See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267568169

Personalized Learning: Current Status and Potential

Conference Paper · December 2014

DOI: 10.1109/IC3e.2014.7081251

CITATIONS READS
18 13,742

3 authors:

David Nandigam Sreenivas Sremath Tirumala

ATMC New Zealand Manukau Institute of Technology
8 PUBLICATIONS 82 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 602 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nilufar Baghaei
The University of Queensland
108 PUBLICATIONS 1,166 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Gene expression Analysis (Prostate Cancer) View project

Synthetic Malware generation and Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sreenivas Sremath Tirumala on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Personalized Learning: Current Status and Potential

David Nandigam Sreenivas Sremath Tirumala Nilufar Baghaei

Unitec Institute of Technology Unitec Institute of Technology Unitec Institute of Technology
Auckland, New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand

Abstract—The term personalized learning has proliferated paper come from eight countries with moderate to highly-
over recent years especially with the advancement of several experienced in teaching and training. (see Appendix 1). Thus
educational technologies, conceptual frameworks and mobile the study is a holistic overview of personalized learning with
and wireless internet technologies. The aim of this paper is participation from real practitioners coupled with reference
to identify an acceptable personalized learning paradigm for to current learning theory and state-of-the-art techniques that
educators. A detailed literature review on various aspects of
justify personalized learning as a viable model.
personalized learning is also presented. Eleven participants with
moderate to highly-experienced in teaching across eight coun- The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 paints
tries took part for this study. The data is collected via LinkedIn a picture of personalized learning against the prescriptions
collaborative participation eliminating the possibility of bias
of educational policy coupled with the the perspectives of
towards a particular outcome. This provides both theoretical
and empirical aspects of the topic in question. The data collected the classroom practitioners within the context of the ex-
from the group discussions was analyzed using content analysis isting learning theories. Section 3 highlights technological
techniques and the issues raised by the participants were developments pertinent to this study. It summarises the
categorized into emerging themes. This paper concludes with developments in the areas of mobility, collaboration, game-
acknowledging the necessity of good combination of teaching based, context awareness and augmented reality. Section 4
and technology for a successful personalized learning paradigm. presents a discussion of the implications of the framework
and some insights into future work, and then the conclusion
is presented as Section 5.

Index terms — Personalized learning, e-learning, Cus- II. T HEORY AND P RACTICE
tomized learning; Individualized learning Personalized Learning varies in definition in the contexts
in which it is being applied today. In order to come to terms
I. I NTRODUCTION with both the theoretical and empirical aspects of person-
alized Learning, it is necessary to consider, to begin with,
The basic premise of Personalized Learning (PL) is the what has been written in the education policy documents as
belief that each student is unique and learns in different ways. well as the approaches that educational institutes or teachers
It has been suggested that personalized learning is originated adopt in their practice. Personalized Learning is viewed by
from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences [1] policy makers as “shaping of students’ learning activities and
[2]. Thus, the variables for personalized learning include the curriculum/knowledge content that reflect the input and
individual pupils interests, their needs and abilities, and the interests of students” [6]. By this it is assumed that students
identification of the best learning style for each pupil [3]. can understand how they learn, own and drive their learning
Personalized Learning strategies have a number of potential and are co-designers of the curriculum and their learning
advantages over traditional learning methods and on-the-job environment. It also implies that student learning needs,
training and they are consistent with constructivist learning interests, and capability determine the pace of learning. This
theories [4], [5], which emphasize that learning is active and idea resonates with what practitioners seem to feel as one
knowledge is built on top of own experiences. respondent remarks: “By definition personalisation means
It is the objective of this study, therefore, to present a wide diversity in the components that go into learning and
coherent framework for an on-the-fly personalized learning how they are combined”
and to provide the most acceptable personalized learning Another respondent remarks: “Maybe personalisation
paradigm for educators and practitioners. This research was has to come through how the student engages with content
carried out using the platform of Higher Education Teaching and the outcomes they produce from it rather than from the
and Learning (HETL), a LinkedIn discussion group. The goal media through which knowledge and skills development is
of the discussion group, HETL is to improve educational channelled.”
outcomes in higher education by creating new knowledge
and advancing the scholarship and practice of teaching and In this environment, all the resources are made available
learning. HETL members represent all disciplines, functions, for learning. They include teachers, parents, peers, technol-
and levels within education. HETL is open to education ogy, time, and learning spaces with the view that they will
professionals from all institutional types and missions. This be used flexibly to meet individual student learning needs.
diversity allows HETL to create a global perspective on It also, however, establishes the fact, as one respondent
teaching and learning. As such, the participants in this rightly identifies, “Personalized learning needs a degree of
compromise and learner initiative which has too often been and benefit from personalized learning as evident in literature
missing.” [8].
It is, therefore, important that each learner realizes their In most of these studies, an intelligent learning system
individual characteristics and needs such as different prior is able to identify the characteristics of individual learners
knowledge, cognitive abilities and learning styles. These such as prior knowledge, learning styles, cognitive abilities,
individual differences affect the learning processes and are learning interests, learning goals and motivation [9] from
the reason why some learners find it easy to learn in the feedback collected from the individuals. The knowledge
aparticular subject of study, whereas others find the same thus realized allows the system for imparting personalized
subject difficult [7]. learning [10]. In addition, the system is able to monitor
individual behaviour and their actions for further honing its
Personalized learning can involve different levels in the
knowledge of the individual.
educational process, including personalization of the curricu-
lum, the courses, as well as the support provided within Another aspect where technology has been able to facili-
the courses. Furthermore, personalized learning can take tate personalized learning is the individualization of curricu-
place in traditional (face-to-face) learning settings as well lum. Such a curriculum is the result of the system considering
as in technology-enhanced learning settings. In traditional various factors of learners in order to generate the most
approach, personalized learning requires a small number of suitable curricula as well as the best sequence of learning
learners per teacher. The small number of learners makes items for each learner.
it possible for teachers to tailor their lessons, activities, and
support, respectively. This gives learners more choices in the Most of the current research on personalized learning is
curriculum programs, allows parental involvement in educa- strongly related to technology-enhanced learning, enabling
tion (if learners are children), affords student-driven learning, learning systems to provide personalized learning which
and involves learners in the decision making processes. A otherwise is not feasible given the traditional classroom
respondent remarks: constraints. One of the participants of the current study
remarks saying: “If I wouldn’t use and point the students
“I’ve taught at multiple levels so one example of per- into the direction of quality sources online or in books ... I
sonalized instruction is for high school math. Within a wouldn’t be able to free up enough time to personalize their
whole group plan for objective setting, methodology and processes ... if they wouldn’t ask each other for advice or
evaluation on a topic, knowing intimately the progress of tips through Facebook and answer those before I have to
each student, and understanding achievement expectations (I do check if the right advice or tips are given) ... again I
of student and family, I extended or contracted requirements wouldn’t have enough time to really engage with the students
