N ARRATIVE P ERSUASION
5.1. Mobile learning and its theoretical bases
Mobile learning (m-learning) refers to the acquisition of knowledge through mobile technology, such as mobile phones or tablets (Chee, Yahaya, Ibrahim, & Hasan, 2017).
It has also been defined as “learning across multiple contexts, through social and content interactions, using personal electronic devices” (Crompton, 2013, p. 83).
According to this definition, mobile learning can be formal or spontaneous and can happen in an academic setting or a non-academic setting. In any case, this learning modality always involves the use of personal digital devices. Accordingly, the development of mobile learning has been the consequence of the development of new digital mobile devices (Conde, García-Peñalvo, Alier, & Piguillem, 2013). Hence, the advancements in wireless Internet and mobile technology have promoted a change in both education and educational technology (C. Y. Chang, Lai, & Hwang, 2018;
Crompton, 2013; El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010).
Mobile learning has its origins in distance education and in e-learning (Crompton, 2013; Göksu & Atici, 2013). Distance education is a method in which the learner studies on their own wherever they want without coming face to face with their teachers. Moreover, e-learning (electronic learning) consists on learning with electronic devices, such as computers or laptops. Accordingly, the big difference between electronic learning and mobile learning is that the latter offers portability since mobile phones and tablets are smaller and lighter than computers or laptops. In fact, portability is the most distinctive feature of mobile learning (Y. Park, 2011).
Previously, mobile devices were in a weak position with regard to computers due to the fact that they lacked functionality, screen size, processor speed and battery life (Crompton, 2013; Y. Park, 2011). Mobile devices have currently overcome these technical limitations and they are now perfectly equipped with many additional capabilities and features. Moreover, mobile devices are “convenient and ubiquitous in
the lives of young people” (White & Martin, 2014, p. 64). Therefore, they can perfectly compete at present with computers and laptops in the education field.
As we shall see, mobile technologies have characteristics, such as flexibility and ease of access, that make them valuable for learning purposes (Bano, Zowghi, Kearney, Schuck, & Aubusson, 2018). The opportunities and outcomes that this learning modality offers have attracted interest from scholars. Consequently, there is a significant body of research relating to mobile learning outcomes and effectiveness (Bano et al., 2018; Göksu & Atici, 2013; Liu et al., 2014). However, the integration of mobile learning within formal education is still in the early developmental stages (Sánchez-Prieto, Olmos-Migueláñez, & García-Peñalvo, 2016).
Mobile learning has come to be widely studied in recent years because of its characteristics. First, mobile devices, especially mobile phones, are highly portable and have ease-of-use attributes, and apps are usually inexpensive or free (Stevenson &
Hedberg, 2017). The fact that they are easily carried allows learning not to be constrained by physical locations (C. Y. Chang et al., 2018; El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010).
Therefore, users can learn at any place and at any time (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010;
Göksu & Atici, 2013) and start and stop the learning process whenever they want (Göksu & Atici, 2013). Consequently, mobile learning promotes the student’s autonomous learning (Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2016).
Secondly, and considering the theory of constructivism, mobile devices can enhance active learning experiences. According to research, effective learning improves when students actively participate in learning (Su & Cheng, 2015; Thinley, Geva, & Reye, 2014). That is, constructivism has been demonstrated as an effective learning method (Göksu & Atici, 2013). In this sense, Hamdani (2013) ensures that the best way to apply principles of constructivism is through the use of mobile devices.
Third, mobile learning can also promote students’ engagement with the learning process. This engagement can be developed through three elements: (a)
contingent interactions, for example, with touch screens; (b) extrinsic motivation and feedback, with responses to users’ answers, such as motivational messages (e.g., “try again”), points, or badges; and (c) intrinsic motivation, with open-ended apps (Hirsh- Pasek et al., 2015).
Therefore, in order to be effective, educational interventions based on mobile learning principles should consider these theoretical bases (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015);
humans learn best when they are actively involved, which connects with the theory of constructivism, and are engaged with the learning material, which connects with the gamification approach.
5.1.1. Constructivist theory
The constructivist theory is based on the work of Piaget and Vygotsky. It states that learning is an interpretive, recursive, nonlinear building process by active learners interacting with their surroundings (Fosnot & Stewart, 2005). According to this theory, knowledge and new ideas or concepts are constructed by learners through experience (Hamdani, 2013; Naismith, Lonsdale, Vavoula, & Sharples, 2004).
Moreover, the constructivist theory relies on several principles, such as the construction principle (learners construct their knowledge by making connections between current and past knowledge) and the authenticity principle (learners profit from working with real life tasks; Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004; Crompton, 2013; Sandberg, Maris, & De Geus, 2011).
In consonance with constructivism, we should present content that can be linked to previous knowledge and that can be applicable (Hamdani, 2013; Sandberg et al., 2011). Moreover, we should also provide learners with authentic learning activities, in order that they can make links between this learning task and real life situations (Cooner, Knowles, & Stout, 2016; Crompton, 2013). Therefore, we must choose activities that stimulate real life situations in order to promote a better learning
achievement (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004). In that way, users will construct their own knowledge “from thinking critically and creatively to solve problems” (Crompton, 2013, p. 86). In this sense, and due to the portability of digital devices, mobile learning provides greater opportunities for learning in authentic settings (Liu et al., 2014; Naismith et al., 2004). That is, mobile learning gives us the opportunity to provide learners with activities that simulate real life situations, but also with activities that promote learning within an authentic context (e.g., educational mobile applications for teaching art at the museum or the gallery, or apps for teaching about animals at the zoo – Crawford, Holder, & O’Connor, 2016; Martin
& Ertzberger, 2013; Sandberg et al., 2011).
Active learning is also a central concept in constructivism. According to this theory, learners actively construct their knowledge and do not simply register information in a passive way (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2015; Naismith et al., 2004). That is, they learn by doing. Empirical research has supported this view by showing the numerous advantages of active participation in learning (Thinley et al., 2014).
Finally, it is important to emphasise that mobile learning has a strong relationship with constructivism, as technological developments allow learning environments to be created based on constructivist principles (Sandberg et al., 2011;
Su & Cheng, 2015). For example, features of mobiles devices, such as interactivity, can help to promote active learning. Research has shown that studies that have implemented mobile learning using the constructivist approach have had positive effects on knowledge achievement and motivation (Marzouki, Idrissi, & Bennani, 2017).
In relation to online safety learning, Vanderhoven, Schellens and Valcke (2014a) reviewed constructivist principles and how they can be applied in educating teenagers about online risks. According to them, active learning can be applied through active exercises or scaffolding questions; authentic learning, through
simulated SNS-profiles; multiple perspectives, with voting cards; and collaborative learning, through two-by-two exercises with peers. The results of their study showed that “time for individual reflection, rather than collaborative learning, appeared to be a critical aspect of effective educational materials if the objective is both raising awareness and changing unsafe behaviour on SNSs” (Vanderhoven et al., 2015, p. 6).
In view of the above, the principles of constructivism, except collaborative learning, would be useful for learning activities related to online risks and online safety.
5.1.2. Gamification
Gamification consists of adding gaming elements, mechanics and principles to non- gaming contexts, such as educational contexts, with the aim of enhancing motivation and engagement among the participants. Studies that have tested the efficacy of gamification have combined different motivational affordances: points, leader-boards, badges, stars, levels, story/theme, clear goals, quests and challenges, feedback, virtual rewards, progress bars, performance graphs and meaningful stories (Alsawaier, 2018;
Çakıroğlu, Başıbüyük, Güler, Atabay, & Yılmaz Memiş, 2017; Hamari, Koivisto, & Sarsa, 2014; Khaleel, Sahari-Ashaari, Tengku Wook, & Ismail, 2016; Sailer, Hense, Mandl, &
Klevers, 2013; Sardi, Idri, & Fernández-Alemán, 2017; Su & Cheng, 2015). For example, through avatars we let users to choose or create a character that will reflect their aspirations; through challenges and quests we give users a purpose; and through points and levels we encourage users to progress (Alsawaier, 2018). In this sense, it is important to note that gamification is not the same as game-based learning.
Gamification only implies adding elements of games to enhance engagement and learning, but the final product is not designed for playing and has a non-game purpose (Alsawaier, 2018; Kasurinen & Knutas, 2018).
The gamification approach draws on self-determination theory (SDT). This theory argues that human behaviour is motivated by three psychological needs:
related to experiencing choice over one’s actions; competence to succeeding at challenges; and relatedness to a sense of mutual respect and interdependence (Alsawaier, 2018; Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). Correspondingly, players will be motivated if they experience competition, autonomy and social relatedness (Alsawaier, 2018; Sailer et al., 2013). Therefore, gamification would fulfil these needs.
In this sense, scholars argue that motivation has a positive effect on learning achievement (Buckley & Doyle, 2016).
Research has addressed the effectiveness of gamification and has found that it increases motivation and engagement (Alsawaier, 2018; Hamari et al., 2014).
Moreover, findings also suggest that gamification allows students to obtain a higher learning achievement (Buckley & Doyle, 2016; Pechenkina, Laurence, Oates, Eldridge,
& Hunter, 2017). According to that, research shows that the use of game elements in educational mobile apps promote motivation and engagement, which, in turn, facilitate learning (Attali & Arieli-Attali, 2015; Çakıroğlu et al., 2017; Domínguez et al., 2013; Su & Cheng, 2015). Therefore, and following these results, the use of gamification on mobile learning interventions would be useful for reaching better results.
Considering the above, a mobile learning intervention that aims to be effective should follow the basis of constructivism and gamification. Consequently, it should include active and authentic learning activities for increasing the acquisition of knowledge, and game elements, such as badges, for enhancing motivation, engagement and learning.
5.1.3. Mobile acceptance
The concept of mobile acceptance is based on the broader concept of technology acceptance. According to previous literature, technology acceptance can be defined as
“users' perceptions of the ease of use and usefulness of the technology-enhanced system” (C. Y. Chang et al., 2018, p. 44). Concordantly, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) from Davis (1989) includes these two dimensions: perceived usefulness
(believing that using a system would enhance job performance) and perceived ease-of-use (believing than using a system would not need an effort). This model has been commonly used for studying the adoption of information system in educational and non-educational contexts (Sánchez-Prieto, Olmos-Migueláñez, & García-Peñalvo, 2014) and, consequently, in mobile learning research (Al-Emran, Mezhuyev, & Kamaludin, 2018).
In relation to this concept, mobile (technology) acceptance and mobile application acceptance can be defined as the perception of the ease of use and usefulness of a mobile technology or a mobile application. Previous research has shown that gamification and constructivism content promote technology and mobile acceptance (Baptista & Oliveira, 2017; Elwood, Changchit, & Cutshall, 2006).
Moreover, technology acceptance has been shown to predict the effectiveness of the educational content (Al-hawari & Mouakket, 2010). Consequently, as mobile acceptance predicts the effectiveness of an intervention, and constructivism and gamification predict learning achievements and mobile acceptance, we can assume that mobile learning interventions should follow the basis of constructivism and gamification in order to promote mobile acceptance and, as such, educational outcomes.