1. Introduction
Connecting learners with nature and sustainability issues is an essential target of
environmental education (
EE) and of
education for sustainable development (ESD). An option to avoid “nature alienation” [
1] and to foster educational goals of ESD [
2] would be to connect personal experiences at specific places [
3]. This is an established and proven practice in outdoor learning [
4]. Mobile electronic devices (
MED) like cell phones, smartphones, PDAs or tablet PCs, as well as handheld GPS navigation devices could facilitate access to remote or interesting locations (
cf. [
5]) and increase interaction with the natural environment. Sharples and colleagues [
6] and Brown [
7] describe the potential of mobile contextual learning settings to enable “people individually and together, to create and maintain their own rich contexts for learning” [
8] (p. 6). The direct natural environment of a learner provides a specific context and mobile technologies offer additional digital artefacts to enrich the learning experience
in situ (e.g., historical artefacts like images of a landscape two hundred years ago or just in another season, artefacts about non-accessible or non-experiential information like a digital simulation of interactions in an ecosystem at different micro-/macroscopic levels, social artefacts like videos of a peat cutter to prelude a sustainability-related dilemma discussion or just intuitive tools for scientific analysis and data collection) [
8].
In the context of environmental education and ESD, several studies reported the effects of location-based learning with mobile devices: Ruchter and colleagues [
9] found an increased motivation to engage in environmental education if children use mobile devices, compared to the use of field guides and human guides. Kremer and colleagues [
10] as well as Lai
et al. [
11] also highlight motivational aspects using mobile devices during outdoor education activities and Uzunboylu
et al. [
12] foster smartphone-moderated activities (taking and sharing pictures of local environmental blights) to increase awareness of environmental concerns. In an explorative study, Zecha [
5] conducted expert interviews about problems and potentials of geocaching routes in EE and she concludes “the best and most effective method with regards to environmental education is when pupils create their own geocaching route” (p. 185). Geocaching has been a precursor for a location-based game. Since the year 2000 (when non-disgraded GPS signal became available globally) lots of games have been developed, implemented and tested [
13,
14]. Location-based games are also increasingly used for educational purposes and there is evidence for an impact on knowledge acquisition, situational interest and motivation [
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20,
21].
On the other hand, some authors suggest a careful reflection on the use of mobile devices in (environmental) educational settings [
22,
23] because learners may be focused on the devices, rather than on the natural environment. Recent research results highlight the role of mobile devices as additional tools and facilitators in a pedagogical and methodological well-designed learning environment to reach EE and ESD goals [
5,
24], as well as to achieve more self-determined, learner-centered and collaborative learning [
25,
26].
Several case studies and theoretical essays dealing with purposes and shortcomings of mobile electronic devices in environmental education and ESD have been published. Some papers focus on the development of frameworks to design mobile-supported field activities [
25,
27] and some papers focus on different effects in randomized controlled trials. However, observational field studies are still rare that use larger sample sizes focusing on recent educational activities with mobile devices in environmental education and ESD. Additionally, little is known about the implementation of MEDs by and routines of EE/ESD-practitioners (
cf. [
24]). This research deficit was addressed by the
mobi-LU-project conducted by Lude and colleagues [
28]; the present study was one part of it (graphical overview in
Figure 1). Within the
mobi-LU project a delphi-study was conducted to reveal experts’ views on benefits of, and obstacles to, educational activities using mobile devices in environmental education and ESD [
29]. Experts in the fields of pedagogy, environmental sciences, technology and economics were identified (N = 54) and after a two-step procedure (12 experts participated in the second round of the Delphi study), the following potential benefits and obstacles were identified (
Table 1).
Figure 1.
Research design of the mobi-LU project. This study focuses on steps 1, 3, 4 and 6.
Figure 1.
Research design of the mobi-LU project. This study focuses on steps 1, 3, 4 and 6.
Table 1.
Ranked experts’ views about potential and obstacles using
MEDs in
EE/
ESD. More than one standard deviation above the mean, respectively; taken from [
29].
Table 1.
Ranked experts’ views about potential and obstacles using MEDs in EE/ESD. More than one standard deviation above the mean, respectively; taken from [29].
Potential Benefits | Obstacles |
---|
- (1)
Participants can (and should) work out their own content facilitated by MEDs
| - (1)
MEDs increase the costs for educational programs
|
- (2)
Participants are motivated for outdoor activities through MEDs
| - (2)
MED acquisition needs expertise and personal/financial resources
|
- (3)
MEDs allow location-based learning and situate learning at real geographical places
| - (3)
activities with MEDs strongly depend on technology, and simple failures are fatale
|
- (4)
MEDs enable mobile learning and provide access to relevant resources
| - (4)
MEDs become outdated quickly
|
- (5)
MEDs enable the effective combination of field work and classroom-based learning
| - (5)
MEDs may cause a defective handling of nature
|
| - (6)
Focusing on MEDs may cause a partial loss of holistic experiences
|
Additionally, the experts were asked for criteria to evaluate existing educational activities in environmental education and education for sustainable development with mobile devices. After the second Delphi round, the experts agreed on seven dimensions:
- (1)
Goal orientation: Is an educational purpose for the MED-supported activity clearly formulated and adequately outlined?
