LEARNING, SOCIAL THEORY, FIELD TRIPS AND

MOBILE DEVICES: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Nicola L. Beddall-Hill
City University, London
nicola.beddall.1@city.ac.uk

ABSTRACT
The review explores interdisciplinary literature on learning, social theory, field trips and mobile devices.

KEYWORDS
Learning, actor network theory, boundary objects, field trips and mobile devices.

1. INTRODUCTION
An interdisciplinary approach has been taken to investigate the complex learning processes, which take place
in case based activities that are part of many field trips. Literature has been drawn from various disciplines
to explore different representations, viewpoints and findings around these themes. These literatures often
have their basis in different epistemological and ontological traditions making comparison difficult.
Therefore the modus operandi has been to situate the work within a constructivist viewpoint. This has led to
the exploration of social theories that have been applied to social studies of technology, specifically in
relation to artefacts. While the mobile device is of interest, it is important to start with the learning setting
and not solely the technology. This is because, while behaviour influences the use of technology, technology
does not necessarily influence behaviour. The following sections review the key domains bearing upon
teaching and learning around fieldwork and are brought together in an analytical conclusion at the end.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 learning
A key concern within pedagogical research is how learners learn with technology. Research into learning and
technology-enhanced learning (TEL) has a strong positivist legacy. Being founded on the belief that
knowledge must be based on direct sense experience. Early theorists of learning believed conditioning via
environmental factors brought about learning. This early work has had a great influence on learning theory
especially within educational technology design. However it is now recognized that these approaches do not
take into account the influence of social practices and that observations cannot be value free, so a more
critical style is needed. Social perspectives portray knowledge as emergent, arising from social practice and
thus constructed rather than ‘found’. These perspectives have largely begun to dominate the field of TEL and
range widely between advocating learning through active experimentation, personal or through shared
construction of knowledge and social interaction (Vygotsky, 1986; Lave and Wenger, 1991). This study will
focus on the later where individuals learn through the dialogue created in social interaction and collaborative
activity. An appropriate theoretical framing for analysis for this may come from social theory.

2.2 Social theory

This investigation focuses on the mobile devices as artefacts and the interactions featured around them.
Theories that accommodate the role of non-human objects such actor network theory (ANT) and boundary
objects (BOs) have been considered. These explore the role the device plays within group interactions, and
how these interactions affect the use of the device. ANT arises from science and technology studies: Law
(2007) describes it as a material-semiotic method that maps the conceptual world and material world into one
network. This is particularly useful for studies of learning where conceptual features such as learning
outcomes or prior experiences can be accounted for alongside material objects such as devices or maps.
ANT may offer a novel approach to understanding practices and mobile technologies in fieldwork as it is
sensitive to “the messy practices of relationality and materiality of the world” (Law, 2007:1). This leaves
open the question of what is important in the setting, as each actor will have a different ‘trajectory’ or route
through the networks of knowledge (Nespor, 1994). Within the fieldwork, there are many complex
interactions between the students, staff, technology, environment, learning outcomes and researcher. Seeing
these material and semiotic factors as a network brings greater insight into how individuals, groups and
technology mutually influence each other.
However, ANT is limited by its constructivist nature and interpretive paradigm. It can uncover and
describe a very specific event or situation (Latour's (1999) observations in Pandora's Hope) but does not seek
to explain the reasons why this kind of network at this time was formed. Winner (1993) criticises the lack of
evaluation that constructivist theories produce, making it difficult to judge the possibilities those technologies
may enable and thus ignoring the deeper issues that surround choices made around technology.
This may mean ANT will provide descriptions but may be less useful for informing future practice with
mobile technologies. Hence combining the use of boundary objects as sense making concepts is being
explored in the nature of a poly-theoretical framework of analysis. Boundary objects can be abstract such as
ideas, or material in the form of objects; they retain a common identity across contexts but are flexible
enough to meet differing needs. (Bowker and Star, 1999). Boundary objects can be useful when converging
communities meet. For example, students come into field courses from a variety of different backgrounds;
boundary objects emerge from their learning needs and practices. As they interact, they become commonly
understood material or conceptual objects, which enable sense making for the group within the activity.
Fleischmann (2006) has used boundary objects to look at engaging different communities (in this case
educators and technology designers) when considering design for learning. However, identifying boundary
objects can be difficult and this could limit the usefulness of this technique.

