Article

Journal of Educational Computing

Effects of Learning Research

0(0) 1–24
! The Author(s) 2016
Styles and Interest Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
on Concentration DOI: 10.1177/0735633116639953
jec.sagepub.com
and Achievement
of Students in
Mobile Learning

Xiaojie Li1 and Xianmin Yang1

Abstract
Learning concentration deserves in-depth investigation in the field of mobile learning.
Therefore, this study examined the interaction effects of learning styles and interest
on the learning concentration and academic achievement of students who were
asked to learn conceptual knowledge via their mobile phones in a classroom setting.
A total of 92 Chinese college students majoring in education participated in the
study. With the application of correlation analysis, regression analysis, and analysis
of variance (i.e., one, two, and three way), four main findings were obtained:
(a) Interest is significantly correlated with concentration. The same case applies to
concentration and posttests as well as to immediate and delayed posttests;
(b) learning styles have no significant effect both on concentration and achievement;
(c) learning styles and interest do not yield interaction effects on the learning con-
centration of students, but interest alone significantly affects the latter; and
(d) learning styles, interest, and concentration do not yield interaction effects on
the academic achievement of students. Overall, these findings imply that low interest
always leads to lower learning concentration. Thus, appropriate mobile learning
materials should be developed and used to educate students on the basis of their
respective concentration, interest, and learning styles. The implications, limitations,
and future research plans are presented in this article.

1
Jiangsu Normal University, Jiangsu Province, Xuzhou, China
Corresponding Author:
Xianmin Yang, School of Wisdom Education, Jiangsu Normal University, #713, Jingyuan Building,
No.101, Shanghai Road, Tongshan District, Xuzhou, Jiangsu Province 221116, China.
Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Keywords
mobile learning, learning concentration, learning style, learning interest,
learning achievement

Introduction
The rapid development and popularity of mobile technology have led to
increased use of mobile devices, particularly mobile phones (Saran, Cagiltay,
& Seferoglu, 2008). Ally and Tsinakos (2014) pointed out a growing interest
in the potential use of mobile technology in education. Mobile learning
(m-learning) refers to the use of mobile technologies for educational purposes
(Chen, Chang, & Yen, 2012). Mobile devices provide individuals with the oppor-
tunity to learn anytime and anywhere they intend to (Silander, Sutinen, &
Tarhio, 2004). Compared with traditional learning, m-learning facilitates collab-
orative inquiry processes (Rogers & Price, 2008) to promote the interest and
engagement of students (Metcalf, Raasch, Milrad, Hamilton, & Cheek, 2008),
strengthen the interactions among them (Ting, 2013), and improve their learning
performance (Hsu, Hwang, & Chang, 2013). Actually, mobile devices can sup-
port flexible learning in a variety of educational contexts, including outdoor
environments and classroom settings (Chen et al., 2012; Yang, Li, & Lu,
2015). Several studies have explored the feasibility, benefit, and strategies of
using these devices in classrooms (Echeverrı́a et al., 2011; Zhang, 2013).
With the enhancement of mobile devices’ performance, more and more video
resources can run smoothly on mobile phones. Using video as an educational
tool could improve the learning satisfaction of students (Zhang, Zhou, Briggs, &
Nunamaker, 2006), increase their motivation and enthusiasm (Cruse, 2011),
enhance their learning concentration (Berk, 2009), and boost their learning per-
formance (Chen & Sun, 2012; Chen & Wang, 2011). Therefore, video-based
learning has become a useful and popular educational tool in m-learning.
However, the adoption of m-learning encounters certain problems related to
the attention of students (Costabile et al., 2008; Hwang & Wu, 2014). In par-
ticular, the learning concentration of students in video-based m-learning has
become a critical issue. Previous studies mainly investigated the video quality
of mobile devices (Jumisko-Pyykkö & Häkkinen, 2005), user interfaces for
mobile video browsing (Huber, Steimle, & Mühlhäuser, 2010), and the effects
of screen size on learning (Maniar, Bennet, & Gal, 2007; Maniar, Bennett, Hand,
& Allan, 2008). However, only a few studies have analyzed the learning concen-
tration of students in the context of m-learning.
Despite the significant effects of learning styles and concentration on the
education of students in general, their effectiveness in m-learning has not been
clarified. Investigating learning styles and concentration may contribute to the
Li and Yang 3

design of appropriate m-learning materials and activities. Existing studies on m-

learning have not extensively looked into learning concentration and its rela-
tionship with other factors (e.g., interest, learning styles, and achievement).
Thus, this study aims to explore how different learning styles and interests
affect the learning concentration and academic performance of students in the
context of m-learning.

