Learning on the move: the use of mobile technology
to support
learning for university
students
Zahra Taleb a * ; Amir Sohrabi
b
a Faculty
member, Department of Educational Management,
South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,
Iran
b Master
Student, Young Researchers Club, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
A
large proportion of university students are now part of millennial
generation. Mobile technology is now an integral part
of their
everyday life.
We studied
the students’ viewpoints
about the
educational use
of mobile
technology to
support their learning
process. Among
2140 students
of Psychology
and Educational
Science in
Islamic Azad
university of
South Tehran Branch, 289
students were
selected by
using cluster
random sampling
method. Researcher-made
Likert-type questionnaire developed (reliability
based on Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.87). We used U Mann-Whitney test to evaluate the impact
of gender and educational course on the rate of the educational use
of mobile, kruskal-Wallis test to assess the impact of academic
major on the rate of
educational use
of mobile,
and one-
sample t-
test to
assess the
effective factors
on the rate
of the
educational use of mobile. The
most educational use of mobiles by university students are
calculator usage, text messaging, and English dictionary. Having a
mobile with multiple capabilities, long battery life and good
network coverage are the most influential factors in the
educational use of mobiles. Gender has a significant effect on the
educational use of mobile, but the academic major and course
doesn’t have any
significant effect on educational use of mobile by the university
students. The findings of current research could
help authorities
in Iran and
possibly other
developing countries
to lay
practically the
ground for
mobile-based learning in
universities.
1.
Introduction
A large
proportion of
university students
are now
part of
the “Millennial” generation
(Tapscott, 1998). Millennials
are the first
generation to
grow up with
digital media
in multiple
forms; they
are extremely
adept at multitasking with multiple devices
(Therese, 2006). Mobile learning (M-learning) is set to be the next
big wave in part of the Millenials’ students everyday life. It offers enormous
potential as a tool to be used in situations where
learners are
geographically dispersed,
to promote
collaborative learning,
to engage
learners with
content, as an alternative to
books or computers, and as an alternative to attending campus
lectures and for ‘just-in-time’ delivery of information (Zoraini et.al; 2009). University
students are using their mobile phones for communicating by voice,
text, and, increasingly, digital photographs and videos. They are
also now using them for wireless computing and posting
to wikis and blogs functioning
based on the paradigm of “anytime, anywhere”(Norris & et al. 2010).
M-learning is
enabled by
integrating various
hardware and
software technologies
into multimedia applications
facilitating the
communication of
educational content
in a number
of different
formats for
University students ( Lavin , Moreno
& Fernandez; 2008).
A majority of university
students around the world carry these miniature computing and
communication devices during the university day, using them almost
exclusively for personal purposes (Evans, 2008).
“Mobile phones are not just
communication devices sparking new modalities of interaction
between students; they are also particularly
useful computers
that fit in
their pockets,
are always
with them,
and are
nearly always
on (Prenski, 2005). They
present a real opportunity to integrate the learning process
with ‘real life’
activities. Mobile phones gives
student university the opportunity to carry their university in
their hand..
Recent research on audience characteristics published by the
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in Britain
shows the
ubiquity of
mobile devices
especially in
the university
age group.
The BBC
research in
this group characterizes a mobile phone as
a ‘necessity’
and not a luxury (Barbosa
& Geyer, 2005).Review of literature suggests that
M-learning can tackle issues of democratic participation and social
inclusion (Tetard, Patokorpi & Carlsson, 2008).
Mobile devices are cheaper than a personal computer and are used by
many because the devices are more affordable and in the case of
mobile phones, is almost a necessity to have.
Hence, e-inclusion is made more possible through use of mobile
phones for information downloads or for learning purposes.
Recent developments
in the mobile
and wireless
technologies have
facilitated this
new mode of
learning, M-learning.
Based on
reviews of
M-learning (Goh
& Kinshuk,
2006), it can
be concluded
that M-learning can
significantly complement e-learning by creating an additional
channel of access for users of mobile devices such as hand phones,
PDAs, MP3 and MP4 players.
M-learning is a form of learning which leverages on the mobile
device’s portability and
affordability (Yamaguchi 2005). M-learning allows learners to
access computer-based learning anytime, anywhere. It overcomes poor
internet connectivity, frequent power disruptions and low PC
support and availability, especially in remote and rural areas and
is strengthened by the vigor and talent of the mobile phone
networks (Traxler, 2007). Cook (2007) suggested
that ‘learner-generated
contexts’ in
mobile learning
provides a
more generic
description of
the value of
digital technologies than the more common idea of
‘user-generated content’
in social
software. As Price (2007) suggested the key
difference is digital representation of physical objects that are
in the same location as the learner.Mansori
et al (2010)
showed that
students have
positive view
and interest
regarding M-learning.
