Mobile Learning Article
Mobile learning and student cognition: A systematic review of PK-12 research using Bloom’s Taxonomy
Address for Correspondence: Dr Helen Crompton, 3141 Education Building, Old Dominion University, VA 23529, USA. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
The rise of mobile learning in schools during the past decade has led to promises about the power of mobile learning to extend and enhance student cognitive engagement. The purpose of this study was to examine trends to determine the cognitive level students are involved in within mobile learning activities. This systematic review involved an aggregated and configurative synthesis of PK-12 mobile learning studies from 2010 to 16 and used Bloom’s Taxonomy as a theoretical framework for categorizing the cognitive level of student activities. Major new findings include that students are involved in activities at all six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. This study shows that over 60% of researchers are developing activities that require high levels of cognitive processing, a large increase from past studies. Nonetheless, 40% are integrating mobile devices in ways that keep students working with minimal cognitive processing. In both elementary and secondary studies, there was a 40/60% split in the use of lower versus high level thinking opportunities. New findings show that mobile devices were integrated into science, mathematics, social studies, literacy, art and special education. Studies in science settings were the majority of the studies (40%), followed by literacy (24%).
References
- L. W. Anderson (Ed.), D. R. Krathwohl (Ed.), Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives. Complete ed. New York: Longman.
- Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals . Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.
- Bresser, D. M., & Bodzin, A. M. (2013). A mixed methods assessment of students’ flow experiences during a mobile augmented reality science game. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 505–517.
- Britten, N., Campbell, R., Pope, C., Donovan, J., Morgan, M., & Pill, R. (2002). Using meta ethnography to synthesize qualitative research: A worked example. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7(4), 209–215.
- Burden, K., Hopkins, P., Male, T., Martin, S., & Trala, C. (2012). IPad Scotland evaluation: Faculty of Education, the University of Hull, UK. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from https://janhylen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/01Skottland.pdf
- Cochrane, T., & Antonczak, L. (2014). Implementing a mobile social media framework for designing creative pedagogies. Social Sciences, 3(3), 359–377.
10.3390/socsci3030359 Google Scholar
- Crompton, H. (2013). A historical overview of mobile learning: Toward learner-centered education. In Z. L. Berge, & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 3–14). Florence, KY: Routledge.
- Crompton, H., Burke, D., Gregory, K., & Gräbe, C. (2016). The use of mobile learning in science education: A systematic review. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25, 149–160.
- DeWever, B., Zhu, C., & Deed, C. (2009). Supporting active cognitive processing in collaborative groups: The potential of bloom's taxonomy as a labeling tool. Internet & Higher Education, 12(3/4), 165–172.
- Diacopoulos, M. (2015). Untangling Web 2.0: Charting Web 2.0 tools, the NCSS guidelines for effective use of technology, and bloom's taxonomy. Social Studies, 106(4), 139–148.
10.1080/00377996.2015.1015711 Google Scholar
- Ekanayake, S. Y., & Wishart, J. (2013). Mobile phone images and video in science teaching and learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(2), 229–249.
- Ekren, G., & Keskin, N. (2017). Using the revised bloom taxonomy in designing learning with mobile apps. GLOKALde, 3(1), 13–28.
- Fallhoon, G., & Khoo, E. (2014). Exploring young students' talk in iPad-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 77, 13–28.
- Friedel, H., Bos, B., Lee, K., & Smith, S. (2013). Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (SITE) 2013. New Orleans, 2013(1), 3708–3717.
- Froberg, D., Goth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects – A critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25, 307–331.
- Fu, Q. K., & Hwang, G. J. (2018). Trends in mobile technology-supported collaborative learning: a systematic review of journal publications from 2007 to 2016. Computers & Education, 119, 129–143.
- Hemingway, P., & Brereton, N. (2009). In Hayward Medical Group (Ed.), What is a systematic review? Retrieved October 24, 2014, from https://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-review.pdf
- Hixon, E., Buckenmeyer, J., & Zamojski, H.(2011). Bloom’s taxonomy meets technology: An instructional planning tool. Online Classroom, 5–8.
- Hughes, J. (2014). Using mobile apps to transform teaching and learning in literacy. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014–Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education international conference (pp. 21–28). Jacksonville, FL: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
- Hung, P., Lin, Y., & Hwang, G. (2010). Formative assessment design for pda integrated ecology observation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 33–42.
- Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. (2014). Applications, impacts and trends of mobile learning – A review of 2008–2012 publications in selected journals. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(2), 83–95.
- Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC horizon report: 2012 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.
- Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting inquiry in informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61, 21–32.
- Koszalka, T., & Ntoedibe-Kuswani, G. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive learning potential of mobile technologies, Distance Education, 31(2), 139–157.
- Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–264.
- Kulkarni, R., Shook, A., & Thomas, K. (2013). Encinitas union school district: Use of mobile devices research study. Mobile Technology Center. San Diego, CA: University of San Diego.
- Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology: Nurturing leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer.
10.1007/978-0-387-71148-5 Google Scholar
- Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A. ⋯ Moher,D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
- Lindsay, L. (2016). Transformation of teacher practice using mobile technology with one-to-one classes: M-learning pedagogical approaches. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(5), 883–892.
- Magley, G. (2011). Grade 8 mobile one-to-one with iPads. Millis Public Schools Evaluation Report. Retrieved from:https://www.millis.k12.ma.us/node.982.
- Mifsud, L. (2014). Mobile learning and the socio-materiality of classroom practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 142–149.
- NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Norris, C., & Soloway, E. (2015). Mobile technology in 2020: Predictions and implications for K-12 education. Educational Technology, 55(1), 12–19.
- Norris, C., Hossain, A., & Soloway, E. (2011). Using smartphones as essential tools for learning a call to place schools on the right side of the 21st century. Tech Trends, 51(3), 18–25.
- NRC: National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, cross cutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
- Oakley, A. (2012). Foreword. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. vii–x). London: SAGE.
- Odhabi, H. (2007). Investigating the impact of laptops on students’ learning using bloom's learning taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1126–1131.
- Rushby, N. (2012). Editorial: An agenda for mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 355–356.
- Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & DeGeus, K. (2011). Mobile English learning: An evidence-based study with fifth graders. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1334–1347.
- Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. J., Leeman, J., & Crandlee, J. L. (2011). Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 317–331.
- Schneps, M., Ruel, J., Sonnert, G., Dussault, M., Griffin, M., & Sadler, M. (2014). Conceptualizing astronomical scale: Virtual simulations on handheld tablet computers reverse misconceptions. Computers & Education, 70, 269–280.
- Shadiev, R., Hwang, W., Huang, Y., & Liu, T. (2015). The impact of supported and annotated mobile learning on achievement and cognitive load. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 53–69.
- Stearns, S. (2017). The lecture and student learning. What is the place of lecture in student learning today?Communication Education, 66(2), 243–245.
- Sylvia, J.IV (2014). Using bloom's taxonomy to assess social media assignments. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 3(1), 50–60.
- Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC. Medical Research Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.
- White, T., & Martin, L. (2014). Mathematics and mobile learning. Tech Trends, 58(1), 64–70.
10.1007/s11528-013-0722-5 Google Scholar
- Zydney, J., & Warner, Z. (2016). Mobile apps for science learning: Review of research. Computers & Education, 94, 1–17.
