Material design and mode of presentation

in their paper on design principles for m‑learning, that materials should be created for general e-learning (for example to be used on desktop computers) and adapted for mobile devices. This is in direct contradiction to the design principles outlined by Deegan and Rothwell (2010) who state that content must be responsive to the smaller screens found in smartphones. This second approach seems to be the most logical as it follows the principles of HCI and web design (Bohyun, 2013). The latest version of the hypertext markup language used in web design (HTML5) allows content to be responsive to screen size and natively allows the embedding of multimedia. This means that content can be dynamically rearranged to match the screen size. These features relieve the developer from having to adapt materials from previous platforms for mobile use (Snell, 2013). Wang and Shen compiled a wide-ranging report in 2012 that set out to synthesise a plan for m‑learning material design based on current research in the field. The focus of their paper was “message design” in this context a “message” is defined as “a pattern of signs (words, pictures, gestures) produced for the purpose of modifying the psychomotor, cognitive or affective behaviour” and design referring to the “deliberate process of analysis and synthesis that begins with an instructional problem and ends with a concrete plan or blueprint for a solution” (Fleming and Levie, 1993, p.10). In other words, it

involves considering the content of the message and equally importantly how it is delivered.

Multimedia content has been improved over the years in consideration of the message- design principles of Mayer and Moreno (2005), but Wang and Shen argue that Mayer’s theory was developed before the recent uptake in m‑learning and has not been tested in this context. Their paper seeks to provide m‑learning developers with some underpinning theory on which to base their pedagogical approach. Having taken into consideration some of the theory already covered in this review, such as dual-coding, formal and informal learning, trends and challenges in computer power, network speed, software development, varying device types and platforms, Wang and Shen condense the theory into principles of message design relating to each of these main areas. There is

agreement with the findings of the Sølvberg and Rismark study (2012), in that videos should be kept short - less than 5 minutes long and content should be chunked and

designed to work across different devices. Surprisingly, (and in concurrence with Chu, 2014) Wang and Shen advocate the continuing development of materials for the outmoded PDA platform.

Despite their concerns regarding the lack of testing of Mayer’s (2012) theory of

Multimedia Learning in the context of m‑learning, Wang and Shen continue to support its use in some aspects of content design. Mayer proposes that materials should be

coherent, avoiding extraneous content, should provide cues on how to process the information-given and employ strategies recognised to reduce cognitive load. These include the principles outlined earlier in this review, namely: spatial and temporal contiguity, where words are presented in close proximity to related graphics and at the same time and redundancy, where printed words should not be simultaneous narrated. The authors also make an interesting observation about the use of audio relating to the fact that it can be used as an input as well as an output in m‑learning, not just for communication with peers, but also as a speech-to-text data entry method. Wang and Shen state that text intended for small screens should be legible in terms of font choice colour and size and should be presented on a non-distracting background. Chunking may be facilitated by the use of colour to link logically related elements and to focus attention on relevant content that might otherwise have been overlooked by the learner. Colours should also be chosen to be consistent with the instructional message and should relate to the intended audience. (Pett and Wilson, 1996)

In terms of developing materials across different device sizes, it is also important to avoid long tracts of text that require scrolling. In a recent study (2014), Molina, et al., undertook two experiments to ascertain the effectiveness of m‑learning devices in the delivery of learning materials. The first study compared desktop computers and smartphones and a follow-up study included the use of tablet devices. The aim of the experiment was to investigate the ability of these different technologies to display learning materials. The method used was very thorough, using pre/post-testing, self-reported cognitive load and eye-tracking to ascertain cognitive activity as well as ascertaining user satisfaction scores via the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), a score commonly used in information technology. The hypotheses posed were that the student performance would be

influenced by the devices used and that the time spent in assimilating the learning contents would also be influenced by the type of device used to access them. The third hypothesis did not relate strictly to CLT but looked at student satisfaction and the perceived usefulness of the devices.

The first experiment used 26 participants; the second experiment used an additional 10 participants using iPads (Apple Inc.). The second study combined the data from both trials. The results agreed with Raptis et al. (2013), in that the task time was significantly increased in the m-learner group using smartphones, and was related to screen size. The PC users spent the least amount of time on the learning task and the tablet users task- completion times lay between the two. The reason for this was again due to the time taken in scrolling or pinch-zooming content on the mobile devices that could be displayed without interaction on the PC. This result agreed with the cognitive load reported by the participants in relation to the demands placed upon them by the device, the iPhone users reporting the highest task load, then the tablet users, the PC users reporting the lowest demand. It was thought that this increase in load was likely to be due to the reasons previously evaluated from the Martin and Ertzberger paper (2013), i.e. that screen-size limitations necessitated the splitting of content across different screens, which

compromised the spatial and temporal-contiguity principles that result in the split- attention effect.

Interestingly, cognitive load was also assessed relating to the demands placed upon the learners by the learning materials, but there were no significant differences noted here. In agreement with the Martin and Ertzberger study, learners using the iPad tablet found the mobile device to be more motivating than a PC despite the fact that it did not perform as well in relation to the task outcomes. This motivating/user engagement aspect of m‑learning is seen in many other studies (Liu, Li and Carlsson, 2010;

Manuguerra, Petocz, 2011; Hwang, Yang and Wang, 2013; Sung and Mayer, 2013; Chan, et al., 2014) Student engagement is one of the factors that can affect cognition because, as stated by Robert Gagné (1985) the first step in any student instruction is to gain attention.In addition to addressing the requirements of CLT, the learning materials must therefore also foster student engagement, as this has also been found to affect cognition.