Student satisfaction, learning outcomes, and cognitive loads with a mobile learning platform

References

• Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azar, A. S., & Nasiri, H. (2014). Learners' attitudes toward the effectiveness of mobile assisted language learning (MALL) in L2 listening comprehension. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1836–1843.
   Google Scholar
• Ahmed, S., & Parsons, D. (2013). Abductive science inquiry using mobile devices in the classroom. Computers & Education, 63, 62e72. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.11.017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burston, J., & Arispe, K. (2018). Looking for a needle in a haystack: Computer assisted language learning and advanced language proficiency. Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, 35(1), 77–102.
   Google Scholar
• Churchill, D., Kennedy, D., Flint, D., & Cotton, N. (2010). Using handhelds to support students outdoor educational activities. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 20(1), 54–71.
   Google Scholar
• De Pablos, P. O., Tennyson, R. D., & Lytras, M. D. (2015). Assessing the role of mobile technologies and distance learning in higher education. Pennsylvania: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Enriquez, A. G. (2010). Enhancing student performance using tablet computers. College Teaching, 58(3), 77–84.
   Google Scholar
• Erkollar, A., & Oberer, B. J. (2012). Anytime. Everywhere. Mobile learning in higher education: Creating a GIS course. In Computer applications for database, education, and ubiquitous computing (pp. 31–37). Heidelberg: Springer Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, C. (2008). The effectiveness of m-learning in the form of pod cast revision lectures in higher education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelan, A., Fastré, G., Verjans, M., Martin, N., Janssenswillen, G., & Creemers, M., et al. (2018). Affordances and limitations of learning analytics for computer-assisted language learning: A case study of the vital project. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 3, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glackin, B. C., Rodenhiser, R. W., & Herzog, B. (2014). A library and the disciplines: A collaborative project assessing the impact of ebooks and mobile devices on student learning. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40, 299–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, X., Gu, F., & Laffey, J. M. (2011). Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 204–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASATLX task load index: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock, & N. Mesh Kati (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–178). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. (2014). Applications, impacts and trends of mobile technology-enhanced learning: A review of 2008-2012 publications in selected SSCI journals. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 8(2), 83e95. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2014.062346.
   Google Scholar
• Jaradat, R. M. (2014). Students' attitudes and perceptions towards using m-learning for French language learning: A case study on Princess Nora University. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 2(1), 33–44.
   Google Scholar
• Jeno, L. M., Grytnes, J. A., & Vandvik, V. (2017). The effect of a mobile-application tool on biology students’ motivation and achievement in species identification: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. Computers & Education, 107, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaleebu, N., Gee, A., Maybanks, N., Jones, R., Jauk, M., & Watson, A. H. (2013). SMS story: Early results of an innovative education trial. Contemporary Png Studies, 19, 50–62.
   Google Scholar
• Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Tapan, R. (2015). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80(1), 48–57.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, C.H., Yang, J. C., Chen, F. C., Ho, C. W., & Chan, T. W. (2007). Affordances of mobile technologies for experiential learning: The interplay of technology and pedagogical practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 326–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, F., Zhang, K., Li, P., & Sun, G. (2016). Computer English teaching based on WeChat. International conference of young computer scientists, engineers and educators (pp.10–20). Springer, Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, M. (2015). The role of qualitative approaches to research in computer assisted language learning contexts: Closing in on the learner’s experience. Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium, 32(3), 554–568.
   Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. T., & Lin, Y. C. (2016). Effects of mental process integrated nursing training using mobile device on students’ cognitive load, learning attitudes, acceptance, and achievements. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1213–1221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C. C., Wang, P. C., & Tai, S. J. D. (2016). An analysis of student engagement patterns in language learning facilitated by web 2.0 technologies. ReCALL, 28(2), 104–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, P. L. (2016). Mobile English vocabulary learning based on concept-mapping strategy. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 128–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, N., Cooper, M., & Sweller, J. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 49–63. DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostafa, A. E., Hatem, M. E., & Khaled, S. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford, R. (2001). Language learning styles and strategies. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
   Google Scholar
• Park, M. (2018). Innovative assessment of aviation English in a virtual world: Windows into cognitive and metacognitive strategies. ReCall, 30, 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarrab, M., Elbasir, M., & Alnaeli, S. (2016). Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile learning services: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(PA), 100–112.
   Google Scholar
• Satar, H. M., & Akcan, S. (2018). Pre-service EFL teachers’ online participation, interaction, and social presence. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 157–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segall, N., Doolen, T. L., & Porter, J. D. (2005). A usability comparison of PDA-based quizzes and paper-and-pencil quizzes. Computers & Education, 45(4), 417–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadiev, R., Hwang, W. Y., & Huang, Y. M. (2017). Review of research on mobile language learning in authentic environments. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30, 284–303.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, Y., & Fox, R. (2008). Using PDA for undergraduate student incidental vocabulary testing. ReCALL, 20(3), 290–314.
   Google Scholar
• Stokes, S. P. (2001). Satisfaction of college students with the digital learning environment—Do learners’ temperaments make a difference? The Internet and Higher Education, 4, 31–44.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312. DOI:0959-4752(94)00010-7.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123–128. DOI:10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ting, Y. L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions: An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, E. D. (2005). Enabling mobile learning. Educause Review, 40(3), 40–53.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviors and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (4), 673–695. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiebe, E. N., Roberts, E., & Behrend, T. S. (2010). An examination of two mental workload measurement approaches to understanding multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 474–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, L., Yuan, H. J., & Meng, J. L. (2015). The influence of popularization of smart phones on college classrooms. China adult education, 14:61–63.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, Z., Chen, W., Kong, Y., Sun, X. L., & Zheng, J. (2014). The impact of clickers instruction on cognitive loads and listening and speaking skills in college English class. PLoS One 9(9): e106626. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0106626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu, Z. (2015). Indicators of satisfaction in clickers-aided EFL class. Frontiers in psychology, 6:587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zydney, J. M., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar