P900s were capable of accessing the on-line version as well, but the off line version was available on their memory sticks as well.
The course was fully recorded. The questionnaire consists of two main parts. The first part tries to find out the user’s opinion about the course in general, the 2nd part asks questions about the Corvinus specific features.
Altogether 12 people participated the test. (2 trainers, 10 students) That’s why the average age of the participants is quite young. All of the people are well educated, 7 of them has already 1-3 years post secondary education, and the other 5 completed 4-5 years in an college or university. All of the participants possess a mobile-phone.
Agree 44%
Uncertain 35%
Disagree 8%
Strongly disagree 3%
Another difficult and challenging question to include in an evaluative questionnaire. It is one thing to participate in an experimental evaluation of a new methodology, quite another to agree to study in this way after already experiencing it.
9. I would recommend mobile learning as a method of study to others
Strongly agree 13%
Agree 46%
Uncertain 29%
Disagree 10%
Strongly disagree 2%
This is another difficult and challenging question to include in an evaluative questionnaire. It is one thing to participate in an experimental evaluation of a new methodology, quite another to recommend a method of study to another after already experiencing it.
10. Where did you study the mobile learning course?
At home 0%
At the office or work 76%
While travelling 0%
Other 24%
The students who ticked ‘other’ in this question studied in a museum.
Commentary from Norway states that compared with the first trial of the first project (Rekkedal 2002a, 2002b) our test students this time seem to be more positive on user friendliness of the equipment and solutions measured by the four variables presented in section 2.
Nearly all the test persons found the equipment easy to use and also found that the experience was “fun”. Concerning the questions about whether they would like to take another m-learning course or recommend m-learning to others, the answers are, not surprisingly, somewhat more reserved, as their experiences from the test situation probably is a little restricted to enable them to answer these questions.
Commentary from Ireland indicates that the results from this section of the questionnaire show that for the most part the participants were positive about the user-friendliness of the mobile devices and m-learning in general.
Students were asked if it was easy to use the equipment in this mobile learning course.
The responses were satisfactory with 79% in agreement that the equipment was easy to use. In this trial one of the participants, who accounts for 5% of the overall figures, strongly disagreed with this statement. This negative result can be attributed to the participant’s unfamiliarity with this particular mobile device.
“I found the phone to be a bit fiddly at the start. However once I got the hang of it I found it a pleasant environment.”
The next question asked if the mobile learning experience was fun. 16% of the participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, this however, is an improvement on previous trials run by Ericsson. There are a high percentage (26%) of uncertain replies that causes concern. As this was the first time many of the participants had completed a course on a mobile device, other factors such as familiarisation with the device and the course content may have influenced this result. Over half of the participants (58%) did agree that the experience was fun, which is a satisfactory response. The feedback from this question suggests further research is required to ensure a fun experience can be guaranteed all of the time by all of the participants.
The next question asks, “According to my experience I would take another mobile learning course if relevant to my learning needs”. 53% of the participants were in agreement with this statement. 31% of the responses were uncertain about this statement so it is important to perform further research in order to ensure m-learning can be improved and used as part of a blended learning solution by all.
The participants are then asked, “I would recommend mobile learning as a method of study to others”. This question had similar feedback to the last question, where a large percentage of the participants, 37%, were undecided about the statement. 42% were in agreement and would recommend m-learning, but 21% disagreed with the statement.
This result suggests that further improvements to the m-learning solutions are required to ensure m-learning is widely adopted.
The main advantage to m-learning is the ability for ‘any-time, any-place’ learning.
Although 100% of the participants in this trial studied the course at the office or work, this was due to the availability of the test mobile devices. All of the participants from this study work in jobs that involve a lot of travel and it is our challenge to provide m-learning solutions that can be widely adopted by everyone.
“Found the system very interesting and it is a very good way to learn on the go.”
Commentary from Hungary states on average students were satisfied with the equipment. 66% agreed, 17% strongly agreed that it was easy to use the equipment.
The time that students spent learning how to use the equipment, was not more than 5-10 minutes. It was clear at the end the majority of the students enjoyed the virtual mobile course. Furthermore, 58% of them would participate in another m-learning course, and half of them would recommend this learning method for other people as well.