RESEARCH NOTE
Perceived Benefits of Mobile Learning Devices for Doctoral Students in a School of Allied Health Professions J. James Cotter, PhD T. Gendron, PhD P. Kupstas, PhD A. Tartaglia, DMin L. Will, MS
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
notably Duke, Seton Hall, and Texas Abilene, have implemented mass distribution of iPads to students.9,10 A related trend is the growth in distance education offerings. By the 2006–2007 academic year, 66 percent of 2- and 4-year Title IV degree granting post-secondary institutions offered distance education courses.11 Greater use of Web-based learning in higher education has propelled the need for evaluation. Research is essential for the growth of the field and enhancement of learning.12 Mobile learning is considered a way to enhance the distance education experience13 but MLD use and efficacy have not been well evaluated.14 Researchers in varied disciplines and settings have begun to study pedagogical use of MLDs.15–17 Hahn found that connectivity using iPads helped undergraduates to engage course materials while enhancing the in-class experience.18 Alyahya & Gail found iPads aided graduate students with access to written materials, Internet resources, note-taking, organizing information and assignments.19 Tempelhof found positive results of iPod use with medical students20; Sclafani found 40% of academic physician trainees used a tablet but felt more institutional support was needed.21 Other research shows potential for enhanced effectiveness in anatomy22,23 anesthesiology,24,25 immunology,26 biology,27 and clinical learning28 courses. For doctoral students, another factor is their future role as faculty. Growth in post-secondary distance education suggests that future faculty will require technical literacy to use MLDs in their own teaching.29 Purpose: The purpose of this research is to explore whether provision of MLDs to students in an interdisciplinary, hybrid doctoral (PhD) program in health related sciences assisted students in the use of course materials and activities.
RN1568—Received April 8, 2015; accepted Sep 18, 2015.
METHODS
Graduate students increasingly use personal electronic devices for learning but little is known about how they evaluate their benefits as mobile learning devices (MLDs). This study surveyed students in a hybrid distance education doctoral (PhD) program about their perceptions of the benefits of MLDs. Overall, the study found a range of opinions about the value of MLDs with about one-half of respondents finding benefits. Respondents emphasized that the MLDs improved motivation and productivity and that they were helpful in reviewing course-casts of on-campus sessions. Continued research is needed on doctoral education in general and the increasing use of innovations such as MLDs. J Allied Health 2015;44(4):e29–e35.
ALLIED HEALTH GRADUATE students may find significant benefits from using personal electronic devices as mobile learning devices (MLDs) to enhance hybrid education. These include e-book readers, portable media players (such as iPods), iPads, tablets, and smartphones.1,2 For the “Net Generation” (born 1974–1983) instant messaging, text messages and Internet usage are essential elements of daily activities including learning,3 and mobile technology is now vital to students’ living and learning. Educational institutions have experimented with MLDs4,5 and affiliated strategies such as podcasts, recorded lectures and apps.6 Podcasting and coursecasting, the recording of lectures shared via learning management system (LMS), can enhance learning and augment face-to-face sessions.7,8 Some universities, From the Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.
Address correspondence to: Dr. J. James Cotter, Department of Gerontology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 730 East Broad St., Theater Row, 2nd Floor, Rm 2018, Richmond, VA 23298-0228, USA. Tel 804 828-1565 fax 804 828-5259.
[email protected].
Setting The Doctoral Program in Health Related Sciences (DPHRS) in the School of Allied Health Professions of
© 2015 Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, Wash., DC.