Literature Review
Learning Concentration in Electronic Learning and m-Learning
Attention is one of the most important factors in learning (Chun & Turk-
Browne, 2007). In educational contexts, attention particularly refers to focused
concentration (Jensen, 1998). “Concentration is the ability of an individual to
direct his or her thinking toward whatever directions he or she intends” (Paget,
2010, p. 99) The act or process of concentrating is crucial for efficient learning
(Liu, Liao, & Peng, 2005) and improving one’s academic achievement (Delgado,
Phelps, & Robbins, 2011). Students who have positive attitude, high achieve-
ment motive, high self-esteem, and high self-efficacy generally have high concen-
tration in learning (Pimta, Tayraukham, & Nuangchalerm, 2009). One’s learning
concentration could essentially be improved by certain factors, including an
environment conducive to learning, teaching aids, and lighting conditions
(Sleegers et al., in press; Sulaiman, Mahbob, & Azlan, 2011). By contrast,
noisy surroundings may distract students from learning (Bomsdorf, 2005), and
the fragmentation of learning time may decrease learning concentration (Denk,
Weber, & Belfin, 2007).
Lack of attention among students is a significant issue in both electronic
learning (e-learning) and m-learning. Several researchers have been aware of
this issue in the context of e-learning and have therefore conducted studies.
Han, Jo, Park, and Kim (2005) developed the first e-learning home robot
which could promote and improve the learning concentration and interest of
primary school students. Hsu, Chen, Su, Huang, and Huang (2012) developed a
reading concentration monitoring system for use with e-books in an intelligent
classroom setting to help instructors determine the reading concentration of
students as well as their reading rates. Takahashi and Arita (2013) constructed
an e-learning system that stimulates students to concentrate on learning. Chen
and Huang (2014) developed a web-based reading annotation system with an
attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism, which could enhance the
sustained attention of students and promote their online reading performance.
In recent years, researchers (Liu, in press; Mason, Pluchino, Tornatora, &
Ariasi, 2013) began to employ eye-tracking technology to explore how students
pay attention to courseware or websites in multimedia learning. Eye tracking can
accurately capture the eye movement data of students, helping researchers to
4 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

assess the design deficiency of certain learning objects, websites, and tools.
However, given the limitations in price and operation, the aforementioned stu-
dies adopted only a small sample in a laboratory environment.
In recent years, the issue of m-learning concentration has attracted research-
ers’ attention. In the context of m-learning, students need more cognitive
resources because they could hardly focus their attention on the lessons
(Hongler, 2013). The small-screen size and representation on mobile devices
affecting attention are necessary to be taken into account in m-learning
(Sharples, Arnedillo-Sánchez, Milrad, & Vavoula, 2009). Several researchers
(Freitas & Schlemmer, 2013; Hwang & Wu, 2014) argue that there exists obvious
split-attention effect during the process of m-learning. Deng (2015) analyzed the
phenomenon of split attention in classroom settings with iPads and put forward
some strategies to reduce the split-attention effect. However, regarding the split-
attention effect in m-learning, there are also different voices. Liu, Lin, Tsai,
and Paas (2012) investigated the effects of split attention and redundancy in
the m-learning environment on the leaf morphology of plants as a function of
different combinations of media. Consequently, the researchers did not observe
a split-attention effect. They believed that such an effect could be avoided via
cognitive load balancing (Nash, 2007). Besides the discussion of split-attention
effect, researchers (Yang et al., 2015) also investigated the effects of presentation
mode and interest on concentration and achievement in m-learning. It was
found that significant correlations existed between interest and concentration
as well as between concentration and achievement in m-learning. Therefore, we
should enhance mobile learners’ concentration by stimulating their m-learning
interests.
Overall, the issue of m-learning concentration is a new research topic, which
needs more concerns. The measurement of mobile learners’ concentration is the
fundamental problem. Compared with the eye-tracking and brainwave technol-
ogies, a self-evaluation questionnaire is convenient, easy to use, and can be
administered anywhere and anytime. Although several concentration question-
naire scales have been developed for the classroom (Sulaiman, Mahbob, &
Azlan, 2011; Yang & Chang, 2013) and e-learning settings (Liu, Liao, &
Pratt, 2009), no concentration questionnaire addresses the issue in the context
of m-learning. Thus, in this study, we developed an instrument to determine the
learning concentration of college students who were asked to learn conceptual
knowledge by using a mobile phone and to explore the interaction effects of
learning styles and interest on learning concentration.

Learning Style and Interest in m-Learning

Learning styles pertain to the characteristics of students reflected in their respect-
ive learning behaviors, such as how they learn, how they should be taught,
and how they interact with the learning environment (Ocepek, Bosnić,
Li and Yang 5

Šerbec, & Rugelj, 2013). For measuring learning styles, some popular assessment
tools, such as Kolb’s (1985) Learning Styles Inventory, Felder–Silverman
Learning Style Scale (LSS; Soloman &Felder, 1997), NASSP Learning Style
Profile (Keefe & Monk, 1988), and Learning Styles Questionnaire (Honey&
Mumford, 1992), have been created. Huang, Lin, and Huang (2012) suggested
that among the proposed LSSs, the Felder–Silverman Learning Style model has
the most comprehensive dimensions and could generate more in-depth findings
on the effects of learning styles than other models.
In recent years, two different voices on learning styles have emerged.
Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that providing students with
learning materials and activities that fit their preferred means of learning can
make learning easier and better for them (Graf & Liu, 2009; Lynch, Woelfl,
Steele, & Hanssen, 1998; Terrell & Dringus, 2000). Learning styles have been
determined to affect the academic achievement (Allert, 2004; Gappi, 2013) and
online participation of students (Huang et al., 2012). However, other researchers
(Kirschner & van Merriënboer, 2013; Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork,
2008) questioned the scientific evidence of learning styles. They argued that
very few studies had even used an experimental methodology capable of testing
the validity of learning styles applied to education. Pashler et al. (2008) sug-
gested that at present limited education resources would better be devoted to
adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, not the
learning styles. Although there is controversy, we still believe that learning style
is promising in education. More methodologically sound studies of learning
styles need to be conducted further.
In the m-learning context, many studies have demonstrated that learning
styles have impact on m-learning performance. Hsieh, Jang, Hwang, and
Chen (2011) identified that students who received a matching teaching–learning
style presented a significant improvement in their reflection level. Huang, Wang,
Fang, and Lin (2011) explored the effect of cognitive styles on context-aware
ubiquitous learning in an elementary school butterfly ecology course. They
found that the field independent learners performed better than the field depend-
ent learners. Wyatt et al. (2010) investigated the relationship between m-learning
and the learning styles of students. Correspondingly, the researchers realized
that m-learning could better enhance the learning of the visual or nonverbal
and tactile or kinesthetic students than that of the visual or verbal students.
In addition, several researchers (Cruz, 2013; Norazah, Ridzwan, & Arif, 2013)
investigated the effects of learning styles on m-learning adoption. They con-
cluded that learning styles positively affect one’s acceptance of m-learning.
Currently, the development of some adaptive m-learning systems is also based
on the theory of learning style (Park, 2005; Sampson & Zervas, 2013; Shih,
Chen, & Li, 2013).
Besides learning styles, the interest of students in m-learning is an increasingly
important issue. Numerous researchers have explored the effects of m-learning
6 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

on the learning interest of students of different ages in different courses (Hwang

& Chang, 2011; Zhao, Anma, Ninomiya, & Okamoto, 2008). They found that
adopting the m-learning method could stimulate students’ interest significantly
in learning. Cavus and Ibrahim (2009) investigated the interest of students in
using mobile phones to learn new English language words. Consequently, the
researchers suggested that undergraduate students enjoyed and learned new
words with the help of their mobile phones. This finding signified that the inter-
est of students to use their mobile phones helped them to improve their vocabu-
lary. Tan and Liu (2004) developed a mobile-based interactive learning
environment (MOBILE) and explored the application of MOBILE in the elem-
entary English course. They found MOBILE could enhance the effects of
English instruction and also increase students’ learning interest and motivation.
In a word, current studies put more attention on the effect of m-learning
approach on students’ interest, while ignoring the impact of m-learning interest
on other learning variables.
Although several researchers have demonstrated the significance of learning
styles and interest, only a few of them have explored the combined effects of
these factors on learning concentration. The present study aimed to investigate
the concentration of college students in concept learning via mobile phones and
to explore the interaction effects of interest and learning styles on learning
concentration.

