View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Left to Their Own Devices: An Exploration of Context in Seamless Work-Related Mobile Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Left to Their Own Devices: An Exploration of Context in Seamless Work-Related Mobile Learning
Language: English
Authors: Imogen Casebourne
Source: British Journal of Educational Technology. 2024 55(4):1772-1789.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Government Employees, Workplace Learning, Handheld Devices, Electronic Learning, Student Motivation, Independent Study, Lifelong Learning
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13410
ISSN: 0007-1013
1467-8535
Abstract: This study investigated the seamless mobile learning practices of UK government workers at various life stages, to understand how context impacted decisions about how, when and where learning was undertaken. Following Hedegaard, the context was understood as involving settings embedded within institutions. Drawing on analysis of data from public domain blogs and reports and anonymised trace data showing e-learning visits via a mobile device, a picture of institutional practice and values was developed. Against this backdrop, a survey of 50 individuals followed by semi-structured interviews provided information about seamless mobile learning projects. Mobile learning was often fragmented and ad hoc, rather than part of a longer, seamless learning project. A distinction between just-in-time learning and just-in-case learning was apparent, with the latter often postponed. For mobile workers, mobile learning focused on current work setting, whereas workers who could work in many interchangeable settings might move to somewhere they could concentrate. Mobile learning was sometimes motivated by a sense of a lack of time and a need to stay 'on top of things' as much as by interest in a topic. Sustained seamless mobile learning projects occurred if there was institutional support for learning that was also of individual interest and if learners had the ability to orchestrate their learning. Learners reported these seamless mobile learning projects to be enjoyable and compelling. This paper contributes to the evidence of seamless mobile learning practice over the life course and illustrates the value of considering an individual's relation to various "institutions" in conceptualisations of seamless mobile learning. It also offers pointers for the future design of seamless mobile learning tools including a need to offer learners the opportunity to sometimes separate ongoing learning which is related to distinct institutions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1427204
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHfCYPNHtFixkHMnFvNy-sZAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD3KrabnIt4Y8X7uHAIBEICBmgi0YhwXeanfsOprjNv30P9Eo5-r96IAPFnAEwZ10xLv7idAevhco8T0VGSDbsQM25HPWp9mrh0DxsHyE3tB88wJkxruk1vkAgMqTFPgR_JlqQScpV2xdKrYUxy6FNwTWan39oJyoHGgjgHPjybB-Lki43XHNham6vxJE9gN9UuT6PZCgRbPOcSKqnx8A16rGRDylArqryylZPU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177678279;58i01jul.24;2024Jun07.07:07;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177678279-1">Left to their own devices: An exploration of context in seamless work‐related mobile learning </title> <p>This study investigated the seamless mobile learning practices of UK government workers at various life stages, to understand how context impacted decisions about how, when and where learning was undertaken. Following Hedegaard, the context was understood as involving settings embedded within institutions. Drawing on analysis of data from public domain blogs and reports and anonymised trace data showing e‐learning visits via a mobile device, a picture of institutional practice and values was developed. Against this backdrop, a survey of 50 individuals followed by semi‐structured interviews provided information about seamless mobile learning projects. Mobile learning was often fragmented and ad hoc, rather than part of a longer, seamless learning project. A distinction between just‐in‐time learning and just‐in‐case learning was apparent, with the latter often postponed. For mobile workers, mobile learning focused on current work setting, whereas workers who could work in many interchangeable settings might move to somewhere they could concentrate. Mobile learning was sometimes motivated by a sense of a lack of time and a need to stay 'on top of things' as much as by interest in a topic. Sustained seamless mobile learning projects occurred if there was institutional support for learning that was also of individual interest and if learners had the ability to orchestrate their learning. Learners reported these seamless mobile learning projects to be enjoyable and compelling. This paper contributes to the evidence of seamless mobile learning practice over the life course and illustrates the value of considering an individual's relation to various institutions in conceptualisations of seamless mobile learning. It also offers pointers for the future design of seamless mobile learning tools including a need to offer learners the opportunity to sometimes separate ongoing learning which is related to distinct institutions.Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicMobile devices accompany their owners across settings that were previously considered separate, such as work, college and households.This has the potential to impact work/home and other boundaries.From a pedagogical perspective, mobile devices may support seamless learning, in which experiences across distinct settings result in a holistic and unified understanding.What this paper addsIt introduces the concept of the institution to conceptions of seamless learning.It illustrates the ways in which different institutions (workplaces or educational institutions) can shape individual experiences and decisions about when and where to learn.It provides evidence that some working adults engage in seamless learning projects and describe this as compelling and enjoyable, but that others prefer to separate distinct life spheres.Implications for practice and/or policyThere may be value in institutions and designers supporting people who want to engage in seamless mobile learning.However, it is important to be aware that not everyone wants to engage in seamless learning.Seamless learning is more likely to occur when individual and institutional priorities are aligned across several institutions, so there will be challenges for a single institution seeking to promote it.</p> <p>Keywords: institution; professional development; seamless mobile learning; setting</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>While a goal of facilitated seamless mobile learning has been to foster a capacity to engage in self‐directed lifelong learning '<emph>Students should ultimately become life‐long autonomous learners who are able to decide when, where and how to learn with self‐identified resources within their learning spaces</emph>' (Wong, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref1">78</reflink>], p. 210), the concept is often studied in students (Durak & Çankaya, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]). Furthermore, while definitions are learner‐centric, it is frequently studied from the perspective of facilitators (Gommers, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref3">27</reflink>]). Kukulshka‐Hulme suggested that conceptions of mobile learning are shaped by the populations studied ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref4">43</reflink>]) and in the first decade of this century working adults were not the most studied group (Hwang & Tsai, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]). Studies of mobile learning for work (eg, Pimmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref6">54</reflink>]), often focus on students' transition into the workplace or novice learning, rather than established workers, although recent studies examine the affordances of mobile for career‐related micro‐credentials (Corbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]) with commentators calling for lifelong seamless learning (Aus dem Moore & Martinotti, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>]) and conceptions of mobile learning focusing on physical mobility and work (Traxler, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref9">70</reflink>]). Conversely, studies of work‐related learning have not typically focused on learner mobility, leaving a need for further research into the mobile learning of adults working and learning across multiple institutions, often with caring responsibilities at home.</p> <p>Animated by the following questions: 'In what ways does individual interaction with context act to enable or prevent work‐related seamless mobile learning?' and 'What are the practices that feature in the work‐related seamless mobile learning of civil servants?' this study explored seamless mobile learning at various stages of the life course, focusing on UK civil servants (aged between 18 and 65) and drawing on concepts from Hedegaard's activity theory framework ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>]). In Hedegaard's work ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref11">31</reflink>]), the focus is on children navigating the institutions of school and home, but her framework has also been used to study adult professionals navigating separate work institutions (Edwards, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref12">21</reflink>]). The data were gathered before the pandemic resulted in home learning for many (Carlsson et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]; Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref14">82</reflink>]) while institutional learning practices evolved (Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref15">37</reflink>]). However, the role of <emph>institutions</emph> in seamless mobile learning which emerged from the study remains relevant as a lens.</p> <p>In considering the research questions, Hedegaard's concept of <emph>institution</emph> illuminated aspects of context in work‐related seamless mobile learning. While Sharples acknowledges the importance of institutional resources in facilitating mobile learning initiatives and says '<emph>Institutional support: extensive and well thought out support resources including staff training and equipment/software maintenance are essential</emph>'. ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref16">61</reflink>], p. 11), the term <emph>institution</emph> itself does not feature in influential characterisations and definitions of seamless mobile learning. A focus on the interplay between individuals and institutions offers a new lens for a question Wong ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref17">79</reflink>]) raised: whether a project involving a series of abstract learning activities undertaken in multiple interchangeable settings can be seamless, rather than <emph>anywhere, anytime</emph> mobile learning. Where a learning project is relevant to a learners' experiences related to more than one <emph>institution</emph>, might it become seamless across multiple <emph>institutions</emph> even if many learning episodes are abstract? It also offers a lens for reflecting on the rise of micro‐credentialing, where learners may engage with multiple institutions (Corbeil et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]).</p> <p>Early in discussions of mobile learning, Vavoula and Sharples pointed to the ways in which learning might move <emph>with</emph> a mobile learner, which remain relevant to considerations of work‐related seamless mobile learning:</p> <p>... in terms of space, i.e. it happens at the workplace, at home, and at places of leisure; it is mobile between different areas of life, i.e. it may relate to work demands, self‐improvement, or leisure; and it is mobile with respect to time, i.e. it happens at different times during the day, on working days or on weekends. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref19">73</reflink>], p. 152)</p> <p>Today, mobile devices offer multiple avenues for self‐directed learning. They can facilitate peer learning and the creation of learner‐generated content (Wong et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref20">82</reflink>]) and have the potential to be context‐aware (of time and location) and tailor learning accordingly (Perry, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref21">52</reflink>]; Sarker et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref22">57</reflink>]). Gamified experiences on mobile devices can help with memorisation in language learning (Kumar & Goundar, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref23">44</reflink>]). Developments in AI are expected to offer increased personalisation (Davies et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]), and AI can be accessed through mobile devices in the form of chatbots (Hwang & Chang, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref25">39</reflink>]) as well as large language models like ChatGPT. These developments seem likely to help individuals to direct their own learning, although the advent of AI apps also raises questions about the volume and privacy of data generated (Holmes et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref26">35</reflink>]; Klimova et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>The concept of <emph>seamless learning</emph> was introduced by Kuh in relation to formal education ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref28">42</reflink>], p. 136). Seamless mobile learning directs attention to how students integrate and keep track of incidences of learning over time (De Waard et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]; Milrad et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref30">49</reflink>]). In 2011, Wong and Looi undertook a seminal literature review of studies and proposed 10 salient features of seamlessness for designing to support seamless learning ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref31">80</reflink>], p. 2367). Wong later introduced a hierarchy giving pre‐eminence to time and space ([<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref32">78</reflink>]), which is in line with a point made by Wali et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref33">75</reflink>]) that the mobility of a person should be centred in conceptions of mobile learning, and in [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref34">81</reflink>] Wong and Looi further situated the concept in comparison to a series of similar or related concepts.</p> <p>The task of bridging or managing learning episodes (sometimes called orchestration) is hard for facilitators (Sharples, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref35">62</reflink>]) and learners attempting to self‐direct their learning (Malloch et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref36">46</reflink>]; Nygren et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref37">51</reflink>]) with a need for supporting tools (Vavoula & Sharples, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref38">71</reflink>]). Various tools have been piloted: HandLer acted as a learning companion (Sharples, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref39">60</reflink>]), KLeOS contained timelines to help organise learning (Vavoula & Sharples, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref40">73</reflink>]), and 3LHub helped learners keep track of learning goals (Tabuenca et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref41">68</reflink>]), while a seamless learning ecosystem aimed to blend formal and informal learning (Pornpongtechavanich & Wannapiroon, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref42">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recently, Fischer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]) call for learning to be viewed as part of daily life, with a focus on <emph>interest‐driven</emph> rather than <emph>school</emph> or <emph>curriculum</emph> learning. In line with this, it has been argued that learning for work cannot always be differentiated from the act of working (Eraut & Hirsh, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]), implying that studies of <emph>mobile working</emph> are relevant to work‐related mobile learning. Cerrato ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref45">11</reflink>], p. 41) argues that while timely, Fisher's approach does not fully take into account the '<emph>web of relationships within which learning unfolds or develops</emph>'. Considering the relationship between an individual and their work institution, Billett and Hodge distinguish learning of personal interest from learning that is an institutional imperative ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]).</p> <p>One sub‐question of interest was whether mobile learning was perceived as enjoyable or associated with work intensification or extension. Mobile learning might be empowering (Brown & Green, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref47">8</reflink>]; Sharples et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref48">65</reflink>]), but concerns were quickly raised that it might lead to stress and blur boundaries between formal and informal environments (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]). During the pandemic some gained time as a result of not commuting and some students appeared to benefit from mobile learning (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref50">76</reflink>]), however blurred boundaries, work extension, online presenteeism and work intensification were also reported (Adisa et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]; Hayes et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref52">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Focusing on time, Pimmer and Grohbiel ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]) distinguished <emph>just‐in‐time</emph> mobile learning from <emph>just‐in‐case</emph> learning (courses or e‐learning) not <emph>immediately</emph> useful but perhaps invaluable in future. For work‐related learning which could be undertaken in an office but also in multiple alternate locations, it is reasonable to ask why such <emph>just‐in‐case</emph> learning becomes mobile. One possibility is that a perceived lack of time results in institutionally mandated e‐learning being undertaken on the move, in gaps between other activities, sometimes known as <emph>dead time</emph>. Holm ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref54">34</reflink>]) called on employers to schedule work‐related learning within working hours, but where learning is digital and informal, scheduling is increasingly the responsibility of the individual and employees might feel <emph>disloyal</emph> to immediate colleagues if they stop work to engage in e‐learning (Svensson et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref55">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Commentators raised concerns that mobile <emph>working</emph> increases work extension. Gregg suggested that '<emph>The notion that work is carried out through a series of individual choices regarding time, based on unique interpretations of classification and order, ignores the structural conditions that govern today's organizations, not to mention the cumulative impact of so many apparently personal decisions on a social and global economic field</emph>'. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>], p. 128) and Cohen echoes Jewson in suggesting that <emph>setting‐interchangeable</emph> types of mobile <emph>work</emph>: '<emph>almost inevitably undermines temporal work‐life boundaries, since work can be done in multiple places it is left to workers to prevent its seepage into non‐work spaces and times</emph>'. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>], p. 80).</p> <p>Considering place, Cohen ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref58">14</reflink>]) distinguishes workers who <emph>must</emph> move between very <emph>specific</emph> locations to do their jobs (eg, plumbers) from workers not tied to a specific setting, who worked at home during the pandemic and <emph>might</emph> work in multiple interchangeable locations offering suitable affordances (quiet plus Wi‐Fi connection). The focus of an individual's attention, either towards their immediate setting or on something abstract, has been discussed in studies of mobile learning. The affordances of mobile devices are sometimes conceptualised as enabling working or learning 'anytime, anywhere' (Cross et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]; Sharples et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref60">65</reflink>]). However, times and places (settings) are not always interchangeable. Mobile learning may be tied to specific settings where workers access reference material or performance support (Casebourne, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref61">10</reflink>]; Huang & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref62">36</reflink>]) exactly when and where they need it, just before or while putting it to use in the course of their work (often in jobs that could not be undertaken from home during the pandemic).