M- LEARNING EFFECTS ON QUALITY OF LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT Al-sharaabi Waheeb A., University of Science and Technology, Yemen
2- Student’s online engagement
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) identified five dimensions that should be emphasized in online courses:
1) Academic challenges, 2) Active and collaborative learning, 3) Student-faculty interaction, 4) Supportive environment and 5) Enriching educational experiences Engagement is not involvement or participation but rather goes beyond this to
sense-making. In other words, Acting without feeling engaged is just involvement or even compliance; feeling engaged without acting is dissociation (Harper and Quaye, 2009)
A study on the Impact of Mobile Access on Motivation in Distance Education Student Perceptions (Mockus et al, 2011) results revealed that students with course material delivered on their mobile devices felt having the opportunity to learn better than the same content presented in the traditional online format. in addition, Students who had the materials on their mobile devices improved their learning experience.
In the study of Dye and Rekkedal( 2005), The Norwegian Knowledge Institute (NKI) developments and research on mobile learning in correspondence with four European Universities have resulted in better solutions for serving distance online learners. They also concluded that cost efficiency considerations is behind the prevention of developing parallel versions of courses as courses must be developed, presented and distributed in a way that would allow both mobile and none mobile learners to participate and enroll in the same course and that course materials can be assessed both by standard and mobile technology with acceptable quality of all content elements. Interaction with course content and multi-media materials and communication with tutors and fellow students must also function adequately both through standard and mobile technology.
West, D. (2013) pointed that one of the greatest features of mobile technology is the way it enables social collaboration. He indicated to a study by the High School Survey of Student Engagement, “the most engaging forms of class work involve collaborative or creative components.” Its authors note that “61 percent of students report being excited and engaged by discussion and debate in class.” The study shows that students are quite positive about the ways they think the use of mobile devices will their learning environment. According to previous research (Finn, 1993; Marks, 2000), student engagement and academic achievement have a positive relationship.
Research Design
The study employs a 2x2 quasi-experimental factorial design as shown in Figure (1) (learning approach X Quality Learning) to examine the impacts of the independent variable on the dependent variables at each of the two levels of the moderating variable. The independent variable of the study is learning approach that consists of two modes of interactivity learning.
1- Learning with smart mobile phones 2- Learning without smart mobile phones
The dependent variables are:
1- Quality of Learning (QL).
2- Student’s engagement (SE).
Figure (1): Research Design
Meanwhile, the moderating variable is this study was the level of Quality of learning. Students’ quality of learning is being classified into high and low, and was identified by students’ academic achievement after categorizing students to students with smart mobile phones and students without smart mobile phone.
Research Sample and sampling
The sample of his study involved 154 undergraduate students studying in various majors through online course in open leaning faculty at the University of Science and Technology (UST), Yemen. Students were mostly from the gulf area where they receive offshore learning. First the survey were administrated through the web and students were classified according to their academic achievement into high Quality learning students and low quality learning student. Students also divided into high engaged student and low engaged student. The instrument was
adapted from the amended version of the National Student Survey Environment (NSSE) (Kuh, 2003) by (Schreiner & Louis, 2006). For the purpose of this study, the behavior dimension is used in this instrument to measure the level of student’s engagement.
Conclusion and key findings:
2. H01: There are no significant differences in 3. (a) Quality of Learning, (QL) and
4. (b) Student Engagement, (SE), via mobile in Distance and Open Learning education between a group with smart mobiles phones and a group without smart mobile phones.
Table 1.0 reports the means and standard deviations for the QL, and SE scores for the Learning approach with and without smart mobile phones.
a) For QL, the group with smart mobile phones reported a mean of 25.13 with standard deviation of 1.34 while the group without smart mobile phones reported a mean of 20.23 with standard deviation of 1.78. An
Learning with smart mobile phones
Learning without smart mobile phones SE / QL Hi
SE / QL Low
ANCOVA test between the means gave F (1,154) =490.01at p=0, 00. As p<0.05, H01 (a) is rejected. The findings showed the group with smart mobile phones performed significantly better in terms of quality of learning as compared to the group without smart mobile phones.
b) For the SE, the group with smart mobile phones reported a mean of 7.23 with standard deviation of 0.88 while the group without smart mobile phones reported a mean of 5.92 with standard deviation of 1.56. An ANCOVA test between the means gave F (1,154) =59.93 at p=0, 00. As p<0.05, H01 (b) is rejected. The findings showed the group with smart mobile phones scored significantly higher in terms of student's engagement as compared to the group without smart mobile phones.