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

In particular, this study aimed to investigate the interaction effects of interest
and learning styles on the learning concentration and academic achievement of
college students who used mobile phones to learn conceptual knowledge in a
classroom setting. We addressed the following three research questions:

1. What is the relationship among interest, concentration, and achievement?

2. Do the interest and learning styles of students yield interaction effects on their
learning concentration?
3. Do the interest, learning styles, and learning concentration of students
generate interaction effects on their learning achievement?

Method
Participants
The participants in this study consisted of two classes of freshmen students
(a total of 92 students), aged between 17 and 20 (M ¼ 18.77) years, at Jiangsu
Normal University in China. Each participant had a smartphone and had used
such a device in learning.
Li and Yang 7

Instruments
The measuring tools adopted for this study included LSS, interest questionnaire,
concentration questionnaire, posttests, and group interviews. The experimental
material is a video format courseware containing eight concepts.

Learning style scale. Due to the popularity of LSS developed by Soloman and
Felder (1997), we adopted LSS for investigating students’ learning styles in
this study. LSS comprises 44 items with four dimensions, namely, sensing or
intuitive, visual or verbal, active or reflective, and sequential or global. Each
dimension contains 11 items. Video-based learning material has higher media
richness, consisting of text, graphic, audio, animation, and video. This type of
learning material could support the different learning styles of students. The use
of visual or verbal learning style for video learning research has been identified
in previous studies (Chen & Sun, 2012; Homer, Plass, & Blake, 2008). The cur-
rent study also explored the learning concentration and achievement among the
visual and verbal learners. The result of learning styles survey showed that
28.26% (26) of the participants was verbal learners, while 71.74% (66) was
visual learners.

Interest questionnaire. The interest questionnaire (see Table 1), which was adopted
from Yang, Guo, and Yu (in press), was used to examine the m-learning interest
of the research participants. The original questionnaire included six questions,
which were modified to fit the context of the present study. In particular, a new
item, “I would like to continue using mobile phones to learn in the future” was
added to the questionnaire.
The questionnaire is a seven-item self-evaluation inventory measured with a
5-point Likert scale (i.e., strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly
disagree). The revised internal consistency reliability was .82. A Cronbach’s
a  .7 is the typically recommended standard, with scales containing less than

Table 1. Interest Questionnaire for Mobile Learning.

Item Description

1 I love to use mobile phones to access learning content anytime, anywhere.

2 It is so interesting to learn using mobile phones.
3 It often makes me feel happy while using mobile phones to learn.
4 It can optimize the use of my time while using mobile phones to learn.
5 I can learn a lot through my mobile phone.
6 I believe that using mobile phones to learn will become more and more popular.
7 I would like to continue using mobile phones to learn in the future.
8 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Table 2. Concentration Questionnaire for Mobile Learning.

Item Description

1 In the m-learning activity, I try my best not to be absent-minded.

2 In the m-learning activity, I can ignore the noise of the surrounding environment
and focus on learning content.
3 In the m-learning activity, it is easy for me to lose my concentration.*
4 In the m-learning activity, even if the contents are not interesting, I can still
concentrate on them.
5 In the m-learning activity, it is difficult for me to concentrate for 15 minutes.*
6 In the m-learning activity, my mind wanders.*
7 In the m-learning activity, I often forget what I have just learned.*
8 In the m-learning activity, it is difficult for me to pay attention to the details.*
9 In the m-learning activity, I can notice the key points of learning contents.
10 In the m-learning activity, I can grasp and fully understand the main points.
Note. m-learning: mobile learning.
*This indicates the reverse item.

10 items (Krank et al., 2011). Thus, the questionnaire in this study had a favor-
able and acceptable reliability.

Concentration questionnaire. The concentration questionnaire was employed to

examine the concentration of the participants in learning via mobile phones.
The learning concentration variable was measured with a 10-item scale
(see Table 2) adopted from the work of Chen, Yang, and Hsu (2013) and
from the questionnaire of the California State University (https://www.csu
stan.edu/psychological-counseling-services-39). These concentration question-
naires are generally used for classroom and school learning and not specifically
for m-learning. Therefore, we modified the expression of each item to suit the
m-learning context. The questions in the modified questionnaire were evaluated
on a 5-point Likert scale with a Cronbach’s a of .83. The responses were similar
to those in the interest questionnaire.

Posttests. Two posttests were administered. The first one (immediate posttest)
was conducted immediately after the m-learning activity, and the second
(delayed posttest) was performed 1 week later. To reduce the probability of
an examinee guessing a correct answer, both the immediate and delayed postt-
ests asked the same questions, which were arranged in different sequences (Chen
& Sun, 2012). The immediate posttest was conducted to evaluate the partici-
pants’ learning outcome concerning the eight concepts after the learning activity.
The delayed posttest was administered to evaluate the participants’ retention of
the eight concepts in the learning activity. The posttests were designed based on
Li and Yang 9

the learning materials and consisted of 10 single-choice items (4 points per

question) and 10 fill-in-the-blank items (6 points per question) with a full
score of 100.
The immediate and delayed posttests were designed and validated by two
researchers. These tests mainly evaluated the memory and understanding of
the participants regarding the concepts introduced to them. Therefore, all ques-
tions in the forms were objective. One researcher marked all test papers, and
another researcher randomly performed a spot check on 30 test papers to ensure
their correctness.

Group interviews. After the delayed posttest, a total of 10 participants (divided

into two groups) were selected for focus group interviews. Group A consisted of
three participants with high concentration and two participants with low con-
centration, whereas Group B involved three participants with high achievement
and two participants with low achievement. All interviews were recorded with a
recording pen, and each group interview lasted for approximately 30 minutes.
The researcher transcribed the audio of each conducted interview. The interview
outline is as follows:

1. What do you think of the difficulty of these concepts? Why?

2. Briefly describe your learning concentration in the context of m-learning.
3. Do you have any suggestions to improve the m-learning courseware design?

Materials. Kang and Zhou (2009) asserted that in educational experiments,

selecting unfamiliar knowledge for participants was an effective strategy to guar-
antee the equal preknowledge level among them and avoid the effect of the
pretest on the subsequent tests. Therefore, in this study, we selected concepts
from other disciplines (i.e., geography, biology, and chemistry) to ensure that the
participants had similar preknowledge about the lesson before the experiment.
We initially used 10 science concepts as the learning materials. These concepts
were validated by performing a pilot study that involved six education majors
from other classes. The students claimed that 10 concepts were excessive and
suggested that only 8 concepts could be learned in 20 minutes. Considering their
feedback, we only included eight concepts (i.e., cold front, metamorphic rock,
equatorial plate, golgiosome, aerobic respiration, covalent bond, brine electroly-
sis, and redox reaction) in the experiment. We developed a video courseware in
MP4 format for m-learning (see Figure 1). In this courseware, one researcher
explained the aforementioned eight concepts using a voiceover with text and
graphics. Each concept took an average of 2 to 3 minutes.
We then interviewed another six education major students who were not
involved in the experiment to investigate their preknowledge on the final eight
concepts. All students admitted that they learned these concepts in middle
10 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Figure 1. Video courseware for m-learning.

school but have almost forgotten them by now. In other words, these students
had similar levels of preknowledge on the eight concepts, which were almost new
knowledge for their learning.
Before the formal experiment, the courseware was installed into different
kinds of mobile phones (e.g., Android, iOS, and Windows Phone 7) to test its
usability. Correspondingly, we determined that the courseware could run
smoothly in mobile phones with different operation systems.

Procedure
The experiment was conducted in the classroom context. Each student was
tasked to learn the concepts using their own mobile phones within a given
time. Figure 2 outlines the overall research procedure.
Before the learning activity, the participants were briefly informed of this
study, including the learning tasks, procedure, and privacy protection measures
involved. Thereafter, all participants were instructed to answer the survey forms
regarding their learning styles, personal information, and interests in m-learning
supported by mobile phones. The researchers then provided the download links
to the students, who in turn downloaded the video courseware. Consequently,
the students were given 20 minutes to learn all concepts individually. After
all the participants had completed the m-learning activity, they were asked to
take the immediate posttest regarding the topic learned for 15 minutes and to fill
Li and Yang 11

All
All participants
participants
(n=92)
(n=9
= 2)

A brief
brief description
description about
about this
this activity
activity 55 minutes
minutes

survey
survey of
of Learning
Learningstyle,
style, learning
learninginterests
interests && personal
personal
information 10
10 minutes
minutes
information

Learn
Learn the
the same
same 88 concepts
concepts using
usingvideo
video courseware
courseware 20
20 minutes
minutes

Immediate
Immediate post-test
post-test && Survey
Survey of
of learning
learning
concentration 18
18 minutes
minutes
concentration

Delayed
Delayed post-test
post-test 15
15 minutes
minutes

Group
Group interviews
interviews 60
60 minutes
minutes

Data
Data analysis
analysis && Conclusion
Conclusion

Figure 2. Research procedure.

out the concentration questionnaire for 3 minutes. Approximately one week

later, the students were once again requested to complete a delayed posttest
for 15 minutes. The group interview was then conducted.

Data Analysis
In this study, we primarily used three kinds of statistical analysis methods,
namely, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and ANOVA (one, two, and
three way). A total of five variables, including learning styles, interest, concen-
tration, immediate posttest score, and delayed posttest score, were examined.
Table 3 shows the data analysis framework.
For the interest and concentration variables, strongly agree was coded as 5,
agree as 4, neutral as 3, disagree as 2, and strongly disagree as 1. For the reverse
items, strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree were coded
as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The final scores of each student on the interest
and concentration variables were calculated by their total score divided by the
item number ranging from 0 to 5.
12 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Table 3. Data Analysis Framework.

Analysis method Variables

Correlation analysis learning style, interest, concentration, immediate posttest score,

delayed posttest score
Regression analysis learning style, interest, concentration –> immediate posttest
score, delayed posttest score
Two-way ANOVA learning style, interest –> concentration
Three-way ANOVA learning style, interest, concentration–> immediate posttest
score, delayed posttest score

The continuous variables of interest and concentration were classified into

three categories (i.e., high, medium, and low) for ANOVA. For example, the
interest variable was calculated as follows: (a) the scores of interest were sorted
from highest to lowest; (b) the scores ranked top 27% were considered as the
high-interest group, the bottom 27% were regarded as the low-interest group,
and the others were considered as the medium-interest group. The concentration
variable was treated with the same process.

Results
Relationship Between Interest, Concentration, and Achievement
The students in this study showed a moderate interest in m-learning with the use
of mobile phones (M ¼ 3.54, SD ¼ 0.53) and displayed a moderate concentration
level while studying (M ¼ 3.21, SD ¼ 0.51). The mean scores of the immediate
and delayed posttests were compared. The results revealed a 3.54-point decrease
in the delayed posttest.
Table 4 shows the results of the correlation analysis among the interest, con-
centration, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest variables. The results indi-
cate that a significant but medium correlation exists between the following
variables: interest and concentration (Pearson’s r ¼ .310, p < .01), concentration
and immediate posttest (Pearson’s r ¼ .423, p < .01), and concentration and
delayed posttest (Pearson’s r ¼ .405, p < .01). Likewise, the findings demonstrate
that the immediate and delayed posttests are significantly correlated to each
other (Pearson’s r ¼ .840, p < .01).
The linear regression predicting score of learning concentration was signifi-
cant when interest was used as the predictor, F(1, 90) ¼ 9.582, p < .01, adjusted
R2 ¼ .086). Therefore, interest was considered as a positive predictor of learning
concentration ( ¼ 0.297, p < .01).
The linear regression predicting scores of the immediate and delayed posttests
were significant when interest and concentration were used as predictors
Li and Yang 13

Table 4. Results of Correlation Analysis.

Interest Concentration Immediate posttest Delayed posttest

Interest – – – –
Concentration .310** – – –
Immediate posttest .050 .423** – –
Delayed posttest .002 .405** .840** –
**p < 0.01.

Figure 3. Interaction effects of learning styles and interest on concentration.

(immediate posttest, F(2, 89) ¼ 12.214, p < .001, Adjusted R2 ¼ .198; delayed
posttest, F(2, 89) ¼ 9.930, p < .001, adjusted R2 ¼ .164). Therefore, concentration
was identified as a significant and positive predictor of both the immediate
( ¼ 13.341, p < .001) and delayed posttests ( ¼ 10.768, p < .001). By contrast,
interest had no significant contribution to the variance in the posttest scores.

Interaction Effect of Learning Style and Interest

on Learning Concentration
The results of the two-way ANOVA (see Figure 3) indicated that the interaction
between learning styles and learning interest was not significant, F(2, 86) ¼ .523,
p > .05. However, interest alone had a significant effect on the learning concen-
tration of the students, F(2, 86) ¼ 3.478, p < .05. In terms of both the visual and
verbal learning styles, the students with high and medium interests had better
learning concentration than those with low interest.
14 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

The one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference among the three inter-
est levels, F(2, 91) ¼ 3.992, p < .05). The post hoc comparisons indicated that the
students with high interest (M ¼ 3.35, SD ¼ .62) showed significantly better con-
centration than those with low interest (M ¼ 2.93, SD ¼ 0.51, p < .05). Similarly,
the students with medium interest (M ¼ 3.27, SD ¼ 0.45, p < .05) exhibited
significantly better concentration than those with low interest. However, no
significant difference in learning concentration was observed between the high-
and medium-interest groups, although the former obtained a higher mean score
than the latter.

Interaction Effect of Learning Style, Interest, and Concentration on

Learning Achievement
The results of the three-way ANOVA revealed that learning styles, interest, and
concentration did not have any interaction effects on both the immediate and
delayed posttests of the students. However, concentration alone had a significant
effect on the scores of the immediate, F(2, 78) ¼ 5.405, p < .01, and delayed
posttests, F(2, 78) ¼ 3.466, p < .05).
The results of the one-way ANOVA on the immediate (F(2, 92) ¼ 10.833,
p < .001) and delayed posttests (F(2, 92) ¼ 7.493, p < .01) revealed significant dif-
ferences among the three groups of participants in terms of their concentration
levels. The post hoc comparisons demonstrated that both in the immediate and
delayed posttests, the students with high concentration achieved significantly
higher scores than those with medium (p < .01) and low (p < .01) concentrations.
However, the results of this ANOVA also demonstrated that the scores of the
two groups with different learning styles on the immediate (F(1, 91) ¼ 2.064,
p > .05) and delayed posttests (F(1, 91) ¼ 0.201, p > .05) did not significantly
vary. This finding implies that learning styles may not necessarily influence the
academic achievement of students while learning concepts through video course-
ware in their mobile phones.

Discussion
Effect of Learning Style and Interest on Learning
Concentration With Mobile Phones
This study determined that the learning concentration of the college students
was not satisfactory while learning via mobile phones. A possible reason for
such poor concentration might be the small screen size of the phones they used.
On the one hand, the students might have a difficult time focusing on the learn-
ing contents for a long time because of the difficulty in learning on a small
screen. On the other hand, task difficulty might have an effect on the learning
concentration of the students (Brand, 2010). The students involved in this study
Li and Yang 15

were from a liberal arts college. Thus, these students might have had difficulties
in learning the science concepts, which could have affected their concentration.
The extent to which task difficulty affects the learning concentration of students
must be further investigated.
Previous studies (Ge, 2006; Renninger & Wozniak, 1985) have suggested that
interest is a significant factor that could influence the learning concentration of
students. The students with higher interest often obtain higher learning concen-
tration. This premise was further confirmed by the present study. The students
with high and medium interests in the m-learning activity tend to express better
concentration than those with low interest. One student with high concentration
stated that he could concentrate on the video courseware because he enjoys
learning with mobile phones. Bester and Brand (2013) posited that motivation
is significantly related to concentration. The students with high motivation
might have high concentration in learning. As a critical motivational variable,
interest is characterized by increased attention, concentration, and influence
(Hidi, 2006). Thus, the students with higher interest in m-learning would show
better concentration.
In the current study, learning styles did not significantly affect the learning
concentration of the participants. However, the concentration level among the
groups of students with different learning styles significantly varied at different
interest levels. The visual students had higher concentration than the verbal ones
at the high-and-low interest levels. Conversely, at the medium-interest level, the
verbal students obtained better concentration than the visual ones. Visual
courseware performs better at stimulating students’ interest and attracting
their attention than textual courseware (Gilakjani, 2012; Lin, 2012). When stu-
dents have high or low learning interest, visual courseware can play better role
in enhancing attention especially for visual learners. On the whole, the
verbal students performed poorer than the visual ones on concentration.
One possible reason might be the cognitive load. Verbal learners prefer verbal
materials, such as written and spoken words and mathematical formulas (Felder,
1993). They might have more cognitive load while watching the video course-
ware than the visual ones, resulting in less concentration (Chen, Hsieh, &
Kinshuk, 2008).
Given the results specified in the preceding paragraphs, designers of
m-learning materials and teachers who use these tools must implement several
measures to stimulate the interest of students in this type of learning.
These approaches include the following: adjusting the attitude of students
toward m-learning, preparing learning materials in connection with their
needs and interests, and immediately providing learners with relevant feedback.
Content difficulty and major relevance should also be considered in designing
m-learning contents. Moreover, for the purpose of m-learning, the screen size of
mobile devices should be wider. The influence of the screen size on the learning
concentration of students must further be explored.
16 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Effect of Learning Style, Interest, and Concentration on Learning

