![M-learning task model (Source: [5], [7])](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327969732/figure/fig1/AS:676365464510465@1538269501842/M-learning-task-model-Source-5-7_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
M-learning for the Art of Drawing:
Informal Learning for a Digital Age
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i5.9207
Chananchida Yuktirat, Apisak Sindhuphak, and Krissana Kiddee
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand
57603035@kmitl.ac.th
Abstract— Mobile learning (M-learning) has become part of a rich mix of
new features and facilities in the teaching and learning process, and with the
advent and proliferation of the smartphone, M-learning is reaching new heights.
In the art world, M-learning is also being explored, and as students can be con-
nected to their teacher from anywhere in the world, there is no longer the need
for a physical studio to learn the magic of art. The researchers therefore set out
to create a course using digital technologies for teaching the Art of Drawing
online. Initially, the researchers made use of the Delphi method to query a panel
of 19 experts in the fields of art education, educational technologists and artists
to gather their input for an online, M-Learning course model. After which, 248
Facebook members belonging to the ‘Society of the Professional Art Teachers
Development of Thailand’ were selected by use stratified random sampling.
From these members, 201 opted to participate in a 2-month M-learning course
concerned with the Art of Drawing. Results revealed that both the experts and
the course students found the use of digital tools such as the iPad, tablet, and
smartphone as very appropriate in learning the Art of Drawing. The same was
true for the applications as well.
Keywords—informal learning, learning communities, mobile learning,
smartphones
1 Introduction
Matin and Parker stated that virtual classrooms allow students and teachers to
communicate synchronously using features such as audio, video, text chat, interactive
whiteboard, and application sharing [1]. Additionally, mobile learning (M-learning)
has become part of a rich mix of new features and facilities in the teaching and learn-
ing process [2]. With the advent and proliferation of the smartphone, M-learning is
reaching new heights with its potential in the learning process, which is just now
being explored and understood [3]. However, after a review of 102 M-learning pro-
jects and 1,469 publications, Frohberg, Göth and Schwabe, stated that there is no
consensus about the definition of the term itself [4]. There are however, countless
conferences and journals marketing to its use, with the first M-learning conference
taking place in 2002.
152
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
Fig. 1 shows the task model developed for M-learning by Taylor, Sharples, O'Mal-
ley, Vavoula, and Waycott [5], which had its beginnings in activity theory [6], and
was explicitly designed to structure and analyze M-learning – both on a detailed level
and a project meta-level. Both Sharples and Taylor expanded Engeströms model,
which fails to resolve the complex interdependencies and dialectic of learning and
technology [4].
Fig. 1. M-learning task model
(Source: [5], [7])
Finkelstein also listed five functions that are served by real-time synchronous in-
teraction in a learning environment [8]. These included instruction, collaboration,
socialization and informal exchange, support, and extended outreach. This is support-
ed by Cao, Griffin, and Bai which also suggested that M-learning interaction effec-
tively raises student satisfaction [9], and that "synchronous tools are more effective
for the social' side of education" [10 p. 131].
In the art world, M-learning is also being explored, and as students can be connect-
ed to their teacher from anywhere in the world, there is no longer the need for a phys-
ical studio to learn the magic of art. In fact, M-learning is characterized by the stu-
dents’ mobility, the chance of having localized information, the large amount of data
that can be collected during a learning session, the advantages of the technologies and
the social dynamics that characterize the context in which learning takes place [11].
The Internet has opened up the possibly of exploring the world’s museum treasures
online, and learning through the interaction of instructional material, seminars, online
classes, etc. But can the creation of art be taught with the use of digital technologies
such as smartphones and M-learning? Some think it can.
Austria has been a leading innovator in initiatives to develop ePortfolios, which are
now a central element in national learning policies [12]. In this environment, team-
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
153
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
work is crucial and ‘copying’ is encouraged. Furthermore, teamwork and community
learning has become a higher motivation for learning then learning as a single person
[13]. With such community learning styles, the possibilities at judging somebody is
expanded. When combined with a LMS (learning management system), the ePortfolio
becomes a good backbone to support different kinds of peer evaluation and coaching
processes [12] [14]. Additionally, mobile phones are being used as online portfolios,
which is a great way to share knowledge and techniques with other students and pro-
fessionals.
M-learning, therefore, is one model that encourages and challenges a learner. In-
ternet searches show that there are 1,000s of art classes being taught online, with
many offered by universities, for-profit colleges, and online course sites like Crea-
tiveLive and Skillshare. Many make use of pre-recorded material, with aspiring artists
paying for courses packaged with personal instructor feedback. Social media plat-
forms such as Instagram and Facebook drive traffic to the sites, which allow short
glimpses of course material.
1.1 Informal Art of Drawing and Creative Self-Expression
Amabile wrote that fostering a creative environment helps children engage in ab-
stract and analytical thinking, sharpens their visual-spatial acuity, and allows them to
be more receptive to out-of-the-box thinking [15]. Also, color can help children de-
velop vocabulary, complex thinking, and keen observation [16]. Studying art and
painting can therefore be a starting point in developing creative human skills and
knowledge, as painting is a path to the dimension of imagination. Even more im-
portant however, is that the art of painting is a search for identity, which creates hap-
piness and protects the identity of the drawer.
In the early 1980's Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) emerged as a curric-
ulum, incorporating art history, art criticism, aesthetics and art production, "
...
to
produce educated adults who are knowledgeable about art and its production and
responsive to the aesthetic properties of works of art and other objects [17]. Eisner
discussed the idea of DBAE, which is designed to encourage instruction that supports
and expands creative self-expression [18]. DBAE helps a student learn not only how
to create art, but how to respond to, interpret, and judge art. These four disciplines
include aesthetics, art criticism, art history and art production [19-20]. This is con-
sistent with Barkan which stated that the art educator cannot avoid theory, because he
must be guided by it; hence, “he must synthesize the knowledge in art of the artist,
and the knowledge about art of the aesthetician, the critic, and the historian” [21,
p.243].
Early testing of the DBAE curriculum combined with technology was conducted
by Wolf [22]. Using audio-visual programs, art teachers taught US fifth-graders use
of line, color and composition when creating still life drawings. As part of Wolf's
related research, he introduced The National Art Education Association's (NAEA)
1965-66 study which examined the use of audio-visual programs in art education [23].
This early study made recommendations for creating effective programs "...that would
154
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
be aesthetically designed, incorporate contemporary art education theory, and be spe-
cifically planned for use with a specific school population” [23, p.6].
Later studies, such as the 1971 Brouch Study, attempted to fine-tune the use of au-
dio-visual materials, namely slides, in art education. This study was conducted to
investigate the benefits of slide-tape presentations as a supplement in art education,
and to determine whether the use of these presentations effected the outcome of stu-
dent work. In addition, Wolf introduced the Othman study, which evaluated the use of
computer interactive video and its effect on the instruction of college undergraduate
students [22].
Moving into the 21st Century classroom, technology has once again opened up new
frontiers into teaching. Bidarra, Figueiredo, and Natálio examined the potential of
mobile platforms, such as iOS and android, for Portuguese 4th grade students’ envi-
ronmental studies classes [24]. Preliminary results revealed very good usability and
promising pedagogical potential in the proposed models. This was consistent with
Usal and !irin which reported that M-learning devices and technologies, have had
broad repercussions in the teaching-learning process in art education in Turkey, as it
opens significant opportunities for art education and the potential to provide alterna-
tive perspectives [25]. M-learning therefore, makes it possible to work with different
kinds of virtual materials, and to display learning products at any time and place.
1.2 Informal Art through M-learning
Although the development of an informal process of learning art through M-
learning is not new, taking advantage of new digital age tools such as iPads, tablet,
phablets and smartphones for the teaching of art is a technologically advanced media
for art education. As M-learning is a multi-media learning system, creation of a virtu-
al environment in which learning resources are easily downloaded and classrooms are
on digital devices, increases the freedom to learn. It is also a stimulus for research and
collaboration, allowing interactions across cultures, as well as the immediate interac-
tion between the teacher and the learner.
Furthermore, with the ever increasing complexity, cost, and investment in educa-
tion, E-learning and M-learning have demonstrated great potential to society as they
reduce cost and allow training at any time or place [26]. Furthermore, the content if
learner-centered, which also allows the more efficient allocation of available educa-
tional resources, such as teachers and time. One of the mobile technologies strongest
argument is their availability, where mobile devices can be accessed much easier than
desktops [27]. It also expands educational channels and reduces disparities in social,
economic, time, distance, including age, gender and health of learners. The opportuni-
ty to learn from the experience is continuous and limitless, with the use of apps de-
veloped specifically for following university subjects highly valued by students as a
new format which both supports and enhances learning practices while also providing
not only further opportunities to establish connections and relations with their sub-
jects, but also fostering collaborative work among students and professors [28]. And
finally, digital art and painting has several advantages over the manual painting, as it
allows easier manipulation, color combinations, and other aesthetic applications [29].
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
155
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
This technological and M-learning learning approach allows an easy approach in
implementing an artist’s imagination and virtual thought (Table 1). This paper there-
fore explores the learning of art and drawing by use of M-learning and blended learn-
ing [30].
