Analysis Of Mobile Learning as an Innovation in Higher Education –

transcript

Analysis Of Mobile Learning as an Innovation in Higher Education – A Comparative Study Of Three Countries

Shuang Hao, Mengyao Cui, Vanessa P. Dennen, Yalin Turel, Li Mei �

1 �Featured Research Presentation at AECT 2014 – Jacksonville, FL

Overview 2 �

¨  Background Introduction ¨  Research Question ¨  Research Method and Participants ¨  Data Analysis ¨  Results Description ¨  Result Summary and Discussion ¨  Q&A

Background Introduction 3 �

¨  Higher education institutions have taken initiatives to experiment on mobile learning, yet at the same time, studies on systematic analysis of mobile learning integration are scarce (Wu et al., 2012).

¨  The prevalence of mobile device ownership among students does not guarantee either use in an educational context or related learning outcomes (Valk, Rashid & Elder, 2010).

¨  Mobile learning is still at its infancy (Martin, Diaz, Sancristobal, Gil, Castro, & Peire, 2011).

Mobile Learning as an Innovation 4 �

¨  Five factors that influence adoption of an innovation (Rogers, 2003): ¤  Relative advantage ¤ Compatibility ¤ Complexity ¤  Trialability ¤ Observability

Research Question 5 �

¨  What is the current diffusion status of mobile learning in higher education?

Research Method and Participants 6 �

¨  A questionnaire was distributed to the students at nine public universities.

¨  Data were collected through 2012-2013.

Country # Participants # Universities

China 272 1

Turkey 300 7

United States 138 1

Data Analysis 7 �

¨  Measures of frequency were computed using data sets from each of the three countries.

¨  ANOVA and Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) test for post hoc analysis were conducted to compare the commonalities and differences within and across the three countries.

Results and Discussion 8 �

Relative Advantage

Compatibility

Complexity Trailability

Observability

Relative Advantage – Survey Items 9 �

¨  Survey Items ¤  I prefer collaborating with classmates via mobile device

over meeting face-to-face. ¤  I prefer using my mobile device over using a computer lab

when on campus.

Relative Advantage – Results 10 �

¨  General Result Description ¤ Mobile collaboration was accepted as an alternative means

of communication over face-to-face meetings for the American and Chinese groups.

¤  There was not a significant preference among any group when mobile was compared with computer-based learning.

Relative Advantage – Frequency Histogram 11 �

1: Not true at all 2 3 4 5: Very true

China 15.85 21.13 31.70 16.60 14.72

US 17.39 22.46 29.71 18.12 12.32

Turkey 42.62 21.14 19.13 10.74 6.38

I prefer collaborating with classmates via mobile device over meeting face-to-face.

Relative Advantage – Frequency Histogram 12 �

China 14.76 25.46 26.57 19.19 14.02

US 24.64 26.81 20.29 13.77 14.49

Turkey 19.46 22.48 21.14 19.46 17.45

I prefer using my mobile device over using a computer lab when on campus.

Relative Advantage – Results 13 �

¨  Cross-Country Differences ¤  In students’ preference of using mobile learning over face-

to-face learning, Turkish participants had a mean significantly lower than the American and Chinese participants.

¤ When mobile learning was compared with computer labs, no significant difference was found across the three countries.

Survey Items P-value of overall F test

Mean Difference: US - China

Mean Difference: US - Turkey

Mean Difference:

China - Turkey 1. I prefer collaborating with classmates via mobile device over meeting face-to-face. <.0001 -0.0770 0.6839* 0.7609*

2. I prefer using my mobile device over using a computer lab when on campus. 0.1842 -0.2558 -0.2629 -0.0070

Relative Advantage – ANOVA Outputs 14 �

Compatibility – Survey Items 15 �

¨  Survey Items 1.  If affordable, I want my mobile device to be the model with

the latest functions, services, and/or applications. 2.  I would like to try out new or beta versions of mobile

applications. 3.  I want to be among the first people to try out new mobile

functions, services and/or applications. 4.  I think using mobile learning can increase the effectiveness of

my academic performance. 5.  I think using mobile learning can assist my studying. 6.  I think using mobile learning can enhance my performance in

my courses.

Compatibility - Results 16 �

¨  General Result Description ¤  Students constantly update their mobile learning functions,

services, and/or applications, and enjoys trying out new learning possibilities with their mobile devices.

¤  Students perceived mobile learning as a support aid for their studies and can enhance their course performance.

Compatibility - Frequency Histogram 17 �

China 8.16 8.87 19.86 15.6 47.52

US 2.9 4.35 16.67 40.58 35.51

Turkey 7 16.33 30.33 36 10.33

If affordable, I want my mobile device to be the model with the latest functions, services, and /or applications.

China 7.09 12.41 28.01 20.92 31.56

US 5.07 23.19 32.61 31.16 7.97

Turkey 4.68 7.36 13.38 47.49 27.09

I would like to try out new or beta versions of mobile applications.

China 4.61 8.16 35.82 30.5 20.92

US 0 12.32 23.94 52.17 11.59

Turkey 2.33 2 15.33 53.33 27

I think using mobile learning can assist my studying.

China 5.32 13.48 38.3 24.11 18.79

US 0.72 10.14 36.96 39.86 12.32

Turkey 1.33 4.67 8.33 51.67 34

I think using mobile learning can enhance my performance in my courses.

Compatibility - Results 21 �

¨  Cross-Country Differences ¤  Turkish participants were significantly more likely to

download new applications and try out new functions and services.

¤  Turkish participants perceived mobile learning significantly more useful in assisting learning, enhancing performance and promoting working efficiency than the other two groups of participants.

Compatibility – ANOVA Outputs 22 �

Mean Difference:

China – Turkey

1. If affordable, I want my mobile device to be the model with the latest functions, services, and/or applications. <.0001 0.1599 0.7512* 0.5913*

2. I would like to try out new or beta versions of mobile applications. <.0001 -0.4368* -0.7118* -0.2750*

3. I want to be among the first people to try out new mobile functions, services and/or applications. <.0001 0.0046 -0.6726* -0.6772*

4. I think using mobile learning can increase the effectiveness of my academic performance. <.0001 0.1576 -0.6511* -0.8086*

5. I think using mobile learning can assist my studying. <.0001 0.0808 -0.3762* -0.4570*

6. I think using mobile learning can enhance my performance in my courses. <.0001 0.1531 -0.5944* -0.7475*

Complexity – Survey Items 23 �

¨  Survey Items 1.  Mobile apps should be easy to navigate when working on learning

tasks. 2.  It should be easy to learn how to use a new mobile learning

application. 3.  It should be easy to be skillful at using a mobile learning application. 4.  I feel prepared to use mobile devices for a class activity under the

guidance of my instructor. 5.  I feel prepared to use a mobile device to collaborate with classmates

on a project. 6.  I feel prepared to use a mobile device to look up learning

information. 7.  I feel prepared to use a mobile device to provide assistance with my

homework or studying.

Complexity - Results 24 �

¨  General Result Description ¤  There is a general expectation of and confidence in the

easy-to-use and easy-to-learn natural of mobile learning.

¤  In general, participants from all three countries still have doubts in conducting mobile learning to collaborate with classmates, to look up learning information, and to provide assistance on homework, even under the guidance of the instructor.

Complexity – Frequency Histogram 25 �

China 4.61 15.25 34.4 24.47 21.28

US 0.72 5.8 23.91 51.45 18.12

Turkey 8.72 14.77 34.23 31.88 10.4

It should be easy to be skillful at using a mobile learning application.

Complexity – Frequency Histogram 26 �

China 10.29 25.74 47.06 16.91 0

US 3.62 7.25 48.55 40.58 0

Turkey 4.71 14.14 63.64 17.51 0

I feel prepared to use a mobile device to provide assistance with my homework or studying.

Complexity - Results 27 �

¨  Cross-Country Differences ¤ American participants had a mean significantly higher than

Chinese participants on all the survey items, and significantly higher than Turkish participants on most items related to perceived ease of use and preparation for mobile learning.

Complexity – ANOVA Outputs 28 �

Mean Difference:

China - Turkey

1. Mobile apps should be easy to navigate when working on learning tasks. 0.0004 0.3138* 0.2296* -0.0842

2. It should be easy to learn how to use a new mobile learning application. <.0001 0.5421* -0.0687 -0.6108*

3. It should be easy to be skillful at using a mobile learning application. <.0001 0.3788* 0.5997* 0.2208*

4. I feel prepared to use mobile devices for a class activity under the guidance of my instructor. <.0001 0.4646* 0.1541 -0.3105* 5. I feel prepared to use a mobile device to collaborate with classmates on a project. <.0001 0.7219* 0.3311* -0.3908*

6. I feel prepared to use a mobile device to look up learning information. <.0001 0.5906* 0.4048* -0.1858*

7. I feel prepared to use a mobile device to provide assistance with my homework or studying. <.0001 0.5550* 0.3215* -0.2335*

Trialability – Survey Items 29 �

¨  Survey Items 1.  I would voluntarily engage in mobile learning. 2.  Instructors should not require students to use mobile resources. 3.  Although they might be helpful, mobile learning activities should not be

compulsory. 4.  I expect within-application instructional assistance (e.g., help or tutorials)

to be available to me when I engage in mobile learning. 5.  Guidance should be available to help select mobile learning applications. 6.  I expect to have specialized person(s) to provide assistance if I encounter

learning difficulties in mobile learning. 7.  I expect to have specialized person(s) to provide assistance if I encounter

technical difficulties in mobile learning. 8.  The availability of wifi is critical to my ability to engage in mobile

learning. 9.  Wifi availability is sufficient at my university. 10.  Wifi stability is sufficient at my university. 11.  Wifi speed is sufficient at my university.

Trialability - Results 30 �

¨  General Result Description ¤ Noncompulsory mobile learning and expected to have

external supports from the learning applications and experts to help with pedagogical or technical difficulties.

¤  The availability of wifi is considered critical among all three groups.

Trialability – Frequency Histogram 31 �

China 4.61 15.6 30.14 23.05 26.6

US 0.00 13.77 19.57 52.17 14.49

Turkey 24.67 36.33 24 11.67 3.33

I would voluntarily engage in mobile learning.

China 10.45 10.07 24.63 17.16 37.69

US 10.14 9.42 17.39 18.84 44.2

Turkey 4.71 7.74 13.13 30.98 43.43

The availability of wifi is crtical to my ability to engage in mobile learning.

China 47.21 17.1 18.22 10.04 7.43

US 0 12.32 23.91 31.88 31.88

Turkey 45.79 20.54 18.52 10.77 4.38

Wifi availability is sufficient at my university.

Trialability - Results 34 �

¨  Cross-Country Comparison ¤  Turkish participants had significantly lower score in their

willingness to try out mobile learning voluntarily than the other two groups of participants.

¤ Chinese participants expect outside facilitations to depend upon significantly more than the American and Turkish participants.

¤  The Chinese and Turkish participants rated significantly lower than American students regarding their wifi environment on campus.

Trialability – ANOVA Outputs 35 �

Survey Items P-value of overall F

Mean Difference:

China - Turkey

1. I would voluntarily engage in mobile learning. <.0001 0.1597 1.3473* 1.1875* 2. Instructors should not require students to use mobile resources. <.0001 -0.3361* 0.1129 0.4490* 3. Although they might be helpful, mobile learning activities should not be compulsory. <.0001 -0.4795* -0.1293 0.3502* 4. I expect within-application instructional assistance (e.g., help for tutorials) to be available to me when I engage in mobile learning. <.0001 0.0629 0.5357* 0.4727* 5. Guidance should be available to help select mobile learning applications. 0.8695 0.0163 0.0425 0.0262 6. I expect to have specialized person(s) to provide assistance if I encounter learning difficulties in mobile learning. 0.0031 -0.3188* -0.0907 0.2282* 7. I expect to have specialized person(s) to provide assistance if I encounter technical difficulties in mobile learning. <.0001 -0.2351* 0.1249 0.3600*

Trialability – ANOVA Outputs Continued 36 �

P-value of

overall F test

Mean Difference:

China - Turkey 8. The availability of wifi is critical to my ability to engage in mobile learning. 0.001 0.1597 -0.2314 -0.3911* 9. Wifi availability is sufficient at my university. <.0001 1.6995* 1.75926* 0.0598

10. Wifi stability is sufficient at my university. <.0001 1.1603* 1.2947* 0.1344

11. Wifi speed is sufficient at my university. <.0001 1.3290* 1.3999* 0.0709

Observability – Survey Items 37 �

¨  Survey Items ¤ What kind of learning tasks do you engage in with your

mobile device? ¤  Please describe any ways in which you currently use mobile

devices to support learning. (open-ended)

Observability – Quantitative Results 38 �

¨  General Result Description ¤  The participants have already engaged in various formal

and informal mobile learning activities, from working on projects to simple web inquiries.

Observability – Frequency Table 39 �

Learning Task Chinese Students American Students Turkish Students

Communicate with others 75% 95% 92%

Look up information 81% 81% 76%

Share file with others 56% 48% 60%

Read eBook 59% 18% 36%

Take notes in class 26% 20% 44%

Watch videos or lectures 35% 36% 61%

Practice learning skills 37% 28% 36%

Listen to podcasts 24% 14% 36%

Observability – Qualitative Results 40 �

¨  Please describe any ways in which you currently use mobile devices to support learning.

Participation Group Merging Themes

Chinese Students (96 valid entries)

•  Just-in-time research & information lookup （82%） •  Language learning (32%) •  Applications without the need of the Internet, e.g.,

calculator, dictionary, mp3（30%）

American Students (137 valid entries)

•  Course-related activates, e.g., Blackboard, email, view course materials (47%)

•  Just-in-time research & information lookup （36%） •  A replacement for computers/laptops (12%)

Turkish Students (256 valid entries)

•  Just-in-time research & information lookup （40%） •  Group work/ collaboration/sharing files (16%) •  Social networking (8%)

Result Summary and Discussion 41 �

¨  Mobile learning is at the budding stage in higher educational settings.

¨  We expected mobile learning to be widely and rapidly implemented in all three countries.

¨  A “social push” from the universities may help the diffusion of mobile learning.

Diffusion Curve

Innovation Life Cycle Curve

Introduction Growth Maturity Decline ?

¨  Suggestions: ¤ Create a safe and supportive learning environment

¤  Take pedagogical aspects of mobile learning into consideration during curriculum integration

¨  Flowchart for using M-COPE to determine mobile learning suitability (Dennen & Hao, 2014) ¤ M: Mobile ¤ C: Conditions ¤ O: Outcomes ¤  P: Pedagogy ¤  E: Ethics

Thank You! 45 �

¨  Shuang Hao sh10@my.fsu.edu ¨  Mengyao Cui mc09u@my.fsu.edu ¨  Vanessa P. Dennen vdennen@fsu.edu ¨  Yalın Kılıç TÜREL yturel@gmail.com ¨  Li Mei jzmeili668@163.com

References 46 �

¨  Dennen, V. P., & Hao, S. (2014). Intentionally mobile pedagogy: the M-COPE framework for mobile learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(3), 397-419.

¨  Martin, S., Diaz, G., Sancristobal, E., Gil, R., Castro, M., & Peire, J. (November 01, 2011). New technology trends in education: Seven years of forecasts and convergence. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1893-1906.

¨  Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

¨  Wu, W. H., Jim, W. Y. C., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (September 01, 2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817-827.

¨  Valk, J. H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using Mobile Phones to Improve Educational Outcomes: An Analysis of Evidence from Asia. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 11(1).