Task Model for Mobile Learners (TMML)

In 2005, Sharples, Taylor and Vavoula (2005b) developed a framework for the theoretical analysis of m-learning with the aim of informing both the analysis of m-learning and the design of m-learning environments and technologies for m-learning. The framework was named the Task Model for Mobile Learners in

subsequent publications (Taylor et al., 2006) and will be referred to in this thesis as the TMML. Sharples et al. (2005b) based the TMML on the following assumptions:

1. learners are continually on the move and learning while on the move;

2. learning occurs beyond formal learning contexts (e.g. classrooms and workplaces);

3. a theory of learning must be based on contemporary accounts of practices that enable successful learning (e.g. social constructivist learning); and

4. ubiquitous use of personal and shared technology must be considered.

Sharples et al. (2005b) adapted Engeström’s expanded human activity system model (1987), illustrated in Figure 2.8, to develop the TMML and, accordingly, a graphical representation of the TMML (Figure 2.9). The human activity system model was based on activity theory, a paradigm which originated in cultural-historical psychology

founded by Vygotsky, Leont'ev and Luria (Engeström, Miettinen & Punamaki, 1999).

Figure 2.8: The structure of a human activity system (Engeström, 1987, p. 78)

Engeström’s triangular model (Figure 2.8) was an extension of Vygotsky’s Model of Mediated Activity, whereby an individual Subject interacts with the Object via a complex mediated act, utilising Mediating Artefacts (tools and signs), which then results in an Outcome. For example, a student (subject), interacts with a new concept (object), utilising textbooks and learning resources (mediating artefacts), with the outcome of having mastered the concept. Engeström (1987) expanded this

in the model the societal and collaborative nature of human interactions, where the subject is no longer the individual learner, but may represent a member or members of a learning community.

Sharples et al.’s (2005b) adaptation of Engeström’s model, the TMML (Figure 2.9), extends Engeström’s model with a multilayered representation of activities mediated by technological and semiotic tools. Accordingly, the TMML analyses learning as a cultural-historical activity system mediated by technological and semiotic tools that both constrain and support the learners in the goals of transforming their knowledge and skills.

The TMML represents two layers of tool-mediated activity:

1. a semiotic layer, where the learner’s actions to promote an objective are mediated by cultural tools and signs; and 2. a technological layer, where learning is mediated by

engagement with technology.

The authors envisaged that the individual layers could be utilised to provide a semiotic framework for educationalists and a technological framework for designers of new m-learning systems. It was envisaged that together these layers could provide a holistic representation of m-learning showing a dialectical relationship between technology and semiotics.

As shown in (Figure 2.9), the six components of the TMML are:

1. Subject – the focus of the analysis and typically the learner; 2. Object – the material or problem at which the activity is

directed;

3. Control – learner or teacher directed human-computer

interaction and the social rules that underpin the interactions; 4. Context – both the physical and virtual contexts of learning (e.g.

learning communities);

5. Communication – communication tools (e.g. forums, blogs, SMS) and protocols governing their use, and the interactions supported by these; and

6. Tools – the technological tools (e.g. m-learning technologies) and semiotic tools (e.g. learn-spaces).

The interconnections of the components in the diagram show the interactions and interdependencies between each of the components in the model.

The TMML has been used in practice by the authors of the model to capture and describe m-learning tasks within the structure of the six components of the model

during a MOBIlearn consortium project trial of mobile devices, which took place in the art gallery of an Italian museum. The mobile devices (mobile phones, PDAs, PocketPCs and notebook computers) were used to provide information about paintings in the gallery (objects) and tools for social networking with both local and foreign student participants (Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2005a; Taylor et al., 2006). The research project involved noting the interactions between the people and their tools and resources, and mapping the interactions to create both a semiotic and a technological view of the model, with the goal of comparing usage and interaction patterns for each of the mobile devices. The outcomes of the trial indicated that the TMML was a helpful framework for mapping the various contexts and the interactions that took place, and noting the perceived usability of the mobile devices being trialled. They concluded that the model was a helpful tool for analysing such research scenarios.

In a study conducted in 2007, Frohberg, Göth and Schwabe (2009) used the TMML to analyse and classify m-learning projects utilising the TMML components - Context, Tools, Control, Communication, Subject and Objective (Object in TMML). They developed a scale of values for each of the components of the TMML. For example, the component Control was assigned five values:

1. Full teacher control; 2. Mainly teacher control; 3. Scaffold;

4. Mainly learner control; and

5. Full learner control (Frohberg et al., 2009, p. 312).

The m-learning projects included in their study were reviewed and for each of the TMML components a value was assigned from the relevant scale. This enabled the researchers to group the projects by the various characteristics defined by the TMML

components (i.e. Context, Tools, Control, Communication, Subject and Objective), and then into more specific categories within each classification.

For example, the scale of values associated with the Context of the learner included the four categories: independent, formalised, physical and socialising. This two-tiered approach enabled the mapping and rating of individual projects depending on their context; for instance, whether the activities were undertaken by students

independently, or within formal classroom contexts, informal locations (e.g. museum), or socialising contexts where sharing information and social communication is valued. Frohberg et al. (2009) focussed on the semiotic layer of the TMML in their analysis and found the model “very useful in reducing the complexity of dynamics when describing a specific instantiation of a learning setting (i.e. a project) in a structured way” (p. 310). The above examples of the use of the TMML show the applicability of the model for analysing or classifying m-learning activities or projects.