Concordia University St. Paul DigitalCommons@CSP Concordia University Portland Graduate CUP Ed. Dissertations Research 5-1-2019 The Influence of Mobile Technologies on Students in Higher Education: A Qualitative Descriptive Case Study Donna Avery Concordia University - Portland, doavery@mail2.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.edu/cup_commons_grad_edd Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Avery, D. The Influence of Mobile Technologies on Students in Higher Education: A Qualitative Descriptive Case Study (Thesis, Concordia University, St.
Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.edu/cup_commons_grad_edd/319 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia University Portland Graduate Research at DigitalCommons@CSP. It has been accepted for inclusion in CUP Ed. Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@CSP. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@csp.
Concordia University - Portland CU Commons Ed. Dissertations Graduate Theses & Dissertations 5-2019 The Influence of Mobile Technologies on Students in Higher Education: A Qualitative Descriptive Case Study Donna Avery Concordia University - Portland Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.edu/edudissertations Part of the Education Commons CU Commons Citation Avery, Donna, "The Influence of Mobile Technologies on Students in Higher Education: A Qualitative Descriptive Case Study" (2019).edu/edudissertations/267 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Theses & Dissertations at CU Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Ed. Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CU Commons.
For more information, please contact libraryadmin@cu- portland. Concordia University–Portland College of Education Doctorate of Education Program WE, THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE DISSERTATION COMMITTEE CERTIFY THAT WE HAVE READ AND APPROVE THE DISSERTATION OF Donna L. Avery CANDIDATE FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Donna Graham, Ph., Faculty Chair Dissertation Committee Dana Shelton, Ph., Content Specialist Nicholas Markette, Ed., Content Reader The Influence of Mobile Technologies on Students in Higher Education: A Qualitative Descriptive Case Study Donna L. Avery Concordia University–Portland College of Education Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the College of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Higher Education Donna Graham, Ph., Faculty Chair Dissertation Committee Dana Shelton, Ph., Content Specialist Nicholas Markette, Ed., Content Reader Concordia University–Portland May, 2019 Abstract Mobile devices have become a ubiquitous tool for academics by tertiary students.
The purpose of this qualitative descriptive case study was to explore college students’ perception of the influences mobile technology has had on their education. Koole’s FRAME model provided the conceptual framework for this study, which focused on the interrelationship of the mobile device, the learner, and social aspects of the mobile learning process. Data collection included information obtained from 13 graduate students, with the use of a demographic questionnaire, personal interviews, and focus groups conducted via an online web conference site. The research questions that guided this study were⎯ how did these college students believe the three specific aspects of mobile learning (device, learner, & social) had influenced their collegiate experiences? Common patterns emerged during analysis, for example, the students’ widespread ownership of mobile devices had promoted greater student learning.
The adaptability of mobile technology to specific learning needs proved to be beneficial for students as well. In contrast, a negative social effect of mobile learning was evident from the students’ perception of less interaction and collaboration with fellow students and faculty members. The findings in this study that addressed the question of how the three components of mobile learning had influenced these 13 students’ collegiate experiences, have provided additional insight on the use of mobile technology in academia. Keywords: Higher education, Koole’s FRAME model, mobile learning, mobile technology, online learning ii Dedication This dissertation would not been completed without God’s strength and continuous guidance throughout this journey.
I also dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Sally and Donald Lemley who are in heaven, and to my wonderful children, Mike and Nakia, who have always been such tremendous blessings in my life. iii Acknowledgements First, I want to thank God and His Son, and His Spirit for strengthening me and keeping me along the way. I wish also to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Donna Graham, who kept me focused and on course throughout this journey.
Graham, your constant assistance, support, and your tireless feedback, has proven to be invaluable in completing this research project. I would like to, as well, give a heartfelt thanks to my other committee members, Dr. Dana Shelton and Dr. Nick Markette, who both have been so helpful during the research and writings phases of my project by suggesting new ideas and editing advice.
Last, but not least, I have been incredibly blessed to be surrounded by a great family who have always been so supported of me. Lemley Family, I appreciate you all! iv Table of Contents Abstract. iv List of Tables. x List of Figures.
xi Chapter 1: Introduction. 1 Introduction to the Problem. 1 Background, Context, History, and Conceptual Framework for the Problem. 2 Statement of the Problem.
4 Purpose of the Study. 5 Rationale for the Study. 6 Definition of Terms. 9 v Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations of Study.
10 Chapter 2: Literature Review. 13 Introduction to the Literature Review. 15 Potential learning models. 15 Koole’s FRAME model.
15 Review of Literature. 18 Mobile device/application use: A historical overview. 18 Mobile technology in education. 19 Widespread use of mobile devices and apps.
19 Accessible and affordable mobile applications. 20 Students’ attitudes toward apps. 22 Bring your own device (BYOD). 23 Mobile learning of the future.
25 Educational apps: Pedagogical tools. 26 Review of Methodological Issues. 30 Mixed-method approach. 32 Synthesis of Research Findings.
33 vi Critique of Previous Research. 39 Statement of the Problem. 40 Purpose and Design of the Study. 40 Population and Sample Selections.
43 Sources of Data. 45 Data Analysis Procedures. 49 Limitations and Delimitations of the Research Design. 53 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results.
54 Description of the Sample. 55 Demographics of sample. 56 vii Research Methodology and Analysis. 60 Summary of the Findings.
