Productos esperados (entregables)

The students’ responses express a significantly positive view of the constructivist mobile-based learning model based on the seven principles except for Principle 1. A comparison of pre- and post-intervention survey responses is needed to report how their view of the new constructivist mobile-based model changed after the intervention. Table 7.11 describes the mean and P values for each principle before and after the intervention.

Table 7.11: Comparison of the Seven Principles between the Pre and Post- Intervention Surveys Principles Pre-Intervention Survey Post Intervention Survey Mean P Mean P

1 Encourages student faculty contact 5.68 .042 5.29 .008

2 Encourages cooperation among students 6.78 .000 6.69 .008

3 Encourages active learning 6.88 .000 7.37 .000

4 Gives prompt feedback 6.76 .000 7.15 .000

5 Emphasises time on task 7.03 .000 6.89 .000

6 Communicates high expectations 6.88 .000 7.19 .000

7 Respects diverse talents and ways of learning 6.52 .000 6.83 .000

The constructivist mobile-based learning approach is shown to be in alignment with all the seven principles except Principle 1. Further, the results indicate a possible improvement in students’ learning experiences on Principles 3, 4, 6 and 7, but Principles 1, 2 and 5 show some depreciation after the intervention. This means that students’ learning experiences in the lecture show different patterns of change across the seven principles after the intervention. The following

175 sections explain the result for each principle in detail to mark any significant changes within the principle before and after the intervention.

Principle 1: Good practice encourages student and faculty contact.

Principle 1 received the least positive perceptions before and after the intervention. It was expected that students’ face-to-face contact with their lecturer on asking and answering questions and/or sharing ideas would improve, as they would be able to practice the concept being taught promoting them to initiate discussions with the lecturer. Students’ thoughts in the pre-intervention survey show that they appreciated the possibility of increased interaction with the lecturer. However, the mean value of this principle after the intervention is less compared to the mean value before the intervention. Also, a significant negative correlation has been found between this principle and the way students work during the intervention. Students who work in pairs with their fellow students are more likely to disagree with this principle. Based on these results, it could be assumed that student-faculty contact is comparatively lesser for students working in groups. Moreover, the feedback from the instructor was given the least positive perception from the general statements about student satisfaction and motivation. Students tend to disagree with this statement, suggesting that they might not get adequate and immediate feedback from their lecturer, which in turn could affect the interaction between students and lecturer.

176

Principle 2: Good practice encourages cooperation among students.

Theoretically, the constructivist mobile-based learning approach is about promoting active interaction and cooperation between students, so it is assumed to be significantly aligned with this principle (Jenkins et al. 2012b). In the intervention, students are given the option to work in pairs with two students sharing one laptop, especially students who do not have laptops and want to participate in the intervention. However, the mean value for this principle decreased after the intervention. The majority of the students prefer to work alone (83.3%) and only a few (16.7%) choose to work in pairs. Moreover, students who like to work in groups and students who prefer to work alone have convergent percentages as reported in their responses to the general questions. This means that students’ perceptions on the effectiveness of this learning approach for promoting cooperation showed a slight depreciation after the intervention. Some responses in the open-ended questions indicate that the arrangement and layout of tables in the lecture hall could affect cooperation in such an environment. In conclusion, the students’ experience from participating in the intervention showed a slight decrease in their perception about its benefit for the principle of co- operation among students.

Principle 3: Good practice encourages active learning.

Active learning received the most positive responses from the students after the intervention. As the constructivist mobile-based learning approach is designed to incorporate different kinds of activities ranging from active discussion to practising the concept as it is taught in the lecture, this would have a positive repercussion on efforts to foster students’ understanding and motivation. The mean value (M = 7.37) for this principle showed the most significant jump after the intervention compared to the scores in the pre-survey. Thus, the students not only believe in the possibility of an improvement in active learning but testify to having experienced this positive effect after participating in the study as their scores on this principle increased in the post-intervention survey.

177

Principle 4: Good practice gives prompt feedback.

The constructivist mobile-based learning approach is designed to not only prompt students to practice the concepts immediately in the lecture but it also aims to give them immediate feedback. One of the main advantages of the ViLLE system used as part of the approach is the immediate feedback that students receive from the system as they put in their answers. This mechanism of prompt feedback is appreciated by the students and some students in the open-ended question also remark that they like working on the ViLLE software particularly due to this feature. This leads us to conclude that this new learning approach is aligned with the principle of prompt feedback as the mean value for this principle was not only positive but showed an increase after the intervention.

Principle 5: Good practice emphasiszes time on task.

The mean value for this principle showed a slight decline after the intervention (M = 6.89) compared to the scores for the pre-intervention survey (M = 7.03). Practicing the activities in the class may have taken more than usual time for normal lectures, thus reducing students’ perception about the time on task capacity of this mobile-based learning approach. Moreover, significant negative correlation has been reported between this principle and students’ study load as part-time students, who are generally older, are more likely to manage their time compared to full-time students. Furthermore, significant negative correlation has been found between this principle and the way students work during the intervention. Students who worked in pairs tended to spend more time in discussion compared to students who work alone, thus, increasing the probability of disagreement on this principle among the former group.

Principle 6: Good practice communicates high expectations.

Students appreciate the increment in their quality of work and their understanding during the intervention lecture. Consequently, the mean value for the principle is higher after the intervention compared to the pre-intervention survey. The results

178 also indicate that students’ study load is a significant predictor of students’ view on this principle  = -2.269, t (52) = -2.163, p < .05. Students who enrol as part- time students (generally older than their cohorts) are more likely to agree with the ability of this form of mobile-based learning to communicate high expectations.

Principle 7: Good practice respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

The constructivist mobile-based learning approach is designed to meet a diversity of learning ability and styles displayed by different students in a class. A comparison of the pre- and post-intervention surveys support this contention that mobile-based learning approach is effectively aligned with this principle. While the students agreed to the positive effect of this learning approach on this principle in the pre-intervention survey, they gave even higher scores on this principle after participating in the intervention. This evidence proves that students valued the approach as it works well with their individual learning styles and preferred the new approach to the traditional lectures.