Table 1. Applications for Digital Sketching/Digital Painting, Skills, and Devices
Applications
Skills
Appropriate Platforms
SketchBook
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
Pen & Ink
Draw + Painting
iPad, SmartPhone
Concepts
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet
Sketches
Draw + Painting
iPad, SmartPhone
MediBang Paint
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
ibisPaint X
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
Procreate
Draw + Painting
iPad, SmartPhone
Art Set
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
UBrush Pro
Draw + Painting
iPad, SmartPhone
Sketch Pad
Draw + Painting
iPad, SmartPhone
LINE Brush
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
MyBrushes Pro
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
ArtRage
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
Adobe Draw
Draw + Painting
iPad, Tablet, SmartPhone
1.3 Research Objectives
1. To develop a model for the teaching and learning of art through an informal M-
learning process.
2. It was also intended to better understand the terms and limitations of digital tech-
nology, such as 4/5G, PDAs (personal data assistants such as tablets and iPads),
Smartphones, WiFi, Bluetooth, and wireless.
3. To evaluate multimedia and online learning channels through the use of triangula-
tion of data analysis.
2 Research Scope
2.1 Phase 1
Phase 1 consisted of a step-by-step process to study M-learning components that
are consistent and supported in a digital age, while learning the art of drawing. Fur-
ther research was undertaken in the development of ‘eportfolios’ [12], and which
methods and technologies are best for their collaborative use. Also, this phase was
concerned with the collection of student behavior, and their observation techniques, in
learning and practicing art in a classroom and by the use of digital technologies. Fi-
nally, this phase made use of semi-structured interviews with artists and art profes-
156
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
sionals to learn their thoughts concerning the use of digital devices in developing and
teaching creative art. Building upon these interviews, and a collection of related
theories, Fig. 2 was developed and is presented as the study’s informal learning
analytics model. The learning analytic model can help define the what, why, how, and
who within the M-learning process.
Fig. 2. M-learning analytics model
(Source: The Author)
2.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 consisted of the development of a step by step model in which art was
taught through informal (M-learning) processes and multimedia forms through vari-
ous channels (Fig. 3). The researchers made use of the Delphi method to query a pan-
el of 19 experts in the fields of art education, educational technologists and artists
[31]. A structured interview format was used three times to determine the consistency
of the information, and to determine a corresponding development direction. Analysis
then made use of descriptive statistics, including frequency value, percentage, aver-
age, standard deviation, and One Sample t Test to confirm results and apply to the
next phase.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
157
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
Fig. 3. M-learning quick response (QR) map
Source: The Authors - https://www.facebook.com/IALmodel/
2.3 Phase 3
Phase 3 was concerned with developing an informal format to learn the art of
drawing and painting [32]. From this, an effort was made to explain in detail the con-
text and phenomena that comes from learning. In this phase, Facebook social media
was used in helping instruct, communicating and evaluating the development of indi-
viduals enrolled in an M-learning art-based learning program. From this, the students’
attitudes were evaluated and analyzed by use of descriptive statistics, including mean
(!! and standard deviation (SD). The data was stored and used to interpret the theory.
The synthesis was divided into three dimensions as follows:
Dimension 1 - The role of the learning style in the art of drawing through M-
learning and continuous learning.
Dimension 2 - Performance and appropriateness of digital tools such as PDAs and
Smartphones in the teaching and learning of the art of drawing through basic applica-
tions.
Dimension 3 - Multimedia and online learning channels. In this paper, triangula-
tion of data analysis techniques provided validation [33], which ensured the reliability
of the acquired information.
158
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
Furthermore, the sequence for learning to draw included four groups, including
still life drawing, landscape/urban sketching, portraiture/figures composition and
fantasy and imagination for two months. In drawing, each group was divided into
three levels which included sketching/writing structure, light and shadow and coloring
(Fig. 4).
Fig. 4. M-learning 3-level sketching/writing structure, light and shadow and coloring process
3 Methods
3.1 Population and Sample
Initially, from a population of 423 members belonging to the ‘Society of the Pro-
fessional Art Teachers Development of Thailand’, stratified random sampling was
used to contact 248 individuals who had access to interactive Facebook pages
(https://www.facebook.com/IALmodel/). From this process, 201 individuals registered
and downloaded course material starting on 28 November 2016, continuing through
25 April 2018.
After enrollment, a two-month time table was established for the completion of the
course. During this period, there were semi-structured or guided interviews, in-depth
interviews, and open unlimited question/answer sessions via video call and talk
through Facebook’s inbox. The scale used to measure the art student M-learning
course satisfaction consisted of a 5-level, Likert type agreement scale [34]. The scales
used were as follows: 4.50-5.00 indicated very appropriate, 3.50-4.49 indicated good
for use, 2.50-3.49 indicated appropriate for medium level applications, 1.50-2.49
indicated suitable for use, 1.00-1.49 indicated no quality in use and needed
improvement.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
159
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
4 Results
4.1 Participants’ characteristics
Initially, from a population of 423 members belonging to the ‘Society of the Pro-
fessional Art Teachers Development of Thailand’, stratified random sampling was
used to contact 248 individuals who had access to interactive Facebook pages
(https://www.facebook.com/IALmodel/). From this process, 201 individuals registered
and downloaded course material starting on 28 November 2016, continuing through
25 April 2018 (Table 2).
M-learning course participants consisted of 56.2% female 43.8% male. Most
(72.6%) were 40 years old or younger and had university degrees (89.6%). Although
targeted at teachers, it was interesting to note that 39.3% indicated they were a ‘tem-
porary employee’ (contract teacher). As is well known, teacher salaries are low, and
the survey confirmed this as 28.4% indicated a salary of less than 15,000 baht per
month ($US455). Also, 34.3% were taking the course over a mobile network and did
so ‘to learn something new’ (38.3%) or ‘for self-development’ (28.4%).
Table 2. Participants‘ Characteristics (n = 201)
Characteristics
Description
Participant No.
Percent
Sex
Male
88
43.8
Female
113
56.2
Total
201
100
Age
18-40 years of age
146
72.6
41-65 years of age
35
17.4
Over 65 years of age
20
10
Total
201
100
Education
University level.
180
89.6
Technical or vocational level
21
10.4
Total
201
100
Profession
Government official.
26
12.9
Employee/and government employee
58 28.9
Temporary employee
79 39.3
Entrepreneur
15 7.5
Unemployed
23
11.4
Total
201
100
Employment status
Full time
115
57.2
Part time
51
25.4
More than full time
35
17.4
Total 201 100
Income
Less than 15,000 baht per month
57
28.4
15,000-25,000 baht per month
37
18.4
25,001-35,000 baht per month
38
18.9
160
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
35,001-45,000 baht per month
36
17.9
45,001-55,000 baht per month
11
5.5
55,001-65,000 baht per month
13
6.5
65,001-75,000 baht per month 5 2.5
75,001-85,000 baht per month
1
0.5
85,001-95,000 baht per month 2 1.0
More than 95,000 baht per month
1
0.5
Total
201
100
Learning Objectives
As a hobby.
47
23.4
To use for work.
10
5.0
To use in my classroom.
10
5.0
For self-development.
57
28.4
To learn something new.
77 38.3
Total
201 100
Place where
connection to Internet
is used.
Home
40
19.9
Office
17 8.5
School or University
28
13.9
Library
8 4.0
Café/Coffee Shop
39
19.4
Mobile network
69 34.3
Total
201
100
Duration of Drawing
Art Education (per
session)
Less than one hour
12
6.0
1-2 hours
25
12.4
3-4 hours 40 19.9
5-6 hours
72
35.8
More than 6 hours.
52
25.9
Total
201
100
Painting equipment
tablet
28 13.9
iPad
66 32.8
computer
19 9.5
Mobile Phone/Smartphone
70 34.8
E-Sketchbook
18
9.0
Total
201
100
!
Table 3 shows the assessment results for the Art of Drawing course from the 19
experts. From the results, the experts indicated that the use of the basic applications as
a tool for learning to draw was very appropriate (! = 4.87, SD = 0.12), as well as the
applications use on a computer (! = 4.83, SD = 0.28). Additional comments from the
experts also indicated that the M-learning concept by use of the Internet was a good
channel and choice for beginners to learn the Art of Drawing with the application. In
drawing, there are a variety of methods for the medium of art, such as pencil or oil, as
well as equipment, but in the digital world there is a great savings to the physical art
world’s costs. Use of the basic drawing application on a smartphone suitability was
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
161
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
also indicated by the experts as a very appropriate tool (! = 4.80, SD = 0.28), as well
as a PDA (! = 4.73, SD = 0.39). The experts felt that although the smartphone was
not as robust a tool as an iPad, PDA, or tablet, it was more useful in the sense of
mobility and portability. Therefore users were more likely to use a smartphone. Also,
the experts felt that the free download of E-Sketchbook is a good choice for learners
who have problems with the reflection of light through the device. (! = 4.60, SD =
0.47). Although E-Sketchbook is available for download, there are some restrictions
on downloading and printing. It is also quite tricky to use because it has many steps.
