Development of a Task-driven Mobile Teaching Tool for Enhancing

Teachers’ Motivation

Renée Schulz, Ghislain Maurice Norbert Isabwe and Andreas Prinz

Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Agder, Jon Lilletuns vei 9, Grimstad, Norway

Keywords: Human-Computer Interaction, Mobile Learning, User Evaluation.

Abstract: Mobile technology is widely available and has a potential to support teaching and learning. However, teachers

are not motivated to integrate new technology frequently. Therefore, innovative technology is missing in most

teaching situations. This research put emphasis on teachers’ needs and requirements since they are as

important stakeholders as students. To increase motivation to use mobile technology in teaching, we propose

to focus on task design and distribution. That fits well to the flexibility and personalization aspects of mobile

technology. In this paper we present the results of user studies conducted in Norway and Uganda, at early

development stages of a task-driven mobile teaching tool for enhancing the teachers’ motivation. The study

participants indicated that the use of mobile technology can help to enhance motivation to use technology in

teaching. This article describes the requirements for developing an innovative task-based tool for teaching.

1 INTRODUCTION

The context we are going to discuss in this paper is

teaching in higher education with a special focus on

the teachers’ perspective and needs towards

supportive Information and Communication

Technology (ICT). Our observation is that there are

plenty of possibilities to introduce new technologies,

especially mobile technologies, into the teaching

process which could be motivating as well as

beneficial for the teacher to use. Many ICT tools are

already used in teaching and learning environments

(Hwang et al., 2015) and the use of mobile devices in

educational settings increases (Jacob and Issac,

2008). A pilot study revealed that teachers use diverse

kinds of ICT tools in their teaching process (Schulz et

al., 2015). The tools used the most are those classified

as “tools used for presentation”, “complex, but

unspecific tools” like Learning Management Systems

(LMS), and topic-specific tools, which are not

explicitly developed for teaching but part of the topic

being taught. It was found that generally many tools

which could support teaching are not being used. The

teaching process comprises of various components

which could be supported by technology: creating

student tasks, tracking student activity, supporting

interactions (teacher-student, student-student,

student-material) and student support at different

phases of learning. We would like to augment the

support of those teaching components through the use

of mobile technology in the teaching situation.

However, technology cannot be integrated into the

teaching process without regarding the teachers’

motivation to use additive ICT tools in their teaching

first. The simple question is: What motivates teachers

to teach in the first place and what could motivate

them to support their teaching process with ICT

tools? The main drives to teach, apart from external

motivators such as salary and reputation, seems to be

“to see the students learn”, “to see them grow” and

“to have personal interaction and feedback” (Schulz

et al., 2015). Some of the teachers prefer face-to-face

teaching over virtual teaching and in addition to that,

many different teaching methods are being used.

Tools which are able to support these individual

teaching approaches could be perceived as beneficial

from the teachers’ perspective and therefore

motivating to be used.

The initial research question for this project is:

“What are the requirements for ICT tools to be

motivating for teachers and how to design them”? It

was found that mobile technology could be used in

teaching and motivating to use if it can support the

teaching process meaningfully. The demand, that the

tool is not specialized for one course and one topic

raised the question, what common elements the

teaching process contains. The idea is to design a

supportive and motivating tool that helps the teacher

Schulz, R., Isabwe, G. and Prinz, A.

Development of a Task-driven Mobile Teaching Tool for Enhancing Teachers’ Motivation.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 1, pages 251-258

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

251

to design and distribute tasks for students and build

new interaction possibilities between the students as

well as the teacher and the students. It should be

usable for teachers with different teaching

approaches. This implies that it should support face-

to-face teaching as well as distance, blended and

virtual teaching. The focus should be on (personal)

mobile devices to support the interaction between

teachers and students and between students

themselves. More precisely the following research

questions were stated for the current stage of

progress:

 What are the teachers’ perceptions about a task

driven tool that improves motivation to use

technology in teaching?

 What are the requirements for developing a task-

driven mobile teaching tool that improves

motivation to use technology in teaching?