- (2)
Educational concept: Is the MED-supported activity adequately structured? Are the participants’ interests and requirements considered?
- (3)
Pedagogical orientation: Are the pedagogical capabilities of MED-supported activities adequately used? Are multiple learning-opportunities provided?
- (4)
Achievement: How strong is the potential for achievement within the MED-supported activity? How is it measured and are (empirical) data accessible?
- (5)
Motivation and interest: How strong is the potential of the MED-supported activity to motivate learners? Is the motivation just grounded on a novelty effect?
- (6)
Users participation: To what extent are the users able to participate and to create their own content within the MED-supported activity?
- (7)
Methodological use of MEDs: How are MEDs used—just for navigation or for more constructive activities (e.g., documentation, data acquisition, creating and sharing information).
These dimensions were in line with the theoretical considerations and, thus, indicate their suitability for this study. The goal of this study is to get more insights into the recent use of mobile devices in
EE and
ESD in situ, to compare it to the experts’ views of potentials and obstacles [
29] and finally to validate a theoretical framework for the use of mobile devices in educational activities in environmental education and
ESD. This is in line with Wright and Parchomas’ [
30] request to focus on authentic contexts rather than on controlled experiments within the affordances of mobile learning.
2. Methodology
Formal and informal learning settings in general are determined by several prerequisites and requirements like school curricula, organizational factors or simply the learning paradigm applied for the development of a learning environment [
31,
32,
33].
In order to describe and interpret the different implementations of
MED in EE/ESD, a framework that considers different perspectives (subsequent termed as dimensions) was constructed (for details see [
28]):
- (a)
Educational and pedagogical dimension: To what extent are constructivist learning paradigms observable within the activities and are they supported by mobile devices? Methods foster different learning paradigms in different manners (e.g., step-by-step learning or self-determined discoveries, informal setting or formal learning, exposition or exploration, collaborative or individual activities).
- (b)
Content-related dimension: Which content-related aspects are fostered? What are the aims of the activity? Are they fruitfully supported by the use of mobile devices and are learners’ interests addressed adequately?
- (c)
Technological dimension: What are the benefits and limitations which mobile technology provides for the educational activities in environmental education and ESD?
- (d)
Economic dimension: Which are the economic prerequisites to develop a project-based educational activity using mobile devices that is viable in the long-term?
The main objectives of this study are therefore firstly to get insight into the practical implementation of mobile devices in educational activities in EE/ESD and secondly to describe the recent educational orientation of MED-supported activities in EE/ESD to derive implications for an ongoing improvement of media-assisted location-based learning and for professional development in this field.
Accordingly, this study aims to compare the evidence-based scientific requirements of using mobile devices fruitfully to the recent educational programs and the implementation of mobile technology, there. In detail, the following aspects are addressed:
- (i)
Target groups: Who is addressed with MED-supported educational activities?
- (ii)
Provider: Which institutions provide educational activities using mobile devices?
- (iii)
Technology: Which devices are used? Which network technology, platforms and digital tools are used?
- (iv)
Educational and pedagogical orientation: Which are the educational concepts underlying the educational activities supported with mobile devices?
- (v)
Environmental education/ESD inputs and outcomes: Which goals of environmental education/ESD are intended within the educational activities using mobile devices and which outcomes are expected?
2.1. Questionnaire Development and Online Survey
The different educational activities supported by mobile electronic devices in environmental education/ ESD were assessed with a questionnaire. It comprises the aspects mentioned above. The first part of the questionnaire focuses on the general aspects of educational activities supported by mobile devices (aspects (i) to (iii)), the second part of the questionnaire aims to get further insight into educational formats and methods (aspect (iv)) as well as the goals and the expected outcomes (aspect (v)).