They were familiar with barriers of M-learning
and believe that it could be advantageous for their learning
processes. Harisa (2009) showed that most African-American students
used their mobile phones in creating digital contents and using
mobiles had
positive effect
on their
education and
social activities.
Levy (2007)
showed that
learners who used mobile
technology had more motivation for learning than
others.
Despite this, no study exists for planning of the use of mobile
phone in the Iranian universities. For this purpose, it would be
needed to identify university students’ viewpoints and attitudes about the use of this
technology in the learning process in Iran. So, we did this study
to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the rate of
educational use of different aspects of mobile phone by university
students?
2. What are the effective
factors on the rate of educational use of mobile phone by
university students?
3 What is the amount of
gender impact on the rate of educational use of mobile phone by
university students?
4. What is the amount of the
impact of academic course on the rate of educational use of mobile
phone?
5. What is the amount of the
impact of academic major on the rate of educational use of mobile
phone?
2. Materials and
Methods
The
present study was a descriptive study carried out during 2011-2012
academic years. Among 2140 students of
Psychology and
Educational Science
in Islamic
Azad university
of South
Tehran Branch,
289 students were
selected by
cluster random
sampling method.
Researcher-made Likert-type
questionnaire developed
and the reliability
has been
calculated based
on Cronbach’s alpha
(α=0.87). For
statistical analysis,
each item of
the questionnaire was scored from 1 to 5 (1.little to 5.Very much).
The mean for each item was calculated by sum of the each score
multiplied to percentage of respondents to that score. U
Mann-Whitney test used to evaluate the impact of
gender and
educational course
on the rate
of the
educational use
of mobile,
kruskal-Wallis test
to assess the impact of
academic major on the rate of educational use of mobile,
and one- sample t- test to assess the effective
factors on the rate of the educational use of
mobile.
3. Results:
Question 1. What is the rate of educational use of
different aspects of mobile phone by university
students?
Table 1-
Educational use of different aspects of mobile phone among
universitstudents
———————————————————————————————————————————
Very high
high Moderate
little Non-usages Mean
SD
———————————————————————————————————————————
Using
calculator 21.3％
27.3％
23.8％
19.9％
7.7％ 2.34
1.23
Educational
SMS 19.6％
20.3％
30.4％
20.3％
9.4％
2.23 1.34
Farsi-English dictionary
use 25.5％
18.1％ 16.0％
9.1％
21.3％ 2.07
1.49
Recording of
presented 18.2％
10.8％
18.5％
24.8％
27.6％
1.67 1.44
class
material
Use of
educational
softwares 18.4％ 11.3％
17.0％
23.0％
30.4％
1.64 1.47
Use of
internet
for
1.14％
16.5％
15.5％
22.2％
31.7％ 1.59
1.43
educational
material
Getting picture
of
11.0％ 10.3％
19.6％
31.7％
27.4％
1.45 1.29
educational
material
Listening to
educational
18.1％
14.5％
17.7％
25.5％
24.1％
1.76
1.42
material
Sending/receiving
10.3％ 8.2％
15.6％
25.9％
40.1％
1.22 1.32
educational
e-mail
———————————————————————————————————————————
Mean of different
applications 1.57
0.81
———————————————————————————————————————————
The
most educational
use of
mobiles by
university students
are calculator
usage, text
messaging, and English
dictionary.
Question 2.
What are the
effective factors
on the rate
of educational
use of mobile
phone by university
students?