Table 3. Assessment Results of Art of Drawing M-learning Course Experts (n = 19)
Evaluation Items
!
SD
Results
The consistency of the pattern with the drawing through the
underlying application of PDA or Smartphone and E-
Sketchbook
4.79 0.42
Very appropriate
Use of the basic drawing application as a learning tool for
drawing.
4.87 0.12
Very appropriate
Use of the basic drawing application on a PDA 4.73 0.39 Very appropriate
Use of the basic drawing application on a smartphone.
4.80
0.28
Very appropriate
Use of the basic drawing application on a computer.
4.83 0.33 Very appropriate
Use of the basic drawing on E-Sketchbook.
4.60 0.47
Very appropriate
Table 4 shows the 19 experts’ assessment results concerning media appropriate-
ness. From the results, the experts were shown to have consistent opinions on the use
of digital tools and media as a tool for learning art by use of M-learning. The results
showed that the experts felt that M-learning through YouTube was very appropriate
(! = 4.95, SD = 0.12) as it has many lessons appropriate for art drawing education
and encourages continuous learning. Additionally, the experts also felt that M-
learning the art of drawing through a Facebook page was also very appropriate (! =
4.87, SD = 0.31), as Facebook is another area to collect content in the art of drawing,
is connected to YouTube, and can be used as a channel for communication between
students and instructors. It also acts as a gallery or online ePortfolio for students who
can present their work and exchange ideas, suggestions, and techniques [12]. The
experts also commented that learning the art of drawing through interactive e-book is
very appropriate (! = 4.81, SD = 0.26), because Interactive E-book is a digital book,
which has animation and art which encourages students to learn continuously. And
finally, E-Sketchbook was also viewed by the experts as very appropriate as it
allowed users who had trouble viewing digital devices another option (! = 4.80, SD =
0.30).
Table 4. Assessment Results of Media Approriateness by Course Experts (n = 19)
Evaluation Items
!
SD
Results
Learning through an interactive e-book.
4.81
0.26
Very appropriate
Learning through
a YouTube channel. 4.95 0.12 Very appropriate
Learning from a Facebook page.
4.87
0.31
Very appropriate
Learn through E-Sketchbook. 4.80 0.30 Very appropriate
162
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
Table 5 shows the 19 experts’ assessment results concerning informal art learning
styles appropriateness. From the results, the experts believed that the informal learn-
ing style for art drawing education was very appropriate for both 21st-century learn-
ing (! = 5.00, SD = 0.00) and patterns of learning assessment (rubrics assessment
scoring) (! 4.92, SD = 0.19). Therefore, the goal is to provide students with the ability
to plan and manage their learning, as well as having the ability to assess their own
learning. All other areas were also judged to be very appropriate by the experts. This
included the learning process (! = 4.89, SD = 0.25), which was in accordance with
the Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) process, learning styles through experi-
ence (! = 4.84, SD = 0.37), composition within the model consistent and appropriate
for learning. Learn art free (! = 4.84, SD = 0.25), the appropriateness of learning
objectives (! = 4.89, SD = 0.28) and the learning objective (! = 4.84, SD = 0.19).
Table 5. Assessment Results of Art Learning Styles by Course Experts (n = 19)
Evaluation Items
!
SD
Results
The right model for learning in the 21st century.
5.00
0.00
Very appropriate
Patterns appropriate to the learning style through experience.
4.84
0.37
Very appropriate
Elements within the style are consistent and appropriate for the
informal learning of art. 4.84 0.25
Very appropriate
Suitability of learning process
4.84
0.28
Very appropriate
Learning objectives.
4.89
0.25
Very appropriate
The objective of the study.
4.84
0.37
Very appropriate
Patterns of learning assessment.
4.92
0.19
Very appropriate
Table 6 shows the 201 students’ assessment results concerning the informal Art of
Drawing course learning styles appropriateness. From it and the M-learning students’
survey responses, it was determined that there was great enthusiasm for the course
and its appropriateness to learning in the 21st Century (!!= 5.00, SD = 0.00), and the
students’ attitudes concerning the informal process of Art of Learning by M-learning
(!!= 4.95, SD = 0.22). The students also felt that M-learning is consistent with pro-
moting life skills (!!= 4.84, SD = 0.19).
Additional comments from the course participants indicated that digital tools such
as PDAs and smartphones greatly assist in the process of learning art drawing
informally. It makes the process easy to start, with the quality not differing from the
art supplies used in a studio. In addition, the participants also had positive opinions on
the appropriateness of the evaluation form (!!= 4.60, SD = 0.49), which included a
post-action review (PAR) and Self Performance Assessment (SAE) that helped
students see their progress in learning and performing their tasks.
