On multi-device use: Using technological modality profiles to explain differences in students' learning
Abstract
With increasing abundance and ubiquity of mobile phones, desktop PCs, and tablets in the last decade, we are seeing students intermixing these modalities to learn and regulate their learning. However, the role of these modalities in educational settings is still largely under-researched. Similarly, little attention has been paid to the research on the extension of learning analytics to analyze the learning processes of students adopting various modalities during a learning activity. Traditionally, research on how modalities affect the way in which activities are completed has mainly relied upon self-reported data or mere counts of access from each modality. We explore the use of technological modalities in regulating learning via learning management systems (LMS) in the context of blended courses. We used data mining techniques to analyze patterns in sequences of actions performed by learners (n = 120) across different modalities in order to identify technological modality profiles of sequences. These profiles were used to detect the technological modality strategies adopted by students. We found a moderate effect size (∈2 = 0.12) of students' adopted strategies on the final course grade. Furthermore, when looking specifically at online discussion engagement and performance, students' adopted technological modality strategies explained a large amount of variance (η2 = 0.68) in their engagement and quality of contributions. The result implications and further research are disc…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Limited-computer learners performed significantly lower than computer-dominant (p=0.008) and intensive (p=0.002) learners on final grade, even after Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment.
“The pairwise comparison of clusters with respect to the final grade (i.e., percentage score) revealed that limited-computer learners performed significantly lower than computer-dominant ( p = 0 . 008) and intensive ( p = 0 . 002) learners, even after adjustments to the p -values using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure.”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Sher et al., 2019
The clusters differentiated final grade at e2=0.12 power and discussion participation at h2=0.68.
“These clusters were able to differentiate between students' final grade at e 2 = 0 . 12 power and discussion participation at h 2 = 0 . 68 (Sher et al., 2019).”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Sher et al., 2019
The difference in final grade between computer-dominant and intensive learners was not statistically significant.
“However, the difference between the two high-performing groups, i.e., computer-dominant and intensive, was not statistically significant (Sher et al., 2019).”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Sher et al., 2019
Limited-computer users are the lowest-performing group.
“students in the lowest-performing group, i.e., limited-computer users”
From When Do Learners Study? (2022) · cites this paper as Sher et al., 2019
Cites
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543042003237 · Cited by 1,826 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, since ANOVA is considered a robust test against the violations to the normality assumption [16] we use it to test these four variables, instead of opting for a non-parametric method.”
MethodSung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008 · Cited by 1,574 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sher, V., Hatala, M., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2022.6697 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“However, the difference between the two high-performing groups, i.e., computer-dominant and intensive, was not statistically significant (Sher et al., 2019).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation
- Authors
- Sher, V., Hatala, M., & Gašević, D.
- Affiliations
- Simon Fraser University (CA)
- Monash University (AU)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-03-04
- Pages
- 1-10
- OpenAlex
- W2916183381
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 2.31
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (435-2013-1708)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
- Keywords
- learning modalities, learning analytics, virtual learning environments, hybrid courses, student self-regulation, course grade prediction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review