Table 2- The impact of
different mobile aspects on the rate of educational use of mobile
phone
———————————————————————————————————————————
Effective
Factors Mean
SD
T
DF
sig
———————————————————————————————————————————
Having a mobile
phone
3.00
1.030
8.153
281
0.000
with various
capabilities
Long -life
battery
2.89
1.084
6.128
283 0.000
Easy access to the
Internet 2.86
2.810
2.163
278
0.031
Low using
different aspects
2.79
1.093
4.424
276
0.000
Large screen and touch
keyboard2.77
1.101
4.073
279 0.000
The ability of
paying price
2.73
1.177
3.282
278
0.001
of high
technology
Mobile phone
antenna 2.69
1.1253
2.744
282 0.006
Mean of different mobile
aspects2.78
0.92
5.234
283
0.000
——————————————————————————————————————————
The mean
amount of having a mobile phone
with various capabilities is more than all other
factors and the mean amount of the impact of mobile phone antenna
is less than all other factors and the total index
mean is 2.78 .The
Friedman ANOVA test showed that
the different mobile aspects has a significant impact n its
educational use:
（X=26.154,df=6,p
). To answer
the above
question, the
criterion for
confirming the
research question is considered
to be at least 50%. We assume that the mean amount less than or
equal to 2.5 shows the lower impact than average and the mean
amount greater than 3 shows the higher impact than
average. For analyses, inasmuch as the
measurement scale has a little range, single-sample T- test was
used. The T-test result for all items and also the mean amount are
above 2.5 and does not show any significant difference. This means
that all the above factors have significant effect on the
educational use of mobile phone.
Question 3:
What is the
amount of
gender impact
on the
educational use
of mobile
phone by university
students?
Table 4: Ranking of the
gender impact on the rate of educational use of
mobile phone among university students
——————————————————————————————————————
Gender
Number
of students
Average
rank
Sum
of ranks
——————————————————————————————————————
women
234
134.71
31521.50
men
27
98.87
2669.50
total
261
233.156
34191
——————————————————————————————————————
Table 5: Mann
–Whitney U test: Assessment of
the impact of gender on the rate of educational use of mobile
phone
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
Mann – Whitney U test
The
impact on educational use of mobile phone
ü Mann-Whitney
2291.500
Wilcoxon W
2669.500
Ž
-2.337
Asump. Sig.
(2-tailed) 0.019
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
According to
table-5, gender has significant
impact on the rate of
educational use of mobile phone
among the university students. Female students
have more educational use of mobile phone in comparison
to male students.
Question 4: What is the amount of the impact of
academic course on the rate of educational use of mobile
phone?
Table 6: Ranking
of academic course impact on the rate of
educational use of mobile phone among university
students
————————————————————————————————————
Academic degree
number of
students
average
rank
sum of
ranks
————————————————————————————————————
BA
236
128.98
30438.50
MA
24
145.48
3491.50
total
260
274.46
33930
————————————————————————————————————
Table 7: U Mann –
Whitney test: Assessment
of academic course impact on the rate of
educational use of mobile phone
————————————————————————————————————————————————
U Mann
– Whitney
test
The impact of
academic course on the
rate
of educational use of mobile phone
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
üMann-Whitney
2472.500
Wilcoxon
W 30408.500
Ž
-1.025
Asump. Sig.
(2-tailed)
0.306
—————————————————————————————————————————————————
According to the table-7,
there is no significant difference between BA and MA
students’
viewpoints in relation to the
rate of educational use of mobile phone. Therefore, the academic
course has no significant impact on the rate of educational use of
mobile phone among the university students.
Question 5: What is the amount of
the impact of academic major on the rate of
educational use of mobile phone?
Table8:
Ranking of academic major impact on the rate
of educational use of mobile
phone
——————————————————————————————————
Academic major
Number
of students
Average
rank
——————————————————————————————————
Technology
61
133.03
Industrial
Psychology
45
140.70
General
Psychology
57
133.51
Consultation
3
153.00
Primary
education
47
115.85
Management
33
126.21
Planning
15
137.70
Total
261
939.5
——————————————————————————————————
Table 9: Kruskal –
Wallis test: academic major
impact on the rate of educational use of mobile phone
——————————————————————————————
Kruskal – Wallis test
The
rate of educational use
Chi-square
3.251
Degree of
freedom
6
Significant
level
0.777
——————————————————————————————
According to the table- 9,
there is no significant difference between the students from
different academic majors in relation to the rate of educational
use of mobile phone. Therefore, the academic major does not have a
significant impact on the rate of the educational use of mobile
phone by the students of Islamic Azad University, South Tehran
Branch.
4- Discussion and Conclusion
Recently M-learning
has been
introduced in
developed countries.
Despite the
considerable researches
done by many researchers, this technology is
still in the beginning and It’s use, especially in the educational centers, requires
to construct
appropriate infrastructures.
Since, higher
education centers
have a high
capability of
using this technology,
it is time
to re-define
the academic
centers based
on M-learning
(Moedfar &
Ganji, 2008). To accomplish
this idea, it is necessary that at first, we examine the viewpoints
of university students as the
users of this tool. The results of this study could be useful for
appraisal of this important factor.
From the
viewpoint
of
university students,
factors such
as: having a
mobile phone
with
various capabilities, having
a long life
battery charging
and access to
the internet
and ability
to pay for
high technology
mobile and different
services, have
significantly affected
the mobile
phone
use
in students’ academic
affairs. The
result of researches done by Cook and Smith
(2009) shows that 59% of students believe that
having a mobile phone with more advanced
technologies will lead to easy
access to the Internet and 67% of students
believe that having a camera
and camcorder
with high
resolution capability
help them in
their curriculum
and educational
affairs. As Mansouri et.al (2010)
emphasize university students
have a good knowledge of
mobile phone learning obstacles.
They believe
that the
requisite condition
of applying of
this
technology is
appropriate hardware
and software infrastructures in educational
centers. Impediments of using mobile phone in the university (as
shown by Attewell 2005) are: small size, limited screen resolution
and complicated input mechanism of mobile phone. He states that
improving these features is the key factor that affects the usage
of this tool in educational process.
This study shows that there is a significant difference between the
genders in the usage of mobile phone. Female students, compared
with male students, have more educational use of mobile phone and
this result is in agreement with
the results
of Adnio and
colleagues’ research
(2007). Baghianymoghadam
and Shahbazi
(2010) showed a
significant difference
between male
and female
gender in
general mobile
phone usage.
In their
study, the
rate of using mobile phone by girls to
communicate with their family and their friends and for academic
problems is more than boys. In Manteghi (2010)
study, female students are more skilled in the field of multimedia
and calendar and time usage of mobile phone, and male students are
more skilled in advanced communications, and educational and
recreational usage of mobile phone.
In
our study, the academic course had no significant impact on the
rate of educational use of mobile phone among
the university
students. Manteghi
(2010) has
obtained similar
results in
his studies.
Similar
studies
such as Moeedfar(2008) between academic major,
history of mobile usage (having a mobile phone
before or after entering the
university), age
, and also
Zulkefly and
Baharvadin (2009)
between family
income don’t
show
a significant correlation with the amount
of mobile phone usage.
Also, the academic course has no significant
impact on the rate of educational use of mobile
phone among the students in our study. We
haven’t found any
research in this field, but the present study
indicates that mobile phoneusage is common in
different academic majors and there is no
difference in its application in different academic
majors.
University students use aspects
of mobile phone in a medium limit in their curriculum and academic
affairs, and the most educational usage of mobile phone by
university students is as a supporter tool, such
as using calculator,
text messaging and
English dictionary. These results are in
agreement with the results
obtained by Mansouri
& et.al (2010). He showed that more than half
of the university students
didn’t use mobile phone
in their curriculum and academic affairs and most of their usage is
in general applications of mobile
phone.
5- References
- Adeinoye, k.o.,
Ojokheta. o.,Olojede. A.(2007). Integating mobile
learning into
nomadic education
programmes in Nigeria: lssues
and perspectives. Journal of International review
of research in
open and
distance learning . volume:8 ,number:2 .ISSN:
1492-3831
- Attewell, J. (2005).
From research and development to mobile learning: Toolsfor
education and training providers and their learner . Retrieved:
.romhttp://www.mlearn.org.za/cd/papers/Attewell.pdf
- Barbosa,
D.& Geyer, C. (2005) Pervasive personal pedagogical
agent: A mobile agent shall always be
with a learner. Proceedings
IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005, Malta,
281–285.
- Baghianymoghadam,
M.A.& Shahbazi, H. (2011). Model of mobile phone
use among male and female students in Yazd University. Journal of
Information and Communication Technologies in Education. 2(3),
15-22.
- Cook, J., Bradley,
C., Lance, J., Smith, C., & Haynes, R.
(2007).Generating learning contexts with mobile devices. In N.
Pachler (Ed.),Mobile learning: towards a research agenda.
Occasional papers in workbased learning 1. WLE Centre for
Excellence, London
-
Cook, John
& Smith,
Carl.(2009). Learning
on the move:
the use of
mobile technologies
to support teamwork. London Met
University.CETL . available: www.rlo.cetl.ac.uk
- Evans.C
.(2008). “The
Effectiveness of M-learning in the Form of Podcast Revision
Lectures in Higher Education, Journal of Computers and Education.
vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 491-498.
