You are here:

Learning With Mobile Devices: An Overview
PROCEEDING

, Indiana Wesleyan University, United States ; , University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ISBN 978-1-939797-31-5 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Full Text

Abstract

The purpose of this article is not to provide an exhaustive literature review of learning with mobile devices, but rather offer an overview of learning with mobile devices that provides context for this special issue and its manuscripts Methodologically, we placed more emphases on experimental or quasiexperimental design when possible, as we felt that it was important to offer the readers data and evidence on learning with mobile devices We provide a condensed overview of learning with mobile devices in K-12 and higher education, and offer summaries of the relevant research for ebooks, podcasts, audience response systems, and augmented reality, as related to mobile devices Last, we suggest that technology is simply a medium or tool, and that future research should explore how mobile devices can support learning with evidence-based practices and Mayer’s 13 principles of multimedia learning

Citation

Devers, C. & Panke, S. (2017). Learning With Mobile Devices: An Overview. In J. Dron & S. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 1709-1717). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 15, 2024 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abt, G., & Barry, T. (2007). The quantitative effect of students using podcasts in a first-year undergraduate exercise physiology module. Bioscience Education, 10(1), 1-9.
  2. Ainsworth, S., & Burcham, S. (2007). The impact of text coherence on learning by self-explanation. Learning and Instruction, 17, 286-303.
  3. Bacca, J., Baldiris, S., Fabregat, R., & Graf, S. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: a systematic review of research and applications. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 17(4), 133.
  4. Beatty, I. (2004). Transforming student learning with classroom communication systems. Educause, 2004(3), 1-13.
  5. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786.
  6. Berry, D.C. (1983). Metacognitive experience and transfer of logical reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 39-49.
  7. Bookman, S. (2017). 15 huge supercomputers that were less powerful than your smartphone. The Clever. Retrieved from http://www.theclever.com/15-huge-supercomputers-that-were-less-powerful-than-your-smartphone/ Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  8. Caldwell, J.E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. Life Sciences Education, 6, 9-20.
  9. Carpenter, S.K., & DeLosh, E.L. (2006). Impoverished cue support enhances subsequent retention: Support for the elaborative retrieval explanation of the testing effect. Memory& Cognition, 34(2), 268-276.
  10. Chi, M.T.H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 161-238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  11. Chi, M.T.H., deLeeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
  12. Chiang, T.H., Yang, S.J., & Hwang, G.J. (2014). An augmented reality-based mobile learning system to improve students' learn-ing achievements and motivations in natural science inquiry activities. Journal of Educational Technology& Society, 17(4), 352.
  13. Chu, H.C., Hwang, G.J., & Tsai, C.C. (2010). A knowledge engineering approach to developing mindtools for context-aware ubiquitous learning. Computers& Education, 54(1), 289-297.
  14. Cornelus-White, J.H.D., Sell, G.R., Chang, C., Mclean, A., & Roworth, R. (2012). A meta-synthesis of research on 1: 1 technology initiatives in K-12 education. Technical report for Ozarks Educational Research Initiative. Institute for School Improvement, Mis-souri State University.
  15. Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z.L. Berge, & L.Y. Muilen-burg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (P. 83). Florence: Routledge.
  16. Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K.H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12 education: A systematic review. Computers& Education, 110, 51-63.
  17. Crouch, C.H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69(9),
  18. Daniel, D.B., & Willingham, D.T. (2012). Electronic textbooks: Why the rush? Science, 335(6076), 1569-1571.
  19. Daniel, D.B., & Woody, W.D. (2010). They hear, but do not listen: Retention for podcasted material in a classroom con-text. Teaching of Psychology, 37(3), 199-203.
  20. De Bruin, A.B.H., Rikers, R.M.J.P., & Schmidt, H.G. (2007). The effect of self-explanation and prediction on the development of principled understanding of chess in novices. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 188-205.
  21. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 16161641.
  22. Dillon, A. (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics, 35(10), 1297-1326.
  23. Dretzin, R. (2010). Digital nation. Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/view/ Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K., Marsh, E.J., Nathan, M.J., & Willingham, D.T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learn-ing techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4-58.
  24. Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning in-creases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
  25. Fried, C.B. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning. Computers& Education, 50(3), 906-914.
  26. Glover, J.A. (1989). The “testing” phenomenon: Not gone but nearly forgotten. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 392399.
  27. Goodwin, B. (2011). One-to-one laptop programs are no silver bullet. Educational Leadership, 68(5), 78-79. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/feb11/vol68/num05/One-toOne_Laptop_Programs_Are_No_Silver_Bullet.aspx
  28. Griffin, T.D., Wiley, J., & Thiede, K.W. (2008). Individual differences, rereading, and self-explanation: Concurrent processing and cue validity as constraints on metacomprehension accuracy. Memory& Cognition, 36, 93-103.
  29. Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305-332.
  30. Harper, B., & Milman, N.B. (2016). One-to-one technology in K–12 classrooms: A review of the literature from 2004 through 2014. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 129-142.
  31. Hausmann, R.G., & Chi, M.H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining. Cognitive Technology, 7(1), 4-14.
  32. Hawkes, M., & Hategekimana, C. (2009). Impacts of mobile computing on student learning in the university: A comparison of course assessment data. Journal of educational technology systems, 38(1), 63-74.
  33. Hembrooke, H., & Gay, G. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46-64.
  34. Hu, W. (2007). Seeing no progress, some schools drop laptops. New York Times. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html
  35. Hwang, G.J., & Tsai, C.C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected jour-nals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), E65-E70.
  36. Jeong, H. (2012). A comparison of the influence of electronic books and paper books on reading comprehension, eye fatigue, and perception. Electronic Library, 30(3), 390-408.
  37. Kaleta, R., & Joosten, T. (2007). Student response systems: A University of Wisconsin system study of clickers. Educause, 2007(10), 1-12.
  38. Keller, C., Finkelstein, N., Perkins, K., Pollock, S., Turpen, C., & Dubson, M. (2007). Research-based practices for effective clicker use. Proceedings for the Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 128-131). Greensboro, North Carolina.
  39. Knight, J.K., & Wood, W.B. (2005). Article Teaching More by Lecturing Less. Cell Biology Education, 4(Winter), 298-310.
  40. Kramarski, B., & Dudai, V. (2009). Group-metacognitive support for online inquiry in mathematics with differential self-question-ing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(4), 377-404.
  41. Law, C.Y., & So, S. (2010). QR codes in education. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 3 (1), 55-63.
  42. Lindgren, R., & Moshell, J.M. (2011, June). Supporting children's learning with body-based metaphors in a mixed reality envi-ronment. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 177-180). ACM.
  43. Liu, M., Scordino, R., Geurtz, R., Navarrete, C., Ko, Y., & Lim, M. (2014). A look at research on mobile learning in K–12 education from 2007 to the present. Journal of research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 325-372.
  44. Lowther, D.L., Strahl, J.D., Inan, F.A., & Bates, J. (2007). Freedom to learn program: Michigan 2005-2006 evaluation report. Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy.
  45. Mangen, A., Walgermo, B.R., & Brønnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58(0), 61-68.
  46. Mayer R.E. (2011). Instruction based on visualizations. In R.E. Mayer& P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 427-445). New York, NY: Routledge.
  47. Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Mayer, R.E. (2014). Research-based principles for designing multimedia instruction. In V.A. Benassi, C.E. Overson, & C.M. Hakala (Eds.). Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology website: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/asle2014/index.php Mayer, R.E., & Alexander, P.A. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of research on learning and instruction (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.
  49. Mayer, R.E., Hegarty, M., Mayer, S., & Campbell, J. (2005). When static media promote active learning: Annotated illustrations versus narrated animations in multimedia instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied, 11(4), 256-265.
  50. McDermott, K.B., Agarwal, P.K., D’Antonio, L., Roediger, H.L., & McDaniel, M.A. (2014). Both multiple-choice and short-answer quizzes enhance later exam performance in middle and high school classes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(1), 3-21.
  51. Noyes, J.M., & Garland, K.J. (2008). Computer-vs. Paper-based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352-1375.
  52. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A.D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583-15587.
  53. Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 5, 1-6.
  54. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M.A., Turnure, J.E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291-300.
  55. Radu, I. (2014). Augmented reality in education: a meta-review and cross-media analysis. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18(6), 1533-1543.
  56. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary educational psychology, 23(1), 90-108.
  57. Roediger, H.L., & Butler, A.C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20-27.
  58. Roediger, H.L., Putnam, A.L., & Smith, M.A. (2011). Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 1-36). San Diego,
  59. Rubinstein, J.S., Meyer, D.E., & Evans, J.E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27 (4), 763-779.
  60. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N.J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers& Education, 62, 24-31.
  61. Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Sturges, K., Caranikas-Walker, F., Huntsberger, B., & Maloney, C. (2009). Evaluation of the Texas technology immersion Pilot: Final outcomes for a four-year study (2004-05 to 2007-08). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
  62. Silvernail, D.L., & Gritter, A.K. (2007). Maine's middle school laptop program: Creating better writers. Portland, OR: Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation, University of Southern Maine.
  63. Singer, L.M., & Alexander, P.A. (2017). Reading on paper and digitally: What the past decades of empirical research Reveal. Review of Educational Research.
  64. Song, D., Kim, P., & Karimi, A. (2012). Inquiry-based learning environment using mobile devices in math classroom. Proceedings of the Association for Education Communications and Technology, 2012. Kentucky, 386-392.
  65. Sung, Y.T., Chang, K.E., & Liu, T.C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers& Education, 94, 252-275.
  66. Trees, A., & Jackson, M. (2007). The learning environment in clicker classrooms: Student processes of learning and involvement in large university-level courses using student response systems. Learning, Media and Technology, 32(1), 21-40.
  67. Truman, G.E. (2005). An empirical assessment of student computer use behaviors in the classroom. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 6a-6a).
  68. Tugend, A. (2008). Multitasking can make you lose... Um... Focus. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.DASHDASHcom/2008/10/25/business/yourmoney/25shortcuts.html
  69. Willingham, D. (2009). Why don’t students like school: A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
  70. Woloshyn, V.E., & Stockley, D.B. (1995). Helping students acquire belief-inconsistent and belief-consistent science facts: Com-parisons between individual and dyad study using elaborative interrogation, self-selected study and repetitious-reading. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 75-89
  71. Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P.H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 741-748.
  72. Woody, W.D., Daniel, D.B., & Baker, C.A. (2010). E-books or textbooks: Students prefer textbooks. Computers& Education, 55(3), 945-948.
  73. Wu, W.H., Wu, Y.C.J., Chen, C.Y., Kao, H.Y., Lin, C.H., & Huang, S.H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers& Education, 59(2), 817-827.
  74. Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis andre-search synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052-1084.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections