Reflections of the Constructivist Mobile-Based Learning Approach on the Seven

The second part of this survey contains the main portion evaluating the constructivist mobile-based learning approach on the basis of the seven principles for good practice in higher education. As in the pre-intervention survey, this post-intervention survey has 14 statements made up of 7 pairs of statements to represent each principle (see Appendix 9). For these statements, the students are asked to indicate their level of agreement on the constructivist mobile-based

166 learning approach on a Likert scale ranging from 1 “strongly disagree”, 2 “disagree”, 3 “neutral” to 4 “agree” and 5 “strongly agree”. Moreover, each two statements are combined to represent one principle, so the mean values of student responses for each principle actually range from 1 to 10. A one-sample t- test is conducted on the seven principles scores to evaluate if their mean is significantly greater than 6, this would indicate positive support from students which implies that the intervention aligned effectively with the seven principles.

A set of hypotheses is developed with a null as well as an alternative hypothesis for each principle. Hypothesis testing is done using P-value by comparing it with an α set as .05 as level of significance. If P ≤ α, then H0 is to be rejected, if P > α, then H0 failed rejection. Moreover, the mean value indicates whether the claim is supported positively (if M>6) or negatively (if M<6). Table 7.8 summarises the results for the seven principles followed by an explanation of the results for each principle.

Table 7.8: Mean Values for Each Principle (Post-Intervention Survey PS1)

Principles Mean SD t Df P

1 Encourages student faculty contact 5.29 1.87 -2.766 53 .008

2 Encourages cooperation among students 6.69 1.84 2.735 53 .008

3 Encourages active learning 7.37 1.34 7.538 53 .000

4 Gives prompt feedback 7.15 1.89 4.447 53 .000

5 Emphasises time on task 6.89 1.54 4.248 53 .000

6 Communicates high expectations 7.19 1.51 5.784 53 .000

167

Principle 1: Good practice encourages student and faculty contact.

H01: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support student and faculty contact.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 5.29 (SD= 1.87) is significantly less than 6, t (53) = -2.766, P = .008. This indicates that the constructivist mobile-based learning approach negatively supports the principle of student and faculty contact.

Principle 2: Good practice encourages cooperation among students.

H02: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support cooperation among students.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 6.69 (SD = 1.84) is significantly greater than 6, t (53) = 2.735, P = .008. This indicates that the constructivist mobile-based learning approach positively supports the principle of cooperation among students.

Principle 3: Good practice encourages active learning.

H03: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support active learning.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 7.37 (SD = 1.34) is significantly greater than 6, t (53) = 7.538, P = .000. This indicates that constructivist mobile-based learning approach positively supports the principle of active learning.

Principle 4: Good practice gives prompt feedback.

H04: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support prompt feedback.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 7.15 (SD = 1.89) is significantly greater than 6, t (53) = 4.447, P = .000. This

168 indicates that the constructivist mobile-based learning approach supports prompt feedback positively.

Principle 5: Good practice emphasises time on task.

H05: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support time on task.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 6.89 (SD = 1.54) is significantly greater than 6, t (53) = 4.248, P = .000. This indicates that the constructivist mobile-based learning approach positively supports the principle of time on task.

Principle 6: Good practice communicates high expectations.

H06: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support high expectations.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 7.19 (SD = 1.87) is significantly greater than 6, t (53) = 5.784, P = .000. This indicates that the constructivist mobile-based learning approach positively supports the principle of high expectations.

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

H07: Applying the constructivist mobile-based learning approach does not support diverse talents and ways of learning.

Based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis at P < .05. The sample mean of 6.83 (SD = 1.38) is significantly greater than 6, t (53) = 4.425, P = .000. This indicates that the constructivist mobile-based learning approach positively supports the principle of diverse talents and ways of learning.

Based on hypothesis testing with the post-intervention survey data, except for Principle 1, all the null hypotheses have been rejected and the alternative hypotheses have been proved. This means that the constructivist mobile-based

169 learning approach is aligned with all principles of good pedagogy except Principle 1. We can conclude from this result that this form of mobile-based learning is able to enhance learning experience on all the other six principles except for P1 which stipulates student-faculty contact.

As there are many factors that could affect the students’ views of the seven principles, such as students’ satisfaction and motivation, it is important to consider how their attitude to the intervention environment is related with the seven principles. This will be discussed in Section 7.3.4, along with correlations between students’ traits and their responses to give a more detailed explanation of their responses. A linear regression test is conducted to investigate any possible relationships between the students’ traits and their responses to the seven principles. This test shows that only students’ study load and group design in the intervention influence the achievement of the seven principles in the mobile-based learning approach. The test finds that there are significant relationships between students’ study load and Principles 5 and 6. Moreover, there are negative relationships between group design and Principles 1 and 5. Table 7.9 summarises the results.

Table 7.9: Correlations between Student Traits and the Seven Principles (Pre-Intervention Survey)

Students’ Trait Principle Beta Coefficient 

Students’ Study Load P5: Time on task -3.00

P6: High expectations -2.269

Group design P1: Student faculty contact -1.689

P5: Time on task -1.067

Students’ study load significantly predict students’ view on the principle of time on task (Principle 5) negatively,  = -3.00, t (52) = -2.889, p < .05. Students who are enrolled as part-time students are more likely to agree to this principle. This could be because part-time students generally are older students, who are perhaps more experienced in managing and controlling time (Trueman & Hartley 1996). Moreover, students’ study load defines a significant proportion of variance on time on task, R2 _{= .14, F (1, 52) = 8.346, p < .05. Students’ study load is}

170 negatively related with high expectations (Principle 6),  = -2.269, t (52) = - 2.163, p < .05. Students enrolled as part time students were more likely to communicate high expectations with a significant proportion of variance R2 ₌ .08, F (1, 52) = 4.678, p < .05.

Students’ group design in the intervention has a negative impact on students’ view on student and faculty contact (Principle 1),  = -1.689, t (52) = -2.605, p < .05. In contrast to students who work alone, students who work in pairs tended to disagree with this principle. This means that group work could hinder student and faculty contact. Moreover, students’ group design describes a significant proportion of variance on student and faculty contact, R2 _{= .12, F (1, 52) =} 6.789, p < .05. Additionally, students’ group design in the intervention also has a negative influence on Principle 5 of time on task,  = -1.067, t (52) = -1.949, p < .05 with a significant proportion of variance on P5, R2 _{= .07, F (1, 52) = 3.799, p <} .05. This means that students who work in pairs during the intervention are more likely to disagree with the statement of time on task. Students working in pairs feel less able to manage and control their time or complete the assigned task within the specified time.