Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Acceptability of an asynchronous learning forum on mobile devices
Chih-Kai Chang*
Department of Information and Learning Technology, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan
(Received October 2007; final version received November 2007)
Mobile learning has recently become noteworthy because mobile devices have become popular. To construct anasynchronous learning forum on mobile devices is important because an asynchronous learning forum is always anessential part of networked asynchronous distance learning. However, the input interface in handheld learningdevices, which is generally handwritten, is not efficient. Hence, most learners do not attempt to use onlineasynchronous learning forums on a handheld learning device. Although the wireless internet learning device (WILD)can recommend proper online learning partners depending on the level of a learner, the mechanism is similar to asynchronous learning forum, such as a chat room. In other words, learners should be online at the same time to chatwith each other. For a learning community with few learners, there is not always a learner online for thesynchronous learning forum. Consequently, the degree of interaction among learners must be decreased without aneasy-to-use, asynchronous learning forum. This study constructs an audio-based asynchronous learning forum on aWILD and is supported by streaming media technology. Furthermore, this study used technology acceptance model(TAM) to measure learners’ degree of subjective satisfaction of an asynchronous learning forum on a WILD. Thepreliminary results show that learners’ acceptance of audio-based input is not significantly higher than handwritteninput on a WILD for the asynchronous discussion. However, learners’ perceived usefulness is higher thanhandwritten input on a WILD. Most important of all, the mechanism of audio-based input can enrich the processesof interaction in a learning environment with WILD activities.
Keywords: learning forums; handheld learning device; audio-based input; technology acceptance model
1. Introduction
For the past decade, computers and the Internet havecreated a whole new style of interaction for distancelearning. The accomplishment of computer assistedlearning (CAL) comes from powerful computingability. Meanwhile, the Internet supports high interac-tion of users in a distance situation through synchro-nous or asynchronous communication tools, forinstance email, groupware, chat rooms, or web-baseddiscussion forums. An absence of interaction withother learners or with an instructor will obviously limitlearning in distance learning situations (Hiltz 1994).Besides serving as a communication channel, onlinecollaborative learning becomes feasible through com-puters and the Internet. Moreover, the popularity ofhandheld computing devices and wireless Internet isincreasing. Meanwhile, mobile devices are now beingintroduced as learning devices and some researches usethem as collaborative tools (Cole and Stanton 2003).Researchers are still exploring the impacts andinnovations that come with them.
According to the survey report in Japan, thepopulation of those using an internet-capable cellular
phone is 71,522,800, which is more than 80% of thepopulation of cellular-phone owners. Moreover, theratio of households with a cellular phone is alwayshigher than households with a personal computer(Telecommunications Carriers Association 2004). Ifthis trend of growth continues, the use of handhelddevices to access the Internet will become the mostpopular method. However, similar surveys also foundthat the purposes of Internet use by personalcomputers (PCs) and mobile devices vary. People usethe Internet to exchange email, download and listen tomusic, and download or exchange pictures on a mobiledevice. However, they generally access the Internet ona PC to search for information on products andservices, gather information on games, news, weather,restaurants, etc., or obtain information from govern-ments. In other words, handheld devices are used todeal with small amounts of information, while PCs arerequired for applications involving a large amount ofinformation.
Although there are many reports of innovativecomputer use in K–12 schools, Soloway, one of thepathfinders in mobile learning, points out some
*Email: [email protected]
Behaviour & Information Technology
Vol. 29, No. 1, January–February 2010, 23–33
ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online
� 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01449290701806337
http://www.informaworld.com
sobering statistics about the availability and use ofcomputers in K–12 schools (Soloway et al. 2001,Norris et al. 2002):
(1) The primary use of computers in K–12 schoolsis for word-processing. In other words, thepotential of computers is not fully playedbecause teachers may not know how to usecomputers to enhance instruction (Smaldinoet al. 2005).
(2) Approximately 42% of teachers report thattheir students use a computer less than 15 minper week. Approximately 65% of teachersreport that their students use the Internet lessthan 15 min per week.
(3) Another nationwide (US) survey shows that70% of the teachers allow their students to usecomputers zero, one, or two times per week.
(4) Most of the teachers often use a computer andhave an internet-accessible computer in theiroffice.
(5) Approximately 60% of teachers have one orfewer computers in their classroom. Approxi-mately 65% of teachers have either no access,seldom (less than once a week), or once-a-weekaccess to a computer lab.
The reasons behind those statistics are complex, butone of them is because PCs require a dedicated spaceand maintenance. Furthermore, there simply isn’tenough money for schools moving to a 1:1 computer-to-student ratio by using PCs as learning devices forprimary and secondary education. Although the studyby Lowther et al. (2003) showed significant advantagesfor the laptop group by providing fifth-, sixth-, andseventh-grade students with 24-h access to laptopcomputers, the cost of the pilot classroom is notaffordable by most schools. Consequently, Solowaysuggested using handheld devices as the choice oflearning devices for K–12 students from the cost benefitperspective.
There are some researchers who are interested inusing mobile devices to conveniently capture some-thing for learning. For instance, Sharples et al. (2002)used handheld learning devices ‘to support children tocapture everyday events, such as images, notes andsounds, to relate them to web-based learningresources, to organise these into a visual knowledgemap, and to share them with other learners andteachers’. Another example is that Chen et al. (2003)used a digital camera as photo inputs of birds and apersonal digital assistant (PDA) with a Wi-Fi-based(IEEE 802.11b) wireless network card to scaffoldbird-watching activity. Chang et al. (2003) implemen-ted e-Schoolbag systems on mobile devices as data
collection centre of inputs from notebook, teachingmaterial, weekly report, contact book, exercise, andother classroom activities. Kravcik et al. (2004)developed a mobile learning application, calledMobile Collector, to gather data and write downannotation in the collaborative activity of field trips.However, mobile learning applications using themultimedia function are still rare in educationalliterature. More research efforts are needed to explorethe issues on multimedia learning applications withlearning devices because the multimedia functions onmobile learning devices have gradually improved toan applicable status (Keegan 2005).
Before discussing the development of the asyn-chronous audio-based forum on mobile devices, wepresent a trend summary of future mobile technologyto justify the rationality of our implementation.Anderson and Blackwood (2004) reported that ‘Mo-bile devices are likely to converge into a hybrid ofsmartphone, PDA and media technologies, which canbe termed a PACE (Personal Assistant, Communica-tion and Entertainment) device’. Hence, applicationsof media technologies on mobile devices will be acrucial part. From another point of view, Maurer(2002) suggested that we should prepare the learningstrategy for the learning devices of the next decade.One can anticipate that every student will bring her/hiswireless internet learning devices (WILDs), equippedwith more than 10 GHz processor, 10 GB memory,high-speed Internet accessing, telephone, and globalpositioning system (GPS) functions, into the class-room. Undoubtedly, the learning process from theperspective of student, teacher, activity, and evaluationwill be changed in the extreme situation. Hence,researchers should draft a digital learning environmentin which any information is accessible, within a second,to each learner.
This study tried to find a balance point between thehandheld learning devices suggested by Soloway andthe advanced learning devices suggested by Maurer. Inother words, this study assumes that a handheldlearning device with built-in wireless Internet andmultimedia functions is available to every learner. Thatassumption is coincident with most definitions ofmobile learning, which uses handheld and wirelesslearning devices (Keegan 2002). In that situation, thispaper proposes a method using an audio-based forum,which uses the audio-based input, to replace the text-based forum, which requires the handwritten input.The purpose of the proposed audio-based inputmethod is to promote learners’ usefulness and usabilityof discussion in a mobile learning situation. Hence, itwill enrich the interaction processes in a mobilelearning situation. Based on this purpose, three tasksof this study are described below.
24 C.-K. Chang
2. Promote ease-of-use of an asynchronous
forum in WILDs
Generally, an asynchronous learning forum is text-based, including HTML pages. However, it is not easyto use handheld learning devices to provide input to adiscussion article in an asynchronous learning forum.Without speech recognition technology, current mobilelearning devices depend on on-screen keyboards,handwriting recognition, or a limited set of keys toinput text. People get used to editing a short messageservice (SMS) message by one of those input methods.However, the content of SMS messages mostly belongsto announcements, news, or notifications (Seppala andAlamaki 2003). Although those input methods arewidely accepted, it is difficult to post a text-basedmessage for explaining a concept (that may need, forexample, 1000 characters) to a learning forum. More-over, findings show that asynchronous groups hadbroader discussions and submitted more com-plete reports than their face-to-face counterparts(Benbunan-Fich et al. 2003). Consequently, speechrecognition would be the most natural input method inthe scenario of a mobile learning forum. However, it isalso the most expensive technology in terms ofcomputing power.
Although speech recognition or sound-based nat-ural language processing technology is not feasible, asound-based input method is still feasible in terms of thehardware limitations of current learning devices. Forexample, the multimedia messaging service (MMS),evolved from SMS, on GSM/GPRS or CDMA net-works, can send and receive multimedia messages suchas graphics, video and audio clips, and so on. Thisstudy uses audio-based input to post a discussion article(clip) and uses the streaming technology for listening toa clip to solve the capability problem in the wirelessLAN situation. Hence, it can promote an easy-to-useasynchronous learning forum and motivate learnersto use it in WILDs. In fact, audio-based input is notnew because sound-based media, such as audiotapesand audio CDs, have been a component of distancelearning for decades. This study made efforts totransform the experience of traditional distance learn-ing into useful knowledge in the era of mobile learning.
3. Promote usefulness of an asynchronous forum in
WILDs
One of the common problems in asynchronous learningis lack of interaction. There are many reasons for thisproblem, such as poor curriculum design, limitations oflearning devices, or improper instructional strategy.Many strategies have been proposed to encouragelearners to participate in an asynchronous discussion
(Barker 2001). Those strategies can be classified as notgraded, graded, or indirectly graded. The gradedstrategies are more popular than non-graded andindirectly graded strategies because they can compellearners to participate in discussions. In general,discussion activities need detailed instructional plans;otherwise they may fail to stir many student responses.For example, a good teacher may plan several follow-up questions to prevent the discussion from having longsilences. However, there is no instant notification tolearners when a new message replying to a learner’sresponses is posted to the asynchronous forum. Atleast, learners can acknowledge those interactions atonce through the mobile learning devices.
Another common feature of previous strategies isto reduce the average time interval between responsesto messages; waiting a long time for a response willharm learners’ useful cognition in an asynchronousmobile/distance learning forum. Collaborative learningstrategies can provide an instructional task design toengage learners actively in achieving a lesson objectivethrough their own efforts and the efforts of themembers of their small learning team (Cooper 2003).The features for a collaborative learning strategyinclude heterogeneous grouping, interdependence, in-dividual accountability, and group processing(Warschauer 1997). Empirical evidence shows thatcognitive processes of deep learning occur in promo-tive interaction dialogues of the collaborative learning(Van der Linden and Renshaw 2001). Consequently,this study uses collaborative learning activities tomotivate learners who are using an asynchronouslearning forum in a mobile learning situation.
4. Evaluate learners’ acceptance of audio-based
forum by technology acceptance model
Using handheld devices is a new experience for mostlearners. Whether a learner will use the handhelddevice for learning is partially determined by his/heracceptance of the new technology. Thus, this study firstuses technology acceptance model (TAM) to evaluatelearners’ acceptance of using handwritten input forasynchronous learning forums taking place on learningdevices. Although some researches, for instanceJarvela and Hakkinen (2002) and Hawkes and Dennis(2003), examine the quality of asynchronous web-based discussion, this study is not trying to analyse thediscussion content. Moreover, Woods and Keeler(2001) use audio emails to increase students’ participa-tion in group discussion and result in more favourablestudent perceptions of student/faculty relationshipsand quality of group discussion, a greater sense orfeeling of online community, and a higher degree ofsatisfaction with the overall learning experience.
Behaviour & Information Technology 25
Instead, this study evaluated whether or notlearners could accept the novel input method on amobile learning device for asynchronous discussion.Generally, a learner’s perceptions will influence his/hersoftware use (Morris and Dillon 1997). The objectivewas to help researchers of developing multimedialearning environment in WILDs to understand thereadiness and attitudes of students to the use of audioin asynchronous forum. Then, the audio-based inputwas briefly introduced to learners. After that, learnersused audio-based input to discuss another topic onlearning devices. Finally, TAM was used to evaluatelearners’ acceptance of an audio-based learning forum.The results can show learners’ cognitive changes aboutthe ease-of-use and usefulness of an asynchronouslearning forum in a mobile learning environment.
Table 1 illustrates the relationships between therequirements, reasons for every requirement, andimplementations of the proposed methodology. Audio-based input can satisfy the requirement of promotingthe easy-to-use asynchronous learning forum inWILDs (summarised in the second row). A collabora-tive learning scenario can improve the degree ofusefulness of an asynchronous learning forum (sum-marised in the third row). Finally, this study evaluatesthe system by looking at learners’ acceptance of thelearning technology (summarised in the last row). Someresearch limitations should be addressed here. First,this study did not compare the content differencesbetween spoken and written modalities because therehas been a considerable body of research in linguistics,psychology, and education dealing with that problemfor the past few decades. Second, some experimentalcontrols were not used to prevent external factors,which probably have a much greater effect on experi-mental results, in the usability evaluation of the systembecause several researchers have replicated and demon-strated the validity and reliability of TAM. Moreover,the preliminary evaluation focuses on using the TAMto measure learners’ acceptance of audio-based inputfor forum, rather on figuring out the effects of other
factors in the TAM. Third, learners’ learning perfor-mances were not measured because there are severalexperiments reporting positive effects on learning per-formance of web-based collaborative learning (Hronand Friedrich 2003). Basically, this study replaced text-based input with audio-based input in a web-basedforum for the team game tournament (TGT) colla-borative learning strategy. We assume that learners’learning performances do not change significantly.
5. Audio-based input
Audio-based input has some amenable characteristicsfor human–computer interaction. Auditory interfacesprovide an easier way of communication, but it isunderutilised in most current interfaces (Brewster1998). First, sound can be heard from any directionwithout the need to concentrate on a learning device.Second, audio-based input can be provided directly bythe learner’s voice. Third, audio-based input canprovide greater flexibility and hands-free operation. Itis noteworthy that the definitions of audio-based input,audio-based interaction, and speech input are different.Speech input is based on technology that recognisesnatural language patterns, such as speech recognitionand speech interpretation systems. Unfortunately,speech input is not feasible for WILDs because it onlyoperates on specific domains and requires user training.Audio-based interaction involves speech synthesis andspeech output systems that are not required in our study.
Although some industries and academic and gov-ernment groups can record everything in one’s everydaylife to alleviate some everyday memory problems bysupporting users in accessing forgotten memories, thechallenge of this study is how to use vast repositories ofpersonal recordings for learning (Gemmell et al. 2002;Lin and Hauptmann 2002). Within learning contexts,audio clips have been used to make certain kinds ofcomplex information clearer and simpler. For example,audio is especially useful for learning tasks involvingpresentation, explanation, or analysis (Veronikas andMaushak 2005). It is true that audio-based input maybring some disadvantages, such as the inability tosearch through messages that are in the format of audioclips without written metadata, the problem of back-ground noise, difficulty in reviewing a message unlessthe clip is played again, and so on. While the example inthis study involves accessing a discussion forumthrough a mobile device, the major purpose of audio-based input is to replace handwritten input with ahands-free alternative. This study selects tournamentcases, explained below, to emphasise the usefulness ofaudio-based input. Consequently, significant differencesin both ease-of-use and usefulness between audio-basedinput and handwritten input are assumed.
Table 1. Relationships between requirements and imple-mentations.
Requirements Reasons Implementations
Ease-of-use Handwritten inputis not efficientenough.
Audio-basedinput
Usefulness In scenarios wheremobile learningdevices arenecessary.
Collaborativelearning
Acceptable Usability evaluationafter systemimplementations.
Acceptance oflearningtechnology
26 C.-K. Chang
6. Collaborative learning strategy
To promote the interaction in the asynchronouslearning forum, the TGT collaborative learningstrategy, developed by Slavin (1980), was integratedwith the mobile learning environment. The TGTstrategy was chosen from various collaborative learn-ing strategies because its both collaborative andcompetitive scenarios can pressure learners to supportpartners and respond to competitors as quickly aspossible in an asynchronous learning forum. First, webriefly introduce the TGT, and then give the reasonsfor and methods of integrating it with mobile learning.The three steps for one round for the TGT collabora-tive learning strategy are: (1) divide learners intoheterogeneous groups for collaboration, (2) regrouplearners into teams for the tournament, and (3) returnto their own group for reflection. A learner’s rewardpoints, determined by the tournament, will go to his/her home team (heterogeneous) group, which wasdecided in step one, rather than to his/her tournamentteam. In the next round, learners will be assigned tosuitable tournament groups according to their perfor-mance in the first round. Hence, learners will help eachother in the first step to get points for their own group.The purpose of step two is to let every learner have theopportunity to get points for their own group becausestep two assigns learners to a group of learners withsimilar levels. The last step enables learners to reflecton their behaviour by returning to their own group anddiscussing their performance with collaborativepartners.
The major reason for integrating mobile learningwith TGT is because the method forces learners to paymore attention to the asynchronous learning forum.The tournament activity in TGT was designed so thatparticipants who correctly answer a question in theleast amount of time will get the highest points. Inother words, the scenario of mobile learning uses theasynchronous learning forum after a class as atournament activity. Consequently, learners will oftencheck the learning forum to ascertain whether thecontest question has been posted or not. Althoughlearners are checking the learning forum, they mayinteract with others by answering a question, readingan announcement, or posting a message. The othercollaborative learning strategies, such as Jigsaw II,STAD (Student Teams Achievement Divisions),Learning Together, Group Investigation etc., cannotcause sufficient tension to best facilitate the scenariofor mobile learning. Very often, some questions arenever answered in the discussion activities of a learningforum because they are drowned out by the manyunread messages. Sometimes, a question is notanswered in time to support learners’ requirements.TGT can enable a learner to avoid having too manyunread messages each time he/she logs in to the learnerforum. Furthermore, TGT can shorten the time that ittakes to respond to a question. Hence, interaction willbe promoted because the time interval amongresponses is shortened.
Figure 1 depicts a situation where nine studentsare divided into three heterogeneous groups forTGT collaborative learning. A1, A2, and A3 denote
Figure 1. Refinement of integrating TGT with mobile learning.
Behaviour & Information Technology 27
the students of group A, where the numbers indi-cate the students’ degree of learning content mastery.The organisation of groups B and C is similar to groupA. Students of the same group can help each other tomaster a learning topic. Then, students at the samelevel are assigned to a tournament group. Sincestudents of a tournament group are at the same level,for instance A2, B2, and C2 in the tournament groupTG2, every student has a fair chance to win points forhis/her own original group (group A, B, or C). Thereare at least three rounds of the tournament in thisexample because the instructor has to adjust thetournament group by performance. For instance, thebest students of group TG2 in round one will bepromoted to group TG1. In contrast, the weakeststudent of group TG1 in round one will be assigned togroup TG2. The adjusting mechanism will guaranteethat every student is assigned to a suitable tournamentgroup for the next round. After all questions have beenanswered, students return to their home teams and addup the points earned. The team with the most pointswins the tournament.
7. System architecture
To support learners’ audio input on a learning device,the system should first record and upload recordedaudio clips to a learning forum. However, the built-in
recording function of a Pocket PC can only supportthe WAV format. The WAV format is not appropriatefor a mobile learning situation because a WAV filemust be totally downloaded before it can be playedback. Hence, sometimes the size of an audio clip is overthe capacity of the learning device; sometimes learnersmay forget to delete the downloaded audio clips (i.e.garbage collection). To solve the problem, a streamingaudio clip can be delivered in a continuous flow acrossa network. Consequently, the system adds an ‘attach’function to the asynchronous learning forum. Learnerscan upload their audio clips with the attach function.Then, the uploaded audio clips (WAV format) will beautomatically encoded into WMA-format audio clipsfor stream playing. A posted message may includesubject, content (optional), and a streaming audio clip.
Figure 2 gives an overview of the system architec-ture. It focuses on the technical concerns rather thanthe learning strategy concerns of Figure 1. The bottomof Figure 2 indicates the TGT collaborative learningactivity, which is designed as a scenario of mobilelearning. The PDA icon represents the learners’WILDs. Although there is only one PDA icon inFigure 2, the label ‘PDA for everyone’, in the curvedarrow indicates that every learner can use his/her PDAto post an audio message. Learners can post a messagethrough a Web form (illustrated in the right part ofFigure 2). The house icon denotes the Web server for
Figure 2. Architecture of the asynchronous audio-based learning forum.
28 C.-K. Chang
the audio-based learning forum. Consequently, shorttext messages can be easily posted through learners’wireless PDAs. However, the audio clip should be‘uploaded’ by email, illustrated as another dotted lineconnecting it to the PDA icon. After the system gets anaudio clip, it will encode the clip into streaming formatand link the clip with related message (depicted as therectangle on the left side of Figure 2). Finally, learnerscan play the audio clips with streaming format andread the messages on WILDs. In short, there are threeimplementing requirements to fulfil the asynchronousaudio-based learning forum, including: (1) an asyn-chronous learning forum; (2) refined learning forumfor WILDs; (3) clip uploading and converting func-tions on a server. The following three paragraphsdescribe how we implemented those requirements indetail.
To construct a learning forum, we selected phpBB,which is a powered, scalable, and customisable open-source bulletin board package. Moreover, phpBBsupports multiple language interfaces, including tradi-tional Chinese for Taiwanese. Figure 3 illustrates thenew topic function in a general phpBB forum. The newtopic function in Figure 3 is built-in for phpBB becauseit does not generally support the upload function forattaching a file (i.e. an audio clip) with a postedmessage. Consequently, this study uses a MOD, whichmodifies code in some way to add new features, inorder to create our own modifications for mobilelearning devices. Furthermore, the interface of phpBBis designed for a PC-based Web browser because, forinstance, the width of the subject of a new topic is 40characters, which is not suitable for a PDA-based Webbrowser. Another example is that the text input areafor topic content is too wide and long to be use in the
Web browser of a learning device. Hence, the followingtask is to construct a suitable interface for a learningforum to be accessed on the PDA-sized screen bymodifying source codes of phpBB.
The second implementing requirement is to modifythe interface of the learning forum for WILDs. Thefollowing refinements were made because the pre-viously used interface was not suitable for a PDA-sizedlearning device. First, both the facial expressions inthe first column of Figure 3 and the font controls in thesecond column of Figure 3 were deleted. Second, thewidth should match with the width of a WILD screen,a Pocket PC in this study, in order to take fulladvantage of it. Third, the number of lines of messagecontent should be reduced to encourage learners to useaudio-based discussion. Those refinements were madewithout much effort because the interfaces of phpBBare designed with templates. Hence, unnecessaryfunctions were removed and the interface width wasadjusted in related templates. Basically, the file, calledposting_body.tpl, should be modified in the phpBBpackage with the relative path, which is phpBB2\templates\subSilver. Finally, a suitable interface of thephpBB forum for PDA size was eventually created.
Another technical problem of the audio-basedforum is that it does not support the upload functionof Web browser in Pocket PC 2003. Although there is aphpBB modular for uploading files, it cannot be usedin a Pocket PC, which cannot upload files through aWeb browser. However, the email function can attachfiles in Pocket PC 2003. To solve the problem in a non-direct way, the system will generate an email hyperlinkafter a message has been posted to the learning forum.The email hyperlink has specified the subject and thereceiver’s email address. The specified subject of the
Figure 3. General new topic function in a phpBB forum.