for each student individually or in small groups.” in that very personal way ... so in that sense technology does
The advantage of employing technology, however, is that help.”
students can make use the content and become experts on On the other hand, a significant body of research is
par with their teacher. They can become experts on specific underway into integrating more complex aspects of person-
content areas and even create content. Personalising learning alized learning such as user modeling into learning systems.
challenges educators to think about what new resources may Such systems simulate the behaviour of human teachers [11]
be needed to support learning, and how learners can access with a view to provide an experience similar to personal
them. Some of these resources may include those that have tutoring without human intervention. They typically provides
not traditionally been thought of as part of the education an environment in which students can practice their skills as
system. But one has to be mindful of the limitations too as well as problem-solving .
one of the respondents identifies: An app which is ideal for
one learner will be loathed by another and no institution Knowledge-based systems such as Thermo-Tutor [12]
has the resources to provide a different one for every single collect information about the students actions and develop
student or parade them in front of people until they pick one a student model based on the learner-activity. Then they
they like. adapt the instructional activities to suit the skills and abilities
of each individual student. The adaptation is done mostly
In spite of such limitations, much progress has been in terms of providing feedback, selecting or generating
made in meeting the individual requirements of learners with problems at the right level of complexity, or deciding the
the advancement of several educational technologies coupled topics to be taught. Thermo-Tutor is designed to complement
with mobile and wireless internet technologies. The next traditional courses with a number of problem solving oppor-
section highlights some of the developments pertinent to the tunities based on the concepts taught in lectures. Students
study. have the choice to select problems to work on, and submit
their solutions for feedback anytime and anywhere.
III. T ECHNOLOGY- ENHANCED P ERSONALIZED
L EARNING Yet again, the practitioners feel the necessity of learner
becoming the owner of their learning. One of the respondents
The use of technology in education opened up new pos- says:“Personalized learning requires a developed sense of
sibilities for providing personalized learning to learners and taking responsibility for one’s learning and a recognition
significantly enhanced the potential of personalized learning. that it takes effort on the part of you as a student rather
Through the development and usage of learning systems, than the expectation which endured too long that institutions
large numbers of learners in a class have been able to use would analyse you so well that what they provided to you was
perfect for you, nothing superfluous, delivered at precisely construction. This shows that, students can consume and
the right time and so on.” create information both collectively and individually [18].
Some of the practical constraints notwithstanding, it is
identified that personalized learning with other pedagogical B. Collaboration
models such as mobile learning, ubiquitous learning, game- Research provides compelling evidence on the impor-
based learning, collaborative learning etc. has high potential tance of working towards student collaboration in the learn-
to enhance the respective model by improving the learning ing process to a large extent [19]. Thankfully, the evolution
progress and outcome of learners as outlined below. of Web 2.0 based social technologies promote a number
of useful learning avenues through informal conversation,
A. Mobility reflexive dialogue and collaborative content generation as
well as providing access to a wide variety of ideas and
The use of mobile wireless devices afford personalized representations. Interestingly the majority of these tools
learning while on the move [13] and the rise of these shift control to the learner in number of different ways
technologies provide positive pedagogical affordances. More including promoting learner autonomy and engagement in
over, this mobility enables personalized learning in formal social networks across physical, geographic, institutional and
and informal settings by decreasing “the dependence on fixed organizational settings. However, in order for an individual’s
locations for work and study, and consequently change the learning to come to fruition, they not only need to be able to
way we work and learn” [14]. choose relevant tools and content from what is available, but
Klopfer and Squire [15] highlight three factors of mobile also to have access to the necessary scaffolding to support
learning, namely, “portability, social interactivity, context, their learning. Following is an example from one of the
and individuality”. Out of these three, portability is the factor respondents: “For some strong students on or above grade
that makes other technological attributes such as individuality level in a failing urban school, I used education psychology
and interactivity possible. Thus the first generation of truly and Web 2.0 instructional technology to stretch performance.
portable information has come integrated with many func- Best students led small online groups, were available for
tions through these small, hand held electronic devices [14] questions, checked answers for class practice while focus-
such as smart-phones and PDAs. ing on homework. Average students got large online group
instruction on methods to meet objectives, joined smaller
Mobile devices have become more dynamic and pervasive groups for practice, and learned the procedures checking
with the recent technological innovations in social network- answers and asking best students questions along the way, in
ing due to the rise of Web 2.0. As a result, the content is lieu of teacher availability. I had no teacher aides at all. Poor
more personalized and also possible is the learning across students had steps explained while working through sample
contexts [16]. Brown [17] identified mobile learning as “an text problems with written discussion available. Alternate
extension of personalized e-learning.” Peters [14] also stated methods might be shown the slower students with more
