The development and validation of a scale measuring mobile phone use in an academic environment

Öz

The purpose of this study was to fill the gap in current research on educational mobile phone use within the framework for the rational analysis of the mobile education (FRAME) model. The paper developed and validated the Mobile Phone Use in Academic Environment Scale (MPUAES) to measure both positive and negative aspects of educational use of mobile phones. The data was collected from all faculties and all grade levels of Middle East Technical University in Ankara. The inclusion criterion for the participation in the study was owning a smartphone. The exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were run with two different groups in a total of 1887 undergraduate students. Three factors structure with 18 items were obtained, which were labeled as facilitator, distractor, and connectedness. These three factors explained 63.42% of the total variance. For confirmation of the factor structure, confirmatory factor analysis was performed with the second sample. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of each factor ranged between .90 and .74. To conclude, the findings of the study proposed that the scores obtained from the developed scale were valid and reliable in measuring undergraduate students’ mobile phone use in an academic environment.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mobile phone affinity
• Educational technology
• Scale development
• Educational mobile phone use
• Smartphone

References

1. Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: an investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i5.1631
2. Bernacki, M.L., Greene, J.A., & Crompton, H. (2020). Mobile technology, learning, and achievement: Advances in understanding and measuring the role of mobile technology in education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101827
3. Bock, B.C., Lantini, R., Thind, H., Walaska, K., Rosen, R.K., Fava, J.L., ... & Scot Sheldon, L.A. (2016). The Mobile Phone Affinity Scale: Enhancement and Refinement. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6705
4. Bryant, E.C., (2016). Graduate student perceptions of multi-modal tablet use in academic environments [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida]. The USF Libraries. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/154477153.pdf
5. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97481-000
6. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2007). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (7. Baskı). [Data analysis handbook for social sciences]. Pegem Akademi Yayınları. https://www.pegem.net/kitabevi/109-Sosyal-Bilimler-icin-Veri-Analizi-El-Kitabi-Istatistik-Arastirma-Deseni-SPSS-Uygulamalari-ve-Yorum-kitabi.aspx
7. Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805534
8. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S.M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers and Education, 59(3), 1054–1064. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015