Behaviour & Information Technology 29
email hyperlink is generated by the system to identifythe posted message. Hence, the system can linkattached audio clips to proper messages after receivingthe learners’ emails. Learners can simply click theemail hyperlink to launch a built-in email applicationin a Pocket PC 2003. Then, learners can attach theaudio clip to an email before sending it. Finally, theaudio clip, after it has been converted to a streamingformat, will show up in the posted message andlearners can play it without downloading it.
The following paragraphs depict how a learnerposts an audio-based message using his/her Pocket PC.First, the learner logs in to a tournament board andreads a question that may have been posted at anytime, and then he/she should record an audio clip as ananswer on his/her Pocket PC. The left side of Figure 4illustrates the use of Note (one of the built-inapplications of a Pocket PC) to record an audio clip.The default directory of recorded audio clips will be inthe My Documents folder. The right side of Figure 4shows the audio clip by using File Manager of a PocketPC. Through a brief tutorial about the recordingsystem of a Pocket PC before the experiment, thelearner would already have been made aware of wherethe audio-based answer would be found in his/herPocket PC. Hence, the learner can find the audio clipand post it to the audio-based learning forum.
Then, learners can post a message with the properinterface through the website of asynchronous learningforum. After sending the message, the web page willshow the subject, brief contents, and an emailhyperlink to attach the audio clip. If a learner wantsto upload a discussion clip, he/she can click the emailhyperlink to launch built-in email application
(illustrated in Figure 5). The audio clips can beattached to the email that has a specified email addressand subject. When the email server gets the email, itwill know to which message the attached audio clipshould be linked according to the subject of the email.Before the system links the discussion clip to a postedmessage, the clip will be converted into streamingformat. At the server side, a tool, called Perl AudioConverter (viiron.googlepages.com), is used to convertthe audio clip into streaming format. Although PerlAudio Converter has GUI interface available, it can bedriven by running pacpl from the command linewith the following usage: pacpl –convertto 5format45–file/–dir4 5option(s)4 5file(s)/dir(s)4. Afterthe audio clip is converted into streaming format, ahyperlink of the stream audio clip will be added to theposted message. Then, learners can simply click thehyperlink to play the stream audio clip, illustrated asthe curved line in Figure 5. Consequently, learners caneasily listen and present their opinion in the audio-based learning forum.
8. Preliminary evaluation
The evaluation presented in this section attempts toanalyse learners’ acceptance of the technology involvedin using the mobile learning devices for TGTcollaborative learning. This evaluation is not tryingto propose a validated proposal for improving learningin a single step. However, another ambitious objectiveis to demonstrate that not only can asynchronousaudio-based notes be used for input, but also forlearning forums. This experiment was conducted at auniversity in Taiwan, where the first sample of 16
Figure 4. Recording an audio clip on a Pocket PC.
30 C.-K. Chang
students was chosen from a class of programmingdesign and the second sample of 16 students waschosen from graduate students in our institute. Twosamples were chosen to control any order effect bycounterbalancing the order in the experiment.Although the backgrounds between two samples aredifferent, they all major in information management.
There are three major limitations of the research.First, the system acceptance may be composed of manyaspects, such as learnability, efficiency of use, memor-ability, few errors, and subjective satisfaction. Only theevaluation of subjective satisfaction was selected forour preliminary evaluation. Another limitation of thestudy is that all of the individual differences havesignificant effects on learners’ acceptance of the system(Goodhue and Thompson 1995). However, the twogroups of students are both information technologyrelated. The third limitation of the study is that the 1:1computer-to-student ratio is only in experimentalscenario, not in real school life. The accessibilityproblem of the system is not solved by this study.Nonetheless, the objective was to determine the extentto which the learners think that an audio-based,asynchronous learning forum is useful and easy touse. If learners’ acceptance of the audio-based,asynchronous learning forum significantly increases,further investigation of learning impact will beconducted.
A questionnaire used in Davis’s TAM was chosenas an evaluation tool (Davis 1989). The TAM cansupport managers’ understanding of the process of
adopting new technology. TAM suggests that whenusers are presented with a new technology, twomajor factors (i.e. perceived usefulness and perceivedease-of-use) come into their decision about how andwhen they will use it. TAM is one of the mostinfluential theories, according this description:‘(TAMs) are widely accepted among the MISresearch community as tools for evaluating informa-tion system applications and predicting usage’ (Dollet al. 1998). In other words, the results from a TAMcan provide robust and reliable evidence to beweighed for or against adopting an audio-basedforum in collaborative learning. Researchers try topropose a unified view of users’ acceptance ofinformation technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003).However, those results are beyond this study.
Originally, there were 12 items classified into twocategories (perceived usefulness and perceived ease-of-use) in Davis’s TAM questionnaire. In the preliminaryevaluation, one participant first completed the originalquestionnaire fill-ins after using the default input oflearning devices for learning the forum. Then, theparticipant completed the questionnaire again afterusing the audio-based input feature of the learningforum. The contents of the questionnaire used in thisevaluation are as follows:
. Perceived usefulness� Using the system in my learning would
enable me to accomplish tasks morequickly.