that it was a subset of e-learning, a step toward making the tangible materials and hands on teaching.”
educational process “just in time, just enough and just for
me.” C. Game-based
Increasing interest in game-based learning established
great opportunities for personalization of learning. Game-
based personalized learning is consistent with constructivist
learning theories [4], which emphasize that learning is active
and knowledge is built on top of one’s own experiences.
Personalized games include tolerance and encouragement of
risk within a safe environment [20], thus promoting and
encouraging experimentation instead of passive learning [21]
[22]. They can support personalized learning that is active,
experiential, situation based, problem and inquiry-based, and
they provide immediate feedback. They also involve com-
munities of practice which provide collaborative support to
learners [23]. Evidence for their efficacy as educational tools
is growing. A number of research studies find that serious
games, compared with more traditional learning methods,
improve learning and retention at a higher rate [24] [25]
[26]. One of the respondents testifies thus: “Accelerated
students were assigned computer exercises/games to practice
Fig. 1. Mobility Affordances with minimal explanation and received students who finished
early for extension of concepts on computer under peer
As indicated by Fig 1, mobile technology has two per- supervision. Alternative class support tasks were selected by
sonalizable attributes: (1) to increase an individuals organi- students for the week to include textbook distribution, forms
zational skills and self-regulative (or self-directed) learning distribution, other routine tasks the group required. Grades
ability, and (2) communication, collaboration, and knowledge including test results, classwork/homework production and
related notes were posted weekly anonymously. My classes such systems is to provide learners with a friendly, interactive
composed of students from grade level to primary school interface and rich, engaging media to stimulate intrinsic
ability level were rated tops in achievement for many years. motivation and learning performance. The key advantages
Even special ed students achieved remarkable results prompt- of AR in personalized learning include the following: (1) it
ing many questions of me from their other teachers.” helps stimulate learning intention through pursuing outdoor
learning objectives, (2) AR technology provides learners
D. Context awareness with contextual information related to the outdoor learning
environment, and (3) it enhances learner retention of teaching
With the evolution of mobile technology there is a contents easily with the situated learning strategy [35].
growing interest about context-aware learning in the research
community over the last decade. Particularly the studies of Both Android and iPhone support AR in navigation
Hwang [27] and others deal with the context-aware learning features, providing users with personalized location-specific
activities that use an algorithm for planning personalized information. Images have a stronger impact on memory than
learning paths such as the ones represented in mind-tools text, thus layering supplementary images and information
and concept maps. over the real world environment in the AR environment can
promote knowledge retention [36].
For instance, a Personalized Context-Aware English vo-
cabulary Learning system [28] is developed to help enhance Liarokapis et al. [37] proposed an interactive Multimedia
learners’ ability in using and practicing the language appro- Augmented Reality Interface for E-learning system and de-
priate to the context where they are in. This application takes veloped a user-friendly interface to explore the potential of
three variables into account. Based on the learner’s location, AR in instruction by superimposing virtual multimedia con-
their individual abilities and the time of the day, the system tent information in an AR tabletop environment. Matcha and
determines the kind of vocabulary the learner might need and Awang Rambli [38] investigated the potential of AR spaces
serves the relevant content. For example, vocabulary related to supply communication cues and promote collaboration in
to Christmas is served if the date is 25 December, and the learning environments. Their empirical results indicated that
content related to food and drinks is served if the learner is AR techniques have significant potential to serve as a shared
in a restaurant. medium in personalized collaborative learning.
The CLUE knowledge-awareness application [29] en-
IV. DISCUSSION
ables collaborative learning between learners. In order to fa-
cilitate the learning between two groups of distance learners, Considering the perspectives of the educationists as well
CLUE identifies the nearest learners and their knowledge as the current technological developments in the field, the
about the subjects/topics that they are working on currently. paradigm of personalized learning can be interpreted as a
The information thus gained is geographically displayed in a continuum from teacher to students as well as individual-
knowledge awareness map. This allows the learners to seek ized to participatory (see Fig. 2). Many such operational
help from one another and leads them to find collaborative definitions have influenced it’s evolution. According to a
peers to work with to learn or study and solve problems. respondent “Personalized learning is really learner-centered
Context-awareness is effectively used in Sharable Course- learning where each of us are learners and at time even
ware Object Reference Model (SCORM) constructed by students are the teachers. If it is designed on research
Wang et al. [30]. In this system, the intentions as well as validated principles of learning, motivation, and development
the preferences of the learners are used as the basis for – how it is delivered is secondary. It is not about technology
selecting relevant learning objects. SCORM (2003) became – that is merely one of many tools that may be needed in
an international standard proposed by advanced distributed some cultures and contexts.”
learning initiative (ADL) which has been widely used since For this study, personalized learning is regarded as a
then to solve the problems of sharing and reusing learning single continuum that is initiated by teacher-mediation which
materials in different and incompatible formats of web-based then moves to a model that is technology driven. Personalized
learning systems.. learning in its simplest form, therefore, is used to fill a
psychological gap between teacher and learner and requires a
E. Augmented Reality(AR) definite structure and dialogue. However, the emerging com-
munication technologies make it possible that the learning
AR uses a calculated field position and camera angle
structures are built not only by the teacher or curriculum
to impose a layer of virtual objects over the real-world
designer but also by collective learners themselves; and dia-
background [31]. Learners can immerse themselves in the
logue is also formed not only between the teacher and learn-
combined virtual and real-world scenes as well as interact
ers, but also between the learners. Communication through
with the virtual objects and access relevant information[32].
mobile phones and working in wikis are just a few examples
AR systems can be designed to provide students with per-
of how learners build structure through dialogue [39]. Moore
sonalized scaffolding and support and help them construct
[40] calls this “inter-learner dialogue” because this kind of
personal knowledge as they observe and experience real-
learner collaboration can make knowledge creation possible
world contexts [33] [34]. In recent years, AR has been
for variety of learning styles.
applied to learning environments in an attempt to overcome
drawbacks associated with traditional teaching environments. Structure and dialogue, previously regarded as being
Some of these technologies have been shown to improve under the teacher’s control, have come to be something that
learning outcomes and learning motivation. The goal of many learners can better create for a much better outcome. In
effect, every definition of personalized learning must include V. C ONCLUSION
the interaction that learners can now have among themselves,
for themselves and by themselves. It is, therefore, possible to This study presents the data analysis from the reflections
regard learner-built dialogue and structure alone as a differ- of the educationists on a LinkedIn focus-group relating to the
ent dimension. Such a new dimension connotes “individual individual personalized learning perspectives. Based on the
versus collective (or social)” activities by considering the analysis, a personalized learning paradigm has been evolved.
importance of the social aspects of learning as well as newer From the study it appears that personalized learning spaces,
forms of social technologies. This idea was formed by the resources and environments to be developed, supported and
influence of cultural-historical activity theory that Kang and created through systematic design as well as by inclusion of
Gyorke [41] proposed. both instructor and learner perspectives. As online learning
has now become the global mode of learning, it is important
that students develop reasonably high levels of digital skills
to enable them to negotiate, interact and access resources
independently [42]. Further more, the dispositions developed
through engagement with Web 2.0 - i.e. communication,
participation, networking, sharing, overlap with what are con-
sidered as essential 21st-century learning and employability
skills [43].
Nonetheless this study identifies the need for explicit
scaffolding of essential skills for “the total dependence on
software is a barrier to implementing personalized learning
- although the right type of software can support the process
if it is facilitated through a developmental process of blended
learning (i.e. both class-based and web-based)”as one of the
respondent remarks.
Fig. 2. Personalized Learning Paradigm
The challenges that educators now face are complex
However, the role of the teacher is not diminished in and multifaceted. They include the provision of suitable
any sense. As one respondent rightly points out, “The real technologies that cultivate personalized learning, while pro-
problem is using technology to do what teachers naturally do moting learner reflection and the development of generic
very well – connecting with their students, motivating them to competencies. The complexity is well represented by the
learn in a variety of ways that fit their interests and skills, and comment of one respondent which reads, “There is also the
being real partners in the learning journey. Teachers either issue of sense of ownership: that if academics are involved
know what technologies are best or they know their students in something that it stops being cool.”
do and use them as expert teachers when the class needs Another respondent remarks: “We certainly need to alert
to learn from their peers.” As another respondent remarks, students to the fact that socialising with friends is not
“Learning is not like online grocery shopping and as we learning and in fact eats into their time for learning.”
know even that is never perfect. An app which is ideal for Hence, the study proposes the necessity of good combination
one learner will be loathed by another and no institution of teaching and technology for a successful personalized
has the resources to provide a different one for every single learning paradigm and that is continuously adapted for each
student or parade them in front of people until they pick one individual learner.
they like.”
On the other hand, there is this vice of technology misuse. A PPENDIX
For example, as one respondent points out, “I see technology TABLE I. PARTICIPANTS ’ DATA
becoming the ’babysitter’ for babies through adult learners
Participant Expertise Country
- too many institutions encourage teachers to use the latest 1 Faculty at FIDM Concordia University
and greatest program while completing their mountains of 2
3
Founder Lifewide Education CiC
Learning Communities in Higher Education
Betchworth, Surrey, United Kingdom
Brussels Area, Belgium
accountability paperwork. There is misuse from students 4
5
Faculty Education Co-ordinator
Professor of Commerce
Surrey, United Kingdom
Bardhaman, India
point of view as well as one respondent points out.” 6 Senior Research Scientist Jacksonville, Florida Area Research
7 Education Researcher San Francisco Bay Area Research
8 Education Management Consultant University of Southern Denmark
Some educationists say doing this is more work and adds 9
10
Founder at Global Digital University
Education Researcher
Istanbul, Turkey
Charles Sturt University, Australia
to their already overfull plate of responsibilities. However 11 Trainer and Lecturer Massey University, New Zealand.

for those educators who have stayed the course and helped
mentor students in research-validated ways to create learner
and learning-centered environments, personalization is a nat- R EFERENCES
ural outgrowth. The jobs of teaching and learning are in fact [1] G. H. (2004, Jun.) Tclass divisions: Who benefits from the person-
become easier because the responsibility is shared, and if alised learning strategy of dividing school pupils into subsets.
students are allowed to establish classroom rules for what [2] M. Johnson, “Personalised learning,” New Economy, vol. 11, no. 4,
will and will not be used inappropriately in technology rich pp. 224–228, 2004.
or poor environments - misuse of social media or other tools [3] T. L. Good and J. E. Brophy, Educational psychology: A realistic
will disappear with peer pressure. approach . Longman/Addison Wesley Longman, 1990.
 [4] J. R. Savery and T. M. Duffy, “Problem based learning: An in- puter games and serious games,” Computers & Education, vol. 59,
structional model and its constructivist framework,” Educational no. 2, pp. 661–686, 2012.
technology, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 31–38, 1995. [26] D. Druckman, R. A. Bjork et al., In the mind’s eye: Enhancing human
[5] A. Pritchard, Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles performance. National Academies Press, 1992.
in the classroom. Routledge, 2013. [27] G.-J. Hwang, C.-C. Tsai, S. J. Yang et al., “Criteria, strategies and
[6] C. Theobald, “Changing our behaviours as teachers in order to meet research issues of context-aware ubiquitous learning.” Educational
the needs of our culturally diverse students: a thesis presented in Technology & Society, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 81–91, 2008.
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of master of [28] C.-M. Chen and Y.-L. Li, “Personalised context-aware ubiquitous
education (teaching and learning) at massey university, new zealand,” learning system for supporting effective english vocabulary learning,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Massey University, New Zealand, 2013. Interactive Learning Environments, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 341–364, 2010.
[7] D. H. Jonassen and B. L. Grabowski, Handbook of individual [29] H. Ogata and Y. Yano, “Knowledge awareness map for computer-
differences learning and instruction. Routledge, 2012. supported ubiquitous language-learning,” in Wireless and Mobile
[8] S. Graf, “Adaptivity in learning management systems focussing on Technologies in Education, 2004. Proceedings. The 2nd IEEE In-
learning styles,” Ph.D. dissertation, Vienna University of Technology, ternational Workshop on. IEEE, 2004, pp. 19–26.
2007. [30] T. I. Wang, K. H. Tsai, M.-C. Lee, and T. K. Chiu, “Personalized
[9] S. Graf, G. Yang, T.-C. Liu, D. Kinshuk et al., “Automatic, global learning objects recommendation based on the semantic-aware dis-
and dynamic student modeling in a ubiquitous learning environment,” covery and the learner preference pattern,” Educational Technology
Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal & Society, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 84–105, 2007.
(KM&EL), vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 18–35, 2009. [31] C.-M. Chen and Y.-N. Tsai, “Interactive augmented reality system
[10] P. Brusilovsky, “Methods and techniques of adaptive hypermedia,” for enhancing library instruction in elementary schools,” Computers
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, vol. 6, no. 2-3, pp. & Education, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 638–652, 2012.
87–129, 1996. [32] Á. Di Serio, M. B. Ibáñez, and C. D. Kloos, “Impact of an augmented
reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course,”
[11] A. Mitrovic, B. Martin, and P. Suraweera, “Intelligent tutors for all:
Computers & Education, vol. 68, pp. 586–596, 2013.
The constraint-based approach,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22,
no. 4, pp. 38–45, 2007. [33] A. M. Kamarainen, S. Metcalf, T. Grotzer, A. Browne, D. Mazzuca,
M. S. Tutwiler, and C. Dede, “Ecomobile: Integrating augmented
[12] A. Mitrovic, C. Williamson, A. Bebbington, M. Mathews, reality and probeware with environmental education field trips,”
P. Suraweera, B. Martin, D. Thomson, and J. Holland, “Thermo- Computers & Education, vol. 68, pp. 545–556, 2013.
tutor: An intelligent tutoring system for thermodynamics,” in Global
Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2011 IEEE. IEEE, [34] P.-S. Tsai, C.-C. Tsai, and G.-H. Hwang, “College students con-
2011, pp. 378–385. ceptions of context-aware ubiquitous learning: A phenomenographic
analysis,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 3, pp.
[13] A. Kukulska-Hulme and J. Traxler, Mobile learning: A handbook for 137–141, 2011.
educators and trainers. Psychology Press, 2005.
[35] D.-R. Chen, M.-Y. Chen, T.-C. Huang, and W.-P. Hsu, “Developing a
[14] K. Peters, “m-learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected mobile learning system in augmented reality context,” International
future,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2013, 2013.
Learning, vol. 8, no. 2, 2007.
[36] P. Milgram, H. Takemura, A. Utsumi, and F. Kishino, “Augmented
[15] E. Klopfer and K. Squire, “Environmental detectivesthe development reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum,” in
of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations,” Photonics for Industrial Applications. International Society for
Educational Technology Research and Development, vol. 56, no. 2, Optics and Photonics, 1995, pp. 282–292.
pp. 203–228, 2008.
[37] F. Liarokapis, P. Petridis, P. F. Lister, M. White et al., “Multimedia
[16] K. Walker, “Introduction: Mapping the landscape of mobile learning,” augmented reality interface for e-learning (marie),” World Transac-
in Big issues in mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the kalei- tions on Engineering and Technology Education, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.
doscope network of excellence mobile learning initiative. University 173–176, 2002.
of Nottingham, 2006. [38] W. Matcha and D. R. A. Rambli, “Preliminary investigation on the
[17] T. H. Brown, “Towards a model for m-learning in africa,” Interna- use of augmented reality in collaborative learning,” in Informatics
tional Journal on E-learning, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 299–315, 2005. Engineering and Information Science. Springer, 2011, pp. 189–198.
[18] M. L. Koole, “A model for framing mobile learning,” Mobile learn- [39] R. Benson and G. Samarawickrema, “Addressing the context of
ing: Transforming the delivery of education and training, vol. 1, no. 2, e-learning: using transactional distance theory to inform design,”
pp. 25–47, 2009. Distance Education, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 5–21, 2009.
[19] V. Prain, P. Cox, C. Deed, J. Dorman, D. Edwards, C. Farrelly, [40] M. G. Moore, “Learner autonomy: The second dimension of inde-
M. Keeffe, V. Lovejoy, L. Mow, P. Sellings et al., “Personalised pendent learning,” Convergence, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 76–88, 1972.
learning: lessons to be learnt,” British Educational Research Journal, [41] P. Gorsky and A. Caspi, “A critical analysis of transactional distance
vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 654–676, 2013. theory,” The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, vol. 6, no. 1,
[20] I.B.M. (2007, Jun.) Virtual Worlds: Real Leaders. Online Games put pp. 1–11, 2005.
the future of buisiness leadership on display. [42] I. R. Katz and A. S. Macklin, “Information and communication tech-
[21] de Freitas S, “Emerging technologies for learning,” Becta, Tech. Rep., nology (ict) literacy: Integration and assessment in higher education,”
February 2008. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and informatics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp.
50–55, 2007.
[22] M. Kebritchi, A. Hirumi et al., “Examining the pedagogical founda-
tions of modern educational computer games,” Computers & Educa- [43] J. I. S. Committee et al., “Higher education in a web 2.0 world: Report
tion, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1729–1743, 2008. of an independent committee of inquiry into the impact on higher
education of students’ widespread use of web 2.0 technologies,” 2009.
[23] E. Boyle, T. M. Connolly, and T. Hainey, “The role of psychology
in understanding the impact of computer games,” Entertainment
Computing, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 69–74, 2011.
[24] D. Charles and M. McAlister, “Integrating ideas about invisible
playgrounds from play theory into online educational digital games,”
in Entertainment Computing–ICEC 2004. Springer, 2004, pp. 598–
601.
[25] T. M. Connolly, E. A. Boyle, E. MacArthur, T. Hainey, and J. M.
Boyle, “A systematic literature review of empirical evidence on com-

View publication stats