Table (1.0)
The findings showed that the m-learning significantly improved the students’
quality of learning and the students’ engagement. These results have rejected H01.
REFERENCES
1- Bloom, B.S. (ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of Educational Goals. New York: D McKay & Co, Inc.
2- Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner- centered education. In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3-14). Florence, KY: Routledge.
3- Dye, A. & Rekkedal, T. (2005): Testing of an “always-online mobile environment”.
Evaluation paper for the project, mLearning- the Next Generation of Learning. Retrieved 12.3.2006 from
http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/files/workpackage6/testing.doc 4- Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk .Washington DC: National
Center for Educational Statistics Research and Development Reports.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362322).
5- Fredricks, J., Blumenfield, P., & Paris, A. 2004. School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1):
50.
6- Fullarton, S. 2002. Student engagement with school: individual and school-level influences, LSAY Research Report Melbourne: Australian Council for Group With Smart
Mobile Phones
Without Smart Mobile Phones
F P R2
Mean SD Mean SD
QL 25.13 1.34 20.23 1.78 490.01 0.000
SE 7.23 0.88 5.92 1.56 59.93 0.000
Educational Research.
7- Harper, S.R. and Quaye, S.J. (2009) Beyond Sameness, with Engagement and Outcomes for All. In: Student Engagement in HigherEducation. New York and London Routledge, pp. 1–15.
8- Kuh, G.D. (2003). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved from the web April 21 2014:http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE%202012-
2013%20Item%20Comparisons.pdf
9- Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructionalactivity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal,37 (1), 153-84.
10- Mary L.; Lee, D. (March 2011). "Critical issues of m-learning: design models, adoption processes, and future trends". Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 28 (2): 111–123.
11- Mockus, L., Dawson, H., Edel-Malizia, S., Shaffer, D., An, J., & Swaggerty, A.
(2011). The impact of mobile access on motivation: Distance education student perceptions.
12- Saylor, M. (2012). The Mobile Wave: How Mobile Intelligence Will Change Everything. Perseus Books/Vanguard Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-1593157203.
13- Schreiner, L. A., & Louis, M. (2006, November). Measuring engaged learning in college students: Beyond the borders of NSSE. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, CA.
14- West, D. M. (2011), The Costs and Benefits of Immigration. Political Science Quarterly, 126: 427–443. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-165X.2011.tb00707.x
15- Willms, J. 2003. Student engagement at school: a sense of belonging and participation: results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD.
16- Zepke, N., and Leach, L. (2010). Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11 (3), 167-177. - See more at:
http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/10- ways-to-promote-student-engagement/#sthash.OPWpJ9Vl.dpuf
SUBSTANCE ABUSE AWARENESS AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN LAGOS:
OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AS A VERITABLE TOOL Ani George Ndubuisi, National Open University of Nigeria, Nigeria.
ABSTRACT: The use of drugs among adolescents is a global phenomenon eating deep into the fabrics of our society. Students are vulnerable at this transformative stage due to lack of awareness. The International Community and Governments all over the world have made commitments to make information available through
the right technology by way of open educational resources. This paper which employed a descriptive design explored the awareness of students on substance abuse. It identified that many are still confused on substances abused and made case for open educational resources as a veritable tool in awareness creation on anti substance abuse among the students. It recommended that in curbing the menace of substance abuse, open educational resources by way of open access to knowledge through the right and appropriate technology, should be incorporated into the Secondary school system as part of a vehicle driving the anti substance abuse programme of Government.
KEY WORDS: Substance abuse, Awareness, Open educational resources, Secondary school students