-
Goh, T. and
Kinshuk, D.(2006).
Structural Equation
Modelling Approach
in Multiplatform
e-learning system evaluation.In
S. Spencer
and A.
Jenkins (Eds),
Proceedings of
the 17th
Australian Conference
on Information Systems (ACIS). Australasian
Association for Information Systems.
-
L
-Mera. P., Moreno-Ger. P., &. Fernandez-Manjon. B
.(2008).“Development of
Educational Videogames in M-learning Contexts,”Proc. Second IEEE Int’l Conf. Journal of Digital Game and
Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL), 17-19.
- Mansouri, S.,
kaghazi, B. & kharmali, N.(2010).
Survey of
students attitude
about M-learning
in Gonbad Payam-noor university. The first
conference of Iran's mobile value-added. IRIB Conference Center,
1-9.
-
Manteghi, M.
(2010). Study
of the
application of
different mobile
tools by
female and
male university
students. Journal of Information and
Communication Technologies in Education. 1(2), 95-127.
-
Moedfar, S.
& Ganji,
A.(2008). Analysis
of mobile
applications among
boys and
girls high
school students in Tehran ", In
Global Media Journal, Autumn, 4(8), 1-25.
- Norris , C.,Soloway,
E., Menchhofer, K., Bauman, B.D.,Dickerson, M., Schad, L., et
al.(2010). Innovative leaders take the phone and run: Profiles of
four trailblazing programs. Journal of District
administration,46(6), 35-38
- Prenski, M. (2005)
What can you learn from a cell phone? Almost anything! Innovate,
Journal of Online Education, 1, 5. [www.innovateonline.info/,
accessed on 17 February 2006].
-
Price, S.
(2007) Ubiquitous
computing: digital
augmentation and
learning. In
N. Pachler
(Ed.), Mobile learning: towards
a research agenda. Occasional papers in
work-based learning. WLE Centre
for Excellence, London, pp. 15–24
- Tapscottt, D. (1998)
Growing up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, McGraw
Hill.
- Tetard, F. Patokorpi,
E.& Carlsson, J., (2008). A conceptual framework
for mobile learning (Research Report 3/2008).Retrieved, 17
December:
http://iamsr.abo.fi/publications/openFile.php?pub_id=464
-
Traxler, J.,(2007).
Making Good
Use of Mobile
Phone Capabilities.
Retrieved 15
November, 2008 from
:http://www.elearningafrica.com/newsportal/english/news70.php
-
Therese Barbaux, Marie. (2006). From lifelong learning to
M-learning. In Whitelock, D. & Wheeler, S. (Eds).
The next generation.
Research Proceedings
of the 13th
Association for
Learning Technology
Conference (ALT-C 2006). Held
5–7 September 2006,
Heriot-Watt University, Scotland, UK.Available in:
www.alt.ac.uk Zahra Taleb and Amir
Sohrabi / Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences
69 ( 2012 ) 1102 –
1109
- Yamaguchi, T.,(2005).
Vocabulary learning with a mobile phone. Program of the 10th
Anniversary Conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied
Linguistics, Edinburgh, UK.
- Zoraini, Wati., Abas,
Loi Peng., Chng ,Norziati Mansor.(2009). A study on learner
readiness for mobile learning at open university malaysia. IADIS
International Conference Mobile Learning
-
Zulkefly, S.
N. &
Baharudin, R.
(2009), “Mobile Phone
use Amongst
Students in a
University in
Malaysia: Its Correlates and Relationship to
Psychological Health”,
In: European Journal of Scientific, 37(2) ,206-218.
