Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation

By Luvai F. Motiwalla. Comput. Educ., 2007

1,047 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/15354f67d3c44b03cca2c3fb9e46d030dee33a3f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Information Systems

Citations in the corpus

Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning environments (2013, background): “From other eight Hypotheses, the results of this research provide positive supports for previous studies (Bouhnik & Marcus, 2006; Chu & Chu, 2010; Kramarski & Gutman, 2006; Liaw, 2008; Motiwalla, 2007; Torkzadeh et al., 2006).”
Defining Mobile Learning in the Higher Education Landscape (2010, background): “However, Motiwalla (2007) states that although it is inevitable that m-learning will soon become an essential extension of e-learning, this transition will not happen overnight.”
Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning (2009, background): “However, Motiwalla (2007) also suggests that if leveraged properly, mobile technology can complement and add value to the existing learning models, such as the social constructive theory of learning with technology (Brown & Campione, 1996) and conversation theory (Pask, 1975).”
Beyond the Classroom Walls: Edmodo in Saudi Secondary School EFL Instruction, Attitudes and Challenges (2014, background): “In the field of EFL learning, Motiwalla (2007) believes that the use of a well-balanced combination of classroom pedagogies with mobile learning services would support both interactive and collaborative EFL learning and effectively deliver the content.”
Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning (2012, background): “Ongoing advances in digital technology have provided educators with increasingly smaller, affordable and portable digital devices for use as teaching and learning tools in the classroom (Crippen & Brooks, 2000; Liu, 2007; Motiwalla, 2007).”
Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach (2010, background): “As learning has become more individualized, learner-centered, situated, collaborative, and ubiquitous, continuing technology has similarly become more personalized, user-centered, mobile, networked, ubiquitous, and durable (Motiwalla, 2007). From the concept of the activity theory, Engeström analyze”
Cell Phones in the Classroom: Teachers’ Perspectives of Inclusion, Benefits, and Barriers (2013, background): “From a student perspective, one of the best features of cell phones is their ability to support multitasking through accessing course material, conducting research via the Internet, and communicating with peers and teachers during what could otherwise be periods of dead time (Motiwalla, 2007).”
Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media (2013, background): “Mottiwalla (2007) stated that mobile learning " combines individualized learning with anytime and anywhere learning " (p. 2).”
Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Conclusion (2012, neutral): “…for learning—language and otherwise—have started to appear in the literature over the past few years, and have included technologies such as mobile phones (e.g. Motiwalla, 2007; Thornton & Houser, 2002), MP3 players (e.g. McCarty, 2005), and PDAs (e.g., Patten, Sa´nchez & Tangney, 2006).”
Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education (2013, background): “These devices can extend the benefits of e-learning systems (Motiwalla, 2007) by offering university students opportunities to access course materials and ICT, learn in a collaborative environment (Nassuora, 2012), and obtain formative evaluation and feedback from instructors (Crawford, 2007).”