Healthc Inform Res.  2015 Apr;21(2):125-133. 10.4258/hir.2015.21.2.125.

Effects of Mobile Phone-Based App Learning Compared to Computer-Based Web Learning on Nursing Students: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

• Lee MK

• KMID: 2284616
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2015.21.2.125

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to determine the effect of mobile-based discussion versus computer-based discussion on self-directed learning readiness, academic motivation, learner-interface interaction, and flow state.
METHODS
This randomized controlled trial was conducted at one university. Eighty-six nursing students who were able to use a computer, had home Internet access, and used a mobile phone were recruited. Participants were randomly assigned to either the mobile phone app-based discussion group (n = 45) or a computer web-based discussion group (n = 41). The effect was measured at before and after an online discussion via self-reported surveys that addressed academic motivation, self-directed learning readiness, time distortion, learner-learner interaction, learner-interface interaction, and flow state.
RESULTS
The change in extrinsic motivation on identified regulation in the academic motivation (p = 0.011) as well as independence and ability to use basic study (p = 0.047) and positive orientation to the future in self-directed learning readiness (p = 0.021) from pre-intervention to post-intervention was significantly more positive in the mobile phone app-based group compared to the computer web-based discussion group. Interaction between learner and interface (p = 0.002), having clear goals (p = 0.012), and giving and receiving unambiguous feedback (p = 0.049) in flow state was significantly higher in the mobile phone app-based discussion group than it was in the computer web-based discussion group at post-test.
CONCLUSIONS
The mobile phone might offer more valuable learning opportunities for discussion teaching and learning methods in terms of self-directed learning readiness, academic motivation, learner-interface interaction, and the flow state of the learning process compared to the computer.

Keyword

Learning; Mobile Applications; Computers; Web; Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH Terms

Cellular Phone
Humans
Internet
Learning*
Mobile Applications
Motivation
Students, Nursing*

Reference

1. Prince MJ, Felder RM. Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisons, and research bases. J Eng Educ. 2006; 95(2):123–138.

2. Moule P, Ward R, Lockyer L. Nursing and healthcare students' experiences and use of e-learning in higher education. J Adv Nurs. 2010; 66(12):2785–2795.

3. Du S, Liu Z, Liu S, Yin H, Xu G, Zhang H, et al. Web-based distance learning for nurse education: a systematic review. Int Nurs Rev. 2013; 60(2):167–177.

4. Lu DF, Lin ZC, Li YJ. Effects of a Web-based course on nursing skills and knowledge learning. J Nurs Educ. 2009; 48(2):70–77.

5. Thorne SL, Payne JS. Evolutionary trajectories, Internet-mediated expression, and language education. CALICO J. 2005; 22(3):371–397.

6. An JY, Hayman LL, Panniers T, Carty B. Theory development in nursing and healthcare informatics: a model explaining and predicting information and communication technology acceptance by healthcare consumers. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2007; 30(3):E37–E49.

7. Delisle C, Sandin S, Forsum E, Henriksson H, Trolle-Lagerros Y, Larsson C, et al. A web- and mobile phone-based intervention to prevent obesity in 4-year-olds (MINISTOP): a population-based randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:95.

8. Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF. The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educ Psychol Meas. 1992; 52(4):1003–1017.

9. Guglielmino LM. Reliability and validity of the selfdirected learning readiness scale and the learning preference assessment. In : Long HB, editor. Expanding horizons in self-directed learning. Norman (OK): University of Oklahoma;1997. p. 209–222.

10. Lim SY, Lee WI. Factor analysis & SDLRS assessment in science and engineering fields' students: in case of KUT's students. J Korean Inst Pract Eng Educ. 2010; 2(1):17–27.

11. Novak TP, Hoffman DL, Yung YF. Measuring the customer experience in online environments: a structural modeling approach. Mark Sci. 2000; 19(1):22–42.

12. Nakamura J, Csikszentmihalyi M. The concept of flow. In : Csikszentmihalyi M, editor. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Berlin: Springer;2014. p. 239–263.

13. Sherry AC, Fulford CP, Zhang S. Assessing distance learners' satisfaction with instruction: a quantitative and a qualitative measure. Am J Distance Educ. 1998; 12(3):4–28.

14. Novak TP, Hoffman DL, Yung YF. Modeling the structure of the flow experience among web users. In : INFORMS Marketing Science and the Internet Mini-Conference; 1998 Mar; Boston, MA.

15. Jackson SA, Marsh HW. Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: the Flow State Scale. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1996; 18(1):17–35.

16. Dede C. Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science. 2009; 323(5910):66–69.

17. Parhizkar B, Gebril ZM, Obeidy WK, Ngan MN, Chowdhury SA, Lashkari AH. Android mobile augmented reality application based on different learning theories for primary school children. In : Proceedings of International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems; 2012 May 10-12; Tangier, Morocco. p. 404–408.

18. Larsen YC, Buchholz H, Brosda C, Bogner FX. Evaluation of a portable and interactive augmented reality learning system by teachers and students. In : Augmented reality in education: proceedings of the "Science Center To Go" workshop; 2011 Oct 27-29; Athens, Greece. p. 41–50.

19. Patten B, Sanchez IA, Tangney B. Designing collaborative, constructionist and contextual applications for handheld devices. Comput Educ. 2006; 46(3):294–308.

20. Barak M, Rafaeli S. On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2004; 61(1):84–103.

21. Junco R. The relationship between frequency of Facebook use, participation in Facebook activities, and student engagement. Comput Educ. 2012; 58(1):162–171.

22. Kenny J. Managing innovation in educational institutions. Australas J Educ Technol. 2002; 18(3):359–376.

23. Nilsson KE, Stomberg MI. Nursing students motivation toward their studies: a survey study. BMC Nurs. 2008; 7:6.

24. Henri F. Computer conferencing and content analysis. In : Kaye AR, editor. Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. Berlin: Springer;1992. p. 117–136.

25. VandeWalle D. A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2004; 13(4):581–604.

26. Hillman DC, Willis DJ, Gunawardena CN. Learner-interface interaction in distance education: an extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. Am J Distance Educ. 1994; 8(2):30–42.

27. Atack L, Rankin J. A descriptive study of registered nurses' experiences with web-based learning. J Adv Nurs. 2002; 40(4):457–465.

28. Kenny A. Online learning: enhancing nurse education? J Adv Nurs. 2002; 38(2):127–135.

29. Faux TL, Black-Hughes C. A comparison of using the Internet versus lectures to teach social work history. Res Soc Work Pract. 2000; 10(4):454–466.

30. Daley BJ, Watkins K, Williams SW, Courtenay B, Davis M, Dymock D. Exploring learning in a technology-enhanced environment. Educ Technol Soc. 2001; 4(3):126–138.