英文翻译
移动学习：使用移动技术支持大学生学习
扎赫拉·塔勒布 阿米尔·索拉比
德黑兰，伊朗伊斯兰阿扎德大学教职成员，教育管理系，德黑兰南部分公司，
硕士研究生，青年研究人员俱乐部，南德黑兰分公司，德黑兰，伊朗伊斯兰阿扎德大学
摘要：很大比例的大学生，现在是新千年一代的一部分。移动技术现在是他们的日常生活的一个组成部分。关于移动技术教学应用促进学习进程，我们调查了学生的观点。来自德黑兰南部的伊斯兰阿萨德大学的心理学和教育科学分公司的2140名学生中，通过选择采用整群随机抽样的方法选出289名学生。研究员运用李克特式问卷（基于信度的α=0.87的可靠性）进行调查研究。我们使用üMann-Whitney检验对性别和专业学位在移动教育学习中比率的影响进行评估，并Kruskal-Wallis检验对学术专业在移动教育学习中比率的影响进行评估，单样本t检验评估在移动教育应用中的有效因素。大学生中最多的移动教育应用是计算器使用，短信，英语词典。在移动教育应用中最有影响力的因素是移动设备具有多种功能，电池使用寿命长和良好的网络覆盖。性别对移动教育应用有着极大的影响，但学术专业与专业学位没有任何显着的效果。目前的研究结果可能帮助伊朗当局和其他发展中国家的移动学习打下基础。
1、介绍
很大比例的大学生现在是“千禧一代”（塔普斯科特，1998年）的一部分。“千禧一代”是伴随着多种形式的数字媒体成长起来的第一代，他们都非常善于运用多个设备来进行多任务的处理（泰蕾兹，2006年）。移动学习（M-学习）被设置为下一波千禧世代的学生日常生活的一部分。它作为一种工具为地理上分散的学习者提供了巨大的潜力，促进协作学习，吸引学习者参与的内容，作为一个替代书本或电脑，作为一种替代参加校园讲座，只是在时间交付信息（Zoraini
et.al2009）。越来越多大学生使用他们的移动电话语音通信，文字，数码照片和视频来交流。他们现在也使用他们的无线计算和发布wiki和运作范式的基础上“随时随地”的博客（诺里斯等2010）。
M-学习功能是将各种硬件和软件技术集成到多媒体应用中促进许多不同的格式的教育内容使大学生进行便利的通信。（莫雷诺费尔南德斯，2008年）。
世界各地的大多数大学生在大学期间运用这些微型计算机和通信设备，他们几乎完全出于个人目的使用（埃文斯，2008）。
“手机不仅仅是通信设备引发学生之间的互动的新方式，他们也是适合在他们的口袋里的特别有用的电脑，（Prenski，2005年）。他们呈现一个整合学习过程中与“现实生活”活动的真正的机会。手机给学生提供了一个上大学的机会。
最近由英国广播公司（BBC）在英国出版的受众特质的研究中显示无处不在的移动设备普遍存在于大学年龄组中。
BBC在这组研究中发现手机具有着作为一个“必需品”，而不是一个奢侈品（巴博萨格耶，2005年）的特点。
文献回顾表明，M-学习能解决民主参与和社会包容的问题（TETARD
Patokorpi卡尔松，2008）。移动设备比个人电脑更便宜，由于所使用的许多设备更便宜，几乎是一种必然性。因此，更可以通过使用手机的信息，下载来达到学习的目的。最近在移动和无线技术的发展促进了这种新的学习模式，M-学习。基于M-学习（GOH
Kinshuk，2006年）的评论，可以得出结论，M-学习创建一个额外用户的移动设备的访问通道来充分补充网络学习，如掌上手机，PDA，MP3和MP4播放器。
M-学习是学习的一种形式，它充分利用移动设备的便携性和可负担性（山口2005年）。
M-学习，让学习者可以随时随地访问计算机为基础进行学习。它克服了互联网不佳连通性，频繁的电力中断和低的PC支持和可用性，尤其是加强了农村和边远地区手机网络的活力与优势（特拉克斯勒，2007年）。库克（2007）表明比起更常见的社交软件的“用户生成内容”的想法，学习者互动在移动学习提供了一个更通用的描述数字化的价值技术。随着Price（2007年）的建议在关键的区别是在相同的位置作为学习者的数字表示这一物理对象。
Mansori等人（2010年）显示，学生有关M-学习有正面的看法和利益。他们熟悉M-学习的障碍，并认为对他们的学习过程它可能是有利的。哈日萨（2009年）表明，大多数非洲裔学生用自己的手机，来创建数字内容和使用手机对他们的教育和社会活动的积极作用。利维（2007）表明，学习者使用移动技术学习比别人有更多的动力。
尽管这样，在伊朗的大学规划中还没有研究存在手机的使用。基于此，需要理解大学生在伊朗国家在学习进程上的这一技术的使用的观点和态度。所以，我们做这个研究，回答下列问题：
1。大学生关于移动手机不同方面教育使用比率是多少？
2。大学生关于移动手机教育应用比率中最有影响的因素是什么？
3，大学生移动手机教育应用中性别比例有多少？
4。移动手机教育应用专业学位所占比例是多少？
5。移动手机教育应用专业所占比例是多少？
2、材料与方法