Figure 5. Posting an audio message in the learning forum on a WILD.
Behaviour & Information Technology 31
� Using the system would improve mylearning performance.� Using the system in my learning would
increase my productivity.� Using the system would enhance my
effectiveness on the learning.� Using the system would make it easier to
do my learning.� I would find the system useful in my
learning.. Perceived ease-of-use� Learning to operate the system would be
easy for me.� I would find it easy to get the system to do
what I want it to do.� My interaction with the system would be
clear and understandable.� I would find the system to be flexible to
interact with.� It would be easy for me to become skilful
at using the system.� I would find the system easy to use.
A Likert’s five-point scale for measuring the level ofagreement with those statements was used for learners toanswer the questionnaire. The experiment was designedas repeat measurement. In other words, every learner inthe first sample answers the questionnaire after using astandard (text-based) learning forum and then answers itagain after using our audio-based learning forum. Bycontrast, learners in the second sample use audio-basedlearning forum before text-based learning forum.Although the order effects of the experiment are fullycontrolled and the design of the experiment is notperfect, the purpose of the preliminary evaluation is usedas feedback for the system refinements instead of formalevaluation. As the TAM states, there are significantdifferences between perceived ease-of-use and usefulnessin both samples of using standard and audio-basedlearning forum (p-values of t-tests 5 0.05).
Unfortunately, the results show that there is nosignificant difference of acceptance between a text-basedlearning forum and the audio-based learning forum.Moreover, there is no significant difference in perceivedease-of-use between a standard learning forum and ouraudio-based learning forum. Theoretically, learnershave not intentions to accept and use our audio-basedlearning forum (i.e. the new software package) insteadof text-based learning forum on a WILD. However,there is significant difference in the perceived usefulnessbetween a standard learning forum and our audio-basedlearning forum (t-tests results indicate the means of astandard learning forum usefulness: 25.125, the meansof an audio-based learning forum usefulness: 26.8125,and p-values: 0.002519). After interviewing some
learners informally, they reported that the system canreduce catastrophic input errors comparing with otherinput methods. Consequently, the audio-based input isuseful (but not a critical issue) for a learner to accept anasynchronous learning forum on a WILD.
In general, the content organisation of both text-based and audio-based input is quite similar. Thissimilar organisation demonstrates that learners haveexpectations about how to post or answer a message ina forum. Some students reported that they will writedown the outline of an audio message before recordingit. At the sentence level, the messages of audio-basedinput are usually comprised of simple and shortclauses. However, complex sentences are found inmessages of text-based input. The results give theauthor confidence that learners may accept text-basedlearning forum on a mobile learning device, such asPocket PC. Consequently, lessons learned from thepersonal computer with ICT study can be applied tothe handheld device with ubiquitous computing situa-tion. PDA input method issue is not as important asthe PDA screen-size issue that is often criticised. Theresults, while emphasising learners’ acceptance in alearning scenario, may have applicability to otheraudio-based input domains. Users can overcomeobstacles of PDA input method to fit into their PCcustoms (i.e. text-based input). Hence, further exam-ination is needed on factors influencing learners’intentions of using various input methods on a PDA.
9. Conclusion
This paper demonstrates an audio-based asynchronouslearning forum for mobile learning on a WILDsupported by streaming media technology. The systemmodifies the open source forum system (i.e. phpBB)and encoded audio clips to streaming format. Hence,learners hardly have to learn anything other than thebrowser and audio recorder on a WILD. In theevaluation stage, the TAM was used to measurelearners’ degree of acceptance of using an asynchro-nous learning forum on a WILD. Moreover, thecontent descriptions of both text-based and audio-based input are reported. The preliminary results showthat the audio-based input for mobile learning could bea better solution than handwritten input on a WILDfor the asynchronous discussion in terms of usefulness.Furthermore, the study also designed a mobile learningapplication to be integrated with the TGT collabora-tive learning strategy in order to enrich the processes ofinteraction in a learning environment involving WILDactivities. Most important of all, this study shows thatit is feasible to construct an asynchronous learningforum without compromising the ease-of-use andusefulness of the system on WILDs.
32 C.-K. Chang
Acknowledgements
This project was supported by the National Science Councilof Taiwan under contract numbers NSC 94-2520-S-024-007,NSC 95-2520-S-024-007 and NSC 97-2631-S-024-002.
References
Anderson, P. and Blackwood, A., 2004. Mobile and PDA
technologies and their future use in education. JISCTechnology and Standards Watch, 3, 14–16.
Barker, P.G., 2001. Creating and supporting online commu-
nities of learners. In: C. Montgomerie and J. Vitali, eds.Proceedings of the EDMEDIA 2001 International Con-ference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications. Virginia, USA: Association for theAdvancement of Computing in Education.
