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.
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
2016 by SCITEPRESS Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
4.1 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
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
[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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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-
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.
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
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