Exploring the effects of web-mediated activity-based learning and meaningful learning on improving students’ learning effects, learning engagement, and academic motivation

  • Meng-Chuan Tsai
  • Pei-Di Shen
  • Wen-Yu Chen
  • Lynne Cheng Hsu
  • Chia-Wen TsaiEmail author
Long Paper


The application and development of educational technologies has influenced current education practices. However, there are few studies discussing how to apply these technologies and devices with appropriate teaching methods to help students achieve satisfactory learning goals, especially for computing classes. Thus, the researchers reconsidered the course design of a computing course with practical teaching methods, activity-based learning (ABL) and meaningful learning (ML), in an online learning environment. The researchers investigated, via quasi-experiments, the effects of web-mediated ABL and ML on developing students’ learning effects, learning engagement, and academic motivation in this online computing course. A 2 (ABL vs. non-ABL) × 2 (ML vs. non-ML) design, as well as factorial pretest/posttest design, was employed in this experimental research. The selected course for experiment was titled “Applied Information Technology: Office Software,” one semester in length and a required course for the four involved classes of students at a comprehensive university. All students in this study came from non-computer departments. According to the results of this study, students who received web-mediated ML had a significant increase in their learning engagement. However, the expected effects of ABL on developing students’ skills in using PowerPoint and Word, learning engagement, and academic motivation were not found in this study. Possible explanations for this nonsignificant outcome are included in the paper. The researchers’ design of an online course integrating ABL and ML may be used by teachers and schools when conducting online, flipped, or blended courses for their students, particularly for those courses focused on developing students’ skills in using PowerPoint and Word.


Web-mediated activity-based learning Web-mediated meaningful learning Online education Skills in using PowerPoint and Word Learning engagement Academic motivation 



Funding was provided by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant No. MOST 106-2511-S-130-007).


  1. 1.
    Al-Azawei, A., Parslow, P., Lundqvist, K.: Barriers and opportunities of e-learning implementation in Iraq: a case of public universities. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 17(5), 126–146 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Althouse, N.R., Hedges, P.L.: Plan before you play: an activity for teaching the managerial process. Decis. Sci. J. Innov. Educ. 13(4), 515–528 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Angolia, M.G., Pagliari, L.R.: Point-and-click pedagogy: is it effective for teaching information technology? J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 15, 457–478 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhagat, K.K., Wu, L.Y., Chang, C.Y.: Development and validation of the perception of students towards online learning (POSTOL). Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(1), 350–359 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biazak, J.E., Marley, S.C., Levin, J.R.: Does an activity-based learning strategy improve preschool children’s memory for narrative passages? Early Child. Res. Q. 25(4), 515–526 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bijsterbosch, E., van der Schee, J., Kuiper, W.: Meaningful learning and summative assessment in geography education: an analysis in secondary education in the Netherlands. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 26(1), 17–35 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brewer, R., Movahedazarhouligh, S.: Successful stories and conflicts: a literature review on the effectiveness of flipped learning in higher education. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 36, 409–416 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broza, O., Kolikant, Y.B.D.: Contingent teaching to low-achieving students in mathematics: challenges and potential for scaffolding meaningful learning. ZDM 47(7), 1093–1105 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cadorin, L., Bagnasco, A., Tolotti, A., Pagnucci, N., Sasso, L.: Instruments for measuring meaningful learning in healthcare students: a systematic psychometric review. J. Adv. Nurs. 72(9), 1972–1990 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Çakiroğlu, Ü., Kokoç, M., Kol, E., Turan, E.: Exploring teaching programming online through web conferencing system: the lens of activity theory. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(4), 126–139 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chai, C.S., Koh, J.H.L., Tsai, C.C., Tan, L.L.W.: Modeling primary school pre-service teachers’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) for meaningful learning with information and communication technology (ICT). Comput. Educ. 57, 1184–1193 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chai, C.S., Wong, L.H., King, R.B.: Surveying and modeling students’ motivation and learning strategies for mobile-assisted seamless Chinese language learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(3), 170–180 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chien, C.F., Chen, G.Y.H., Liao, C.J.: Designing a connectivist flipped classroom platform using unified modeling language. Int. J. Online Pedag. Course Des. 9(1), 1–18 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiu, C.J., Tasi, W.C., Yang, W.L., Guo, J.L.: How to help older adults learn new technology? Results from a multiple case research interviewing the internet technology instructors at the senior learning center. Comput. Educ. 129, 61–70 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chyr, W.L., Shen, P.D., Chiang, Y.C., Lin, J.B., Tsai, C.W.: Exploring the effects of online academic help-seeking and flipped learning on improving students’ learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 20(3), 11–23 (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dalwadi, Y., Shah, K.: Students’ preference for activity based learning in accountancy subject: a study of Anand district. Indian J. Account. 50(1), 131–140 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    David, J.L.: Realizing the promise of technology: a policy perspective. In: Means, B. (ed.) Technology and Education Reform, pp. 169–189. Jossey-Bass (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., Evans, M.E.: Engagement states and learning from educational games. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2013(139), 21–30 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Decker, J., Beltran, V.: Graduate students’ perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of online discussion tools. Int. J. Online Pedag. Course Des. 6(1), 1–12 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duncan, T.G., McKeachie, W.J.: The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. 40, 117–128 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Edraki, M., Parvizi, N., Montaseri, S., Pourahmad, S.: The relationship between academic motivation and general health and the effective factors on this relationship in female high school students. Int. J. Sch. Health 4(1), e39712 (2017). Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eid, M.I., Al-Jabri, I.M.: Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: the case of university students. Comput. Educ. 99, 14–27 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Endres, T., Renkl, A.: Mechanisms behind the testing effect: an empirical investigation of retrieval practice in meaningful learning. Front. Psychol. 6, 1054 (2015). Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eremicheva, O.Y., Yudin, V.V., Sheptukhina, I.I., Zyryanova, N.I., Shevchenko, V.Y., Komarova, Y.G., Simonova, M.V.: Research of academic motivation at the stage of forming a threshold level of mastering competences. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 11(14), 6949–6962 (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T.: Teacher technology change: how knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 42(3), 255–284 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fallon, E., Walsh, S., Prendergast, T.: An activity-based approach to the learning and teaching of research methods: Measuring student engagement and learning. Ir. J. Acad. Pract. (2013). Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Falloon, G.: An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. On the iPad. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 32(6), 576–593 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fan, K.K., Xiao, P.W.: The effects of learning styles and meaningful learning on the learning achievement of gamification health education curriculum. Eurasia J. Math., Sci. Technol. Educ. 11(5), 1211–1229 (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fan, K.K., Su, C.H., Deng, S.Y., Wang, W.J.: An achievement prediction model of meaningful learning, motivation, and cognitive on SPANI: partial least square analysis. Math. Probl. Eng. 2013 (2013).
  30. 30.
    Ferguson, R.: Meaningful learning and creativity in virtual worlds. Think. Skills Creat. 6(3), 169–178 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Firouznia, S., Yousefi, A., Ghassemi, G.: The relationship between academic motivation and academic achievement in medical students of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iran. J. Med. Educ. 9(1), 79–84 (2009)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Flinkman, M., Salanterä, S.: Early career experiences and perceptions—a qualitative exploration of the turnover of young registered nurses and intention to leave the nursing profession in Finland. J. Nurs. Manag. 23(8), 1050–1057 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fredricks, J.A.: Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: a multidimensional view of engagement. Theory Pract. 50(4), 327–335 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., Paris, A.H.: School engagement: potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Rev. Educ. Res. 74(1), 59–109 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gadelshina, G., Vemury, C., Attar, A.: Meaningful learning and the integration of responsible management education in the business school courses. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Stud. 2(1), 24–33 (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ganyaupfu, E.M.: Teaching methods and students’ academic performance. Int. J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Invent. 2(9), 29–35 (2013)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    García-Peñalvo, F.J., Mendes, A.J.: Exploring the computational thinking effects in pre-university education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 80, 407–411 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    García-Peñalvo, F.J., Reimann, D., Maday, C.: Introducing coding and computational thinking in the schools: the TACCLE 3–coding project experience. In: Khine, M.S. (ed.) Computational Thinking in the STEM Disciplines, pp. 213–226. Springer, Cham (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Geçer, A., Dag, F.: A blended learning experience. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 12(1), 438–442 (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Grabe, M., Grabe, C.: Integrating Technology for Meaningful Learning, 5th edn. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Boston (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Green, F., Felstead, A., Gallie, D., Henseke, G.: Skills and work organisation in Britain: a quarter century of change. J. Labour Mark. Res. 49(2), 121–132 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gros, B., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: Future trends in the design strategies and technological affordances of e-learning. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B.B., Childress, M.D. (eds.) Learning, Design, and Technology. An International Compendium of Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, pp. 1–23. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Häggman-Laitila, A., Mattila, L.R., Melender, H.L.: Educational interventions on evidence-based nursing in clinical practice: a systematic review with qualitative analysis. Nurse Educ. Today 43, 50–59 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hakkarainen, P., Vapalahti, K.: Meaningful learning through video-supported forum-theater. Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 23(3), 314–328 (2011)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hall, D.C., Kellar, G.M., Weinstein, L.B.: The impact of an activity-based learning environment and grade point average on student final course grade in an undergraduate business statistics class. Acad. Educ. Leadersh. J. 20(1), 50–64 (2016)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Halpern, R.: Active learning works! Until it doesn’t: measuring the effectiveness of activity-based learning exercises on information anxiety. J. Libr. Inf. Serv. Distance Learn. 10(3–4), 242–253 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Halverson, L.R.: Conceptualizing Blended Learning Engagement. (2016). Accessed 22 Nov 2016
  48. 48.
    Hein, G.: Constructivist Learning Theory. (1991). Accessed 22 Nov 2016
  49. 49.
    Hines, S., Ramsbotham, J., Coyer, F.: The effectiveness of interventions for improving the research literacy of nurses: a systematic review. Worldviews Evid. Based Nurs. 12(5), 265–272 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hood, N., Littlejohn, A.: MOOC quality: the need for new measures. J. Learn. Dev. 3(3), 28–42 (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Houlden, S., Veletsianos, G.: A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50(3), 1005–1018 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Howland, J.L., Jonassen, D., Marra, R.M.: Meaningful Learning with Technology. Pearson, Upper Saddle River (2012)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hrin, T., Milenković, D., Segedinac, M.: The effect of systemic synthesis questions [SSynQs] on students’ performance and meaningful learning in secondary organic chemistry teaching. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 14(5), 805–824 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hsu, Y.L.: Engaging students’ learning process in business management: a case study of activity-based teaching in hospitality marketing class. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 5(25), 10271–10275 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Huang, F., Teo, T., Sánchez-Prieto, J.C., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Olmos-Migueláñez, S.: Cultural values and technology adoption: a model comparison with university teachers from China and Spain. Comput. Educ. 133, 69–81 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Huang, Y.M., Chiu, P.S.: The effectiveness of a meaningful learning-based evaluation model for context-aware mobile learning. Br. J. Edu. Technol. 46(2), 437–447 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Huang, Y.M., Chiu, P.S.: The effectiveness of the meaningful learning-based evaluation for different achieving students in a ubiquitous learning context. Comput. Educ. 87, 243–253 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Huang, Y.M., Chiu, P.S., Liu, T.C., Chen, T.S.: The design and implementation of a meaningful learning-based evaluation method for ubiquitous learning. Comput. Educ. 57(4), 2291–2302 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ivanov, S., Peneva, J.: Distance learning courses in computer science: initiation and design. In: Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, p. 77. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Supporting communities of learners with technology: a vision for integrating technology with learning in schools. Educ. Technol. 