Benbunan-Fich, R., Hiltz, S.R., and Turoff, M., 2003. Acomparative content analysis of face-to-face vs. asyn-
chronous group decision making. Decision SupportSystems, 34, 457–469.
Brewster, S.A., 1998. Using nonspeech sounds to provide
navigation cues. ACM Transactions on Computer–HumanInteraction, 5, 224–259.
Chang, C.Y., Sheu, J.P., and Chan, T.W., 2003. Design and
implementation of Ad Hoc classroom and e-Schoolbagsystems for ubiquitous learning. Journal of ComputerAssisted Learning, 19, 336–346.
Chen, Y.S., Kao, T.C., and Sheu, J.P., 2003. A mobilelearning system for scaffolding bird watching learning.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 347–359.
Cole, H. and Stanton, D., 2003. Designing mobile technol-
ogies to support co-present collaboration. Personal andUbiquitous Computing, 7, 365–371.
Cooper, J.M., 2003. Classroom Teaching Skills. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13, 319–340.Doll, W.J., Hendrickson, A., and Deng, X., 1998. Using
Davis’s perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instrumentsfor decision making: a confirmatory and multigroup
invariance analysis. Decision Sciences, 29, 839–869.Gemmell, J., et al., 2002. MyLifeBits: fulfilling the memex
vision. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia ’02, Juan-les-
Pins. France, 235–238.Goodhue, D.L. and Thompson, R.L., 1995. Task-technology fit
and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19, 213–236.
Hawkes, M. and Dennis, T., 2003. Supporting and assessingonline interactions in higher education. EducationalTechnology, 43, 52–56.
Hiltz, S.R., 1994. The virtual classroom: learning withoutlimits via computer networks. Norwood, NJ: AblexPublishing Corporation.
Hron, A. and Friedrich, H.F., 2003. A review of web-based
collaborative learning: factors beyond technology. Jour-nal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 70–79.
Jarvela, S. and Hakkinen, P., 2002. Web-based cases in
teaching and learning – the quality of discussions and astage of perspective taking in asynchronous communica-tion. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 1–22.
Keegan, D., 2002. Devices and technologies for mobile
learning, http://learning.ericsson.net/mlearning2/files/project_planning_1.pdf.
Keegan, D., 2005. The incorporation of mobile learning into
mainstream education and training. In: P. Isias, C. Borg,and P. Bonanno, eds. Mobile Learning 2005. Lisbon:IADIS, 198–202.
Kravcik, M., et al., 2004. Mobile collector for field trips.
Educational Technology and Society, 7, 25–33.Lin, W. and Hauptmann, A., 2002. A wearable digital library
of personal conversations. JCDL, 277–278.
Lowther, D.L., Ross, S.M., and Morrison, G.M., 2003.When each one has one: the influences on teachingstrategies and student achievement of using laptops in the
classroom. Educational Technology Research and Devel-opment (ETR&D), 51, 23–44.
Maurer, H., 2002. What have we learnt in 15 yearsabout educational multimedia? In: Proceedings of
ED-MEDIA 2002, 24–29 June, Denver, Colorado,USA.
Morris, M.G. and Dillon, A., 1997. How user perceptions
influence software use. Software, IEEE, 14, 58–65.Norris, C., Soloway, E., and Sullivan, T., 2002. Examining
25 years of technology in U.S. education. Communica-
tions of the ACM, 45, 15–18.Seppala, P. and Alamaki, H., 2003. Mobile learning in teacher
training. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 330–
335.Sharples, M., Corlett, D., and Westmancott, O., 2002. The
design and implementation of a mobile learningresource. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6, 220–
234.Smaldino, S.E., et al., 2005. Instructional Media and
Technologies for Learning. 8th ed. Columbus, OH,
USA: Pearson Prentice Hall.Slavin, R.E., 1980. Effects of student teams and peer tutoring
on academic achievement and time on-task. Journal of
Experimental Education, 48, 253–257.Soloway, E., et al., 2001. Handheld devices are ready-at-
hand. Communication of the ACM, 44, 15–20.
Telecommunications Carriers Association (Japan), 2004.Number of internet provider services of mobile telephone.Retrieved July 31, 2004 from http://www.tca.or.jp/eng/database/daisu/yymm/0407matu.html.
Van der Linden, J. and Renshaw, P., eds. 2001. DialogicLearning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Venkatesh, V., et al., 2003. User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27,425–478.
Veronikas, S.W. and Maushak, N., 2005. Effectiveness of
audio on screen captures in software application instruc-tion. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,14, 199–205.
Warschauer, M., 1997. Computer-mediated collaborative
learning – theory and practice. Modern LanguageJournal, 81, 470–481.
Woods, R. and Keeler, J., 2001. The effect of instructor’s
use of audio e-mail messages on student participationin and perceptions of online learning: a preliminarycase study. Open Learning, 16, 263–278.
Behaviour & Information Technology 33
Copyright of Behaviour & Information Technology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