In this work we adopt the human-centred design

(HCD) process to develop a supportive mobile

learning system. This article presents the analysis of

the context of use, user needs and first steps of user

testing and evaluation to specify the requirements.

Important aspects to support are the interaction

between learning and teaching participants, feedback

and to address the need for students to better manage

their learning. Our main focus is on the teachers’

viewpoint since we found that their perspective is

widely missing but essential for future systems. This

paper is structured as follows: related work is

presented in section 2. In section 3 we describe the

conceptualization of mobile teaching. Afterwards, in

section 4, we focus on the user evaluation as a part of

the human-centred design process. Conclusion and

future directions are stated in section 5.

2 RELATED WORK

The term mobile learning refers to the use of mobile

technology, including mobile devices, to conduct

learning and teaching. This device can be used as an

exclusive device for learning and teaching or as a

supporting tool used for example in a face-to-face

class environment. Mobile learning can occur in face-

to-face courses, blended learning courses and virtual

courses. The learning and teaching process becomes

unbound from local restrictions which in turn creates

more possibilities in terms of time scheduling. Using

mobile devices enables more flexibility and

spontaneity for the users (Lehmann and Söllner,

2014; Traxler and Kukulska-Hulme, 2005). Recent

research speaks about ubiquitous learning rather than

mobile learning to differentiate it from the concrete

use of technology, in this case smart phones or other

mobile devices.

Mobile learning can be used to enhance the

interaction between students, teachers and also their

learning material. It is noted that interaction is one of

the most important factors for designing effective e-

learning environments in general (Liaw, 2004).

Further on, there is a study indicating that a theory-

driven approach can be used to increase the

interaction in large-scale lectures using a mobile

learning application (Lehmann and Söllner, 2014).

That study focuses not only on increasing one type of

interaction but supporting three different types

(Moore, 1989): learner-content-interaction, learner-

lecturer-interaction and learner-learner-interaction.

These three types are important for our work because

our preliminary context analysis indicates the need

for better and increased interaction, with at least two

of the three aspects (learner-lecturer-interaction and

learner-learner-interaction) (Schulz et al., 2015).

We would also like to focus our attention on task

design, distribution and evaluation as this has a

potential to improve both the interaction and self-

reflection of the students. Earlier research work (Laru

and Järvelä, 2015) explored how self-regulated

learning and the associated learning activities can be

supported by multiple software tools. The authors

show how learning activities can be enhanced through

technological artefacts such as smart tools. That

includes activities such as “refine strategies, monitor,

evaluate, set goals, plan, adopt and change belief”.

They argue that smart phones are more than simple

devices; they are smart tools which can help us to

mediate activities and support the everyday thinking

processes. Therefore, they offer massive

opportunities for educational settings (Laru and

Järvelä, 2015).

For our work it is very important to look into

different approaches to solve the motivation problem.

An earlier study (Jones et al., 2006) analysed the

characteristics of mobile devices with consideration

to literature about motivation. The authors came up

with six factors why mobile devices may be

motivating: freedom, ownership, communication,

fun, context, and continuity. In general, the literature

speaks more about the motivation to use ICT tools

and the factors which influence teachers to use such

technology. Some of the important variables (Liaw et

al., 2007) include personal attitudes (perceived self-

efficacy, usefulness and enjoyment) and system

quality comprising of perceived satisfaction and ease

of use. Additionally, factors that surround the

teaching situation are influencing the teachers’

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

252

motivation to use ICT tools. These factors include:

teaching resources, teaching environment, teachers’

salary, policies and support for teachers (Wastiau et

al., 2013; Schulz et al., 2015).

To address the need for motivation we consider

the use of gamification. The adding of game like

aspects to a serious context is called gamification and

can be a highly motivating factor when done right

(Deterding et al., 2011). However, it is neither

researched very often, which aspects are motivating

in which context, especially in higher education, nor

is the teacher's point of view usually taken into

consideration.

3 CONCEPTUALIZING MOBILE

TEACHING

This includes how the HCD process is applied, has

been achieved until now and in which phase of the

HCD process we are.

3.1 Human-centred Design Approach

In our research we are using a human-centred design

process according to ISO 9241-210 (ISO, 2010) to be

able to meet the user needs and requirements for an

interactive system. Figure 1 shows the HCD process.

What differs most from other design approaches is

that it focuses on understanding the users’ needs,

experiences and desires (Giacomin, 2014). It was

argued that HCD can be applied to model educational

user interfaces (Oviatt, 2006), because they have

requirements that are tightly tied to the teaching

context and identified stakeholders. What is

particularly noteworthy about this approach is not

only the interface part of the design, but the way

people interact, the cultural challenges and the

stimulation of people (Giacomin, 2014). The

foundation of our prototype, we are using for the

evaluation, is provided by a preliminary context

analysis concerning the teachers’ motivation to teach

with ICT tools (Schulz et al., 2015). User needs and

requirements specification from initial analysis led to

an early stage prototype. Then, this prototype was

used to analyse further the context of use, to validate

previous findings and to specify requirements in order

to improve the system.

Considering higher education as the context of

use, we carried out user testing with participants from

two universities: one in Norway and another one in

Uganda. The intention was to give a global

perspective and validation to our findings. Since most

of the study participants mainly teach in face-to-face

settings, we limit this work on face-to-face teaching

mode. Additionally, we chose face-to-face teaching

mode as our main focus because that is where

teachers expressed biggest need for new and

innovative tools; as the majority of currently used

tools seem to be outdated. While it is very common

to use presentation slides, LMS and file sharing tools;

there is a very limited use of tools that directly

enhance the interaction among students or between

students and teachers.

Figure 1: The Human-centred design process by ISO 9241-

210:2010 (ISO, 2010).

Students are often the focus stakeholder group

when it comes to studies on educational technology.

However, teachers should also be considered as

important stakeholders for effective use of

technology in education. We argue that there is a need

to focus on the teachers’ needs and requirements

while developing technology to support various

teaching methods.

3.2 Mobile Teaching Prototype

The use of students’ tasks in teaching is a common

practice among teachers. They design and develop

new tasks, distribute them to students and assess

students’ performance based on the given tasks. This

can be done in the same way regardless of the

teaching mode (face-to-face, virtual or blended). The

challenge is that, in some cases, teachers can not

sufficiently interact with students, even though such

interactions are perceived to be one of the motivating

factors for teaching. We suggest to enhance the

interaction between teachers and students based on an

everyday occurrence in teaching: the tasks.

Development of a Task-driven Mobile Teaching Tool for Enhancing Teachers’ Motivation

253

Given the increasing use of mobile devices in

everyday activities, there is a potential to use the same

kind of tools for enhancing interactions in teaching

and learning. A mobile technology supported solution

can primarily be considered as a platform for

importing pre-designed tasks into a system which

encourages further interaction between the students.

It is also indicated that teachers would need to

monitor students’ performance, in order to provide

better support. Therefore, the monitoring option

should also be integrated into such a system. The

level of monitoring may vary from a very close

observation to a rather casual and anonymous

overview of individual student's progress.

Teachers expressed concerns regarding too much

extra work potentially deriving from the

administrative tasks when integrating new

technologies into their classes. It should be possible

to involve students into the task design process, so

that teachers focus on teaching and monitoring

students’ performance. One approach to promoting

students’ active involvement could comprise of a

system which allows students to challenge each other

on a given topic. Such a design decision would imply

that students are able to create new tasks for a specific

topic and are also encouraged to solve tasks that have

been created by their fellow students. Student’s

ability to design tasks can lead to deep learning of the

topic, thus it is beneficial to the learning process as a

whole.

The new task-driven teaching tool should have

support for: creating new tasks, handling tasks and

distribute tasks based on the environment and status

of students. It should also support motivating aspects

for the teacher to use such a system during the

teaching process. To avoid too much administrative

overhead, the teacher should not be expected to

explicitly trigger tasks distribution. It should be

possible to setup event triggers based on data

measurement through the sensors embedded in

mobile devices. This is one of the benefits of using

mobile technology for educational purposes. These

sensors can collect context information to provide a

new dimension of teaching flexibility.