The items for all dimensions were derived from the framework briefly described above and in total 40 items were formulated. For the educational and pedagogical dimension (see
Table 2), each item provides two opposite poles (example: “
The educational activity is related … vs. … is not related to school curricula”) ranked on a four-level Likert-scale. For this dimension, 24 items were incorporated in the data analysis. In a first step, a factor analysis (extraction of principal components with varimax rotation) was conducted and it revealed a four-factor model. For further processing, only items with factor loading above 0.7 were considered and 19 out of 24 items (
Table 2) were included in the final analyses. The reliability is acceptable, because the sub-dimensions assess personal statements about educational activities, including personal interpretations, and not the respondents’ psychological properties (
cf. [
34]). According to Schmitt [
35] a low Cronbach’s alpha “may not be a major impediment” to use a number of items as a scale if reasonable arguments can be found or theoretically derived. Other non-experimental studies in educational research (
cf. [
36]) discussed the role of Cronbachs alpha in field studies, and values above 0.6 were considered to be viable under circumstances comparable to this study.
The scale for the educational and pedagogical dimensions is complemented by a scale for content-related dimensions (defining
EE-goal achievement, like environmental knowledge, attitudes or behavior and
ESD criteria like local/global, static/dynamic, sociocultural/ecologic/economic consequences,
etc.) as well as the focus on
ESD-related competences (e.g., justice, transdiciplinarity, morality) within the educational activity (
Table 3). Furthermore, several items were included to assess to what extent the educational activity focuses on environmental education-related nature experience dimensions (e.g., aesthetic, social, conservation- or adventure-related, recreational,
etc. (
cf. [
37,
38,
39])).
Table 2.
Item examples of the final questionnaire to assess the educational and pedagogical dimension of MED-supported EE/ESD-activities (four-level Likert scale between two opposite poles).
Table 2.
Item examples of the final questionnaire to assess the educational and pedagogical dimension of MED-supported EE/ESD-activities (four-level Likert scale between two opposite poles).
Sub-Dimensions | Item Examples |
---|
social interaction (5 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.90) | - participants do … vs. … do not discuss with others - participants are … vs. … are not responsible for the common result of the activity |
degree of media orientation (2 items, Cronbach’s a = 0.73) | - educational activity is strongly … vs. … not influenced by digital media |
(socio-inter)active learning (3 items, Cronbach’s a = 0.64) | - participants are passive … vs. …active during the activity - participants are receptive … vs. …productive |
educational setting (5 items, Cronbach’s a = 0.71) | - participants follow a predefined time-schedule … vs. … have a self-determined working speed within the educational program - MED-activity provides (formal) … vs. … does not provide connection to curricula (informal) |
goal orientation (4 items, Cronbach’s a = 0.68) | - learning goals are set … vs. … participants set their own goals - topics of the educational activity are predefined … vs. … participants work on self-determined topics |
Table 3.
Item examples for the scale development to assess input/output dimensions of MED-supported EE/ESD-activities (four-level Likert scale between provided and not provided).
Table 3.
Item examples for the scale development to assess input/output dimensions of MED-supported EE/ESD-activities (four-level Likert scale between provided and not provided).
Dimension | Item Examples |
---|
EE-dimensions (inputs) (10 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.70) | Which nature experience do you foster with your activity? - aesthetic dimension (perceiving the beauty of nature) - social dimension (human-animal relationship) - recreational dimension (leisure-time in nature) |
ESD-criteria (inputs) (6 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.82) | Which criteria does your activity meet? - global and local aspects were involved - social, cultural, economic and ecological aspects were discussed |
EE-targets (outputs) (3 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.68) | Which are the goals of your activity? - environmental knowledge - attitudes towards nature - pro-environmental behavior |
ESD-competences (outputs) (12 items, Cronbach’s α = 0.82) | - being able to take one’s else perspective - being able to participate |
The methodological dimension encompasses facets of the MED usage (e.g., navigation, orientation, receiving information, collecting data, communication, etc.), of external representations (image, text, audio, etc.) and addressed senses (visual, auditive, olfactory, etc.) or about the tagging of the MED-supported activity (e.g., traditional cache/multicache or routing, degree of gamification, collaboration/ competition) and if Web 2.0 tools or social media are used for collaboration and communication.(e.g., facebook, snapchat, instagram). Furthermore, data about technical aspects (operating systems, software, type of devices) as well as aspects of the target groups is collected. At the end of the questionnaire, the respondents described briefly their educational activity and the free-text was analyzed with respect for the degree of participants’ involvement (exploration vs. guided-instruction) and access to location-based information (autonomous vs. predefined routes).
