The Effective Components in the Implementation of M-learning among Student Teachers

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Educational Management, Farhangian University, Rasoul Akram Campus, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Department of Education, Farhangian University, Shahid Paknejad Campus, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

Background: Given the advent of information and communication technology, a new approach, called mobile learning (m-learning), has been introduced in the higher education system. The present study aimed to investigate the effective components in the implementation of m-learning among student teachers.
Methods: The current work is a cross-sectional study. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire whose validity and reliability were confirmed. The statistical population consisted of all the male and female student teachers at the Farhangian University of Yazd in 2020, who were selected using the random sampling method. The questions were analyzed with the t-test and independent t-test.
Results: The mean±SD of the effective components in the implementation of m-learning, including hardware component status (2.44±1.498), software component status (2.48±1.544), content component status (2.39±1.451), manpower component status (2.35±1.041), and financial resources component status (2.38±1.459), were not sufficient among student teachers from the point of view of the male and female students. Furthermore, there was no difference among the student teachers based on gender in terms of effective components in the implementation of m-learning (P>0.05).
Conclusion: According to the obtained results, policymakers and educational planners of Farhangian University need to provide a necessary basis for the implementation of m-learning according to the components in the present study

Keywords

References

Shareef MA, Dwivedi YK, Wright A, Kumar V, Sharma SK, Rana NP. Lockdown and sustainability: An effective model of information and communication technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021(1);165:120531. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120531.
Malekipour, A. Effectiveness of E-Curriculum in Social Networks during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Parents’, Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, 2020; 11(4): 207-214. doi:10.30476/ijvlms.2020.47098.
Qazi A, Hardaker G, Ahmad IS, Darwich M, Maitama JZ, Dayani A. The Role of Information & Communication Technology in Elearning Environments: A Systematic Review. IEEE Access. 2021;9:45539-51. doi:10.1109/ ACCESS.2021.3067042
Shibata K, York J. A comparison of the affective affordances of a static and interactive VR system on learner FLA and motivation. Teaching with Tech. 2021:108- 27. doi:10.37546/JALTSIG.CALL2020.8.
Sadeesh T, Prabavathy G, Ganapathy A. Evaluation of undergraduate medical students’ preference to human anatomy practical assessment methodology: a comparison between online and traditional methods. Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy. 2021;43(4):531-5. doi:10.1007/ s00276-020-02637-x.
Totlis T, Tishukov M, Piagkou M, Kostares M, Natsis K. Online educational methods vs. traditional teaching of anatomy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Anatomy & Cell Biology. 2021;54(3):332-9. doi:10.5115/ acb.21.006.
Merajikhah A M, Imani B, Nowruzi N. The Comparison of the Effects of Multimedia Tools and Traditional Methods on Neurosurgery Learning, Educ Res Med Sci. 2020;9(1):e100355. doi: 10.5812/erms.100355.
Pan HH, Wu LF, Hung YC, Chu CM, Wang KY. Long-term effectiveness of two educational methods on knowledge, attitude, and practice toward palliative care consultation services among nursing staff: A longitudinal follow-up study. Clinical nursing research. 2018;27(4):483- 96. doi: 10.1177/1054773817692082.
Kumar Basak S, Wotto M, Belanger P. E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis. E-learning and Digital Media. 2018 ;15(4):191-216. doi:10.1177/2042753018785180.
Sánchez-Prieto, JC, Olmos-Migueláñez, S, García-Peñalvo, FJ (2016) Informal tools in formal contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies among teachers. Computers in Human Behavior 55(Part A): 519–528. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.002
John T. Defining, discussing and evaluating m-learning: the moving finger writes and having writ... International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL). 2007;8(2). doi:10.19173/irrodl. v8i2.346
Muyinda PB. MLearning: pedagogical, technical and organisational hypes and realities. CampusWide Information Systems. 2007. doi:10.1108/10650740710742709
Romero-Rodríguez JM, Aznar-Díaz I, Hinojo-Lucena FJ, Cáceres-Reche MP. Models of good teaching practices for m-learning in higher education. Palgrave Communications. 2020 May 5;6(1):1-7. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0468-6 
Alexander B, Ashford-Rowe K, Barajas-Murphy N, Dobbin G, Knott J, McCormack M, Pomerantz J, Seilhamer R, Weber N. EDUCAUSE Horizon Report: 2019 Higher Education Edition. EDUCAUSE. 2019.
Liaw SS, Hatala M, Huang HM. Investigating acceptance toward m-learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education. 2010 ;54(2):446-54. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2009.08.029.
Huang SM, Wei CW, Yu PT, Kuo TY. An empirical investigation on learners’ acceptance of e-learning for public an employment vocational training. Int J Innovat Learn 2006;3(2):85-147. doi:10.1504/IJIL.2006.008419.
McGill TJ, Bax S. From beliefs to success: Utilizing an expanded TAM to predict web page development success. IJTHI 2007;3(3):36–53.doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-142-1.ch003.
Hwang GJ, Tsai CC. Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2011 ;42(4):E65- 70. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x.
Karimi, S., Soltani, A., Nozohouri, R. Feasibility of m-learning at university: The Case of Payam Noor university in Bukan. Journal of Instruction and Evaluation, 2015; 7(28): 111-125.
Mahmoodi F, Habibi Ramiani E, Babazadeh R. Effective Factors on The Acceptance of M-learning Among Students of Tabriz University and Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Educ Strategy Med Sci. 2017; 10 (6) :438-446.
Asadian, S., Gholizadeh Ahmadabad H, Maahudi Gh. Feasibility and Pathology of Tablet Entry Into the Teaching and Learning Process. Research in Teaching, 2018; 6(2): 49-68.
Rezai Rad, M. Identifying &Prioritizing Effective Factors in Using M-learning in Higher Education. New Educational Approaches, 2013; 8(2): 93-112.
Baya, N.’a & Daher, W. (2009). Students’ Perception of mathematics learning Using Mobile Phones. Paper presented at: 4th International Conference on Interactive Mobile and Computer, Aided Learning, Amman, Jordan, 22-24. 
El – Gazzar, R. F., Ba’alawy, O., kholig F, m. (2010). Agent – bace mobile event notification system. International Journal of interactive mobile Technologies. 4(4), 24-30. doi:10.3991/ijim.v4i4.1427.
Dearnley, C. Haigh, j & fairhalls, T. (2008). Using mobile technologies assessment and learning in practice settings: a case study’ Nurse Education in practice, 8(3) 197-204. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2007.07.003.
Yusri IK, Goodwin R, Mooney C. Teachers and m-learning perception: towards a conceptual model of m-learning for training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015 ;176(1):425-30. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.492.
Alrasheedi M, Capretz LF. A metaanalysis of critical success factors affecting m-learning. InProceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE) 2013; 262-267. IEEE. doi:10.1109/TALE.2013.6654443.
Yu P, Li H, Gagnon MP. Health IT Acceptance Factors in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Int J Med Inform 2009;78(4):29-219. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.07.006.
Baya’a N, Daher W. Students’ perceptions of Mathematics learning using mobile phones. InProceedings of the International Conference on Mobile and Computer Aided Learning 2009; 4, 1-9.
El-Gazzar RF, Badawy O, Kholief M. Agent-Based Mobile Event Notification System. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2010 Oct;4(4):25-30. doi:10.3991/ijim. v4i4.1427.
Zare, M., Sarikhani, R. From E-learning to Ubiquitous Learning; Theoretical Principles. Future of Medical Education Journal, 2016; 6(3): 12-15. doi: 10.22038/ fmej.2016.762.
Buchanan T, Palmer E. Student Perceptions of the History Lecture: Does this Delivery Mode have a Future in the Humanities?. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. 2017;14(2):4.
Alrasheedi M, Capretz LF. A metaanalysis of critical success factors affecting mobile learning. InProceedings of 2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE) 2013;262-267. IEEE. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.463.
Oluwatobi S, Olurinola O. Mobile learning in Africa: strategy for educating the poor. Available at SSRN 2606562. 2015. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2606562
Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences
Volume 13, Issue 3 - Serial Number 50
September 2022
Pages 173-180

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics