This is an archive of the original site and you may encounter broken links and/or functionality

Sharing Knowledge: Secrets of Mlearning Failures: Confronting reality -- 74 -- Proceedings Paper

10:50 - 11:50 on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 in 2.219

Having implemented and evaluated over 35 mlearning projects in a variety of contexts in higher education over the past six years the author is ready to share the untold secret: not all mlearning projects succeed! This paper critiques three of the author's mlearning projects that can be classed as ‘failures’ and compares them to successful projects to draw out critical implications for mlearning project design and implementation to avoid common pitfalls leading to potential project failure. The paper uses the author's six critical success factors identified across the 35 mlearning projects to evaluate these three projects, and concludes that projects resulting in ‘no significant difference’ (Reeves, 2005) in pedagogical outcomes are the result of attempts to shoehorn old pedagogies into new technologies. Lecturer professional development and sustained collaborative support are critical to fostering new pedagogies utilizing the unique affordances of mobile devices.

The paper is based upon the author's experience of longitudinal participatory action research in mobile learning from 2006 to 2012 (Cochrane, 2011). While the author has published over 75 articles (conference papers, journal papers, book chapters, and workshops) based upon these projects over the years, most of these have focused upon the project outcomes that had successful impact upon pedagogy in a variety of contexts. However the identification of key critical incidents and understanding of the benefits of mlearning have often come from critical reflection on the ‘mistakes’ or failures of these projects that then led to the redesign and implementation of subsequent iterations.

Reeves (2005, 2009) argues that even when educational technology projects are described as successful often the results and impact of such projects reveal ‘no significant difference’ on pedagogical outcomes when compared to more traditional teaching and learning approaches, because there has been no explicit design for pedagogical change within these projects.

The presentation will focus upon several illustrative critical incidents from the three projects, and discuss (in hindsight) how significant pedagogical difference could have been achieved through these projects.

Intended Audience: Practitioners, and mlearning researchers.


Tuesday, 11 September 2012, 13:57


Download Chirp for iPhone or iPad
Wikitude and Google Maps for Augmented Reality and Geotagging

Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 04:50

I'm not able to be at the session, but I would like to ask you what your learning from the less successful projects has contributed to the development of your teaching and assessment work with students and the nature of their participation in their learning and reflection on their work? Does this have any implications for developing collaborative learning?


Wednesday, 12 September 2012, 06:07

longitudinal participatory action research in mobile learning from 2006 to 2012 (Cochrane, 2011) - great resources fortuner suv

Sunday, 6 January 2013, 17:33