</p> <p>Sharples ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref63">62</reflink>]) distinguished seamless learning <emph>across contexts</emph> (implying that the learner's attention to a specific setting is important to the learning activity) and <emph>despite context</emph> involving abstract learning that could occur in multiple settings. Using an activity theory lens Wali et al. ([<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref64">75</reflink>]) argued that locations that afford learning (such as lecture theatres or libraries) but are not the <emph>object</emph> of the learning (people in libraries are not typically studying libraries) can usefully be thought of as <emph>supporting tools</emph>. Experiences of working during the pandemic pointed to the affordances of setting as a supporting tool—some had access to suitable workspaces and others did not, some were interrupted by children and others were not (Kott, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref65">41</reflink>]; Selwyn & Jandrić, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref66">59</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-3">MATERIALS AND METHODS</hd> <p>To understand whether and how working adults at various career stages engaged in work‐related seamless mobile learning, organisational artefacts including public domain Civil Service blogs were analysed to build a picture of institutional values while a new field <emph>device type</emph> was added to an existing learning management system (LMS) to generate trace data (a record of activity). This included several hundred thousand visits from multiple professions (eg, driving instructors, benefits advisors, prison wardens, environment workers and managers) ranging in age from 18 to 65. Existing anonymised records included topic titles, dates and times of access and broad demographic data. With the addition of device type, data relating to mobile device use over time could be collected.</p> <p>In studies involving trace data, privacy of individuals can be protected via anonymity of data (Eynon et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref67">24</reflink>]; Lally et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>]) and all data were fully anonymised prior to the study. Concerns have been raised that it may sometimes be possible to identify individuals from anonymised data (Barocas & Nissenbaum, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]); however, as the data contained no locational information and was not supplemented by other data, this was not possible. Additionally, there was no intention to publish or further share the data. Data security measures were implemented (eg, BitLocker).</p> <p>LMS data from 2015 to 2017 were examined for trends and patterns, including broad demographics of mobile device users (gender, profession and whether they were managers), what topics were most frequently accessed via mobiles and at what times, as well as evidence of seamless mobile learning. Approaches to analysis included logistic regression and a J48/C4.5 decision tree model to split data into mobile and non‐mobile in RapidMiner (Quinlan, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref70">56</reflink>]), but owing to the unbalanced nature of the data (many fewer visits using mobile devices than via PCs) results were inconclusive. Therefore, chi‐squared tests in SPSS were used to test the statistical significance of anomalies observable through descriptive statistics generated in Excel. Excel scripts were used to identify sequences of repeat visits. It was not possible to examine the anonymised data for all proposed characteristics of seamless mobile learning (Wong & Looi, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref71">80</reflink>]), but two that were evident suggested further avenues to explore:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> MSL3 Across time: it was possible to observe sequences of visits to topics over time; and</item> <p></p> <item> MSL7 Combined use of multiple device types: it was possible to see how (anonymised) individuals switched between a PC, phone and tablet over the course of multiple visits</item> </ulist> <p>The results of the initial analysis informed the design of a survey and interview schedule and enabled triangulation of findings, but as the LMS was not designed as a seamless learning environment (Mouri et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref72">50</reflink>]), data did not encompass a full range of learning activities. A survey collected information about other activities, and interviews asked about seamless mobile learning as a process. The survey included qualitative and quantitative questions on activities, learning locations, and time patterns and generated three pages of material. It was distributed through email invites and newsletters. Snowball sampling was also used. Sampling aimed to include a range of perspectives and situations, including office workers, part‐time workers and a mix of seniority, professions and genders. Fifty people from senior civil servants through managers to fast streamers and apprentices with job roles including HR, programming, data analysis and environmental science completed the survey. Just under half of respondents had managerial roles. LMS time patterns for devices were compared with survey responses and new variables created, for example, to represent 'out of working hours' (weekdays before 8 AM and after 6 PM) and 'weekends'.</p> <p>Interviews were conducted with 24 learners from various government departments, representing a variety of professions and age ranges from 18 to 65 with the majority between 28 and 50. These were in person or via Skype, and lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. A timeline prompt was used to guide questions about episodes of seamless learning. As with Vavoula et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref73">72</reflink>]) time diaries, this identified modes of learning and impetus for learning, and enabled discussion about learning projects unfolding over longer timespans than would otherwise have been available to the study. Senior stakeholders were interviewed after mobile learners to incorporate any common emerging themes.</p> <p>Initially, coding (using NVivo) drew on the interview protocol that emerged from data analysis, for example, with responses to questions about perceived barriers to learning coded as 'barriers'. Then, emergent codes illuminated unanticipated themes (Elliott, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref74">22</reflink>]; Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref75">48</reflink>]). For example, engaging in mobile learning while undertaking household chores was coded as 'multitasking'. Codes were revised and regrouped during this process. Themes were then organised according to categories in Hedegaard's framework, an approach not dissimilar to previous work drawing on Engestrom's triangle, (eg, Sharples et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref76">66</reflink>]; Wali et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref77">75</reflink>]) but focusing on an individual's relation to several distinct institutions, not all of which might equally value a learning project. Emerging themes were analysed for relevance to institutions (workplace, home or third spaces such as trains) and the presence of horizontal (between the competing priorities of separate institutions) or vertical (between an individual and an institution, or between practice and stated institutional values) conflicts. Table 1 provides an extract.</p> <p>1 TABLE Coding exemplar (this theme had two sub‐codes: participation & observation, an excerpt of one is provided).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Framework positioning</th><th align="left">Theme</th><th align="left">Code</th><th align="left">Coded extracts from interview transcripts</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Institutional practice → work institutionSingle institution. Low conflict between individual and institution (Hedegaard, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2012</xref>).</td><td align="left">Setting‐specific learning</td><td align="left">Mimetic learning related to participation in work activity in a setting (Billett, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">2014</xref>) supported by a mobile device. A sequence involving assessing a setting, seeking guidance and then taking action based on that guidance. Appears related to the concept of 'just what is needed' (Choy et al, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2013</xref>).</td><td align="left">(Female, non‐manager, 20–30—A) 'We've got operational instructions for everything, so I can kind of go in there, pull it up, have a quick read, go "OK, yep, that is what I need to be doing"'.(Female, non‐manager, 20–30—B) 'So, it's about sending a photo and saying, "I've collected this sample here. This is what it looks like." Basically, to get advice'.(Female, non‐manager, 60–65) 'Looking up directions from the station to work out where to go next'. (When travelling for work)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Using this approach, the results of interviews were triangulated with the survey, trace data and organisational documents, to create a picture of institutional context and practices. Emerging themes from multiple sources built a picture of institutional value positions and practices, and the role of conflicts or tensions in shaping individual mobile learning activities.