2.2. Nationwide Survey with Online Questionnaire
The online survey was advertised within specific mailing lists, through educational institutions and relevant stakeholders (e.g., German Federal Environmental Foundation, German Association of Biological Education, National Working Committee of Environmental Education, nature conservation centers) and thus approximately >10,000 persons were contacted using these communication channels. In a next step, 150 educational programs using mobile devices in
EE/
ESD were identified and the educational staff was contacted via e-mail, 98 of these projects could be contacted via telephone. Finally, in total 120 project representatives or educational staff conducting educational activities supported by mobile devices in Germany and Austria participated in the online survey (data collection: January 2012 to July 2012). The educational activities were quite diverse and they covered a broad understanding of environmental education/ESD as well as different target groups (e.g., school-children in formal learning contexts, adolescents in leisure-time activities, touristic purposes). For further details of participating educational programs see
www.mobi-lu.de.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
The potential of mobile devices in environmental education/ESD are manifold and well-designed engaging educational activities can be offered to different target groups. According to the experts’ considerations [
29], the data of the online survey in this study point towards a fruitful implementation of location-based learning with the support of digital mobile devices in different settings and for different target groups. Even though the central target group is reported to be school-aged children in formal educational settings, the distribution of different age-groups indicates a widely accepted implementation of mobile devices in many fields of environmental education and education for sustainable development—families, individual visitors of landscapes or nature conservation centers and members of (nature conservation) clubs are addressed to the same extent in their leisure time.
The data showed a strong intention of the educators responding in this study to achieve general goals of environmental education and to improve specific skills related to
ESD using mobile devices. However, this approach seems to follow incidental learning intentions that drive the development of the educational activity itself, and hence they often neglect the opportunity to exploit the potential of mobile devices, or to avoid the obstacles reported by the experts in the Delphi study. Major aspects obviously are the restriction of location-based activities to instructional methodologies as well as neglecting the opportunities provided by recent mobile internet and web 2.0 tools. Especially, participatory location-based learning activities could be fruitfully integrated into environmental education and ESD with mobile devices. For instance, Marfisi-Schottmann and George [
42] describe an approach to create collaborative mobile games with students. Heimonen and colleagues [
43] present a platform which allows creating location-based learning activities where learners can collaboratively document their learning using their own mobile devices
in situ. Clough [
44] analyzed the community of geocachers using a geocaching online platform. She highlighted the role of this web 2.0 to link the virtual social space on the platform with the real physical space in the environment. Since the availability of smartphones in 2007, lots of powerful mobile learning approaches were developed and tested taking advantage of mobile access to the virtual world. In contrast, the providers of educational activities involved in this study were not aware of these possibilities, or the organizational, technical or even personal resources that allow for up-to-date educational activities supported by mobile devices were not available. One might argue that educational programs with mobile devices might be expensive (cost of the devices, devices go out of date rapidly, costs for the mobile internet provider). This can be avoided using participants’ own devices which recently might be more and more workable due to the widespread distribution of smartphones. A prerequisite for these BYOD approaches (bring-your-own-device) and to take advantage of the opportunities provided by mobile devices is a certain technological expertise of the educational staff. According to Koehler and Mishra [
45], technological knowledge is a part of educators’ professional knowledge resulting in the widespread
technological pedagogical content knowledge—TPACK. Hence, major components of an educator’s professional skills are not only based on content-related or pedagogical knowledge but also on knowledge and experience with (mobile) technology in general and specifically with technology-enhanced learning. This, in terms, seems not to be strongly established in the group of the respondents of this study. The challenge of adopting new technologies within a domain like environmental education, fostering experiential learning and practical actions in nature, would be to combine the strengths of the “real” and the “digital” world. This should be trained, and professional development for the educational staff or at least some type of guidance during the process of creating inspiring educational programs and activities supported by mobile devices seems to be needed. According to the TPACK-model, professional development of educational staff in environmental education would be improved by adding technological knowledge (e.g., basic understanding of geo-informatics, technological support in environmental fieldwork) as well as technological content knowledge (e.g., how does mobile technology support location-based learning in environmental education/ESD) to the already existing pedagogical content knowledge. This would be the most effective way to improve the quality of programs in environmental education/ESD using mobile devices, but it is also the most expensive and the longest one.
Educational storyboards as guidance for the design of educational scenarios supported by mobile devices are a promising alternative to an extensive training. Educational storyboards are a kind of step-by-step template to help the educational staff during the design of educational programs. Starting from a clear description of the educational goals (precise—feasible—assessable, educational or content-related focus, EE goals or ESD skill development, etc.) the target group is described from different perspectives and according to different prerequisites. The next step is to clarify the location-specific, the organizational and the structural circumstances of the educational program using mobile devices and to relate them to the goals formulated in the first step. The third step is to outline the participants’ learning activities and to specify the advantages of (learning) activities moderated by mobile devices compared to traditional tools and methods. If this last step cannot be adequately described, the technological support is superfluous and mobile devices act as gadgets just profiting from a short novelty effect. All these discrete planning steps are supported by distinct checklists to facilitate decision-making. Especially, educational staff with lower TPACK could profit from such a sequential process and it helps them to take advantage of the fascinating opportunities potentially provided by recent mobile devices and upcoming technology in the future.