20100927 - Williams, Assessing Mobile Learning Effectiveness & Acceptance

Assessing Mobile Learning effectiveness and acceptance by Williams, Paul W., Ph.D., The George Washington University, 2009 , 309 pages; AAT 3337432 My Interest: 1) Mobile Learning Effectiveness – how to measure. 2) 2 models: Performance Model, UTAUT. 3) Comparison methodology – Mobile Learning vs Face-to-Face. Action: To read specific parts of Dissertation in future. Research Goal The purpose of this study was to assess Mobile Learning (M-Learning) effectiveness vis-à-vis Face-to-Face Learning to determine the extent to which students used and accepted the M-Learning education delivery methodology. Methodology Two research models were employed: (1) a Performance Model, and (2) the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model (UTAUT). These models were used two answer two research questions: (1) Is the M-Learning Mode of Delivery (MOD) more or less effective than FTF? (2) What are the factors that influence the acceptance and use of M-Learning? Results Discussion Participants in the Control group (Face-to-Face) outperformed Treatment group participants (M-Learning) on both of two quizzes administered during the study. Face-to-Face participants performed significantly better (9%) in average performance than MLearning participants on the first quiz ( p =.000; Adjusted R 2 =.106). Similarly, Face-to-Face participants significantly outperformed M-Learning Mode of Delivery participants by 7% ( p =.010; Adjusted R 2 =.052) on the second quiz. The average increase in performance across both quizzes was 8%. Other than mode of delivery (Face-to-Face or M-Learning), the factors that influenced the acceptance and use of M-Learning were not determined; UTAUT, adapted specifically to measure M-Learning acceptance and use, did not provide as much insight into the MLearning environment as it had when applied to other technology contexts. +++++++++ 1. Viswanath Venkatesh, et al., "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View" MIS Quarterly 27, no. 3 (September 2003). +++++++++ 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Distinguishing D-, E-, and M-Learning 2.3 Face to Face Learning 2.4 M-Learning 2.4.1 M-Learning as an Education Platform 2.4.2 Accessing and Delivering M-Learning Content 2.5 Research Question 1: Measuring Effectiveness through Student Performance 3.8 Data Collection 3.9 Threats to Validity 3.9.1 Internal Validity 3.9.2 External Validity 3.10 Data Analysis 3.10.1 Common-Method Variance 3.10.2 Instrument Reliability 3.10.3 Factor Analyses 3.10.3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis 3.10.3.2 Structural Equations Modeling 3.10.4 Correlation Matrix 3.10.5 Hypotheses Testing Chapter 4: Results 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Participants 4.2.1 Demographic Statistics 4.2.2 Item Frequency Tables 4.3 Power Analysis 4.4 Data Analysis Procedures 4.4.1 Common Method Variance 4.4.2 Instrument Reliability 4.4.2.1 Discussion 4.4.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 4.4.3.1 Component 1: M-Learning MOD Ease of Use and Self Efficacy 4.4.3.2 Component 2: M-Learning MOD Use and Effectiveness 4.4.3.3 Component 3: Peer Influence 4.4.4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) 4.4.5 Correlation Matrix 4.4.5.1 Discussion