</p> <p>Finally, accounts of mobile learning on the timeline were analysed using Wong and Looi's framework ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref78">80</reflink>]), adapted by Wong ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref79">77</reflink>]) to identify ways in which they might be seamless. Seamless learning was categorised as individually or institutionally orchestrated, with learning activities categorised as setting specific or setting interchangeable and just‐in‐time or just‐in‐case. Finally, the role of conflicts across the entire learning trajectory was considered using Hedegaard's framework ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref80">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-4">FINDINGS</hd> <p>Some learning activities were closely related to work currently underway and not <emph>anytime, anywhere</emph> activities—while the knowledge acquired might not in the longer term be '<emph>bound to the place, time, or social settings where it occurred</emph>' (Sharples, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref81">62</reflink>], p. 53) the initial learning activity was. Examples included work‐shadowing and activities involving assessing a work setting, seeking guidance and taking action based on that guidance which appeared related to concepts of '<emph>just‐in‐time</emph>' and '<emph>just‐what‐is‐needed</emph>' (Choy et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref82">13</reflink>], p. 75; Pimmer & Grohbiel, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref83">53</reflink>], p. 6). See Table 1 for examples. Other activities were unrelated to work activities <emph>currently</emph> underway but <emph>were</emph> relevant to work activities about to start. These appeared similar to the preparation activities '<emph>anticipating contact</emph>' identified by Gregg ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref84">29</reflink>], p. 20), for example, interviewees spoke of '<emph>going to a meeting I will actually do some, like, revision</emph>' or '<emph>... preparation, really. Just making sure you're ready for what you're going to be doing ...</emph>' or '<emph>I would probably read up the day before just to make sure</emph>...'. Such activity might be important to avoid '<emph>feeling exposed</emph>' or not '<emph>on top of things</emph>'.</p> <p>More traditional e‐learning—which Pimmer and Grohbiel might classify as <emph>just‐in‐case</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref85">53</reflink>], p. 6)—did not directly relate to work currently underway, was often viewed as being in conflict with it and might be postponed in favour of more urgent work activities. '<emph>Something comes up and you have to, you know. It gets pushed. So, yeah. That does happen</emph>'. Several interviewees spoke of feeling guilty or disloyal to colleagues if they spent time undertaking formal e‐learning within working. As one reported: '<emph>If you're at your desk, you can be approached... It's very... Especially, when you look after staff. You're sitting there, it's quite difficult to be closed to business. ... it is quite difficult to shut that down without seeming quite rude</emph>'. And '<emph>There is so little time, I feel guilty about spending it on learning for me</emph>'. When more formal learning was supported by a mobile device, it was often in an attempt to carve out time for learning during the commute, or because the learner had escaped to a café to avoid being interrupted or appearing unhelpful. Individual understanding of institutional traditions and values, and people's sense of their own position within those institutions appeared important in shaping choices as to what to prioritise. While work‐related learning was institutionally supported and actively encouraged, for some interviewees, it seemed difficult to achieve. Similarly, there are traditions, rather than hard and fast laws, about who does what in private life, but the roles and demands associated with household traditions made after hours study more difficult for some than for others. Another issue common to accounts of learning undertaken both at work and at home was difficulty in concentrating on abstract learning because other work or household activities were noisy or distracting (an issue also reported during the pandemic). This was specific to learning that was abstract, divorced from any particular setting, where learners needed to become an <emph>absent presence</emph> (Gergen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref86">26</reflink>]) ignoring co‐located others in order to concentrate. Finally, a number of interviewees reported using mobile devices to undertake work‐related learning at home while simultaneously undertaking household chores. This typically involved listening to podcasts or watching videos while cooking, folding laundry and putting children to bed.</p> <p>Following analysis, mobile learning activities were categorised as <emph>setting specific</emph> or <emph>setting interchangeable</emph>, depending on whether learning was mimetic (focused on features of the learner's setting, Billett, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]) or more abstract and possible to undertake in many interchangeable places, as shown in Figure 1. An issue with mobile learning that was <emph>setting interchangeable</emph> was that although in theory it could occur <emph>anytime, anywhere</emph>, in practice some interviewees rarely found themselves in settings where they <emph>felt</emph> permission to undertake learning or were able to concentrate.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13410-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13410-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Relation of learning activities to activity setting." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Learning activities categorised as <emph>setting interchangeable</emph> were more likely to feature in accounts touching on issues of work extension (learning at home later in the evening or during the commute) or work intensification (using periods of deadtime) and more likely to come into conflict with other activities underway (such as non‐related work or household activity). Learning unrelated to setting and <emph>also</emph> not viewed as urgent (the top right quadrant) was frequently postponed in favour of other work or household activities viewed as more urgent. Rather than being <emph>any time, anywhere</emph>, for some, it was possible <emph>at few or no times</emph> and <emph>in few or no locations</emph>.</p> <p>A separate but related finding was that interviewees frequently distinguished <emph>learning for work</emph> from <emph>learning for me</emph> (with the latter including work‐related learning that they found personally interesting). This distinction was viewed as being between <emph>personal imperatives</emph> and <emph>institutional imperatives</emph> (Billett & Hodge, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref88">7</reflink>]). Unsurprisingly, <emph>learning for me</emph> was more likely to be accessed on a mobile device in non‐work locations and outside of working hours. A distinction between <emph>learning for work</emph> and <emph>learning for me</emph> was also apparent in the anonymised trace data, as can be seen in Figure 2. Access to mandatory e‐learning rose at the start of the working day, dipped around lunchtime (between 11.45 AM and 14.30 PM) and climbed in the afternoon, before dropping at the end of the working day. In interviewee accounts, mandatory learning was most likely to be viewed as <emph>learning for work</emph>, '<emph>for some reason, I associate that particularly with work. I have to get it done, don't necessarily really want to do it</emph>', so it is unsurprising that it was generally confined to working hours.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13410-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13410-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Times of day women (F) and men (M) accessed learning—snapshot from the initial sample." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Access patterns for topic areas suggested PCs and mobile devices were used differently, as can be seen in Figure 3. For both, the majority of visits involved mandatory learning (Core Skills). However, on mobile devices, leadership and management topics constituted a <emph>larger</emph> share of overall visits, while core skills constituted a <emph>smaller</emph> share. Leadership topics tend to be more associated with a person's career development, as well as immediate performance, and are more likely to be of personal and pressing interest and considered an <emph>individual imperative</emph> (Billett & Hodge, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref89">7</reflink>]) or of personal interest (Fischer et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref90">25</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13410-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13410-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Popularity of topics accessed by device—snapshot from initial sample." /> </p> <p></p> <p>However, as shown in Figure 4, for <emph>survey</emph> respondents, accessing traditional e‐learning <emph>of any kind</emph> on a mobile device was relatively uncommon and also more likely to be undertaken at work in working hours. Other work‐related learning activities were more common. Interviews further illuminated the rich variety of seamless mobile learning activities.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13410-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13410-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Reported work‐related mobile learning activities in survey responses." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Learning undertaken <emph>outside</emph> of working hours was often related to career development. Describing the commute, interviewees said '<emph>there really isn't anyone who is going to bother me, I don't really have to engage with anyone, it's that sort of stolen time</emph>'. and '<emph>I have a long commute into work every day. I try to use it efficiently, so I do a lot of my learning and development when I'm commuting</emph>'. In some cases, travel might represent what they perceived as their only opportunity to undertake learning for career development '<emph>I've done the work bit and now I can focus on me before I get home</emph>'. Learners sometimes appeared to be: '<emph>using personal time to catch up on tasks left aside in the service of other, presumably more urgent duties</emph>'. (Gregg, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref91">29</reflink>], p. 20). It should be noted that well‐publicised institutional guidance offered every individual a <emph>minimum</emph> of 5 days of learning per year, and the perceived lack of time seemed due to individual difficulties in prioritising learning over other work activities.</p> <p>In line with findings from initial data analysis, most mobile learning was ad hoc and unplanned, could equally well have taken place at the learners' desk and did not form part of a longer project. An emerging theme was that many people did not engage in longer mobile learning projects because they found it challenging to orchestrate their learning. Many reported struggling with organising learning, locating the results of previous learning episodes, deciding what to do next, or with <emph>framing</emph> (Bernstein, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref92">5</reflink>])—deciding <bold>what</bold> to focus on: '<emph>The thing with researching online is it can lead to more questions, you know. There is so much information about everything. Everything, everything. So, sometimes it's hard to filter</emph>'. The difficulties of organising self‐directed learning projects were acknowledged in a public domain Civil Service report: '<emph>People need more support and direction. Individuals do not have the time or knowledge to make the appropriate choices on their own</emph>'. (2015). However, some individuals <emph>did</emph> describe seamless learning projects lasting weeks or months. Orchestration of these was sometimes institutional (eg, fast streamers undertaking formal study alongside related work experience), but self‐directed seamless mobile learning projects required individual orchestration. It was notable that many seamless learners had Masters degrees, perhaps providing experience in organising self‐directed study.</p> <p>Interestingly, accounts of self‐directed seamless learning featured a strong intrinsic desire to initiate or continue the project and appeared to be experienced as 'autotelic' or enjoyable. '<emph>... I'd completed the podcast and YouTube video on the train, but that almost wasn't enough, it almost sparked something and I wanted to know more</emph>'. And '<emph>I think the subject matter, for me, made it one that I couldn't let go of. I was like, this is so fascinating, I wanted to just delve deeper</emph>'. '<emph>Do you know, the application is definitely work but it was more from a personal perspective</emph>'. This was in line with Sharples' ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref93">62</reflink>]) suggestion of flow experiences underpinning what he terms <emph>seamless learning despite context</emph>. It was also in contrast with accounts of undertaking mobile learning on the train or at home in an attempt to '<emph>keep on top of things</emph>' or '<emph>not be exposed</emph>' in upcoming work meetings, where a perceived imperative to use evenings or snatched moments (dead time) for learning seemed to arise from a sense of not having enough time and not feeling fully prepared.</p> <p>Reflecting on projects that crisscrossed <emph>multiple</emph> institutions, it was apparent that many learning projects (such as hobbies) were confined to the sphere of private life, whereas work‐related learning projects had little relevance outside work. Thus an individual might experience separate ongoing learning projects related to distinct institutions as being silo'd and not entirely 'of one piece' or 'whole or continuous' (Kuh, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref94">42</reflink>], p. 136). Conversely, learning experienced as having relevance across <emph>multiple</emph> institutions (ie, thought to illuminate aspects of both work <emph>and</emph> private life), might further a sense of being 'a singular and coherent being' (Gergen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref95">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Interviewees giving accounts of seamless mobile learning traversed multiple institutions. That is, settings such as the office, train, contractor sites or rooms in an individual's home were bound by different sets of institutional values (Hedegaard, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref96">33</reflink>]) and priorities and tacit expectations about appropriate behaviours. For those engaged in formally orchestrated learning, seamless learning involved movement between educational institutions and the workplace (and private study at home). For <emph>self‐directed</emph> seamless learning, the settings in which learning occurred included work sites, or contractor sites (thus traversing separate work institutions) or touched on areas that were perceived as relevant to both work life and home life.</p> <p>Notably, topics in such projects were of personal interest, but <emph>also</emph> of relevance to others across the settings and institutions that the learner traversed. That is, they combined personal and institutional imperatives (Billett & Hodge, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref97">7</reflink>]), being perceived as relevant to work (or to other household members) as well as of personal interest. Importantly, because of their perceived <emph>institutional</emph> relevance, they were not experienced as in being conflict with other work or household activities and learners did not feel inhibited from discussing the topics with others, which enabled these longer learning sequences to continue (they were not relegated to personal private study in snatched moments). Additionally, in more than one account, a resolution of what an interviewee perceived as a conflict in institutional practice and values not only led to that individual's own developing understanding but also to proposed changes in the practice itself. This could be viewed as an example of Schon's double‐loop learning ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref98">58</reflink>]) and offers an example of how individual agency has the potential to shape institutional practice, rather than institutional practice more commonly shaping individual motive.</p> <p>Figure 5 illustrates a proposed relationship between personal and institutional imperatives in seamless mobile learning. When personal and institutional imperatives are aligned across a variety of settings and institutions, this provides fertile conditions for sustaining self‐directed seamless learning projects. Conversely, where both are low, sustained seamless learning projects are unlikely. With <emph>either</emph> a high institutional <emph>or</emph> strong personal imperative but not both, institution and setting spanning seamless learning projects will be characterised by conflict between the individual and the institution and therefore difficult to sustain.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/58I/01jul24/bjet13410-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="bjet13410-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Personal and institutional imperatives and work‐related seamless mobile learning." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In summary, constituent learning activities might be setting specific or setting interchangeable as well as just‐in‐time or just‐in‐case, with just‐in‐case, setting‐interchangeable learning more likely to be viewed as lower priority and in conflict with other institutionally mandated activities. Seamless mobile learning projects were experienced as compelling and enjoyable by interviewees who described them. However, their perceived relevance to the institutions that individuals traversed was important in sustaining them over time and enabling setting‐interchangeable activities to occur. Seamless learning projects were characterised by personal and institutional <emph>alignment</emph> around the value of the project activities and of the intended outcome.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-10">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Seamless learning that crossed multiple institutions (in addition to multiple settings within a single institution) was rare but when it did occur was associated with a sense of being 'a singular and coherent being' (Gergen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref99">26</reflink>]) and positive feelings of flow (Sharples, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref100">62</reflink>]). Such projects were driven and sustained by deep personal enthusiasm for the topics in question and were enjoyable. However, not all learners wanted to undertake work‐related learning outside of working hours, although it sometimes colonised non‐work settings and times. Whether seamless or ad hoc, such activities were described by interviewees as something that they <emph>chose</emph> to undertake, but for ad hoc activities the language used sometimes implied that the impetus was related to a sense of pressure.</p> <p>This distinction is quite subtle, as seemingly identical activities might be associated with quite different affective experiences, but while learning designers might wish to foster the positive holistic flow experiences associated with the accounts of self‐directed seamless mobile learning projects, perhaps by offering podcasts or apps that assist orchestration, care is needed to avoid inadvertently creating work extension or intensification. Designing to support seamless learning is inevitably complex given the range of activities and settings involved (Bannan et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref101">3</reflink>]; Viberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref102">74</reflink>]), and tools presenting work‐related learning alongside hobbies and self‐improvement projects could be experienced as an unwelcome and stressful reminder of work. Before the pandemic, mobile devices were identified as having potential to undermine work–life balance (Duxbury & Smart, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref103">20</reflink>]; Gregg, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref105">29</reflink>]; Towers et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref106">69</reflink>]), and recent commentators point to their potential contribution to illbeing rather than well‐being (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref107">47</reflink>]). Therefore, future designs for tools intended to support seamless learning should consider options for projects to be visible only in settings or at times associated with the project's main institution.</p> <p>In interviewee accounts, mobile learning episodes occurred in a variety of <emph>settings</emph> which could be seen to belong to <emph>institutions</emph> in so far as the typical practice within those settings was governed by an established set of rules, values and typical practices. It was apparent that an individual's perceived position in relation to institutional rules, norms and practices played a role in shaping their choices about how and when it was appropriate to undertake learning activities. Considering this and reconsidering the definition of seamless learning adapted by Wong from that proposed by Sharples: '<emph>when a person experiences a continuity of learning, and consciously bridges the multifaceted learning efforts, across a combination of locations, times, technologies or social settings</emph>' (Wong, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref108">79</reflink>], p. 10, adapted from Sharples et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref109">64</reflink>]), as well as Hedegaard's concept of setting: '<emph>An activity setting can be compared to a scene in a theatre where both the materiality and the way of interaction reflect tradition in an institutional practice</emph>'. (Hedegaard, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref110">33</reflink>], p. 131), it is apparent that the concept of <emph>setting</emph> in seamless learning can usefully be thought of as constituting physical location <emph>plus</emph> social setting at a specific time.</p> <p>Considering context as involving aspects of the learner's setting and also their relation to the institution to which the setting belongs, it is reasonable to adapt Wong's definition of seamless mobile learning ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref111">79</reflink>], p. 10) to add the concept of institution, so that: '<emph>when a person experiences a continuity of learning, and consciously bridges the multifaceted learning efforts, across a combination of locations, times, technologies or social settings</emph>', becomes: <emph>when a person experiences a continuity of learning, and consciously bridges the multifaceted learning efforts, across a combination of relevant technologies and settings or institutions</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-11">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>A focus on seamless mobile learning as occurring across institutions and involving a dialogue between an individual and multiple institutions offers a novel lens for considering seamless mobile learning. Accounts of seamless mobile learning involved a sense of agency and well‐being arising from the learning project, as Sharples proposes ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref112">62</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref113">63</reflink>]). However, such accounts were rare. During working hours, work‐related learning viewed as <emph>just‐in‐case</emph>, could be deprioritised in favour of urgent work activities, pointing to perceived conflicts in institutional priorities, with individuals sometimes resorting to learning while commuting to resolve such conflicts even where that learning was not personally compelling.</p> <p>Some described separate ongoing learning projects in separate spheres with no wish to mix or merge them, to the extent that they purposely left work devices at the office in order not to be tempted to view them outside of working hours. Others distinguished between <emph>learning for work</emph> and <emph>learning for me</emph>, which appeared aligned to Billett and Hodge's ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref114">7</reflink>]) personal and institutional imperatives. While <emph>learning for me</emph> (eg, management training), was viewed as of personal benefit and might be undertaken outside of working hours, learning for work might be ongoing over time but not of personal interest and restricted to the workplace.</p> <p>Although seamless mobile learning involving the integration of activity across institutions can be compelling and enjoyable, not all individuals want to blur institutional boundaries. Employer institutions must continue to tread a fine line between supporting those in a position to wish to actively seek boundary‐crossing seamless learning experiences while at the same time ensuring that others do not regard them as unwelcome impositions. For designers of mobile support tools or online courses, a consideration of the concept of institution should provide a valuable additional lens to guide design.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-12">ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS</hd> <p>I would like to thank Professor Niall Winters and Dr Susan James Relly for their support and guidance. I would like to thank Civil Service Learning for their support.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-13">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>I am not aware of any conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-14">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This research was supported in part by Learning Technologies Group.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-15">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Research data are not shared. Consent for the study was given on the basis that data would not be shared.</p> <hd id="AN0177678279-16">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>This study followed BERA guidelines and was approved by the University of Oxford Curec process. All the subjects in the research were working age adults. Consent for phase 1 of the study was obtained from CSL, informed consent was obtained from all interviewees and survey respondents.</p> <ref id="AN0177678279-17"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref51" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adisa, T. A., Ogbonnaya, C., & Adekoya, O. D. (2021, August). Remote working and employee engagement: A qualitative study of British workers during the pandemic. Information Technology & People, 36, 1835 – 1850. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP‐12‐2020‐0850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref8" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aus dem Moore, J. P., & Martinotti, S. (2016). Enabling seamless lifelong learning journeys—The next frontier of digital education. Mckinsey Digital. https://<ulink href="http://www.mckinsey.com/business‐functions/mckinsey‐digital/our‐insights/enabling‐seamless‐lifelong‐learning‐journeys‐the‐next‐frontier‐of‐digital‐education">www.mckinsey.com/business‐functions/mckinsey‐digital/our‐insights/enabling‐seamless‐lifelong‐learning‐journeys‐the‐next‐frontier‐of‐digital‐education</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref101" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bannan, B., Cook, J., & Pachler, N. (2016). Reconceptualizing design research in the age of Mobile learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 24 (5), 938 – 953. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1018911</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref69" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barocas, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Big Data's end run around anonymity and consent. In J. Lane, V. Stodden, S. Bender, & H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Privacy, big data and the public good. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107590205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref92" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. Taylor & Francis. Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity (critical perspectives series: A book series dedicated to Paulo Freire). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref87" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Billett, S. (2014). Mimetic learning at work: Learning in the circumstances of practice (Kindle ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Billett, S., & Hodge, S. (2016). Part 1 supporting learning across the working life. In S. Billett, D. Dymock, & S. Choy (Eds.), Supporting learning across working life: Models, Processes and Practices (Kindle ed.). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref47" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, A., & Green, T. (2017). Issues and trends in instructional technology: Increased use of Mobile technologies and digital content to provide untethered access to training and learning opportunities. In M. Orey & R. M. Branch (Eds.), Educational media and technology yearbook: Volume 40 (pp. 15 – 26). Educational Media and Technology Yearbook). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐45001‐8_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Carlsson, S., Flensner Karin, K., Svensson, L., & Willermark, S. (2022). Teaching vocational pupils in their Pyjamas: A socio‐material perspective on challenges in the age of Covid‐19. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40 (1), 84 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT‐03‐2022‐0064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casebourne, I. (2012). Mobile learning for the NHS. NHS South Central.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerratto, P. T. (2022). Reconsidering learning in a socio‐material world. A response to Fischer et al.'s contribution. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40 (1), 40 – 48. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT‐07‐2022‐0143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, T., Roschelle, J., Hsi, S., Kinshuk, S. M., Brown, T., Patton, C., Cherniavsky, J., Pea, R., Norris, C., Soloway, E., Balacheff, N., Scardamalia, M., Dillenbourg, P., Looi, C.‐K., Milrad, M., & Hoppe, U. (2006). One‐to‐one technology‐enhanced learning: An opportunity for global research collaboration. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 1 (1), 3 – 29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choy, S., Billett, S., & Kelly, A. (2013). Engaging in continuing education and training: Learning preferences of worker‐learners in the health and community services industry. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53 (1), 72 – 94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, R. L. (2010). Rethinking "mobile work": Boundaries of space, time and social relation in the working lives of mobile hairstylists. Work, Employment and Society, 24 (1), 65 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbeil, J. R., Khan, B. H., & Corbeil, M. E. (Eds.). (2021). Microlearning in the digital age: The design and delivery of learning in snippets (1st ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cross, S., Sharples, M., Healing, G., & Ellis, J. (2019). Distance learners' use of handheld technologies: Mobile learning activity, changing study habits, and the 'place' of anywhere learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 20 (2), 223 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, H. C., Enyon, R., & Salveson, C. (2021). The mobilisation of AI in education: A Bourdieusean field analysis. Sociology, 55 (3), 539 – 560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520967888</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Waard, I., Keskin, N. Ö., & Koutropoulos, A. (2014). Exploring future seamless learning research strands for massive open online courses. In T. V. Yuzer & G. Kurubacak (Eds.), Handbook of research on emerging priorities and trends in distance education: Communication, pedagogy, and technology (pp. 201 – 216). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978‐1‐4666‐5162‐3.ch014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durak, G., & Çankaya, S. (2018). Seamless learning: A scoping systematic review study. Journal of Education and e‐Learning Research, 5 (4), 225 – 234. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2018.54.225.234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duxbury, L., & Smart, R. (2011). The "myth of separate worlds": An exploration of how mobile technology has redefined work‐life balance. In S. Kaiser, M. J. Ringlstetter, D. R. Eikhof, & M. Pina e Cunha (Eds.), Creating balance? (pp. 269 – 284). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, A. (2010). Being an expert professional Practitioner the relational turn in expertise. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8902‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, V. (2018). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Report, 23 (11), 2850 – 2861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eraut, M. & Hirsh, W. (2010). The significance of workplace learning for individuals, groups and organisations. ESRC Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance (SKOPE).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eynon, R., Schroeder, R., Fry, J., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2016). The ethics of learning and technology research. In The SAGE handbook of E‐learning research (Kindle ed., pp. 211 – 231). SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer, G., Lundin, J., & Lindberg, O. J. (2022). The challenge for the digital age: Making learning a part of life. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 40 (1), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT‐04‐2022‐0079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gergen, K. J. (2002). The challenge of absent presence. In J. E. Katz & M. Aakhus (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 227 – 241). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489471.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gommers, L. (2020). Seamless learning through students' eyes a qualitative case study on students' perceptions of seams in cross‐contextual learning. In C. Muller Werder & J. Erlemann (Eds.), Seamless Learning—lebenslanges, durchgangiges Lernen ermoglichen (pp. 166 – 169). Waxmann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregg, M. (2011). Work's intimacy (Kindle ed.). Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregg, M. (2018). Counterproductive (Kindle ed.). Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, S., Priestley, J. L., Ishmakhametov, N., & Ray, H. E. (2020). "I'm not working from home, I'm living at work": perceived stress and work‐related burnout before and during COVID‐19. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/vnkwa</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedegaard, M. (2005). Strategies for dealing with conflicts in value positions between home and school: Influences on ethnic minority students' development of motives and identity. Culture and Psychology, 11 (2), 187 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X05052351</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedegaard, M. (2009). Children's development from a cultural‐historical approach: Children's activity in everyday local settings as foundation for their development. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16, 64 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030802477374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedegaard, M. (2012). Analyzing children's learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural‐historical wholeness approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19 (2), 127 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2012.665560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holm, U. (2007). Lifelong learning and "time competence.". International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26 (1), 25 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370601151364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes, W., Porayska‐Pomsta, K., Holstein, K., Sutherland, E., Baker, T., Shum, S. B., Santos, O. C., Rodrigo, M. T., Cukurova, M., Bittencourt, I. I., & Koedinger, K. R. (2022). Ethics of AI in education: Towards a community‐wide framework. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32 (3), 504 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593‐021‐00239‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang, Y., & Klein, J. D. (2022). Mobile performance support systems: Characteristics, benefits, and conditions. TechTrends, 67 (1), 150 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528‐022‐00804‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, C. (2020). The changing learning technological landscape for trainers in the wake of COVID‐19. Developing Human Resources, 23, 66 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422320972108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (4), 65 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8535.2011.01183.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hwang, G.‐J., & Chang, C.‐Y. (2021). A review of opportunities and challenges of Chatbots in education. Interactive Learning Environments, 31, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1952615</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klimova, B., Pikhart, M., & Kacetl, J. (2023). Ethical issues of the use of AI‐driven mobile apps for education. Frontiers in Public Health, 10 (January), 1118116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1118116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kott, S. (2020). Work in times of COVID‐19: What is new and what is not. A Western European perspective. Corona and Work around the Globe, 7, 225 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718249‐026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37 (2), 135 – 148.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kukulska‐Hulme, A. (2013). Who are mobile learners? In Z. L. Berge & L. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 4917 – 5166). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumar, B. A., & Goundar, M. S. (2023). Developing Mobile language learning applications: A systematic literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 28 (5), 5651 – 5671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639‐022‐11377‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lally, V., Sharples, M., Tracy, F., Bertram, N., & Masters, S. (2012). Researching the ethical dimensions of mobile, ubiquitous and immersive technology enhanced learning (MUITEL): A thematic review and dialogue. Interactive Learning Environments, 20 (3), 217 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2011.607829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malloch, M., Cairns, L., Evans, K., & O'Connor, B. N. (2021). The SAGE handbook of learning and work. SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, E., Vallejos, E. P., & Spence, A. (2022). The digital workplace and its dark side: An integrative review. Computers in Human Behavior, 128, 107118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M., Huberman, M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Kindle ed.). SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milrad, M., Lung‐Hsiang, W., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.‐J., Looi, C.‐K., & Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless learning an international perspective on next‐generation technology‐enhanced learning. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 93 – 107). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mouri, K., Ogata, H., & Uosaki, N. (2017). Learning analytics in a seamless learning environment. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference, LAK '17 (pp. 348 – 357). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nygren, H., Nissinen, K., Hämäläinen, R., & De Wever, B. (2019). Lifelong learning: Formal, non‐formal and informal learning in the context of the use of problem‐solving skills in technology‐rich environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (4), 1759 – 1770. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12807</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, B. (2015). Gamifying French language learning: A case study examining a quest‐based, augmented reality Mobile learning‐tool. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174 (February), 2308 – 2315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.892</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pimmer, C., & Grohbiel, U. (2011). Mobile learning in corporate settings: Results from an expert survey. In N. Pachler, C. Pimmer, & J. Seipold (Eds.), Work‐based mobile learning concepts and cases (pp. 335 – 355). Peter Lang.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pimmer, C., Pachler, N., & Attwell, G. (2010). Towards work‐based Mobile learning. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, 2 (4), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.4018/jmbl.2010100101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pornpongtechavanich, P., & Wannapiroon, P. (2021). Intelligent interactive learning platform for seamless learning ecosystem to enhance digital citizenship's lifelong learning. International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning, 16 (14), 232 – 248. https://<ulink href="http://www.learntechlib.org/p/220024/">www.learntechlib.org/p/220024/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinlan, J. R. (1993). Combining instance‐based and model‐based learning. In Machine learning proceedings 1993. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978‐1‐55860‐307‐3.50037‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarker, I. H., Khan, A. I., Abushark, Y. B., & Alsolami, F. (2021). Mobile expert system: Exploring context‐aware machine learning rules for personalized decision‐making in mobile applications. Symmetry, 13 (10), 1975. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13101975</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schon, D. A. (1984). The reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Selwyn, N., & Jandrić, P. (2020). Postdigital living in the age of Covid‐19: Unsettling what we see as possible. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 989 – 1005. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438‐020‐02166‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Computers & Education, 34 (3–4), 177 – 193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M. (2013). Mobile learning: Research, practice and challenges. Distance Education in China, 3, 5 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M. (2015). Seamless learning despite context. In L‐H. Wong, M. Milrad, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless learning in the age of mobile connectivity (pp. 41 – 55). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M. (2019). Seamless learning: Continue learning across locations, technologies and activities. In Practical Pedagogy 40 new ways to teach and learn (pp. 54 – 58). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., Mor, Y., Gaved, M., & Whitelock, D. (2012). Innovating Pedagogy 2012: Open University Innovation Report 1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M., Sanchez, I. A., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning: Small devices, big issues. In N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, & S. Barnes (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning: Principles and products (pp. 233 – 249). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2007). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In C. Haythornthwaite & R. N. L. Andrews (Eds.), The Sage handbook of e‐learning research. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Svensson, L., Ellström, P. E., & Åberg, C. (2004). Integrating formal and informal learning at work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16 (8), 479 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410566441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabuenca, B., Kalz, M., & Specht, M. (2014). Lifelong learning hub: A seamless tracking tool for mobile learning. In C. Rensing, S. de Freitas, T. Ley, & P. J. Muñoz‐Merino (Eds.), Open learning and teaching in educational communities (pp. 534 – 537). Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Towers, I., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., & Thomas, J. (2006). Time thieves and space invaders: Technology, work and the organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19 (5), 593 – 618. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810610686076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Traxler, J. (2021). A critical review of Mobile learning: Phoenix, fossil, zombie or .....? Education Sciences, 11 (9), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2009). Lifelong learning organisers: Requirements for tools for supporting episodic and semantic learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12 (3), 82 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vavoula, G. N., O'Malley, C., & Taylor, J. (2005). A study of mobile learning as part of everyday learning. In Mobile learning anytime everywhere: A book of papers from MLEARN 2004 (pp. 211 – 212). Learning and Skills Development Agency.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vavoula, G. N., & Sharples, M. (2002). KLeOS: A personal, mobile, knowledge and learning organisation system. In Proceedings—IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, WMTE 2002, December 2013 (pp. 152 – 157). https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viberg, O., Anderson, A., & Wiklund, M. (2018). Designing for sustainable mobile learning—Re‐evaluating the concepts "formal" and "informal". Interactive Learning Environments, 29 (1), 130 – 141.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wali, E., Winters, N., & Oliver, M. (2008). Maintaining, changing and crossing contexts: An activity theoretic reinterpretation of mobile learning. ALT‐J, 16 (1), 41 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687760701850190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Z., Qadir, A., Asmat, A., Mian, M. S. A., & Luo, X. (2022). The advent of coronavirus disease 2019 and the impact of Mobile learning on student learning performance: The mediating role of student learning behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 796298. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.796298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, L.‐H. (2012). A learner‐centric view of mobile seamless learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, E19 – E23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8535.2011.01245.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, L. H. (2013). Analysis of students' after‐school mobile‐assisted artifact creation processes in a seamless language learning environment. Educational Technology and Society, 16 (2), 198 – 211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, L.‐H. (2015). A brief history of mobile seamless learning. In L.‐H. Wong, M. Marcelo, & M. Specht (Eds.), Seamless learning in an age of connectivity (pp. 2 – 40). Springer Science and Business Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, L.‐H., & Looi, C.‐K. (2011). What seams do we remove in mobile assisted seamless learning? A critical review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57, 2364 – 2381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, L.‐H., & Looi, C.‐K. (2019). The conceptual niche of seamless learning: An invitation to dialogue. In C.‐k. Looi, L.‐H. Wong, C. Glahn, & S. Cai (Eds.), Seamless learning: Perspectives, challenges and opportunities (Lecture Notes in educational technology) (Kindle ed.). Springer Nature Singapore.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, P. P. Y., Wong, G. W. C., Techanamurthy, U., Mohamad, W. S. B., Febriana, A., & Chong, J. C. M. (2022). Using social mobile learning to stimulate idea generation for collective intelligence among higher education students. Knowledge Management & E‐Learning, 14 (2), 150 – 169. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2022.14.00</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Imogen Casebourne</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1427204
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Left to Their Own Devices: An Exploration of Context in Seamless Work-Related Mobile Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Imogen+Casebourne%22">Imogen Casebourne</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Journal+of+Educational+Technology%22"><i>British Journal of Educational Technology</i></searchLink>. 2024 55(4):1772-1789.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Government+Employees%22">Government Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Workplace+Learning%22">Workplace Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handheld+Devices%22">Handheld Devices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Independent+Study%22">Independent Study</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Lifelong+Learning%22">Lifelong Learning</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/bjet.13410
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0007-1013<br />1467-8535
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study investigated the seamless mobile learning practices of UK government workers at various life stages, to understand how context impacted decisions about how, when and where learning was undertaken. Following Hedegaard, the context was understood as involving settings embedded within institutions. Drawing on analysis of data from public domain blogs and reports and anonymised trace data showing e-learning visits via a mobile device, a picture of institutional practice and values was developed. Against this backdrop, a survey of 50 individuals followed by semi-structured interviews provided information about seamless mobile learning projects. Mobile learning was often fragmented and ad hoc, rather than part of a longer, seamless learning project. A distinction between just-in-time learning and just-in-case learning was apparent, with the latter often postponed. For mobile workers, mobile learning focused on current work setting, whereas workers who could work in many interchangeable settings might move to somewhere they could concentrate. Mobile learning was sometimes motivated by a sense of a lack of time and a need to stay 'on top of things' as much as by interest in a topic. Sustained seamless mobile learning projects occurred if there was institutional support for learning that was also of individual interest and if learners had the ability to orchestrate their learning. Learners reported these seamless mobile learning projects to be enjoyable and compelling. This paper contributes to the evidence of seamless mobile learning practice over the life course and illustrates the value of considering an individual's relation to various "institutions" in conceptualisations of seamless mobile learning. It also offers pointers for the future design of seamless mobile learning tools including a need to offer learners the opportunity to sometimes separate ongoing learning which is related to distinct institutions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1427204
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1427204
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/bjet.13410
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 1772
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Government Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Workplace Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Handheld Devices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Independent Study
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Lifelong Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Left to Their Own Devices: An Exploration of Context in Seamless Work-Related Mobile Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Imogen Casebourne
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0007-1013
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 55
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Journal of Educational Technology
              Type: main
ResultId 1