本研究是在2011-2012学年期间进行的描述性研究。来自德黑兰南部的伊斯兰阿萨德大学的心理学和教育科学分公司的2140名学生中，通过选择采用整群随机抽样的方法选出289名学生。研究员运用李克特式问卷（基于信度的α=0.87的可靠性）进行调查研究。进行统计分析，每一个项目的问卷评分从1到5（1.很少到5.很多）。为每个项目的平均值进行了计算每个得分乘以该得分的受访者的百分比总和。我们使用üMann-Whitney检验对性别和教育课程在移动教育学习中比率的影响进行评估，并Kruskal-Wallis检验对学术专业在移动教育学习中比率的影响进行评估，单样本t检验评估在移动教育应用中的有效因素。
3、结果：
问题1[/B]。[/B]大学生关于移动手机不同方面教育使用比率是多少？
表1 -在校大学生使用手机教育应用的不同方面
————————————————————————————————————
非常高
高
中等
有点 不使用 平均
SD
————————————————————————————————————
使用计算器
21.3％ 27.3％
23.8％ 19.9％
7.7％
2.34 1.23
教育短信
19.6％ 20.3％
30.4％ 20.3％
9.4％
2.23 1.34
波斯语英语字典使用
25.5％ 18.1％
16.0％ 9.1％
21.3％
2.07 1.49
记录呈现类材料
18.2％ 10.8％
18.5％ 24.8％
27.6％ 1.67
1.44
教育软件的使用
18.4％ 11.3％
17.0％ 23.0％
30.4％ 1.64
1.47
使用互联网的教育材料 1.14％
16.5％ 15.5％
22.2％ 31.7％
1.59 1.43
获取图片教育材料
11.0％ 10.3％
19.6％ 31.7％
27.4％ 1.45
1.29
听教育材料
18.1％
14.5％
17.7％ 25.5％
24.1％
1.76 1.42
发送/接收电子邮件教育 10.3％
8.2％
15.6％
25.9％ 40.1％
1.22 1.32
————————————————————————————————————
不同的应用平均值
1.57
0.81
————————————————————————————————————
大学生大多数教育手机应用是计算器，短信，和英语字典。
问题2[/B]。大学生关于移动手机教育应用比率中最有影响的因素是什么？
表2 – 手机不同方面因素在移动手机教育应用中的影响
———————————————————————————————————————
有效的因素
平均值
SD
T
DF
sig
———————————————————————————————————————
具有各种功能的移动手机
3.00
1.030
8.153
281
0.000
长寿命电池的充电能力
2.89
1.084
6.128
283
0.000
轻松接入互联网
2.86
2.810
2.163
278
0.031
使用手机的不同方面的低费用2.79
1.093
4.424
276
0.000
大屏幕和触摸式键盘
2.77
1.101
4.073
279
0.000
高科技手机支付价格的能力2.73
1.177
3.282
278
0.001
手机天线
2.69
1.1253
2.744
282
0.006
不同方面平均值
2.78
0.92
5.234
283
0.000
———————————————————————————————————————
具有各种功能的移动手机平均值是超过所有其他因素，手机天线影响量平均值是低于所有其他因素，总指数平均值是2.78。弗里德曼方差分析表明，对于教育用途移动不同的方面有一个显着的影响（X
=26.154，自由度=6，P
问题3[/B]：大学生移动手机教育应用中性别比例有多少？
表4：大学生在教育手机运用的性别影响
——————————————————————————————————
性别
学生数
平均等级
总和
——————————————————————————————————
女人
234
134.71
31521.50
男人
27
98.87
2669.50
总计
261
233.156
34191
———————————————————————————————————
表5：采用Mann-Whitney U检验：手机教育应用性别影响评估
———————————————————————————————————
秩和检验
使用手机对教育的影响
ü
Mann-Whitney
2291.500
Wilcoxon W
2669.500
Ž
-2.337
显著性水平
0.019
———————————————————————————————————
根据表5，性别对于大学生移动手机教育应用有显着的影响。女学生比男学生更多的将手机应用到教育中。
[/B]
问题4[/B]：移动手机教育应用专业学位所占比例是多少？
表6：大学生在专业学位使用手机教育应用的影响
————————————————————————————————
学位
学生
平均等级
等级总和