e29
Virginia Commonwealth University educates professionals in the departments of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, Gerontology, Health Administration, Nurse Anesthesia, Occupational Therapy, Patient Counseling, Physical Therapy, Radiation Sciences, and Rehabilitation Counseling. This research degree requires two years of didactic coursework, comprehensive exams, and a dissertation. Its hybrid design entails on-campus sessions at the start and end of each semester; the remainder of a semester’s coursework is done asynchronously online. Lecture recordings are uploaded to the LMS at the end of on-campus sessions for ongoing access and use.30 Beginning in 2006, MLDs were distributed to incoming students by program administration, iPods for cohorts in 2006 and 2007, iTouchs in 2008 and 2009, and iPads to the 2010 and 2011 cohort. Subjects A survey was sent to all graduates and candidates from the years 2006–2011. Candidates, who had completed didactic coursework and passed comprehensive exams, were included because they would have insight into the use and value of the MLDs for coursework. The target group consisted of 22 graduates and 35 candidates. Recruitment The DPHRS Director sent an email request to the alumni and candidates; it included instructions for survey completion, descriptions of research goals and objectives, methods used to secure questionnaire data, an explanation of the right to refuse to answer all or portions of the survey, and a link to a REDCAP survey site at the university for online completion. Also included was a statement indicating that completion of the anonymous survey confirmed consent to participate. Reminder emails were sent after 2 and 8 weeks. Estimated completion time was 15 minutes. The Institutional Review Board approved the research protocol. Questionnaire Development Several questionnaires addressing the use of MLDs are available, e.g. Sathe and Waltje.15 The instrument for this study was developed based on insights from the reviewed literature and consideration of the unique nature of doctoral education and innovative use of MLDs for this type of program. Respondents were asked to judge, via an agree/disagree Likert continuum format, the effect of the MLD on their motivation, understanding, productivity, participation, and collaboration. Open-ended questions followed, again to describe MLD use and how it supported learning. (The instrument is available from the primary author.) e30
Satisfaction Scale. Overall satisfaction was measured through an index of the major questions. The index was created to provide a measure that assessed overall satisfaction broadly. Individual items within the scale were also examined. Items were measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neutral, 2= disagree. 1 = strongly disagree). A mean score was used, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction with use of the MLD. Internal consistency reliability for the sample was α = 0.86.
RESULTS The response rate was 67%, with 38 graduates and candidates completing the survey. Graduates’ response rate was 17/24 (71%), and candidates’ response rate was 21/32 (66%). Table 1 shows respondent demographics. Graduates generally reported no prior MLD experience. A majority of candidates reported such experience. Respondents ranged across the program’s nine disciplines. Key results are presented in Table 2 by Graduate status, Candidate status and All Respondents for the combined categories ‘Agree’ and ‘Strongly Agree’. The mean score on the satisfaction scale was 37.62 (SD = 12.44; range=13–65). No statistically significant difference was found between graduates (M = 37.19, SD = 3.04) and candidates (M = 37.99, SD = 12.66). However, on individual items noteworthy differences between graduates and candidates were found. For example, graduates substantially agreed that the MLD made them more productive in studying (70.6% agreement), but this was less evident for candidates (42.9% agreement). Small percentages of respondents supported the idea that the MLD helped in collaboration (21.1% agreement) and the facilitation of learning (13.2% agreement). Overall, about one-half of respondents (51.4%) thought the MLD benefitted them. Users of iPods/iTouchs were more positive than iPad users. Substantially more iPod/iTouch owners (54.2%) than iPad owners (28.6%) perceived that the MLD made studying more productive. The highest support (50%) from both groups was to the question: “I gained considerable knowledge from reviewing the oncampus, course-cast lectures.” Open-ended survey questions generated almost 200 comments from 17 graduates and 20 candidates. It is important to note that although the iPad is a significantly better MLD than the first iPod, each was a “cutting edge” technology when students received them. Thus, these results portray overall reaction to MLDs in general. The comments revealed several themes on MLD use. 1) The MLD, for all cohorts, was useful in reviewing the coursecast lectures of the on-campus sessions. “On campus acted as ‘fire hose’ of information. At home, reCOTTER ET AL., Benefits of Mobile Learning Devices
TABLE 1. Characteristics of Respondents, Graduates and Candidates Graduates (n=17) _____________________ No. % of Total Cohort 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Candidate (n=21) _____________________ No. % of Total
Total (n=38) _____________________ No. % of Total
5 5 3 2 2 0
29% 29% 18% 12% 12% 0%
2 0 3 5 2 9
10% 0% 14% 24% 10% 43%
7 5 6 7 4 9
18% 13% 16% 18% 11% 24%
Device Received iPod Touch iPad
13 1 3
76.47% 5.88% 17.65%
8 2 11
38.10% 9.52% 52.38%
21 3 14
55.26% 7.89% 36.84%
Used Prior (multiple responses allowed) None Smartphone iPod Touch iPad
10 6 4 1 1
58.82% 35.29% 23.53% 5.88% 5.88%
5 14 7 1 3
23.81% 66.67% 33.33% 4.76% 14.29%
15 20 11 2 4
39.47% 52.63% 28.95% 5.26% 10.53%
In Academia Yes
9
52.94%
12
57.14%
21
55.26%
Age Group (when started program) 25–29 30–34 35–29 40–44 45+
3 3 5 0 6
17.65% 17.65% 29.41% 0.00% 35.29%
2 5 3 5 6
9.52% 23.81% 14.29% 23.81% 28.57%
5 8 8 5 12
13.16% 21.05% 21.05% 13.16% 31.58%
SAHP Discipline Clinical laboratory science Gerontology Health administration Nurse anesthesia Occupational therapy Patient counseling/ rehabilitation counseling
2 3 2 3 4 3
11.76% 17.65% 11.76% 17.65% 23.53% 17.64%
5 1 3 5 5 2
23.81% 4.76% 14.29% 23.81% 23.81% 9.52%
7 4 5 8 9 5
18.42% 10.53% 13.16% 21.05% 23.68% 13.15%
watched lectures to drill down to specifics when needed during the semester,” one respondent said. 2) A second theme, on benefits and drawbacks of interaction in Blackboard, referred primarily to iPads. The devices could be used via WiFi to access Blackboard, the university’s LMS. Passive activities such as reading documents or student posts were praised, but active posting to forums received more mixed reviews. Respondents noted that Blackboard “did not work well,” and that “Blackboard on any mobile device is a nightmare.” 3) The MLDs were found useful for storing, retrieving and reviewing articles and documents related to coursework and research. Each subsequent device improved the capacity for this task. For students with iPads, Dropbox was used to share materials. Students were able, while connected online, to download files for review then or at a later time. It was portrayed as a good “mechanism to store and manage documents (pdf and Word).” 4) Connectivity received the most praise. Each new device furthered the ability of students to work ‘onJournal of Allied Health, Summer 2015, Vol 44, No 2
the-go.’ The “anywhere anytime review of materials” was a favorite characteristic of MLD use. “It allowed me to live my life with my PhD work at my side all the time.” MLDs could be used “when driving,” during “long car rides,” on lunch breaks, while watching children’s activities, such as soccer and football, and even “while watching TV.” 5) Most complaints were about the iPod’s small screen for video review of coursecast lectures, but it was praised for the audio capability. Another limitation was the lack of Internet connection for those devices without Wi-Fi or a student-purchased data plan. 6) New technology contributed to family dynamics. Many said they used the devices to listen to music to provide a backdrop for studying. One student noted that it kept “children occupied on it so I could do homework on my computer.” Another said, “To be honest, the iPod caused some trouble in my household. My children were thrilled that we finally had one ... so there was a good deal of negotiating about using it.” e31
TABLE 2. Percentage of Respondents Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing to Selected Questions % Agreeing or Strongly Agreeing ____________________________________________ Graduates Candidates All
Question Having the MLD motivated me to spend more time on course study. My understanding of the course content improved through the use of the MLD. The MLD was helpful for reviewing during preparation for comps. The MLD made me more productive in studying. The MLD helped me participate more in course activities. The MLD helped me collaborate more with my colleagues. The MLD is an important tool for this program. The instructors use MLDs to facilitate learning. I mostly used the MLD for activities that don’t have anything to do with the DPHRS. I gained considerable knowledge from reviewing the coursecast lectures. Overall I really benefitted from having the MLD. I had technical trouble using my MLD for courses. The MLD was not all that helpful in learning course subject matter.
DISCUSSION The usefulness of the MLDs increased with each iteration. iTouchs were more helpful than iPods, iPads more helpful than iTouchs. The most recent MLD studied, the iPad, significantly improved the perceived benefits. It provided access not only to on-campus recordings, but also to participation in online discussions, document storage, and interaction with distant colleagues through email and FaceTime. Yet, despite research indicating the importance of the MLD to impact collaborative learning,14 these findings suggest that collaboration was not enhanced. This may reflect limitations of the combination of the device and the LMS or the asynchronous nature of the program. The experiences of using the MLD were not significantly different by allied health discipline. The key benefit is the ability to engage in learning activities ‘on the go’ whether that is during local personal activities or while traveling, of special help for those who travel for their professional responsibilities. Clay noted this importance of flexibility of time and location for clinical learners28 as did Ng, who suggests educators concentrate not so much on the mobile technology but rather the mobility of learners.31 A critical finding was lack of faculty expertise in didactic use of MLDs and in guidance to students on MLD capabilities. Training can partially address this limitation, but faculty commitment to professional development is critical as is programmatic support and institutional investment in resources such as instructional designers. A modest proportion of respondents (51%) indicated benefits to MLDs, suggesting limited usefulness in this hybrid doctoral program. This echoes studies done in other disciplines,32 but more research is needed on the most effective ways to use MLDs in various learning settings. e32
52.9 41.2 41.2 70.6 29.4 23.5 52.9 23.5 41.2 52.9 52.9 70.6 52.9
38.1 42.9 42.9 42.9 38.1 19.0 38.1 4.8 38.1 57.1 50.0 71.4 28.6
44.7 42.1 42.1 55.3 34.2 21.1 44.7 13.2 39.5 55.3 51.4 71.1 39.5
Limitations There are several limitations to this research: 1) For the majority of respondents, survey questions relied on memory of up to eight years in the past; this might lead to a lack of precision in perceptions. Further, through reactivity, the process of responding may have changed memory of the experience. 2) Answers may be entwined with overall attitude toward the DPHRS, leading to response bias. Those in the final stages of the program may more critically assess MLD usefulness relative to graduates. Candidates still facing program approvals to complete their degree may respond more positively, even to an anonymous survey. 3) As with any research on rapidly changing innovations, the MLDs under study changed significantly over time. An iPod is quite different from an iPad 2, which limits comparability. Other aspects of the educational experience changed over the time period, e.g., adjustments to the LMS, introduction of more mobile apps, and familiarity with mobile devices generally. 4) The DPHRS is a distinct, hybrid doctoral program. Results may not be generalizable to other students or programs although conclusions regarding introduction of innovations may be helpful to programs considering them.
Conclusion This study improves our understanding of when, where and for what purposes MLDs are used. Of modest help in this setting, their utility may depend on program type and subject matter. Growing capacity for connectivity and the changing nature of social media suggest that newer devices will be used increasingly for program related activities. The results also raise the issue of the ability of faculty to use MLDs for pedagogical purposes. Finally, expanding ownership of personal MLDs may have made distribution as part of a program redundant. COTTER ET AL., Benefits of Mobile Learning Devices
(Indeed, the program under study ceased offering MLDs to each new cohort member in 2014.) Without substantial integration with learning design, offering MLDs may be less useful than apps that provide access to course content. Ongoing assessment of any program innovation is helpful to identify challenges and opportunities.33 A small, rapidly conducted assessment of the use of a new technology may offer a better chance for a successful outcome,34 an approach especially appropriate with technologies that rapidly morph into new versions. Further study also needs to include student performance evaluation tied to the distribution of technology. References 1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
9. 10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Rogers KD. Mobile learning devices. Bloomington, IN: Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press; 2011. Robledo SJ. Mobile Devices for Learning: What You Need to Know. The George Lucas Educational Foundation; 2012. Fisher M, Baird DE. Making mLearning Work: Utilizing Mobile Technology for Active Exploration, Collaboration, Assessment, and Reflection in Higher Education. Educational Technology Systems. 2006;35(1):3–30. Banister S. Integrating the iPod Touch in K-12 Education: Visions and Vices. Computers in the Schools. 2010 Apr; 27(2):121–31. Dahlstrom E. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2012. Louisville, KY: Educause Center for Applied Research; 2012. Wu W, Jim Wu Y, Chen C, Kao H, Lin C, Huang S. Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Comput Educ. 2012;59(2):817–27. Salmon G, Edirisingha P. Podcasting for Learning in Universities. Maidenhead: Maidenhead : McGraw-Hill Education; 2008. Boyinbode O, Bagula A, Ngambi D. An Opencast Mobile learning Framework for Enhancing Learning in Higher Education. International Journal of U- & E-Service, Science & Technology. 2011 09;4(3):11–8. Kaya T. Classroom iPad Programs Get a Mixed Response. Chronicle of Higher Education. 2010;57(6):1–3. Perkins S, Saltsman G. Mobile Learning at Abilene Christian University: Successes, Challenges, and Results from Year One. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology. 2010;6(1):47. National Center for Education Statistics. Learning at a Distance Undergraduate Enrollment in Distance Education Courses and Degree Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education; 2011. Report No.: NCES 2012-054. Martinez R, Liu S, Watson W, Bichelmeyer B. Evaluation of a Web-Based Master’s Degree Program: Lessons Learned from an Online Instructional Design and Technology Program. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2006(3):267–83. Fuegen S. The Impact of Mobile Technologies on Distance Education. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning [Internet]. November/December 2012;56(6). Hanewald R, Ng W. The Digital Revolution in Education: Digital Citizenship and Multi-Literacy of Miobile Technology. In: Ng W, ed. Mobile Technologies and Handheld Devices for Ubiquitous Learning: Research and Pedagogy. Hershey, N.Y.: Information Science Reference; 2011. p. 1.
Journal of Allied Health, Summer 2015, Vol 44, No 2
15. Sathe N, Waltje J. The iPod Project: A Mobile Mini-Lab. Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology. 2008;4(2): 1–25. 16. Dale C, Pymm JM. Podagogy: The iPod as a learning technology. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2009 March 01;10(1): 84–96. 17. Fernandez-Lopez A, Rodriguez-Fortiz M, Rodriguez-Almendros M, Martinez-Segura M. Mobile Learning Technology Based on iOS Devices to Support Students with Special Education Needs. Comput Educ. 2013;61, pp.77–90. 18. Hahn J, Bussell H. Curricular Use of the iPad 2 by a First-Year Undergraduate Learning Community. Libr Technol Rep. 2012 Nov;48(8):42–7. 19. Alyahya, S. & Gall, J.E. iPads in Education: A Qualitative Study of Students’ Attitudes and Experiences. . 2012:1266–71. 20. Tempelhof MW, Garman KS, Langman MK, Adams MB. Leveraging time and learning style, iPod vs. realtime attendance at a series of medicine residents conferences: a randomised controlled trial. Inform Prim Care. 2009;17(2):87–94. 21. Sclafani J, Tirrell TF, Franko OI. Mobile Tablet Use among Academic Physicians and Trainees. J Med Syst. 2013 Feb;37(1): 9903,012–9903-6. Epub 2013 Jan 9. 22. Mayfield CH, Ohara PT, O’Sullivan PS. Perceptions of a mobile technology on learning strategies in the anatomy laboratory. Anat Sci Educ. 2012 Aug 24. 23. Trelease RB. Diffusion of innovations: anatomical informatics and iPods. Anat Rec B New Anat. 2006 Sep;289(5):160–8. 24. Tanaka PP, Hawrylyshyn KA, Macario A. Use of tablet (iPad(R)) as a tool for teaching anesthesiology in an orthopedic rotation. Rev.Bras.Anestesiol. 2012;62(2):214–22. 25. Lu Y, Xiao Y, Sears A, Jacko JA. A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare. International Journal of Medicine. 2005;74:409–22. 26. Ortega rivas A, Saorín J,L., Torre J, Elsheikha H. Touch pad mobile devices for blended learning in immunology practicals. Med Educ. 2013;47(5):518–9. 27. Bryans-Bongey S, Cizadlo G, Kalnbach L. Explorations in course-casting: podcasts in higher education. Emerald Insight. 2006;23(5):350–67. 28. Clay CA. Exploring the use of mobile technologies for the acquisition of clinical skills. Nurse Educ Today. 2011;31(6):582–6. 29. Kleinert JO, Stewart SR. The need for technical literacy in doctoral education: a preliminary survey. J Allied Health. 2007 Summer;36(2):88–100. 30. Goldberg DG, Clement DG, Cotter JJ. Development and alumni assessment of an interdisciplinary PhD program offered through a blended learning environment. J Allied Health. 2011;40(3):137. 31. Ng W. Mobile technologies and handheld devices for ubiquitous learning: research and pedagogy. Hershey, PA: Hershey, PA : Information Science Reference; 2011. 32. Lobo MJ, Crandley EF, Rumph JS, Kirk SE, Dunlap NE, Rahimi AS, et al. Pilot Study of iPad Incorporation Into Graduate Medical Education. Journal of graduate medical education. 2013; 5(1):142. 33. McGorry SY. Measuring quality in online programs. The Internet and Higher Education. 2003;6(2):159–77. 34. Mehrotra CM, Weaver KA, Nelson P. Assessing DistanceLearning Students and Courses. American Psychological Association; 2004.
Published online 1 Dec 2015. www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asahp/jah © 2015 ASAHP, Washington, DC.
e33
