Examining the Uses of Student-Led, Teacher-Led, and Collaborative Functions of Mobile Technology and Their Impacts on Physics Achievement and Interest
- 16 Downloads
As mobile technology becomes more frequently used in science learning, understanding the relationship between student outcomes and the technology’s pedagogical features is drawing increasing attention. This study focuses on one pedagogical feature—“who led the use.” We first categorized 15 specific uses of mobile technology into three categories: student-led (i.e., initiated by the students and teachers have no or minimal influence on their use), teacher-led (i.e., initiated by teachers and the students have no or minimal impact on their use), and collaborative functions (i.e., both students and teacher need to play active roles in the use of mobile technology). We recruited 803 high school students who used a one-to-one tablet for 5 months and examined their use frequency, the functions used, and their physics outcomes. Results indicate a significant difference in the use frequency among the three categories. The collaborative functions were used with the highest frequency, whereas the student-led functions were used least. However, the student-led functions had a more significant effect size than the collaborative functions to predict both students’ physics achievement and physics interest, while teacher-led functions failed to predict either of these outcome variables.
KeywordsMobile learning Pedagogy Constructivism Teacher-led Student-led Collaborative Science education Tablet
The authors are grateful for Lehong Shi, who helped with data analyses and also proofread the manuscript. The authors also thank Dr. Meilan Zhang for her generous help with the instrument design.
Author Xiaoming Zhai was supported by two grants from the Ministry of Education of China under Grant No. 13YJA880022 and No. DCA110195. Xiaoming Zhai was also funded by the Chinese Scholarship Council (No. 201506040139). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Education of China.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Author Xiaoming Zhai declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Min Li declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Siwei Chen declares that she has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
- González, M. Á, González, M. Á, Llamas, C., Martín, M. E, Vegas, J., Martínez, Ó., Hernández, C., Herguedas, M. (2014). Mobile phones for teaching physics: using applications and sensors. Paper presented at the Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality. https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669923.
- Groves, M. M., & Zemel, P. C. (2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: an action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57–65.Google Scholar
- Hochberg, K., Kuhn, J., & Müller, A. (2018). Using smartphones as experimental tools—effects on interest, curiosity, and learning in physics education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1–19.Google Scholar
- Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
- Karlson, A. K., Iqbal, S. T., Meyers, B., Ramos, G., Lee, K., & Tang, J. C. (2010). Mobile task flow in context: a screenshot study of smartphone use. International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, April, pp 10–15.Google Scholar
- Koroleva, D. (2016). Always online: using mobile technology and social media at home and at school by modern teenagers. Educational Studies, 1, 205–224.Google Scholar
- Kotrlik, J. W., & Redmann, D. H. (2008). A trend study: technology adoption in the teaching-learning process by secondary agriscience teachers—2002 and 2007. Journal of Agricultural Education, 50(2), 77–89.Google Scholar
- Lee, Y. J. (2010). Developing a mobile physics learning environment based on physics misconception research and E-Learning design principles. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching, 29(4), 399–416.Google Scholar
- Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2002). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: the realities of online teaching. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR Model as a Framework for Evaluating mLearning. Online Learning, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i2.435.
- Zhai, X., Sun, W., Guo, Y., & Zhang, M. (2016). Smart Classroom: An evaluation of its implementations and impacts—Based on the longitude data of physics learning in a high school. China Educational Technology, 356(9), 121–127. Google Scholar
- Zhai, X., Li, M., & Guo, Y. (2018a). How learning progression-based formative assessment influences teachers’ instructional design: A case study of two teachers’ energy instruction. International Journal of Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1512772.
- Zhai, X., Zhang, M., & Li, M. (2018b). One-to-one mobile technology in high school physics classrooms: Understanding its use and outcome. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 516–532.Google Scholar
- Zhai, X., Zhang, M., Li, M., & Zhang, X. (2018c). Understanding the relationship between levels of mobile technology use in high school physics classrooms and the learning outcome. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12700.