. Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education.
Amhag, L. (2012). High school students’ argument patterns in online peer feedback. Handbook of Research on Didactic Strategies and Technologies for Education: Incorporating Advancements, 2, 711-723.
Amhag, L. (2013a). High school students’ argument patterns in online peer feedback. K-12 Education. Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 1, 209–221.
Amhag, L. (2013b). Creativity in and between Collaborative Peer Assessment Processes in Higher Distance Education. Creative Education, 4(7A2), 94–104. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.47A2011
Amhag, L. (2016a). Mobile technologies for student centered learning in a distance higher education program. In Wearable Technology and Mobile Innovations for Next-Generation Education, (pp. 184-199). IGI Global. https://www.igi-global.com/book/wearable-technology-mobile-innovations-next/142108
Amhag, L. (2016b). Mobile technologies for student centered learning in a distance higher education program. Blended Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 4, 802–817. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0069-8.ch010
Amhag, L. (2017). Mobile-Assisted Seamless Learning Activities in Higher Distance Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(3), 2017. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v6n3p70
Amhag, L. (2020). Student Reflections and Self-Assessments in Vocational Training Supported by a Mobile Learning Hub. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 12(1), 1–16. doi:10.4018/IJMBL.2020010101 Amhag, L., Hellström, L., & Stigmar, M. (2019). Teacher Educators’ Use of Digital Tools and Needs for Digital Competence in Higher Education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(4), 203–220. doi:10. 1080/21532974.2019.1646169
Amhag, L., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Collaborative Learning as a Collective Competence when Students Use the Potential of Meaning in Asynchronous Dialogues. Computers & Education, 52(3), 656–667. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2008.11.012
Bain, J.D., Ballantyne, R., Mills, C. & Lester, N.C. (2002). Reflecting on practice: Student teachers’ perspectives. Flaxton: Post Pressed.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1986/2004). Speech Genres & Other Late Essays (V. W. McGee, Trans.; Vol. 9). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 PMID:847061
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. The American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1984). Recycling Misconceptions of Perceived Self-efficacy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8(3), 231–255. doi:10.1007/BF01172995 Bandura, A. (2002). Growing primacy of human agency in adaption and change in the electronic era. European Psychologist, 7(1), 2–16. doi:10.1027//1016-9040.7.1.2
Baran, E. (2014). A review of research on mobile learning in teacher education. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 17.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001a). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. In Introduction: Making the move to peer learning. Routledge.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001b). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. In Designing peer learning. Routledge. Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001c). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. In Strategies for peer learning: some examples. Routledge.
Chatti, M. A., Agustiawan, M. R., Jarke, M., & Specht, M. (2010). Toward a personal learning environment framework. International Journal of Virtual and Personal Learning Environments, 1(4), 66–85. doi:10.4018/jvple.2010100105
Chen, N. S., Cheng, I. L., & Chew, S. W. (2016). Evolution is not enough: Revolutionizing current learning environments to smart learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 561–581. doi:10.100740593-016-0108-x
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of measure and initial test. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. doi:10.2307/249688
Couros, A. V. (2006). Examining the open movement: Possibilities and implications for education (Dissertation). University of Regina.
Del Rio, P., & Alvarez, A. (2007). Inside and Outside the Zone of Proximal Development. An Ecofunctional Reading of Vygotsky. In The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp. 276-303). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (1997). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone. (Original work published 1938)
Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., & Løkensgard Hoel, T. (2011). Skriva för att lära. Skrivande i högre utbildning [Writing to learn: Writing in Higher Education] (2nd ed.; S. Andersson, Trans.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 Gee, J. P. (2007). What Video Games Have to Teach us About Learning and Literacy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gros, B. (2016). The design of smart educational environments. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 15. doi:10.118640561-016-0039-x
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487 Hwang, G. J. (2014). Definition, framework and research issues of smart learning environments – a context-aware ubiquitous learning perspective. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 4. doi:10.118640561-014-0004-5 Hwang, G. J., Lai, C. L., & Wang, S. Y. (2015). Seamless flipped learning: A mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 449–473. doi:10.100740692-015-0043-0
Jordi, R. (2011). Reframing the concept of reflection: Consciousness, experiential learning, and reflective learning practices. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(2), 181–197. doi:10.1177/0741713610380439
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), n1. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406
Kennedy, M., & Dunn, T. J. (2018). Improving the use of technology enhanced learning environments in higher education in the UK: A qualitative visualisation of students’ views. Contemporary Educational Technology. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., & Cain, W. (2013). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Journal of Education, 193(3), 13–19. doi:10.1177/002205741319300303
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction. CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm, 12(4), 18-19.
McIntosh, P. (2010). Action research and reflective practice. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203860113
Ott, M., & Freina, L. (2015). A Literature Review on Immersive Virtual Reality in Education: State Of The Art and Perspectives. The 11th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education.
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714 Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Spector, J. M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 2.
Tomkins, A. (2009). “It was a great day when…”: An exploratory case study of reflective learning through storytelling. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 8(2), 123–131. doi:10.3794/johlste.82.198
Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. doi:10.1080/713611428 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, Trans.). Academic Press.
Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-71142-3
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice - Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932 Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3–14. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.03.001 PMID:22114905 Wiliam, D. (2013). Assessment: The bridge between teaching and learning. Voices from the Middle, 21(2), 15.
Wong, L. H., Chai, C. S., Aw, G. P., & King, R. B. (2015). Enculturating seamless language learning through artifact creation and social interaction process. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(2), 130–157. doi:10.1080/ 10494820.2015.1016534
Wong, L. H., & Looi, C. K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2364–2381. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.007
Zhu, Z. T., Yu, M. H. & Riezebos, P. (2016). A research framework of smart education. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 4.
