CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Mobile Learning in EducationEducational Technology in LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Students’ Academic Use of Mobile Technology and Higher-Order Thinking Skills: The Role of Active Engagement

Open access
Kim, Hye Jeong, Yi, Pilnam, Hong, Ji In·2020·Education Sciences
DOI 10.3390/educsci10030047
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The academic use of mobile technology engages students beyond traditional classroom contexts. Over the past few years, higher education institutions have promoted students’ learning and growth by supporting their use of mobile technology. Mobile technology offers educational possibilities that can enhance students’ growth in higher education. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between college students’ academic use of mobile technology and higher-order thinking skills through their active engagement and learning effort. The sample consisted of 456 students at a university in South Korea, and the data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. The results suggest that the academic use of mobile technology influences students’ higher-order thinking skills directly, in addition to their learning effort and active engagement in courses. These findings provide valuable information for higher education institutions that seek to introduce interactive and technology-integrated environments.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/educsci10030047

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Han, I.; Shin, W.S. The use of a mobile learning management system and academic achievement of online students. Comput. Educ. 2016, 102, 79-89. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Fu, Q.K.; Hwang, G.J. Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: A systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Comput. Educ. 2018, 119, 129-143.
  3. Morris, N.P.; Lambe, J.; Ciccone, J.; Swinnerton, B. Mobile technology: Students perceived benefits of apps for learning neuroanatomy. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2016, 32, 430-442. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Shamir-Inbal, T.; Blau, I. Developing digital wisdom by students and teachers: The impact of integrating tablet computers on learning and pedagogy in an elementary school. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2016, 54, 967-996.
  5. Uzun, A.M.; Kilis, S. Does persistent involvement in media and technology lead to lower academic performance? Evaluating media and technology use in relation to multitasking, self-regulation and academic performance. Comput. Human. Behav. 2019, 90, 196-203.
  6. Schmid, R.; Petko, D. Does the use of educational technology in personalized learning environments correlate with self-reported digital skills and beliefs of secondary-school students? Comput. Educ. 2019, 136, 75-86. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  7. Williams, K.M.; Stafford, R.E.; Corliss, S.B.; Reilly, E.D. Examining student characteristics, goals, and engagement in Massive Open Online Courses. Comput. Educ. 2018, 126, 433-442.
  8. Johnson, L.; Adams Becker, S.; Cummins, M.; Estrada, V.; Freeman, A.; Ludgate, H. NMC Horizon Report: 2013 Higher Education Edition; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2013.
  9. Woodcock, B.; Middleton, A.; Nortcliffe, A. Considering the smartphone learner: An investigation into student interest in the use of personal technology to enhance their learning. Stud. Engagem. Exp. J. 2012, 1, 1-15.
  10. Sánchez-Prieto, J.C.; Hernández-García, Á.; García-Peñalvo, F.J.; Chaparro-Peláez, J.; Olmos-Migueláñez, S. Break the walls! Second-order barriers and the acceptance of mLearning by first-year pre-service teachers. Comput. Human. Behav. 2019, 95, 158-167. [CrossRef] · DOI
  11. Burden, K.; Kearney, M.; Schuck, S.; Hall, T. Investigating the use of innovative mobile pedagogies for school-aged students: A systematic literature review. Comput. Educ. 2019, 138, 83-100. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Chen, F.; Sager, J. The effects of tablet PC use in the classroom on teaching and learning processes. J. Learn. High. Educ. 2011, 7, 55-67.
  13. Negahban, A.; Chung, C.H. Discovering determinants of users perception of mobile device functionality fit. Comput. Human. Behav. 2014, 35, 75-84. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Beetham, H.; Sharpe, R. Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning: Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
  15. Tapscott, D. Grown up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
  16. Rashid, T.; Asghar, H.M. Technology use, self-directed learning, student engagement and academic performance: Examining the interrelations. Comput. Human. Behav. 2016, 63, 604-612. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  17. Kearney, M.; Schuck, S.; Burden, K.; Aubusson, P. Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Res. Learn. Technol. 2012, 20. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. O'Bannon, B.W.; Thomas, K. Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom: Age matters! Comput. Educ. 2014, 74, 15-25. [CrossRef] · DOI
  19. Fitch, J.L. Student feedback in the college classroom: A technology solution. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2004, 52, 71-77. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Barak, M.; Lipson, A.; Lerman, S. Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2006, 38, 245-263. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  21. Siegle, D.; Foster, T. Laptop computers and multimedia and presentation software: Their effects on student achievement in anatomy and physiology. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2001, 34, 29-37.
  22. Yang, S.H. Exploring college students' attitudes and self-efficacy of mobile learning. Turk. Online J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 11, 148-154.
  23. Anderson, L.W.; Krathwohl, D.R. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Addison Wesley Longman: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
  24. Ramos, J.L.S.; Dolipas, B.B.; Villamor, B.B. Higher order thinking skills and academic performance in physics of college students: A regression analysis. Int. J. Innov. Interdiscip. Res. 2013, 4, 48-60.
  25. Goodfellow, R.; Lea, M.R. Literacy in the Digital University: Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship, and Technology; Routledge: London, UK, 2013.
  26. Echenique, E.G.; Molías, L.M.; Bullen, M. Students in higher education: Social and academic uses of digital technology. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 2015, 12, 25-37.
  27. Guzmán-Simón, F.; García-Jiménez, E.; López-Cobo, I. Undergraduate students' perspectives on digital competence and academic literacy in a Spanish University. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 74, 196-204.
  28. Margaryan, A.; Littlejohn, A.; Vojt, G. Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 429-440. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Kuh, G.D.; Vesper, N. Do computers enhance or detract from student learning? Res. High. Educ. 2001, 42, 87-102. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Lee, J.; Choi, H. What affects learner's higher-order thinking in technology-enhanced learning environments? The effects of learner factors. Comput. Educ. 2017, 115, 143-152.
  31. Barak, M.; Dori, Y.J. Enhancing higher order thinking skills among inservice science teachers via embedded assessment. J. Sci. Teacher Educ. 2009, 20, 459-474. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Barak, M.; Levenberg, A. Flexible thinking in learning: An individual differences measure for learning in technology-enhanced environments. Comput. Educ. 2016, 99, 39-52. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Marra, R.; Palmer, B. Encouraging intellectual growth: Senior college student profiles. J. Adult Dev. 2004, 11, 111-122.
  34. Pike, G.R. Using college students' self-reported learning outcomes in scholarly research. New. Direct. Inst. Res. 2011, 41-58. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Coates, H. Student Engagement in Campus-Based and Online Education: University Connections; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  36. Cheng, M.T.; Lin, Y.W.; She, H.C. Learning through playing Virtual Age: Exploring the interactions among student concept learning, gaming performance, in-game behaviors, and the use of in-game characters. Comput. Educ. 2015, 86, 18-20.
  37. Fonseca, D.; Martí, N.; Redondo, E.; Navarro, I.; Sánchez, A. Relationship between student profile, tool use, participation, and academic performance with the use of augmented reality technology for visualized architecture models. Comput. Human. Behav. 2014, 31, 434-445.
  38. Crawford, C.M.; Smith, M.S. Rethinking Bloom's taxonomy: Implicit cognitive vulnerability as an impetus towards higher order thinking skills. In Exploring Implicit Cognition: Learning, Memory, and Social Cognitive Processes; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 86-103. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Tendhar, C.; Culver, S.M.; Burge, P.L. Validating the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) at a research-intensive university. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 2013, 1, 182-193.
  40. Fensham, P.J.; Bellocchi, A. Higher order thinking in chemistry curriculum and its assessment. Think. Ski. Creat. 2013. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Zohar, A.; Dori, Y.J. Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: Are they mutually exclusive? J. Learn. Sci. 2003, 12, 145-181. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Atkinson, R.C.; Geiser, S. Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Edu. Res. 2009, 38, 665-676.
  43. Song, Y. "Bring Your Own Device (BYOD)" for seamless science inquiry in a primary school. Comput. Educ. 2014, 74, 50-60.
  44. Trimmel, M.; Bachmann, J. Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in laptop classrooms. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2004, 20, 151-158.
