• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Assessing Mobile Learning effectiveness and acceptance.
【24h】

Assessing Mobile Learning effectiveness and acceptance.

机译：评估移动学习的有效性和接受度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The purpose of this study was to assess Mobile Learning (M-Learning) effectiveness vis-a-vis Face-to-Face Learning and to determine the extent to which students used and accepted the M-Learning education delivery methodology. Two research models were employed: (1) a Performance Model, and (2) the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model (UTAUT). 1;These models were used two answer two research questions: (1) Is the M-Learning Mode of Delivery (MOD) more or less effective than FTF? (2) What are the factors that influence the acceptance and use of M-Learning?;Participants in the Control group (Face-to-Face) outperformed Treatment group participants (M-Learning) on both of two quizzes administered during the study. Face-to-Face participants performed significantly better (9%) in average performance than M-Learning participants on the first quiz ( p=.000; Adjusted R2=.106). Similarly, Face-to-Face participants significantly outperformed M-Learning Mode of Delivery participants by 7% (p=.010; Adjusted R2=.052) on the second quiz. The average increase in performance across both quizzes was 8%.;Other than mode of delivery (Face-to-Face or M-Learning), the factors that influenced the acceptance and use of M-Learning were not determined; UTAUT, adapted specifically to measure M-Learning acceptance and use, did not provide as much insight into the M-Learning environment as it had when applied to other technology contexts.;1Viswanath Venkatesh, et al., "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View" MIS Quarterly 27, no. 3 (September 2003).
机译：这项研究的目的是评估移动学习（M-Learning）相对于面对面学习的有效性，并确定学生使用和接受M-Learning教育交付方法的程度。采用了两个研究模型：（1）绩效模型，和（2）技术模型接受与使用的统一理论（UTAUT）。 1；这些模型被用来回答两个研究问题：（1）M学习交付模式（MOD）比FTF或多或少有效吗？ （2）影响M-Learning接受和使用的因素有哪些？在研究过程中进行的两个测验中，对照组（面对面）的参与者的表现均优于治疗组参与者（M-Learning）。面对面的参与者在第一次测验中的平均表现明显好于M学习参与者（9％）（p = .000；调整后的R2 = .106）。同样，面对面的参与者在第二项测验中的表现明显优于交付学习参与者的M-学习模式7％（p = .010；调整后的R2 = .052）。两次测验的平均成绩提高了8％。；除了分娩方式（面对面或M-Learning）以外，尚未确定影响M-Learning接受和使用的因素； UTAUT专为衡量M-Learning的接受和使用而进行了调整，没有像应用于其他技术环境那样提供对M-Learning环境的深入了解。1ViswanathVenkatesh等人，“信息技术的用户接受度：迈向统一视图” MIS季刊27号。 3（2003年9月）。

著录项

  • 作者

    Williams, Paul W.;

  • 作者单位

    The George Washington University.;

  • 授予单位 The George Washington University.;
  • 学科 Education Technology of.;Information Science.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2009
  • 页码 309 p.
  • 总页数 309
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 信息与知识传播;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:38:28

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号