2.3 Field trips

The setting and processes of a field trip are unique and complex but they have been seen as performing an
important function for developing understanding and subject knowledge. They are also a key rite of passage
in the training of geoscientists (Maskall and Stokes, 2008). Boyle et al, (2003) believe they play a pivotal
role in realizing student integration on a social and academic level. This is due to increased academic
confidence after completing a field course and the intensive residential environment that brings both students
and staff together in close proximity, thereby challenging them to redefine social relations. This can be a
mainly positive experience for most students (Fuller et al, 2006) but for others it might be unsettling.
There remains little pedagogical evidence to support these views, with limited publications in this area.
2.1.1 learning on field trips
Research into the impact that field courses have on learning has largely been approached from a positivist
viewpoint. Earlier studies focused initially on memory and recall (Mackenzie and White, 1982) and then
motivational aspects (Kern and Carpenter, 1986). Fieldwork is a social activity and interaction can aid the
construction of knowledge and meaning, shared experiences with peers and experts can instil behaviour and
beliefs inherent in their discipline but this approach has received little attention (Maskall and Stokes, 2008).

2.4 learning and mobile devices

Traxler and Kukulska-Hulme (2005) believe that, as more advanced mobile devices have appeared in recent
years, the significance of mobile learning has radically increased. MOBIlearn (www.mobilearn.org) and m-
Learning (www.m-learning.org) were two of the earlier and larger mobile learning projects. The former
focused on learning outside the classroom in a variety of settings and the latter dealt with younger learners at
risk of social exclusion. Much of the focus in mobile learning has been around informal not formal learning
settings. Fieldwork may take place in an informal setting but has formal constraints such as time and
prescribed outcomes.
2.1.2 Mobile devices and fieldwork
Over the last decade, technological developments have begun to impact the field sciences, especially in
regards to field pedagogy. IT is used before entering the field (preparation material on virtual learning
environments), while in the field (data collection) and after leaving the field (data analysis and presentation).
It allows many opportunities not previously available. Improved wireless Internet connections, increases in
portability and increases in processing power allow mobile devices to handle Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) software and use global positioning systems (GPS).
GPS capabilities reside in many mobile devices (including specially designed ones) enabling navigational
activities, data collection and analysis in the geosciences. Most devices are used for data collection via the
GIS software so it can be easily modified, added to and edited in real time while out in the field.
Fletcher et al, (2003) surveyed the use of technology during, pre and post fieldwork. Their findings
indicated (as might be expected) global positioning systems devices (GPS) featured largely in fieldwork.
However, most interestingly, mobile phone use was higher in fieldwork than GPS and Personal Digital
Assistants (PDAs) were not reported as used, but this research is now quite dated.
In support for their pedagogical benefits, Maskall and Stokes (2008) believe using mobile devices for data
collection and analysis can give quick feedback that could better inform changes during learning activities.
There are, however, constraints constitutive to the use of technology. Fletcher et al, (2007) suggest we
carefully consider the cost of equipment, the time needed to learn to use it and to develop materials suitable
for it. Maskall and Stokes (2008) add to this by suggesting that there may be a tension between using the
technology for the sake of it and wanting to improve aspects of student learning with the aid of technology.
Several studies within mobile learning have focused on fieldtrips. Firstly, Mudlarking in Deptford
(FutureLab, 2006) had secondary students working collaboratively as co-designers with mobile technologies
to produce a multimedia tour of relics in the creek and connect histories to them. Secondly, the European
Manolo project worked on setting up a remote server using GPRS-technology thereby giving valuable in situ
information (Wentzel, 2005). Thirdly, The University of Tennessee deployed the use of various mobile
technologies in several field courses within different departments. Data unfortunately was incomplete but “ many
students expressed the view that using the supplied technologies and working in groups helped them as
students and also helped to better prepare them for careers in their chosen field” (Burke et al, 2005:6). Other
mobile learning projects have focused on delivery methods such as the ‘mobile lesson’ (Pintus et al, 2004) or
equal access via remote collaboration using a wireless audiovisual network to feedback live from the field
(Gaved et al, 2008).
There have been reports on the use of mobile devices in education, evaluations of their hardware and
software (Stott, 2007; Futurelab 2006) but from a social perspective an examination of the device’s role and
influence is limited.

