Abstract

 

Introduction

The aim of this study was to determine whether there is evidence that the use of moblogging increases the quality of reflection for students of the Traing & Human Development study programme at HAN University of Applied Sciences (HAN) at Nijmegen, the Netherlands.  Literature suggests that young learners (learners who grew up in the computer and mobile phone era) may benefit when mobile phones are incorporated in formal learning processes. For example, Kommers (2005) argues that mobile phones have become devices that students carry with them all the time. Mobile phones have been set up according to the student’s own personal taste and beliefs, thus promoting a personal attitude towards learning.

Students of the Training & Human Development programme at HAN University currently use desktop computers and / or paper notebooks to record their experiences, and to process these into a reflective analysis report. According to Bolhuis (2009), writing a reflective analysis report on paper forces a student to think about putting into words their own reflection. However, it can also lead to students viewing reflection as a task that merely has to be completed.

Theoretical framework

Mobile devices have become a part of social reality and will therefore contribute to changes in education ( (Kommers, 2005). Some even argue that the use of mobile phones in education will be adopted quickly, because they are already familiar with them and they already know how to use them (Wagner, 2005). This especially seems to apply to the current generation of undergraduate students; they have grown up in a time when mobile technology has always been a part of their lives.

Mobile learning has several definitions. According to Rubens (2005), mobile learning is learning with the use of wireless devices, such as laptops, tablet PCs, PDAs and mobile phones.

Mobile learning (M-learning) is frequently considered as a specification of e-learning (Rubens, 2005): learning takes place with the use of mobile devices, such as mobile phones, PDAs, tablet PCs or Smartphone.

A literature research shows that there is evidence of M-Learning projects taking place in higher education, but this is mainly restricted to medical education. In these projects, PDAs were e.g. used to view patient files, but also for recording reflective logs which were later used for reflection (Savill-Smith & Kent, 2003).
Savill-Smith and Kent (2003) also raise the question whether teenagers might be willing to use mobile devices for reflective logging, considering their enthusiasm for text messaging. In this research, we will explore how students of the Training & Human Development Study programme have used their mobile phones to create reflective logs, and it has helped them write reflection reports.

Currently, every bachelor study programme in the Netherlands is required to have ‘methodic and reflective thinking and action’ as a core qualification, a standard that every student must meet (HAN Chassis, 2003). This is usually operationalized by the study programmes by requiring students to show evidence of reflection-on-action, by doing assignments like ‘answering reflective questions’ or ‘writing reflective analysis reports’, for example about a project or a work placement (Bolhuis, 2009).

Blogging has seen many applications in education since its widespread availability. Review of the literature (Oravec, 2002) shows there are two main categories of educational blog use:

• As a way for educators to disseminate educational content.
• As a way for students to reflect on their learning process.

A review of the literature shows that moblogs have not yet seen many applications in education (Yen & Chen, 2008). One example is the RAMBLE project, which researched the the use of blogs as a reflective tool in education through the use of PDAs (Trafford, 2005).Another example is a research experiment where the nature of students’ reflections on solving a given problem in a mobile technology enhanced learning environment was researched (Yen & Chen, 2008). The conclusion of this study was that ‘although the device was limited in the screen size and ways of input, learners showed high degree reflections in the earlier stages of problem solving both during the task and after the task’.

Experiment and results

The experiment consisted of two classes of full-time students, taking the ‘Training & Human Development’ bachelor degree course at HAN University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Participants were all at the same level in their studies and had met the same pre-requisites. Group A consisted of 12 students (6 male and 6 female) and group B consisted of 13 students (5 male and 8 female). The mean age of the students was 20. The research question was: Does the use of moblogging have any effect on the quality of reflection with first-year students of the Training & Human Development study programme?

The design of this research can be qualified as pre-experimental research, design # 3: comparison of two existing groups, with post-test only. ( Baarda & de Goede, 2001, p. 115). In this design, there is a experimental group (the group that receives the intervention) and a control group (the group which does not receive any intervention). Using a control group allows the researcher to compare the results with a group who did not receive the intervention (in this case, the workshop Moblogging), making sure any differences can be attributed to that intervention.

Class B was chosen as the experimental group. This group of students was asked to log any reflective experiences with the use of moblogging. They were not allowed to use standard means like paper notes. Every reflection that could be useful for the reflective analysis report was to be recorded with the use of their mobile phone and their moblog systems.

Class A was chosen as the control group. This group would continue their way of recording reflections, i.e. with the use of pen and paper, and a notebook.

An educational course unit (‘Begeleiden van Lerenden 1’) was chosen that required the students to write a reflective analysis report. During this educational course unit, group A was to write their reflective logs in the way they did in previous course units (i.e. by typing logs on their desktop PCs or by using a notebook) and group B would make notes of their experiences by using their mobile phones and several moblog services. Students of class 1B  would post their reflective experiences to their moblogs by using text messaging and / or picture messaging.

Prior to the course, both groups received a training in reflection, to make sure both groups would know what was expected of them in terms of writing a reflective analysis report. In addition, class 1B received a three-hour workshop on moblogging.

After the course, the students used their moblogs to write the reflective analysis reports for their portfolios.

The reflective analysis reports were then assessed by their teachers. To reduce intersubjectivity, the criteria (which are abstract and difficult to operationalize), the criteria were discussed by the teachers beforehand and assessments were compared and discussed afterwards. The researcher gathered both the reflective analysis reports and the assessments. The researcher assessed the reflective analysis reports, and then compared his assessment with the assessments of other teachers. The conclusion were mostly the same.

These numbers do not show any significant differences, even though it can be argued that only a relatively small number of students of 1A managed to submit their reflective analysis report before the deadline. Based on the theories discussed in the theoretical framework, one would expect the percentages for class 1 B to be much higher.

Qualitative research

A group interview with class 1 B was then scheduled to find out why the numbers did not differ very much from class 1 B.

After the course, a short evaluation took place, in which the students indicated they did not use their moblogs very frequently during the course (in spite of all the support); some even said they had used it to a minimal extent. In order to find out the reasons why the students had been reluctant to use their moblogs during the course, the researcher chose to conduct a semi-structured group interview with the experimental group (1B).

Thirteen students were present during the group interview.

The group interview showed that the group had not really used moblogging to its full extent during the research; i.e. they only tried to use their phones a number of times because of the research, but they also continued using the reflection tools they used during previous courses, like a paper-based log book, or their e-portfolio log book. Even if there had been any differences in the quality of reflection, this could not have been because of the use of moblogging; for that, the usage was too little.

Conclusions and discussion

The test scores suggest that using moblogs during a course does not have any effect on the quality of reflection. Comparison of the reflective analysis reports shows that there are no significant differences in terms of quality. In the interviews that were held after the research, students indicated that the use of moblogs did not motivate them particularly in working with reflection. The fact that their mobile phone is a part of their social life, does not automatically mean they see it as a tool for reflection and learning as well. This seems to contradict what e.g Rubens (2005) says about personal ownership of mobile devices and how they can foster learning.

In further research or projects, improvements can be made in the following areas:

• Limits of research design
  This experiment only focuses on two small groups, with a limited number of participants. The design of the research was pre-experimental (Baarde & de Goede, 2001), which has its limitations. Another issue that can be raised is the length of the moblogging workshop.
  
• Reflection and social interaction design
  In this experiment, the social aspect of moblogging (i.e. commenting on work of others, interaction via weblogs) was not explored, whereas this may have been a strong aspect.
  
• Incorporation into curriculum
  In this experiment, moblogs were only used within course; the other courses that took place in the same period either did not require the students to submit a reflective analysis report, or were not part of the research; thus fostering the ‘traditional’ way of reflecting. In future researches, ways should be sought to make moblogging a more integral part of all the courses, so that students get a good chance to become more familiar with this new way of reflecting.
  
• Technological advances
  Students have suggested that if the technology were more user-friendly, they may be more tempted to start using moblogs in their learning process. The experiment was done a year ago (march – june 2008), and since that time, there have been some technological developments with regards to moblogging.