Educational Technology International

The Korean Society for Education Technology (한국교육공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Impact of How Often Students Use Mobile Devices on Their Perceptions of the Usefulness and Convenience of the Devices

  • Received : 2023.07.30
  • Accepted : 2023.10.19
  • Published : 2023.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper explores the impact of mobile device usage frequency in the classroom on students' perceptions of their use. To assess this, we created a survey that measured students' perceived frequency, usefulness, and convenience of using mobile devices, using a reversed Technology Acceptance Model. Through the analysis of responses from 781 Korean students, utilizing confirmatory item factor analyses and a structural equation mixture model, we found that the effect of frequent mobile device use on students' positive perceptions is non-linear. As the frequency reaches to a certain level, the effect sizes of the frequency in the positive perceptions diminishes. Additionally, students who used mobile devices less frequently in class reported higher levels of difficulties in using the devices. This study introduces a tool for evaluating multiple aspects of students' perceptions regarding mobile device use and offers a framework for understanding the relationship between usage frequency, usefulness, and convenience.

Keywords

References

  1. Andrew, M., Taylorson, J., Langille, D. J., Grange, A., & Williams, N. (2018). Student attitudes towards technology and their preferences for learning tools/devices at two universities in the UAE. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 309-344. https://doi.org/10.28945/4111
  2. Baker, E. L., Gearhart, M., Herman, J. L., & Kulik, J. (1994). Evaluating the apple classrooms of tomorrow. Technology Assessment in Education and Training, 5(6), 109-127.
  3. Ball, L., & Stacey, K. (2019). Technology-supported classrooms: New opportunities for communication and development of mathematical understanding. In A. Buchter, M. Glade, R. Herold-Blasius, M. Klinger, F. Schacht & P. Scherer (Eds.), Vielfaltige Zugange Zum Mathematikunterricht (pp. 121-129). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-24292-3_9
  4. Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2017). Technology usage in mathematics education research-A systematic review of recent trends. Computers & Education, 114, 255-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.004
  5. Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: Ringing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 55(3), 280-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748573
  6. Crompton, H., & Burke, D. (2018). The use of mobile learning in higher education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 123, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.007
  7. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused: Computers in the classroom. Harvard University Press.
  8. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  9. Futterer, T., Scheiter, K., Cheng, X., & Sturmer, K. (2022). Quality beats frequency? Investigating students' effort in learning when introducing technology in classrooms. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69, 102042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102042
  10. Gajdics, J., & Jagodics, B. (2021). Mobile phones in schools: With or without you? Comparison of students' anxiety level and class engagement after regular and mobile-free school days. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09539-w
  11. Hassler, B., Major, L., & Hennessy, S. (2016). Tablet use in schools: A critical review of the evidence for learning outcomes. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(2), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12123
  12. House, J. (2007). Relationships between computer use and reading achievement of elementary-school students: Results from the PIRLS 2001 assessment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 34, 449-456.
  13. Ishaq, E., Bashir, S., Zakariya, R., & Sarwar, A. (2021). Technology acceptance behavior and feedback loop: Exploring reverse causality of TAM in PostCOVID-19 scenario. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 682507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.682507
  14. Kay, R. H. (2006). Evaluating strategies used to incorporate technology into preservice education: A review of the literature. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782466
  15. Kember, D. (2008, October 1-2). Digital world, digital pedagogies: Reframing the learning landscape. Australian Computers in Education Conference, Canberra, Australia.
  16. Kozma, R. B. (2003). Technology and classroom practices: An international study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2003.10782399
  17. Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Examining the effects of texting, Twitter, and message content on student learning. Communication Education, 64(3), 344-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.1038727
  18. Lan, Y. J., Sung, Y. T., & Chang, K. E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 130-151.
  19. Lee, H., & Hyeon, J. (2020). The effect of tablet PC cognitive rehabilitation training games on the improvement of game performance and cognitive ability of nondisabled and intellectual disability children and analysis of user effectiveness. Journal of Mental Retardation, 22(3), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.35361/KJID.22.3.1
  20. Lee, K., Park, K., & Hwang, J. (2023). A study on the perception of effectiveness of education using tablet PC and laptop PC in middle and high schools. Journal of Learner-Centered Curriculum and Instruction, 23(7), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.22251/jlcci.2023.23.7.455
  21. Leem, J., & Sung, E. (2019). Teachers' beliefs and technology acceptance concerning smart mobile devices for SMART education in South Korea. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(2), 601-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12612
  22. Lim, C. P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C. S., & Chin-Chung, T. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology trends and use of technology in schools. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 59-68. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.16.2.59
  23. Lorenz, R., & Gerick, J. (2014). Neue technologien und die leseleistung von grundschulkindern. Zur bedeutung der schulischen und ausserschulischen nutzung digitaler medien. In B. Eickelmann, R. Lorenz, M. Vennemann, J. Gerick & W. Bos (Eds.), Grundschule in der digitalen Gesellschaft. Befunde aus den Schulleistungsstudien IGLU und TIMSS 2011 (pp. 59-71). Waxmann.
  24. Maor, D. (2017). Using TPACK to develop digital pedagogues: A higher education experience. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0055-4
  25. Maor, D., & Fraser, B. J. (1996). Use of classroom environment perceptions in evaluating inquiry-based computer-assisted learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18(4), 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180402
  26. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user's guide. Authors.
  27. Ngai, E. W., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.007
  28. No, B. (2022). Characteristics and graphomotor skills of young children's writing and drawing on a tablet screen. Journal of Children's Literature and Education, 23(3), 273-296, https://doi.org/10.22154/JCLE.23.3.12
  29. Ohm, J., Kim, M., & Kang, M. (2023). A case study of art play experiences of young children using tablet PCs. The Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 49-73, https://doi.org/10.15854/jes.2023.03.54.1.49
  30. Papanastasiou, E., & Paparistodemou, E. (2007). Examining educational technology and achievement through latent variable modeling. In T. Loveless (Ed.), Lessons learned: What international assessments tell us about math achievement (pp. 205-225). Brookings Institution Press.
  31. Papanastasiou, E., Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2003). Can computer use hurt science achievement? The USA results from PISA. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12, 325-332.
  32. Pek, J., Sterba, S. K., Kok, B. E., & Bauer, D. J. (2009). Estimating and visualizing nonlinear relations among latent variables: A semiparametric approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(4), 407-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170903103290
  33. Petko, D., Cantieni, A., & Prasse, D. (2017). Perceived quality of educational technology matters: A secondary analysis of students' ICT use, ICT-related attitudes, and PISA 2012 test scores. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1070-1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116649373
  34. Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group explanation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students' mathematics learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 399-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9
  35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
  36. Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x
  37. Yang, J., Pan, H., Zhou, W., & Huang, R. (2018). Evaluation of smart classroom from the perspective of infusing technology into pedagogy. Smart Learning Environments, 5(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-018-0070-1
  38. Yoon, C., & Kim, S. (2007). Convenience and TAM in a ubiquitous computing environment: The case of wireless LAN. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(1), 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2006.06.009