Abstract
This chapter focuses on the design of iPAC survey instruments developed during two of our major m-learning research projects. The first instrument focuses on the evaluation of teachers’ general (or typical) mobile pedagogical approaches reported as being used over the past year, while the second instrument facilitates the evaluation of approaches adopted in one specific m-learning task. Both instruments have teacher and student versions. Their validity was further improved in a recent study described later in the chapter. Implications for teacher education are examined, and validated scales are presented.
This chapter is an adaptation of the following published article: Kearney, M., Burke, P., & Schuck, S. (2019). The iPAC scale: A survey to measure distinctive mobile pedagogies. TechTrends, 63(6), 751–764. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) license.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Basoglu, E. B., & Akdemir, O. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 1–7. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ898010.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993).Alternative ways of assessing model fit.Sage Focus Editions.
Burden, K., & Kearney, M. (2018). Designing an educator toolkit for the mobile learning age. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 10(2), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.2018040108.
Campbell, A., & Groundwater-Smith, S. (Eds.). (2007). An ethical approach to practitioner research: Dealing with issues and dilemmas in action research. Routledge.
Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). m-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x.
Domingo, M., & Garganté, A. (2016). Exploring the use of educational technology in primary education: Teachers’ perception of mobile technology learning impacts and applications’ use in the classroom. Computers in Human Behavaviour, 56(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.023.
Fornell, C., & Larker, D. (1981). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hung, J.- L., & Zhang, K. (2012). Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: a categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computer Higher Education, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9044-9.
Kearney, M., Burden, K., & Rai, T. (2015). Investigating teachers’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. Computers & Education, 80, 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.009.
Kearney, M., Burke, P., & Schuck, S. (2019). The iPAC scale: A survey to measure distinctive mobile pedagogies. TechTrends, 63(6), 751–764.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Alt-J-Research in Learning Technology, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406.
Knezek, G., & Khaddage, F. (2012). Bridging formal and informal learning: A mobile learning attitude scale for higher education. British Journal of Social Sciences, 1(2), 101–116.
Lai, C., Hwang, G., Liang, J., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Differences between mobile learning environmental preferences of high school teachers and students in Taiwan: A structural equation model analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9432-y.
Lin, H.-H., Lin, S., Yeh, C.-H., Wang, Y.-S., & Jansen, J. (2016). Measuring mobile learning readiness: Scale development and validation. Internet Research, 26(1), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-10-2014-0241.
Quinn, C. (2000). mLearning: Mobile, wireless, in-yourpocket learning. LineZine, Fall 2000. Retrieved from http://www.linezine.com/2.1/features/cqmmwiyp.htm.
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/01466216970212006.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Handout for a presentation delivered at the meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
Stockwell, G. (2007). Vocabulary on the move: Investigating an intelligent mobile phone-based vocabulary tutor. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20, 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701745817.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291170.
Uzunboylu, H., & Ozdamli, F. (2011). Teacher perception for m-learning: Scale development and teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(6), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00415.x.
Uzunboylu, H., Hursen, C., Ozuturk, G., & Demirok, M. (2015). Determination of Turkish university students’ attitudes for mobile integrated EFL classrooms in North Cyprus and scale development: ELLMTAS. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 22(10), 1283–1296.
Valk, J. H., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational outcomes: An analysis of evidence from Asia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 11(1), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v11i1.794.
Wang, Y.-S. (2007). Development and validation of a mobile computer anxiety scale. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 990–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00687.x.
Wang, M., Shen, R., Novak, D., & Pan, X. (2009). The impact of mobile learning on students’ learning behaviours and performance: Report from a large blended classroom. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 673–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00846.x.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2), 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Final Validated iPAC Scales
Appendix: Final Validated iPAC Scales
(The Authors Provide These Scales in Freely Available Online Surveys for Teachers and Researchers to Use, at the iPAC Website via www.ipacmobilepedagogy.com)
Stem (General version): In the m-learning activities in <cohort><subject> over the past year, my students typically …
Stem (Specific version): When my students in <cohort> used mobile devices to learn in this <subject> activity, they …
Personalisation > Agency |
1. Chose the place to do the activity, e.g. chose to work on the bus, at home, in the playground |
2. Determined the pace at which they did the activity |
3. Decided what they wanted to learn, e.g. chose their own question, problem or project to explore |
Personalisation > Customisation |
4. Were guided by the app(s) based on their past use, e.g. by previous game challenge levels, YouTube recommendations prompted by their previous views |
5. Tailored app(s) settings to their preferences, e.g. customised location on/off, camera/microphone access, time limit settings |
6. Received individualised information through the app(s) about themselves, e.g. information about the number of steps walked, calories eaten, hours slept |
7. Customised feeds and links for their learning needs, e.g. tailored social media or news feeds |
Authenticity > Context |
8. Learned in a place suggested by the topic, e.g. learned about stars under the night sky; pollution at a local stream; History at the site of an ancient battle |
9. Learned in a realistic, virtual space, e.g. use of augmented (AR) or virtual reality (VR) apps, science simulation |
10. Learned at a time suggested by the topic, e.g. night-time observation of stars; weekend analysis of sporting performance |
Authenticity > Task |
11. Worked like an expert, e.g. collected data using GPS like a geographer; measured using an inclinometer app like a scientist; composed music or lyrics to a song like a musician. |
12. Participated in real-world activities that benefit society, e.g. citizen science project that included real-life experts; environmental task on waste |
13. Learned serendipitously in an unplanned way, e.g. during a game, research prompted by an unexpected query |
14. Engaged in activities related to everyday life, e.g. developing a budget |
Collaboration > Conversation |
15. Discussed the work online with their friends/peers, e.g. discussed ideas via email, SMS, Skype, Facebook, etc. |
16. Discussed the work online with people they don’t know, e.g. discussed with a student gamer from another school, tweeted a NASA scientist, asked a question to a Brainpop mathematician |
17. Communicated with others using a variety of text, image or video modes, e.g. by using SMS, Instagram, Skype |
Collaboration > Co-creation |
18. Worked together to create a digital product, e.g. co-created a video, podcast, photo, iBook, document |
19. Shared digital content, e.g. shared a video, podcast, photo, document |
20a (General) Contributed to existing digital content, e.g. tagged a photo, commented on a blog post, played a multi-player game |
20b (Specific) Contributed to existing digital content |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kearney, M., Burden, K., Schuck, S. (2020). iPAC Survey Development: Capturing Mobile Pedagogical Practices. In: Theorising and Implementing Mobile Learning. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8277-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8277-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-8276-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-8277-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)