Internet Learning Volume 4, Number 2, Fall 2015 | Page 28

The Future of mLearning Begins with a Baseline Pedagogy
developed states through a convergence of
the strengths related to the traditional and
eLearning classrooms: human interaction
and nearly world-wide reach. The LMS-less
approach makes it relevant to today rather
than at some unknown point in the future
and the baseline pedagogy spans across
academic disciplines. However, with so many
innate options available for use in the baseline
pedagogy, testing is needed to narrow them
down for specific academic disciplines.
Applying Social Constructivism to mLearning
Anderson and Dron (2011) identify
social constructivism as the second
generation of distance learning education
and connectivism as the third generation.
Advocates of connectivism, Siemens and
Downes advance the argument that “learning
is the process of building networks of
information, contacts and resources that are
applied to real problems” (emphasis added)
(Anderson & Dron, 2011, p. 87). Information,
so the theory goes, is found and applied when
and how it is needed (Anderson & Dron,
2011). This fits with “just-in-time” learning
(Cruz-Flores & López-Morteo, 2010), but
it overlooks the importance of having a
foundational level of knowledge on a topic
first. It is more reasonable to say that once a
foundation of learning on the topic has been
achieved “building networks of information,
contacts and resources that are applied to real
problems” results in new learning (Anderson
& Dron, 2011, p. 87).
The supporting mobile
technologies already exist in an
LMS-less mLearning classroom,
but the theory and resulting
pedagogy hasn’t evolved to take
advantage of the opportunities at
hand.
For example, a learner with very
little understanding of physics could go
through the process of “building networks
of information, contacts and resources that
are applied to real problems” (Anderson
& Dron, 2011, p. 87) without ever gaining
a foundational level of understanding of
physics. The ability to apply the information,
which is contingent upon having a base
level of understanding of it, is one link
that is overlooked in connectivist theory.
However, once that is achieved, the sources
of information, contacts made and resources
used (Anderson & Dron, 2011) that are
associated to what is learned are kept by
the learner, facilitated by technology, for
future use and application, which should
result in further learning. Networks
create an opportunity for new learning,
but connectivism is better described as a
learning tool or asset that is best applied once
foundational learning has been achieved.
However, the notion that students create
“networks of information, contacts and
resources” for future use, at least in part
through social interactions (Anderson &
Dron, 2011, p. 87), is appealing and should
be subsumed into social constructivism until
connectivism is better developed or replaced.
Specifically as it relates to distance
education, social constructivist theory
evolved in tandem with advances in
technology (Anderson & Dron, 2011). As
one-to-one communication evolved into
one-to-many and then many-to-many,
social constructivism found its place in the
distance learning classroom (Anderson &
Dron, 2011). Arguably, social constructivism
in this respect could only evolve and
appear in practice as fast as the supporting
technologies allowed. Today, the opposite
is true. The supporting mobile technologies
already exist in an LMS-less mLearning
classroom, but the theory and resulting
pedagogy hasn’t evolved to take advantage
27