35(4), 60–63 (1995)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jonassen, D.H.: Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2000)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Karppinen, P.: Meaningful learning with digital and online videos: theoretical perspectives. Assoc. Adv. Comput. Educ. J. 13(3), 233–250 (2005)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Karuna, G., Vinita, D.: Developing reflection through activity based learning. Int. J. Educ. Res. Technol. 5(2), 9–11 (2014)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ke, F., Xie, K., Xie, Y.: Game-based learning engagement: a theory-and data-driven exploration. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47(6), 1183–1201 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Keengwe, J., Onchwari, G., Wachira, P.: The use of computer tools to support meaningful learning. Assoc. Adv. Comput. Educ. J. 16(1), 77–92 (2008)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kember, D., Charlesworth, M., Davies, H., McKay, J., Stott, V.: Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: using the study process questionnaire to show that meaningful learning occurs. Stud. Educ. Eval. 23(2), 141–157 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Keskitalo, T.: Designing a Pedagogical Model for Simulation-Based Healthcare Education, vol. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 299. Lapland University Press, Rovaniemi (2015)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Koh, J.H.L.: A rubric for assessing teachers’ lesson activities with respect to TPACK for meaningful learning with ICT. Australas. J. Educ. Technol. 29(6), 887–900 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kostiainen, E., Ukskoski, T., Ruohotie-Lyhty, M., Kauppinen, M., Kainulainen, J., Mäkinen, T.: Meaningful learning in teacher education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 71, 66–77 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Lai, C.L., Hwang, G.J.: A self-regulated flipped classroom approach to improving students’ learning performance in a mathematics courses. Comput. Educ. 100, 126–140 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Largo, F.L., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Prieto, X.M., Vidal, E.V.: The teaching of computer science, programming and computational thinking in pre-university studies. Educ. Knowl. Soc. 18(2), 8–17 (2017)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lee, C.Y., Chen, M.J.: Developing a questionnaire on technology-integrated mathematics instruction: a case study of the AMA training course in Xinjiang and Taiwan. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 47(6), 1287–1303 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lee, Y., Choi, J.: A review of online course dropout research: implications for practice and future research. Educ Technol. Res. Dev. 59(5), 593–618 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Levine, M.F., Guy, P.W.: Activity based learning in a freshman global business course: analyses of preferences and demographic differences. J. Coll. Teach. Learn. 4(8), 27–38 (2007)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Li, Y., Guo, F., Yao, M., Wang, C., Yan, W.: The role of subjective task value in service-learning engagement among Chinese college students. Front. Psychol. (2016). Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Linn, M.C.: The impact of technology on science instruction: historical trends and current opportunities. Int. Handb. Sci. Educ. 1, 265–294 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Löfström, E., Nevgi, A.: From strategic planning to meaningful learning: diverse perspectives on the development of web-based teaching and learning in higher education. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 38(2), 312–324 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Macdonald, J., Twining, P.: Assessing activity-based learning for a networked course. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 33(5), 603–618 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Margaryan, A., Collis, B., Cooke, A.: Activity-based blended learning. Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 7(2), 265–274 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mariotti, M.A.: Artifacts and signs after a Vygotskian perspective: the role of the teacher. ZDM 41(4), 427–440 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M.C., Bosker, R.: Teachers’ instructional behaviors as important predictors of academic motivation: changes and links across the school year. Learn. Individ. Differ. 50, 147–156 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mayer, R.E.: Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? Am. Psychol. 59(1), 14–19 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    McGrath, J.R., MacEwan, G.: Linking pedagogical practices of activity-based teaching. Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci. 6(3), 261–274 (2011)Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    McLachlan, C.A., Craig, A., Coldwell-Neilson, J.: Students’ computing use and study: when more is less. Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 20, 1–17 (2016)Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., Hoyle, R.H.: Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. J. Educ. Psychol. 80(4), 514–523 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Mehrabi, T., Behzadi, S., Sabouri, F., Alavi, M.: Assessment the effect of the CBT on motivation of the nursing students. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 21(2), 118–123 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Moreno, R., Mayer, R.E.: Interactive multimodal learning environments special issue on interactive learning environments: contemporary issues and trends. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 309–326 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Murthy, S., Iyer, S., Warriem, J.: ET4ET: a large-scale faculty professional development program on effective integration of educational technology. Educ. Technol. Soc. 18(3), 16–28 (2015)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nayak, C.: Impact and challenges of e-learning in digital environment. Asian J. Library Inf. Sci. 5(3–4), 76–80 (2013)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Novak, J.D.: Meaningful learning: the essential factor for conceptual change in limited or inappropriate propositional hierarchies leading to empowerment of learners. Sci. Educ. 86(4), 548–571 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    OECD: Higher Education in Regional and City Development: The Autonomous Region of Catalonia, Spain. (2010). Accessed 22 Nov 2016
  92. 92.
    Ozerbas, M.A., Erdogan, B.H.: The effect of the digital classroom on academic success and online technologies self-efficacy. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 19(4), 203–212 (2016)Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Pea, R.D.: The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. J. Learn. Sci. 13(3), 423–451 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Perlman, C., Weston, C., Gisel, E.: Enabling meaningful learning through Web-based instruction with occupational therapy students. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 58(2), 191–210 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Petkar, P.M., Kumar, N.V., Fattepur, G.: Augmentation of learning through the use of simulation tools and techniques in under-graduate metal forming course. J. Eng. Educ. Transf. (2016). Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Pintrich, P.R., Smith, D.A.F., Garcia, T., McKeachie, W.J.: Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Measur. 53, 801–803 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Poikela, P., Ruokamo, H., Teräs, M.: Comparison of meaningful learning characteristics in simulated nursing practice after traditional versus computer-based simulation method: a qualitative videography study. Nurse Educ. Today 35(2), 373–382 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., Veen, W.: Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Comput. Educ. 81, 235–246 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Raven, J., Qalawee, M., Atroshi, H.: Learning computer hardware by doing: are tablets better than desktops? Int. J. Res. Educ. Sci. 2(1), 55–64 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rendas, A.B., Fonseca, M., Pinto, P.R.: Toward meaningful learning in undergraduate medical education using concept maps in a PBL pathophysiology course. Adv. Physiol. Educ. 30(1), 23–29 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rick, S., Weber, R.A.: Meaningful learning and transfer of learning in games played repeatedly without feedback. Games Econ. Behav. 68(2), 716–730 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    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. Hum. Behav. 95, 158–167 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Sánchez-Prieto, J.C., Migueláñez, S.O., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: Enjoyment, resistance to change and mlearning acceptance among pre-service teachers. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, pp. 691–697. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Sandholtz, J.H., Ringstaff, C., Dwyer, D.C.: Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms. Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1234 Amsterdam Ave., New York (1997)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Sheingold, K.: Restructuring for learning with technology: the potential for synergy. Phi Delta Kappan 73(1), 17–27 (1991)Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Shen, P.D., Lee, T.H., Tsai, C.W., Ting, C.J.: Exploring the effects of web-enabled problem-based learning and self-regulated learning on vocational students’ involvement in learning. Eur. J. Open Dist. E-Learn. (2008).
  107. 107.
    Shinde, M.S., Tamboli, M.S., Patil, M.V., Raste, M.M.: An activity based approach (ABA): a student-centred teaching and learning in engineering studies. Int. J. Technol. Eng. Educ. 14(1), 13–35 (2017)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Singh, H., Arora, H.: Role of 6 months industrial training in making the career of B. Tech. IT candidates: an empirical study based on survey. In: 2015 2nd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), pp. 1232–1234. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Sithole, A., Mupinga, D.M., Kibirige, J.S., Manyanga, F., Bucklein, B.K.: Expectations, challenges and suggestions for faculty teaching online courses in higher education. Int. J. Online Pedag. Course Des. 9(1), 62–77 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., Kindermann, T.: Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: part of a larger motivational dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol. 100(4), 765 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Somyürek, S.: An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. Int. J. Technol. Des. Educ. 25(1), 25–41 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Srivastava, S.K., Tait, C.: An activity-based learning approach for key Geographical Information Systems (GIS) concepts. J. Geogr. Higher Educ. 36(4), 527–545 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Staikopoulos, A., O’Keeffe, I., Rafter, R., Walsh, E., Yousuf, B., Conlan, O., Wade, V.: AMASE: a framework for supporting personalized activity-based learning on the web. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 11(1), 343–367 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Strayer, J.: How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation. Learn. Environ. Res. 15(2), 171–193 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Teo, T., Noyes, J.: Explaining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: a multi-group analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Interact. Learn. Environ. 22(1), 51–66 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Todd, C.L., Ravi, K., McCray, K.: Cultivating Critical thinking skills in online course environments: instructional techniques and strategies. Int. J. Online Pedag. Course Des. 9(1), 19–37 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Tsai, C.W.: The role of teacher’s initiation in online pedagogy. Education + Training 54(6), 456–471 (2012)Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tsai, C.W.: A quasi-experimental study of a blended course integrated with refined web-mediated pedagogy of collaborative learning and self-regulated learning. Interact. Learn. Environ. 22(6), 737–751 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Tsai, C.W.: Investigating the effects of web-mediated design thinking and co-regulated learning on developing students’ computing skills in a blended course. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 14(2), 295–305 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Tsai, C.W.: Exploring the effects of online team-based learning and co-regulated learning on students’ development of computing skills. Interact. Learn. Environ. 24(4), 665–680 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Tsai, C.W., Shen, P.D., Chiang, I.C.: Investigating the effects of ubiquitous self-organized learning and learners-as-designers to improve students’ learning performance, academic motivation, and engagement in a cloud course. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. (in press). Accessed 26 Sept 2018
  122. 122.
    Tsai, C.W., Shen, P.D., Chiang, Y.C.: Research trends in meaningful learning research on e-learning and online education environments: a review of studies published in SSCI-indexed journals from 2003 to 2012. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 44(6), E179–E184 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Tsai, C.W., Shen, P.D., Tsai, M.C., Chen, W.Y.: Exploring the effects of web-mediated computational thinking on developing students’ computing skills in a ubiquitous learning environment. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25(6), 762–777 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Twining, P.: The computer practice framework: a tool to enhance curriculum development relating to ICT. In: Monteith, M. (ed.) ICT for curriculum enhancement, pp. 41–56. Intellect Books, Bristol (2004)Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Ungerer, L.M.: Digital curation as a core competency in current learning and literacy: a higher education perspective. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 17(5), 1–27 (2016)Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    van Bommel, M., Boshuizen, H.P.A., Kwakman, K.: Appreciation of a constructivist curriculum for learning theoretical knowledge by social work students with different kinds and levels of learning motivation. Int. J. Educ. Res. 71, 65–74 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Viberg, O., Bälter, O., Hedin, B., Riese, E., Mavroudi, A.: Faculty pedagogical developers as enablers of technology-enhanced learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 50(5), 2637–2650 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Viola, S.R., Giretti, A., Leo, T.: Detecting differences in “meaningful learning” behaviours and their evolution: a data driven approach. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 5(2), 63–73 (2007)Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Vuojärvi, H., Eriksson, M.: Using mobile tools to support meaningful work-based learning in vocational education. Int. J. Med. Technol. Lifelong Learn. 12(2), 124–139 (2016)Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Wu, H.C., Shen, P.D., Chen, Y.F., Tsai, C.W.: Effects of web-based cognitive apprenticeship and time management on the development of computing skills in cloud classroom: a quasi-experimental approach. Int. J. Inf. Commun. Technol. Educ. 12(3), 1–12 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Xu, Z., Jang, E.E.: The role of math self-efficacy in the structural model of extracurricular technology-related activities and junior elementary school students’ mathematics ability. Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 547–555 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Zylka, J., Christoph, G., Kroehne, U., Hartig, J., Goldhammer, F.: Moving beyond cognitive elements of ICT literacy: first evidence on the structure of ICT engagement. Comput. Hum. Behav. 53, 149–160 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sport and Health ManagementDa-Yeh UniversityDacun, ChanghuaTaiwan, ROC
  2. 2.Institute of General EducationMing Chuan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC
  3. 3.Department of Leisure ManagementNational Pingtung UniversityPingtung CityTaiwan, ROC
  4. 4.Department of Information ManagementMing Chuan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, ROC

Personalised recommendations