9. Costello, A.B., & Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 10(7). http://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
10. Crompton, H. (2017), Moving toward a mobile learning landscape: presenting a mlearning integration framework. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2017-0018
11. Cudeck, R., & Browne, M.W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1802_2
12. Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological methods, 4(3), 272-299. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
13. Field. A. (2009). Discovering statistics using by SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publication. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/discovering-statistics-using-sas/book234095
14. Ford, J.R. (2016). Learners’ perspectives on how mobile computing devices usage interacts with their learning [Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Library. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/learners-perspectives-on-how-mobile-computing/docview/1846531179/se-2?accountid=13014
15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
16. Gikas J., & Grant. M.M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education. 19. 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
17. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002
18. Han, S., & Yi, Y.J. (2019). How does the smartphone usage of college students affect academic performance? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 13 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12306
19. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS® system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc. https://www.sas.com/storefront/aux/en/spsxsfactor/61314_excerpt.pdf
20. Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007, November). Authentic mobile learning in higher education [Paper presentation]. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. https://www.aare.edu.au/07pap/her07131.pdf
21. Hu, L.H. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
22. Huang, G. (2016) Using mobile phones for teaching and learning in Chinese traditional undergraduate education [Doctoral dissertation, Nova Southeastern University]. ProQuest Library. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/using-mobile-phones-teaching-learning-chinese/docview/1844448002/se-2?accountid=13014
23. Humphreys, L.G. & Montanelli, R.G. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 193-206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1002_5
24. Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models. Sage. https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-multivariate-social-scientist/book205684
25. Iqbal, S., & Qureshi, I.A. (2012). M-learning adoption: A perspective from a developing country. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(3), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1152
26. Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97878-000
27. Keegan, D. (2005, October). The incorporation of mobile learning into mainstream education and training [Paper presentation]. 4th World Conference on mLearning, Cape Town, South Africa. https://www.cin.ufpe.br/~mlearning/intranet/mlearning/mlearn2005/Mainstream%20Education%20and%20Training.pdf
28. Kite, M.E., & Whitley, B.E. (2018). Principles of Research in Behavioral Science (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315450087
29. Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. ftp://158.208.129.61/suzuki/PP_SEM_3e.pdf
30. Koole, M.L. (2006). The framework for the rational analysis of mobile education (FRAME) model: An evaluation of mobile devices for distance education [Master’s thesis, Athabasca University]. Athabasca University Library. http://hdl.handle.net/2149/543
31. Koole, M., & Ally, M. (2006, April). Framework for the rational analysis of mobile education (FRAME) model: Revising the ABCs of educational practices [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Networking, International Conference on Systems and International Conference on Mobile Communications and Learning Technologies, Morne, Mauritius. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNICONSMCL.2006.103
32. Koole, M.L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training (pp. 25-47). Athabasca University Press. https://www.aupress.ca/app/uploads/120155_99Z_Mohamed_Ally_2009-MobileLearning.pdf#page=45
33. Kukulska-Hulme, A., & Shield, L. (2008). An overview of mobile assisted language learning: From content delivery to supported collaboration and interaction. ReCALL, 20(3), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000335
34. Lockhart, K.S. (2016). A comparison of the attitudes of administrators and teachers on cell phone use as an educational tool [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Mississippi]. ProQuest Library. https://search.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/comparison-attitudes-administrators-teachers-on/docview/1777350856/se-2?accountid=13014
35. Losh, E. (2014). The war on learning: Gaining ground in the digital university. USA: MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/war-learning
36. Lowenthal, J.N. (2010). Using mobile learning: Determinates impacting behavioral intention. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 195 206. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2010.519947
37. Merriam, S.B., & Tisdell, E.J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-ae/Qualitative+Research%3A+A+Guide+to+Design+and+Implementation%2C+4th+Edition-p-9781119003618
38. Motiwalla, L. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers and Education, 49(3). 581-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.10.011
39. Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Psychometric-theory-%2F-Jum-C.-Nunnally-Nunnally/3d976f16eab45d60d4a3269d1d8512b2ea44a511
40. Obringer. J., & Coffey. K. (2007). Cell phones in American high schools: A national survey. The Journal of Technology Studies, 33(1), 41-47. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ847358
41. Purba, M., & Setyarini, S. (2020, October). Mobile Learning through WhatsApp: EFL Students’ Perceptions. In 2020 12th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers (pp. 27-32). https://doi.org/10.1145/3436756.3437016
42. Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78 102. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791
43. Parsons, D., & Ryu, H. (2006, April). A framework for assessing the quality of mobile learning [Paper presentation]. 11th International Conference for Process Improvement, Research and Education, Southampton, UK. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.581.8490&rep=rep1&type=pdf
44. Peters, K. (2007). M-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.350
45. Preacher, K.J., & MacCallum, R.C. (2003). Repairing Tom Swift's electric factor analysis machine. Understanding statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences, 2(1), 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0201_02
46. Quaglia, R., & Corso, M. (2014). Student voice: The instrument of change. Corwin: A Sage Company: Thousand Oaks, CA. https://us.corwin.com/en-us/nam/student-voice/book243538
47. Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Erlbaum. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98099-000
48. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/4/0134790545.pdf
49. Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, discussing and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ... The International Review in Open and Distance Learning, 8(2), 1 13. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=eue&AN=507950980&site=eds-live&authtype=ip,uid
50. Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C., & Wang, H.Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x
51. Willis, G.B. (2004). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Sage Publications. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27641121
52. 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
53. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
54. Vosloo, S. (2012). Mobile learning and policies: Key issues to consider. Paris, France: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0021/002176/217638E.pdf
55. Yurdugül, H. (2007). The Effects of Different Correlation Types on Goodness-of-Fit Indices in First Order and Second Order Factor Analysis for Multiple Choice Test Data. İlköğretim Online, 6(1), 154-179. https://ilkogretim-online.org/?mno=121223
56. Yurdugül, H., & Aşkar, P. (2008). An investigation of the factorial structures of pupils’ attitude towards technology (PATT): A Turkish sample. Elementary Education Online, 7(2), 288–309. http://ilkogretim-online.org/fulltext/218-1596636637.pdf?1612882858
57. Yurdugül, H., & Sırakaya, D.A. (2013). The scale of online learning readiness: A study of validity and reliability. Eğitim ve Bilim [Education and Science], 38(169), 391-406. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12513/1731