3. CONCLUSION
To summarise, this review has identified several gaps that this research will focus upon. The use of
quantitative data and a positivist approach dominates most designs particularly when investigating fieldwork
settings. Few have used observational data and none, so far, have utilised audio-visual data shot using a head
mounted camera (Beddall-Hill and Raper 2009). Many projects have been school based or limited to
undergraduate courses. Hence this study will use qualitative observational audiovisual data collected while
accompanying postgraduate geoscience students on field trips. Furthermore there is limited research on social
interaction during field trips and none on the impact mobile devices have on the learning activities and
processes or visa versa within this setting. By viewing the devices as artefacts, which have influence and are
influenced by the setting this study will aim to uncover their pedagogical benefit and also compare the use of
personal devices versus brought teaching devices with a view to feedback into future curriculum design.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was carried out as part of an ESRC studentship at City University, London, attached to the ESRC
& EPSRC TLRP TEL project ‘Ensemble’. The author would like to thank her family and Victoria Crump for
their assistance and Professor Jonathan Raper for his comments on an earlier draft.

REFERENCES
Beddall-Hill, N.L. and Raper, J., 2009. Mobile devices as boundary objects. Journal of the Research Center for
Educational Technology. In press.
Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L., 1999. Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. MIT Press.
Boyle, A. et al, 2003. Fieldwork is Good? The Student Experience of Field Courses. Planet, 5, pp.48-51.
Burke, M. et al, 2005. Utilizing Wireless Pocket-PCs to Promote Collaboration in Field-Based Courses. Proceedings
from 4th Annual World Conference on Mobile Learning, Mlearn 2005. Cape Town, South Africa, available at
http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Burke.pdf (25th August 2009).
Fleischmann, K. R., 2006. 'Boundary Objects with Agency: A Method for Studying the Design-Use Interface'.
The Information Society, 22(2), pp.77-87.
Fletcher, S., et al, 2003. Technology before Pedagogy? A GEES C&IT perspective. Planet, 5, pp.52-55.
Fuller, I. et al, 2003. Perceptions of Geography and Environmental Science Fieldwork in the Light of Foot and
Mouth Disease, UK, 2001:What do Students Really Think? Planet, 5, pp.55-57.
Futurelab, 2006. Report 11: Literature Review in Mobile Technologies and Learning (ed. Naismith, L., et al)
available at www.futurelab.org.uk/research/lit_reviews.htm (10th November 2008).
Gaved, M. et al, 2008. ERA: On-the-fly Networking for Collaborative Geology Fieldwork. Proceedings of Mlearn 2008
conference. Ironbridge Gorge, Shropshire, p.332.
Kern, E.L. and Carpenter, J.R., 1986. Effect of field activities on student learning. Journal of Geological
Education, 34, pp.180-183.
Latour, B., 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the reality of Science Studies. London, Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, p.138.
Law, J., 2007. ‘Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics,’ version of 25th April 2007, available at
http://www.heterogeneities.net/publications/Law-ANTandMaterialSemiotics.pdf, (20th July 2009).
Mackenzie, A.A. and White, R.T., 1982. Fieldwork in geography and long-term memory structures. American
Educational Research Journal, 19, pp.623-632.
Maskall, J. and Stokes, A., 2008. Designing Effective Fieldwork for the Environmental and Natural Sciences. GEES
Subject Centre Learning and Teaching Guide available at
http://www.gees.ac.uk/pubs/guides/eesguides.htm#GEESfwGuide (21st June 2009).
Nespor, J., 1994. Knowledge in Motion: Space, Time and Curriculum in Undergraduate Physics and Management.
Oxon:RoutledgeFalmer.
Pintus, A. et al, 2004. Mobile lessons: concept and applications for ‘on-site’ geo-referenced lessons. Proceedings of
Mlearn 2004 conference. Rome, Italy, pp.163-165.
Traxler, J. and Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2005. Mobile Learning: A Handbook for Educators and Trainers. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1986. Thought and Language, Kozulin, A. (trans.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Wentzel, P., 2005. Mobile Learning in the Netherlands: Possibilities of Use of Real-Time Database Access in
Educational Fieldwork Setting. Proceedings from 4th Annual World Conference on Mobile Learning, Mlearn
2005. Cape Town, South Africa, available at http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Wentzell.pdf (25th August 2009).
Winner, L., 1993. Social Constructivism: Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty. Science as Culture, 3(3), 16,
pp.427-452.