————————————————————————————————
BA
236
128.98
30438.50
MA
24
145.48
3491.50
总计
260
274.46
33930
————————————————————————————————
表7：曼 - 惠特尼U测试：移动教育手机应用在专业学位的影响评估
——————————————————————————————————
曼-[/B]惠特尼U[/B]检验[/B]
基于移动手机专业学位教育应用的影响
———————————————————————————————————
üMann-Whitney
2472.500
Wilcoxon W
30408.500
Ž
-1.025
显著性水平
0.306
———————————————————————————————————
根据表7，对于手机的教育应用BA和MA的学生的观点之间没有显着性差异。因此，学术课程对于大学生的移动手机教育应用没有显著地影响。
问题[/B]5[/B]：移动手机教育应用专业所占比例是多少？
表8-1：移动手机教育应用专业排名
——————————————————————————————
主要专业
学生数
平均排名
——————————————————————————————
技术
61
133.03
工业心理学
45
140.70
普通心理学
57
133.51
咨询
3
153.00
小学教育
47
115.85
管理
33
126.21
规划
15
137.70
总计
261
939.5
——————————————————————————————
表9：kruskal-Wallis[/B]检验[/B]：专业对于移动手机教育应用的影响
——————————————————————————————
kruskal-Wallis[/B]检验[/B]
教育用途比率
智方
3.251
自由度
6
显著水平
0.777
——————————————————————————————
根据表9，对于移动手机教育应用方面不同的学术专业的学生之间没有显着差异。因此，对于在德黑兰南部的伊斯兰阿扎德大学的学生来说，不同专业对于移动手机教育应用方面无显著影响。
4 -讨论与结论
最近M-学习发达国家已经出台。尽管许多研究人员做相当的研究，这项技术仍处于起步阶段，特别是在教育中心，它的使用需要与适当的基础设施建立起来。至此，高等教育中心，具有较高的能力来使用这种技术，是时侯来重新定义M-学习（Moedfar赶集网，2008年）。要完成这样的想法，这是必要的，首先，非常必要的是，作为这一工具的使用者，我们要对大学生的观点进行调查研究。评价这一重要因素，本研究的结果可能是有用的。
从大学生的角度，如：具有各种功能的手机，具有寿命长的电池充电和高科技移动互联网和支付能力，并不同的服务这些因素，已经在学生的学术事务显着影响了手机的使用。库克和史密斯（2009）所做的研究显示，59％的学生认为，有一个更先进的技术的手机会导致方便地接入互联网，67％的学生认为，有一个具有高分辨率的能力的相机和摄像机能够在他们的课程和教育事务帮助他们。如曼苏里等人（2010）强调大学的学生，了解手机学习障碍。他们认为，这项技术应用的先决条件是在教育中心的基础设施有合适的硬件和软件。在大学里使用手机的障碍（如图Attewell2005）是：体积小，手机有限的屏幕分辨率和复杂的输入机制。他指出，改善这些功能是在教育过程中影响这个工具使用的关键因素。
这项研究表明，性别对于手机的使用有一个显着的差异。女性学生，与男同学相比，有更多的移动手机教育使用，而这一结果与Adnio和同事们的研究（2007年）是一致的。
Baghianymoghadam西哈巴兹（2010）表现出在男性和女性的性别之间对于手机的使用的显着差异。在他们的研究中，女孩使用手机与他们的家庭和他们的朋友和学术问题交流比男孩多。在Manteghi（2010）的研究中，女学生在该领域的多媒体和日历时间上使用手机更熟练，，在先进通讯教育和休闲使用的手机男学生更熟练。
在我们的研究中，在大学生中学术课程对于移动手机教育应用没有显着影响。
Manteghi（2010）在他的研究取得了类似的结果。类似的研究，如Moeedfar（2008年）对于学术专业，移动应用的历史（有手机之前或之后进入大学），年龄，相似的学生也包括Zulkefly和Baharvadin的研究的家庭收入（2009年）在内进行研究电话的使用没有表现出显著的相关。
此外，在我们的研究中学术课程对于移动手机教育应用没有显着影响。在这一领域，我们没有找到任何研究，但目前的研究表明，在不同的学术专业手机使用是常见的，在不同的学术专业其应用程序是没有区别的。
大学生使用手机方面，在他们的课程和学术事务中受限，大学生手机教育应用最多的是作为载体工具，如使用计算器短信和英文字典。这些结果与曼苏＆得到的结果等（2010）是一致。他表明，一半以上的大学生没有使用手机在他们的课程和学术事务和它们的用法大部分是一般的手机应用。
|