Prototyping allows to communicate, test and

evaluate design solutions from the early stages of a

development process. In this work, we developed a

prototype consisting of 12 screen sketches. The

prototype represents the collected ideas about task

creation by students, teachers, as well as possible

interactions between both groups (Figure 2). It is

important that these screens have an unfinished look

so that the participants would feel encouraged to

criticize and discuss them openly. In order to validate

the general suitability of mobile devices for such

tasks, we assembled these 12 screen sketches into an

interactive prototype for an Android based

smartphone. The prototype was put together by

designing application mock-up screens using

balsamiq (Balsamiq, 2015). Then the screens were

transferred to marvel (Marvel, 2015) to make them

interactive. The decision to use an unfinished and

rough-looking prototype helped a lot to make the

participants criticise the prototype. We actually found

that for some participants the screens on the mobile

phone already looked like finished product. In the

beginning they only expressed additional ideas,

assuming the screens they can see and use are already

fixed. After some time, however, all participants were

able to discuss the interface elements as well as

provide feedback and critique. The arrows in Figure

2 show the navigation between screens. By tapping

the application’s name on the top of the screen, a

participant could always switch to the overview

Figure 2: Screen sketches from the prototype: (1) login screen, (2) overview of recent tasks screen, (3) overview with

additional side menu, (4) one sample task, (5) screen to create tasks.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

254

screen as well. The main parts shown in the prototype

include an overview of recent tasks, the section to

create tasks or to register a solved task. How these

artefacts could be used in teaching appropriately was

part of the discussion surrounding the prototype as

described in the next chapter.

4 USER TESTING AND

EVALUATION

4.1 Experiment Setup

In this phase of our project we used a mixed-methods

approach. The user tests consisted of qualitative and

quantitative methods with multiple steps. Purposive

sampling technique was used to recruit study

participants from higher education institutions. This

study included eight teachers from Norway and

Uganda, four from each country. Their professions

range from lecturer, assistant professor and associate

professor, to professor. Two of the participants are

women and six are men. The level of familiarity with

computers differs from “I can set up my own

systems” (highest score 10) to “medium familiarity”

(score 5) where the lowest possible score was 1. All

participants had at least a medium level of familiarity

with computer systems. This is the same with regards

to the familiarity with mobile devices.

First the participating teachers undertook a

background survey about their teaching situation.

After that they could describe their teaching in a semi-

structured interview which focused on task design

and distribution, the interaction with students and the

challenges they have during their teaching. After that

phase the participants got another survey consisting

of statements which they could rate from “totally

agree” to “totally disagree”. These statements were

the introduction to the challenges we found during the

preliminary study which led to some of our prototype

ideas (Schulz, Isabwe and Reichert, 2015). This

section was included to confirm earlier findings, but

also to see how important these are for the

participants. Following this survey, the participants

were asked to use the prototype and describe what

they think about it (similar to the think-aloud

technique). However, the emphasis was on an open

discussion instead of a pure think-aloud protocol and

task-based testing. All participants were at least audio

recorded and most were also video recorded. The last

phase was again a semi-structured interview

regarding user interactions on the prototype.

4.2 Teaching Situation

We tried to focus on how the teaching situation looks

like in general and how tasks for the students are

designed, distributed and evaluated. Both teachers

from Norway and Uganda described that they have to

deal with high numbers of students in most courses,

especially on Bachelor level. Teachers from Norway

distinguished between lectures and laboratory (lab)

work. During the lectures there are a few tasks given,

most often discussions are raised or quick questions

are asked to the audience. Tasks designed for learning

a subject in depth (with more details) are given as lab

work. The lab work is often done in small student.

However, the teachers in Uganda have to deal with

huge student numbers in lectures as well, but without

the lab work (this could be due to the field of study

for the sample teachers). Tasks are given to students

as homework or in classroom discussions and quick

questions to the audience. There are very limited

interactions during the lectures. The teachers

explained that is very challenging to appropriately

address all students undertaking the given tasks. They

cannot differentiate between weak and strong

students due to the high number of attending students.

All teachers mentioned that they create tasks

before a lecture, based on the progress within the

course schedule. The teachers from Norway said that

they mostly prepare tasks related to laboratory work.

However, there are also project tasks and student

homework which have to be prepared. The teachers

from Uganda prepare the tasks as well, but they most

often have no additional laboratory work. Hence,

most tasks are designed as projects or homework.

Tasks can be small and simple or more complex

depending on the teaching situation and teaching

topic. It can also happen that different students get

different tasks depending on their individual

performance levels. On one hand, teachers and

teaching assistants are very often present to guide and

help students through the tasks given in laboratory.

On the other hand, students generally do project work

and homework either on their own (individually) or

in student groups without the teachers’ presence.

Through the analysis of descriptions of how the

teachers design and use the tasks, we found that tasks

can comprise of:

 Concrete reading

 Problem solving and creating of content

 Exploration of a given topic

 Repetition of concrete content

 Evaluation and reflection of own work

 Peer-review of other students’ work

Development of a Task-driven Mobile Teaching Tool for Enhancing Teachers’ Motivation

255

 Making definitions or glossaries

 Complex project where students have to plan their

own sub-tasks

The tasks are provided during lectures and lab work

via a LMS or other communication channels. The

teachers from Uganda said that, in some cases, they

give out tasks or homework via short messaging

services (SMS). Complex tasks are written down,

with descriptions either on a sheet of paper or within

an LMS, together with links to additional details

and/or hints on how to solve the tasks.

In this work, it was found that there are several

variations regarding the evaluation of tasks. For

instance, homework tasks are not necessarily

evaluated because of the high number of students.

That is why some teachers introduce the practice of

peer-to-peer reviews allowing students to review each

other’s work. Homework tasks are primarily given

out as self-studies whereas lab work is usually

evaluated in the lab.

In addition to the use of tasks in teaching,

teachers’ motivation to teach was also of interest to

this study. Therefore, participants were asked to give

their opinions with reference to a list of statements

about their motivation and the use of ICT tools in

teaching:

 [s1] “I like to see the students learn.”

 [s2] “Feedback from the students is very

important to me.”

 [s3] “I like it when students ask questions.”

 [s4] “When students challenge me on a topic

based level, I feel that the students are engaged.”

 [s5] “I frequently prepare tasks and assignments/

homework for my students.”

 [s6] “I like to challenge my students.”

 [s7] “It motivates me to compete with my students

on an academic level.”

 [s8] “I can imagine using mobile devices in my

teaching.”

The statements were to be rated on a Likert scale,

from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The main

purpose was to evaluate if the ideas for a supportive

ICT tool, described in the chapter “Mobile Teaching

Prototype”, are accepted by the teachers. The most

critical statements are [s5] and [s7] where some

teachers disagreed strongly to moderately. In case of

[s5] teachers said that they would prefer to use

existing tasks from books or previous lectures.

Otherwise, they would introduce group projects

instead of single tasks for the students.

In total the teachers tended to agree strongly (4-5

on the Likert scale) to all statements. Some teachers

gave comments to their selections in the interview

part. Some pointed out that it is not correct to say “see

the students learn”, since it is not possible to see the

learning, but the message behind the statement was

clear. The statement [s7] was discussed critically

because most teachers pointed out that teaching is not

about competing with students. This raised the

question of finding out about the acceptance of a

system where teachers and students could earn reward

points for participating in a challenge about an

academic topic. Teachers competing with students

seem to be inacceptable to teachers, but they

suggested instead that it would be motivating to see

students compete with each other.

Figure 3: Motivating activities for teachers.

4.3 Results of the Interviews and Open

Discussions

Most teachers mentioned that they would like

students to use the system. They would love to see the

outcome and statistics about students’ task solving.

However, teachers would rather not be involved in

extra work such as creating more tasks or spending

much time on solving tasks created by students. This

also relates to the fact that some teachers disagree

with [s7] (compete with the students). They

mentioned that it could be very difficult to find a

balance between tasks created by the teacher and

tasks created by a large number of students. Overall,

the teachers agreed that they normally create tasks

and that it is not that much effort to refer to those tasks

in an app. It should not be a problem to quickly put

those tasks into an app system where students could

find them. A lot of teachers were very excited to see

the statistics corner of the app (which was not yet

implemented in the prototype). They thought it

sounded very promising and motivating to see

statistics about students solving their tasks even if it

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

256

could be anonymised. Additionally, it was mentioned

that feedback from students is generally very low and

perhaps such an app could provide the right platform

for students to give the teacher (anonymous) feedback

about the task, teaching content and the lecture in

general.

Figure 3 shows a summary of our findings on

what teachers describe as motivating for their

teaching (Schulz, Isabwe and Reichert, 2015). It is

indicated that a teacher is motivated to use ICT tools

in the teaching process if the tool can help to make

the student activities visible or observable for the

teacher. Tasks can be created by a teacher or students

themselves. To see the students interacting with the

tasks, with each other as well as seeing them solve the

tasks is also considered as an important motivation

factor for teachers.

4.4 Analysed Requirements

We propose that the main areas of focus should be:

 Task design, distribution and analysis

 Enabling quick interaction between teachers and

students as well as students with each other

 Possibility for enhanced motivation through the

use of gamified elements (in the task design and

distribution)

It is noted that the above areas should be considered

primarily from a teacher’s point of view.

Based on our analysis, it is suggested that the main

parts of tasks or “what is needed” to create tasks are

the following (organisational requirements):

 Task title

 Short description and link to the topic

 Possibility for a long description

 Resources (links, books, pages, papers…)

 Affiliated people (if necessary)

 Location (if necessary)

 Rewards for completion (optional: if agreed on)

The task title is needed but could also be represented

by a number as a unique reference. The short

description should contain the task itself. If a longer

version or more explanations besides other resources

are needed, the possibility for a longer version should

be given. Resources describe the material needed to

fulfil the task. These resources can constitute virtual

(directly linked) resources or the requirement outline

for physical resources. Affiliated people can be for

example the teacher, teaching assistants, other

professors interested in cross-course work,

administrative people for submissions or team

members. Designating a location can be necessary if

the task for example comprises laboratory work, field

work or if certain rooms are booked for the students.

The reward section could include for example, the

number of credits earned for certain tasks, or the

percentage a given task contributes to the final grade.

This can help students to know what they get out of

undertaking the task. However, the rewards part can

be left out in case that would be inappropriate.

The section for statistics/analysis can include data

related to (functional requirements):

 Activity of participation (in-lecture/ out-lecture)

 Engagements with the tasks/ repetition of tasks

 Open tasks vs. completed tasks

 Fail/ Pass attributes of the tasks

 Improvement/ worsening of students

 Areas in which the students feel challenged

 Questions/ Feedback

 Fulfilment of goals/ actions/ deadlines

 Time and location of task fulfilment

The teacher can use this information to improve the

teaching and tailor it to the students’ needs.

5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE

DIRECTIONS

This research work aims at bringing innovative and

motivating technology into educational

environments. The focus is on the teachers’ needs to

make future tools feasible and usable for teachers

alongside the students. Our study comprised of

international surveys, interviews and prototyping to

find out the needs and requirements of new tool for

teachers. This part of the research is an early step

towards development of a usable and supportive

mobile learning system for higher education. It points

out how important it is to understand the context of

use and the factors that influence motivation in the

environment of the users. It is suggested that the use

of mobile devices such as smart phones can support

teaching in higher education. These devices offer a

wide range of possibilities which are not yet explored,

even though the technology is already deeply rooted

in many different aspects of everyday life. In this

work, the emphasis is on enhancing the interaction

among students as well as between students and

teachers through task design and distribution.

Additionally, usage data can be generated from task-

based interactions. That data could serve as feedback

for the teacher and students. One of our goals is to

Development of a Task-driven Mobile Teaching Tool for Enhancing Teachers’ Motivation

257

encourage students to play a more active role in the

learning and teaching process. This active role by

using mobile devices creates personalised and

individual feedback data. The teachers have

expressed a need for more technology supported

feedback and interaction with their students. But they

also said that it is important to keep the face-to-face

interactions. Therefore, the new system should be

designed as an additional supportive tool instead of a

“tool designed to contain the whole content of the

course”. That also ensures that those participants

without mobile devices are still able to participate in

the course.

We would like to continue with conceptualizing a

motivating ICT tool for courses in higher education

to support the teachers without forcing them to

change much about their teaching approaches. One

critical factor for motivating teachers to use new ICT

tools is an increase in the motivation of their students.

Teachers stated that they would gladly use those

tools, if those tools could improve the level of

students’ activity. Therefore, we decided to pick out

the needs about feedback and interaction between

students and teachers to conceptualize a motivating

ICT tool following a human-centred design process.

This implies that teachers will remain part of the

design process the whole time to clarify needs and

requirements during the development.

As a means to designing a motivating tool we will

analyse further the usefulness of gamification in a

higher education context. The intention is to integrate

aspects of gamification which fit that kind of teaching

environment. The workings of gamification aspects

are still unclear and dependent on the situation in

which they are used. Therefore, the new ideas will be

discussed and tested with the users during the process

until they can be integrated into the teaching tool.

REFERENCES

Balsamiq Studios LLC, 2015. Balsamiq Mockups V3.3.9.

[Computer program]. Balsamiq Studios LLC,

Sacramento, California.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L., 2011.

From game design elements to gamefulness: defining

gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15

International

Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future

Media Environments. Tampere: ACM, pp. 9-15.

Giacomin, J. (2014). What Is Human Centred Design?. The

Design Journal, 17(4), pp. 606-623.

Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Yin, C., & Ogata, H., 2015.

Transforming the educational settings: innovative

designs and applications of learning technologies and

learning environments. Interactive Learning Environ-

ments, 23(2), pp. 127-129.

ISO., 2010. ISO 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human-

system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design

for interactive systems. International Standardization

Organization (ISO). Switzerland.

Jacob, S. M., & Issac, B., 2008. The mobile devices and its

mobile learning usage analysis. In: Proceedings of the

International MultiConference of Engineers and

Computer Scientists. Hong Kong: IMECS, pp.782-787.

Jones, A., Issroff, K., Scanlon, E., Clough, G., McAndrew,

P., & Blake, C., 2006. Using mobile devices for

learning in informal settings: is it

motivating?. In: IADIS International Conference on

Mobile Learning. Dublin: IADIS Press, pp. 251–255.

Laru, J., & Järvelä, S., 2015. Integrated Use of Multiple

Social Software Tools and Face-to-Face Activities to

Support Self-Regulated Learning: A Case Study in a

Higher Education Context. In: Seamless Learning in the

Age of Mobile Connectivity. Singapore: Springer, pp.

471-484.

Lehmann, K., & Söllner, M., 2014. Theory-driven design

of a mobile-learning application to support different

interaction types in large-scale lectures. In: Twenty

Second European Conference on Information System.

Tel Aviv: Association for Information Systems, pp. 1-

12.

Liaw, S. S., 2004. Considerations for developing

constructivist web-based learning. International

Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), pp. 309-321.

Liaw, S. S., Huang, H. M., & Chen, G. D., 2007. Surveying

instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning.

Computers & Education, 49(4), pp. 1066-1080.

Marvel Prototyping Ltd, 2015. Marvel V1.8.7. Marvel

Prototyping Ltd, London.

Oviatt, S., 2006. Human-centered design meets cognitive

load theory: designing interfaces that help people think.

In: Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM international

conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM, pp.

871-880.

Schulz, R., Isabwe, G. M. N. & Reichert, F., 2015.

Investigating teachers’ motivation to use ICT tools in

higher education. In: Internet Technologies and

Applications (ITA). Wrexham: IEEE, pp.62-67.

Traxler, J., & Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2005. Evaluating

mobile learning: Reflections on current practice.

In: mLearn 2005: Mobile technology: The future of

learning in your hands. Cape Town: The Open

University.

Wastiau, P., Blamire, R., Kearney, C., Quittre, V., Van de

Gaer, E., & Monseur, C., 2013. The Use of ICT in

Education: a survey of schools in Europe. European

Journal of Education, 48(1), pp. 11-27.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

258