61 Thematic Code Category 1: The Influence From the Device. 61 Thematic Code Category 2: The Learner Influences. 61 Thematic Code Category 3: Social Influences. 61 Presentation of Data and Results.
62 Thematic code category 1: The influence from the device. 62 Thematic code category 2: The learner influences. 72 Thematic code category 3: Social influences. 85 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion.
86 Summary of the Results. 90 Discussion of the Results. 91 No mobile device(s), no college. 92 Greater communication, except in college.
94 Sense of loss of connectedness. 96 Student learning enhanced. 97 viii The pros outweighing the cons. 99 Discussion of the Results in Relation to the Literature.
99 A mobile learning trend. 99 Helpful/unhelpful for learning. 101 The interlocking pieces. 104 The scheduling challenges with time zones.
105 Implications of the Results. 105 The theoretical implications. 106 Recommendations for Further Research. 111 Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire (Qualtrics).
119 Appendix B: Mobile Learning Interview Questions: Kooles’ FRAME Model. 120 Appendix C: Questions for Focus Groups. 121 Appendix D: Consent Form for Participants. 122 Appendix E: Concordia University Institutional Review Board Approval.
125 Appendix F: Recruitment Email via Qualtrics. 127 Appendix G: Participants’ Demographics. 129 ix List of Tables Table 1. Participants’ Mobile Device(s) Ownership.
The Applications Used by Participants for Courses. Age Ranges of Participants. The Participants’ Collaboration Experiences at the University. Gender of Participants.
Class Ranking of Participants. Participants’ Educational Program. Age of Participants. Participants’ Use of Educational Apps.
130 x List of Figures Figure 1. Koole’s FRAME Model (Venn Diagram; Koole et al. The Participants’ Most Important Device Features. How the Participants’ Used Mobile Technologies in Academia.
Social Media Apps Used by Participants. Participants’ Influences from the Use of Mobile Technology. 88 xi Chapter 1: Introduction Introduction to the Problem It has been estimated there are now more mobile phone subscriptions than the number of humans on the earth (Khaddage et al. Mobile technology is transforming higher education.
The advances in wireless technologies have resulted in most college students not only owning several mobile devices (Vázquez-Cano, 2014), but many of the students are now insisting on using this technology in their academic lives as well (Chen & deNoyelles, 2013). Although the increased use of mobile technologies may have been disruptive for educators (Ally & Prieto-Blázquez, 2014), its’ rampant use by students are requiring the further development and implementation of mobile learning into universities’ strategic plans. The exploration of how mobile technology has affected university students was the focus of this study. Ally and Prieto-Blázquez (2014) asserted that in the future, mobile learning will become widespread; learners will learn on smart systems all over, yet⎯the learner will remain mobile.
Mobile technology as it continues to evolve, will soon be providing new virtual learning capabilities for the students also (Ally & Prieto-Blázquez, 2014). Daanen and Facer (as cited by Ally & Prieto-Blázquez, 2014) predicted by the year 2020, digital technology that can communicate with one another will be embedded in much of our household items such as clothes, notebooks, and keys. These technological advances have resulted in learning becoming more pervasive on a global scale (Ally & Prieto-Blázquez, 2014). It was not just the mobile devices that have evolved.
The development and sale of educational applications (apps) also has grown steadily, with apps becoming more accessible and affordable for students worldwide (Ng & Cumming, 2016; Wai, Ng, Chiu, Ho, & Lo, 2016). According to Ally and Prieto-Blázquez (2014), “mobile technology in the field of teaching and 1 learning has recently become one of the most important areas of research” for educators today (p. Furthermore, this present generation of “digital natives” have become quite accustomed to using mobile devices in every area of their lives (Wai et al. Bomhold (as cited in Wai et al., 2016) noted that most college students are already utilizing smartphones or applications for educational purposes.
Having a clearer understanding of the role of mobile learning in the academic life of tertiary students would be a significant key in implementing mobile learning in curricula. Mobile learning can be accomplished without utilizing mobile technology; for example, a small book would be quite portable and accessible as well as providing ease of use for the learner. However, for the purpose of this study, the term mobile learning refers specifically to students’ use of personal mobile devices and software for learning in their college experience. Background, Context, History, and Conceptual Framework for the Problem The concept of mobile learning has been around since the invention of the printed book, which allowed a learner to learn in any location (Miller & Doering, 2014).
However, it was the technological advances of the 1970s that provided such hardware and software technologies as “the floppy disk, the microcomputer, the VHS videocassette recorder, and the first mobile phone” (Berge & Muilenburg, 2013, p. These technologies became more personalized in the 80’s and 90s. Rather than shared desktop personal computers, there were now laptops and personal digital assistants (PDAs) with personal cell phones replacing the land line telephone (Berge & Muilenburg, 2013). However, Berge and Muilenburg felt that these first mobile technologies became problematic also for its users.
Such issues like poor processor speed and decreased battery life prevented these tools from having a significant impact on the classroom. 2 During the 2000s as the technology in smartphones began to offer the same features and functionalities of the PDAs, as well as adding mobile-phone capabilities to the device, which caused PDAs to be used less (Berge & Muilenburg, 2013). Berge and Muilenburg explained that cell phones initially were only owned by those who had the financial means, but today, the cell phone has become the constant companion of millions worldwide.