Although some feel that beauty and happiness cannot be measured, there is no
opposition to the concept of educational evaluation. While the samples were
significant (!!= 4.50, SD = 0.32), the DBAE learning theory was satisfactory.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
163
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
Table 6. Assessment Results of Informal Art Learning Styles by Students (n = 201)
Evaluation Items
!
SD
Results
The content was with art theory (DBAE).
4.48
0.33
Very appropriate
The learning style is consistent with promoting life skills.
4.84
0.19
Very appropriate
The self-assessment model was appropriate.
4.57
0.49
Very appropriate
The Informal Art of Drawing course is consistent with promoting
learning in the 21
st
Century.
5.00 0.00
Very appropriate
Student attitude concerning the informal process of Art of Learn-
ing by M-learning.
4.95 0.22
Very appropriate
5 Discussion
M-learning has been found to offer exciting new frontiers in education and peda-
gogy [36], with smartphones being the key factor that enables learners to use mobile
technology as a learning device [37]. Research also indicates that students using tab-
lets start to include more and more mobile learning technologies into their learning
strategies, which is consistent with the findings of this study.
Mobile technology opens the door for a new kind of learning called here and now
learning that occurs when learners have access to information anytime and anywhere
to perform authentic activities in the context of their learning [38]. The art of drawing
and painting can now take place anywhere, anytime, with M-learning an initial model
for conceptual frameworks or learning styles. Combined with interactive learning
materials and online learning channels, students can easily access the instructor led
learning system. Mobile technologies can support learning across different contexts as
their portability enables them to be used by the learner in whichever context she or he
is in [39].
Through the interaction process of knowledge, media, technology and equipment,
the needs of the learners can be addressed through a process of blended learning [30].
E-learning also suggests a way of self-regulated activities so that active learning strat-
egies can be implemented, which is very helpful, because the students are responsible
for their own learning and they get involved in the teaching rather than just receiving
simple lectures, such as tutorials or presentations [40]. As online learning often en-
compass both e-learning and blended learning, it generally refers to the idea of using
online tools for learning.
In the Art of Drawing M-learning course, instructors have the opportunity to cus-
tomize their content and mix and match software and digital tools to suit the level of
skills and technological capability of their students. It also creates a unique learning
experience, which is creative and unique. Additionally, online connections through
social media networks such as Facebook, provide a social learning system [12-13],
which allows the exchange of activities and ideas.
Enrichment of context-aware technologies has enabled students to learn in an envi-
ronment that integrates learning resources from both the real world and the digital
world [41]. The next generation of the digital world will include interaction within the
entire environment where embedded devices will be more intelligent, with instant and
164
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
continuous connectivity to large networks like the internet [40]. As the average US
smartphone user touches their phone 2617 times a day, the reality is the smartphone
has added another ‘sense’ to a human’s toolkit of devices (eyes, ears, brain, etc.) for
information collection and storage [42].
The addition of the virtual classroom allows students to access freely the vastness
of the world’s art and museums. It also allows the ability to exchange information
with experts never before possible, which can create an endless learning cycle. An
important aspect in the field of teaching lies in the shift of interest from the function
of a museum being only of an exhibition-informational nature, to a second being of a
constructive-expressive nature [43].
Also, from the study’s survey, it was determined that 34.3% were taking the course
over a mobile network, and did so ‘to learn something new’ (38.3%) or ‘for self-
development’ (28.4%). M-learning now allows learning activities that fits into their
daily lives where the learner is at the center of learning, and where the learner is high-
ly motivated to learn at their own pace.
Using M-learning for the Art of Drawing also permits students who are ‘shy’ to
participate in learning a skill that they might otherwise choose not to in a more formal
setting such as a studio with other students. The learner can now remove barriers to
learning, whether it be distance, time, language, ‘shyness’, being handicapped, or
cost.
And finally, the DBLE theory consisted of four topics including, performing arts,
artistic aesthetics, art history, and critique of art. Most students are only interested in
the first two topics, where art history is only of interest to some. Therefore, most of
the samples did not focus on performance evaluation and criticism, because art
students have their own way of working or technique, so there are different ways of
looking at beauty and different aesthetic attitudes.
6 Conclusion
Using M-learning for the Art of Drawing is not a new idea, as ePortfolios in High-
er Education (HE) have been used in the USA, Australia and New Zealand since the
1990s. More recently, they have been increasingly used by European higher educa-
tion institutions, such as previously discussed in Austria. HE with ePortfolio means
sustainable, reflective, and deep learning. It means handing over the ownership of
learning to the student, and with the ‘elephant in the room’ the smartphone, M-
learning has become the platform/digital tool of choice to do so.
There is no doubt that the smartphone and its technological successors are here to
stay. Formal HE, however, is a slow moving machine which appears to be ever more
falling behind other ‘informal’ channels of learning, which can adapt and change as
the technology changes. In the art world, as with any profession, there are naysayers
concerning the use of technology where for thousands of years the artist studio, and
their paint, canvas, and brush ruled. However, this study showed there is great ex-
citement building for moving this art form into a modern, 21st Century, digital world.
We hope this study conveys that excitement.
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
165
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
7 References
[1] Matin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014) Use of synchronous virtual classrooms: Why, who, and
how? MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 192-210. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/zvkva58
[2] Jacob, S. M., & Issac, B. (2008). Mobile technologies and its impact- An analysis in higher
education context. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 2(1), 10–18.
Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yc55xeyu
[3] Alnabhan, M., & Aljaraideh, Y. (2014). Collaborative M-learning Adoption Model: A
Case Study for Jordan. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(8),
4 – 10. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i8.3639
[4] Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009), Mobile Learning projects – a critical analy-
sis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 307 - 331.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x
[5] Taylor, J., Sharples, M., O'Malley, C., Vavoula, G., & Waycott, J. (2006). Towards a task
model for mobile learning: a dialectical approach. International Journal of Learning Tech-
nology, 2(2/3), 138 - 158. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijlt.2006.010616
[6] Engeström, Y., & Gl"veanu, V. (2012). On Third Generation Activity Theory: Interview
With Yrjö Engeström. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4).
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i4.555
[7] Sharples, M. (2015). Seamless Learning Despite Context. In Seamless Learning in the Age
of Mobile Connectivity. In: Wong LH., Milrad M., Specht M. (Eds.) Seamless Learning in
the Age of Mobile Connectivity. Springer, Singapore, (pp. 41 – 55).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-113-8_2
[8] Finkelstein, J. (2006). Learning in real time: Synchronous teaching and learning online.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
[9] Cao, Q., Griffin, T. E., & Bai, X. (2009). The importance of synchronous interaction for
student satisfaction with course web sites. Journal of Information Systems Education,
20(3), 331-338.
[10] Motteram, G. (2001). The role of synchronous communication in fully distance education.
Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(2), 131-149. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet17/motteram.html
[11] Fulantelli, G., Taibi, D., & Arrigo, M. (2015). A framework to support educational deci-
sion making in mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 50 – 59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.045
[12] Dorninger, C., & Schrack, C. (2008). Future learning strategy and ePortfolios in education.
International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 3(1), 11-14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09729-9_35
[13] Lave, E., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge, UK.
[14] Queirós, R., Oliveira, L., Leal, J. P., & Moreira, F. (2011). Integration of ePortfolios in
Learning Management Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 500 – 510.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21934-4_40
[15] Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer-
Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8
[16] Morse, K. (2017, June 6). Developing creative thinking skills through art. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/y74sgwzq
[17] Greer, W. D. (1984). Discipline-Based Art Education: Approaching art as a subject of
study. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 212-218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/1320414
166
http://www.i-jim.org
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
[18] Eisner, E. W. (1987). The role of discipline-based art education in America's schools. Art
Education, 40(5). https://doi.org/10.2307/3193012
[19] Arnstine, D. (1990). Art, aesthetics, and the pitfalls of discipline‐based art education. Ed-
ucational Theory, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1990.00415.x
[20] Stankiewicz, M. A. (2000). Discipline and the Future of Art Education. National Art Edu-
cation Association, 301-313. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ybqnp8lh
[21] Barkan, M. (1966). Curriculum problems in art education. In E. L. Mattil (Ed.), A seminar
in art education for research and curriculum development (USDE Cooperative Research
Project No. V-002) (pp. 240-255). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.
[22] Wolf, R. (1990). Using audio-visual programs with teaching direction in teaching still life
drawings to fifth-grade students. Glassboro, New Jersey: Glassboro State College.
[23] Isaacs, M. R. (1999). A comparison of two methods for teaching art and their influences on
students' creativity. (Master’s Thesis). Rowan University. Retrieved from
http://rdw.rowan.edu/etd/1824
[24] Bidarra, J., Figueiredo, M., & Natálio, C. (2015). Interactive Design and Gamification of
eBooks for Mobile and Contextual Learning. International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v9i3.4421
[25] Usal, Y., & !irin, A. (2015). M-learning in Art-Education. International Journal of Learn-
ing and Teaching, 1(2), 129 – 133. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/yaz7x36n
[26] Mehdipour, Y., & Zerehkafi, H. (2013). Mobile learning for education: Benefits and chal-
lenges. International Journal of Computational Engineering Research, 3(6), 93 – 101. Re-
trieved from https://tinyurl.com/y7n7sev5
[27] Sarrab, M. (2012). Mobile Learning (M-learning) and Educational Environments. Interna-
tional Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3(4), 31 – 38.
https://doi.org/10.5121/ijdps.2012.3404
[28] Vázquez-Cano, E. (2014). Mobile Distance Learning with Smartphones and Apps in High-
er Education. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(4), 1505 – 1520.
https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2014.4.2012
[29] Shamsuddin, A. K. (2013). Digital painting: The trouble-free appearance of virtual thought
and pretends. Journal of Modern Science and Technology, 2(2), 51-58. Retrieved from
https://tinyurl.com/ycy6nnhy
[30] Banyen, W., Viriyavejakul, C., & Ratanaolarn, T. (2016). A Blended Learning Model for
Learning Achievement Enhancement of Thai Undergraduate Students. International Jour-
nal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 11(4), 48-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/
ijet.v11i04.5325
[31] Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (1990). Delphi questionnaires versus individual and group inter-
views. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 37(3), 293 – 304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-1625(90)90029-u
[32] Pogany, W. (1996). The Art of Drawing. New York, NY: Madison Books.
[33] Humble, Á. M. (2009). Technique Triangulation for Validation in Directed Content Analy-
sis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 34 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1177/
160940690900800305
[34] Best, J. W. (1981). Research in Education. (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice – Hall Inc.
[35] Delcker, J., Honal, A., & Ifenthaler, D. (2018). Mobile device usage in higher education.
Digital Technologies: Sustainable Innovations for Improving Teaching and Learning, 45 -
56. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73417-0_3
[36] Shih, Y., & Mills, D. (2007). Setting the new standard with mobile computing in online
learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). 1-16.
[37] Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2010). The usage of mobile device for learning: A case study.
IJUTFD, 1(1). pp. 1-11. Retrieved from http://eprints.ums.edu.my/id/eprint/2819
iJIM ‒ Vol. 12, No. 5, 2018
167
Paper—M-learning for the Art of Drawing: Informal Learning for a Digital Age
[38] Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study
on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76 - 85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021
[39] Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of sup-
porting inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61,
21 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.008
[40] Yengin, #, Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Yücel, A. (2010). Roles of teachers in e-
learning: How to engage students & how to get free e-learning and the future. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5775 – 5787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2010.03.942
[41] Chen, C-C., & Huang, T-C. (2012). Learning in a u-museum: Developing a context-aware
ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 59(3), 873 – 883.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.003
[42] Adhikari, S. (2017). Learning to live with, and control, intelligent machines. The Weekend
Australian. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/y79yq9eh
[43] Panciroli, C., Russo, V., & Macauda, A. (2017). When technology meets art: Museum
paths between real and virtual. Proceedings, 1(9), 913 – 927. https://doi.org/10.3390/
proceedings1090913
8 Authors
Chananchida Yuktirat is a doctoral student in the Architectural Education and
Design Program at the Faculty of Industrial Education and Technology at the King
Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, Thailand. Pres-
ently, she is teaching an undergraduate curriculum in creative and product design
division at Rajabhat Institute Suansunandha University (SSRU), where she also
earned a B.S. in Industrial Design. Her M.S.I.Ed. (Technology of Industrial Product
Design) is also from KMITL. Her interests include instructional industrial designing,
craft product designing, creative economy, art, crafts, and Thai local wisdom. She has
also served as an educator and Director of Pikanesri Art and Design Center and acted
as an Adviser to the Ministry of Commerce for OTOP Brands.
Apisak Sindhuphak is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Design at the Faculty
of Industrial Education and Technology at the King Mongkut's Institute of Technolo-
gy Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, Thailand. His expertise is in automotive styling,
indigenous local materials, mass-customization design processes, biotechnology, and
higher-education curriculum design. He also organizes course curriculum for the
design division and acts as an operations assistant in the Architectural Education
Department. He is also acts as a reviewer for several Thai academic journals.
Krissana Kiddee is an Assistant Professor at the King Mongkut's Institute of
Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, Thailand. Her focus is on educational
research, measurement and evaluation, project evaluation and curriculum develop-
ment. She also acts as a reviewer for several Thai academic journals and acts as an
operations assistant in the Postgraduate Specialist Program under the Curriculum
Development and Evaluation Research office.
Article submitted 10 July 2018. Resubmitted 16 August 2018. Final acceptance 20 August 2018. Final
version published as submitted by the authors.
168
http://www.i-jim.org