  45. Ranieri, M.; Raffaghelli, J.E.; Bruni, I. Game-based student response system: Revisiting its potentials and criticalities in large-size classes. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2018. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  46. Drain, T.S.; Grier, L.E.; Sun, W. Is the growing use of electronic devices beneficial to academic performance? Results from archival data and a survey. Issues Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 225-231.
  47. Carr, R.; Palmer, S.; Hagel, P. Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 173-186. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Krause, K.-L.; Coates, H. Students' engagement in first-year university. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2008, 33, 493-505. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  49. Kuh, G.D. How to help students achieve. Chron. High. Educ. 2007, 53, 12-13.
  50. Rau, W.; Durand, A. The academic ethic and college grades: Does hard work help students to "make the grade"? Sociol. Educ. 2000, 73, 19-38. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Schuman, H.; Walsh, E.; Olson, C.; Etheridge, B. Effort and reward: The assumption that college grades are affected by quantity of study. Soc. Forces 1985, 63, 945-966. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Kuh, G.D. What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2009, 50, 683-706. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Richter, D.; Lehrl, S.; Weinert, S. Enjoyment of learning and learning effort in primary school: The significance of child individual characteristics and stimulation at home and at preschool. Early Child Dev. Care 2016, 186, 96-116. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Franklin, M. The effects of differential college environments on academic learning and student perceptions of cognitive development. Res. High. Educ. 1995, 36, 127-153. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Hoshower, L.; Chen, Y. Persuading students of their responsibilities in the learning process. Coll. Teach. Learn. 2005, 2, 7-16. [CrossRef] · DOI
  56. Rodgers, T. Student engagement in the e-learning process and the impact on their grades. Int. J. Cyber Soc. Educ. 2008, 1, 143-156.
  57. Plant, E.A.; Ericsson, K.A.; Hill, L.; Asberg, K. Why study time does not predict grade point average across college students: Implications of deliberate practice for academic performance. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2005, 30, 96-116. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  58. Heiphetz, A. How Mobile Technology can Enhance Student Learning and Workforce Training; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  59. Kennedy, G.E.; Judd, T.S.; Churchward, A.; Gray, K.; Krause, K.L. First year students' experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 2008, 24, 108-122. [CrossRef] · DOI
  60. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. Methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295-336.
  61. Hair, J.F.J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.
  62. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In Advances in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 277-320.
  63. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39-50. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  64. Tenenhaus, M.; Vinzi, V.E.; Chatelin, Y.M.; Lauro, C. PLS path modeling. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2005, 48, 159-205. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  65. Nitzl, C.; Roldan, J.L.; Cepeda, G. Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modelling, Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 1849-1864. [CrossRef] · DOI
  66. Scornavacca, E.; Huff, S.; Marshall, S. Mobile phones in the classroom: If you can't beat them, join them. Commun. ACM 2009, 52, 142-146. [CrossRef] · DOI
  67. Chan, S.C.H.; Wan, J.C.L.; Ko, S. Interactivity, active collaborative learning, and learning performance: The moderating role of perceived fun by using personal response systems. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2019, 17, 94-102. [CrossRef] · DOI
  68. Biggs, J.B. Approaches to the enhancement of tertiary teaching. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 1989, 8, 7-26. [CrossRef] · DOI
  69. Kobus, M.B.W.; Rietveld, P.; Van Ommeren, J.N. Ownership versus on-campus use of mobile IT devices by university students. Comput. Educ. 2013, 68, 29-41. [CrossRef] · DOI
  70. Sharples, M.; Scanlon, E.; Ainsworth, S.; Anastopoulou, S.; Collins, T.; Crook, C.; Jones, A.; Kerawalla, L.; Littleton, K.; Mulholland, P.; et al. Personal inquiry: Orchestrating science investigations within and beyond the classroom. J. Learn. Sci. 2015, 24, 308-341. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, H. J., Yi, P., & Hong, J. I.
Affiliations
  • Chung-Ang University (KR)
  • Hongik University (KR)
Corresponding author
Yi, Pilnam
ORCID
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-02-25
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
47
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/educsci10030047
OpenAlex
W3006736586
Cited by
78
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
10.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A3A2066878)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology in Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
mobile technology, higher-order thinking skills, active engagement, learning effort, university students, technology-enhanced learning, higher education

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