Achievement with Mobile Phones
The achievements of the students in the immediate and delayed posttests were
determined to be significantly and positively affected by learning concentration.
The students who had high and medium levels of concentration showed better
achievement than those with low concentration. This finding confirmed the
proposition that if students concentrate on their learning, their academic
achievement will be higher than those with poor attention while studying
(Pimta et al., 2009). Denoted as an intentional focus of attention on a certain
task, concentration is significantly related to the learning process and is the fuel
of mental operations involved in knowledge acquisition. Bester and Brand
(2013) suggested that concentration can be summarized as complete attention
using intense mental effort. The mental effort spent in m-learning activity is
necessary for the students to maintain good learning performance (Hwang &
Chang, 2011). Given the maturity of college students, they could control their
mental efforts during m-learning activities. Therefore, if students exert more
mental efforts in m-learning and stay focused, they would achieve a better score.
By contrast, the interest of students in m-learning was identified as a variable
that does not significantly affect m-learning achievement. This result is similar to
the observation of Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, and Baumert (2005) that
interest may not always benefit learning achievement in terms of other variables.
At times, the effect of interest on learning performance may be mediated by the
student engagement in learning (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2012).
Learning styles were determined to be positively related to traditional
(Gappi, 2013) and e-learning performances (Allert, 2004). Visual learners get
more information from visual images (pictures, diagrams, graphs, schematics,
and demonstrations) than from verbal material (Felder, 1993). Therefore, in the
context of multimedia, visual students generally have higher learning achieve-
ment (Pallapu, 2007). However, this study shows that learning styles are not
considered as a significant factor in the m-learning context. Compared with
learning styles, the learning interest and prior knowledge might be more signifi-
cant predictors. Chen, Toh, and Ismail (2005) revealed that prior knowledge is
the best predictor of the academic achievement of college students in virtual
environments, and learning styles are not statistically related to the learning
achievement. Learning outcome is affected by many factors, such as teaching
approach, content difficulty, and learning interests. Pashler et al. (2008) indi-
cated that learning style research needed to be performed appropriately, con-
sidering the interaction effect between learning styles and other variables.
The average score of the delayed posttest (57.51) was lower than that of the
immediate posttest (61.05). This result was not surprising because the conducted
m-learning activity required only a short and fast memory process. Jaber and
Kher (2002) stated that a worker who learns rapidly also tends to forget rapidly.
Li and Yang 17

As the students mentioned, they only intended to memorize the learning content
during the m-learning activity and would not review it thereafter. The learning-
and-forgetting curve model (Jaber & Bonney, 1996) stipulates that after students
have completed a learning activity, they would forget the lessons rapidly if they
do not review them. Therefore, the students should make sense of the learning
materials and regularly review them in their spare time using their mobile devices
to remember the educational content.

Conclusion
The current study investigated the effects of learning style and interest on the
learning concentration and achievement of college students who were tasked to
use their mobile phones to learn concepts in a classroom setting. The major
findings are as follows: (a) significant correlations exist between interest and
concentration, between concentration and immediate posttest, between concen-
tration and delayed posttest, and between immediate and delayed posttests;
(b) learning styles have no significant effect both on concentration and
achievement; (c) learning style and interest do not generate interaction effects
on concentration, but interest alone significantly affects concentration; and
(d) learning style, interest, and concentration do not yield interaction effects
on achievement, whereas concentration alone significantly influences
achievement.
The findings listed in the preceding paragraph contribute to improving
the m-learning performance, particularly for concept learning in the classroom
setting. These findings have the following implications: (a) regardless of their
learning styles, students with low interest in m-learning obtain lower concentra-
tion; (b) in order to enhance students’ m-learning concentration, the interests of
m-learning must be stimulated; (c) students’ achievement can be improved
by increasing their concentration on learning contents; (d) concentration,
interest, and learning styles must be comprehensively considered when selecting
m-learning materials.
Although our findings may serve as a beneficial reference in m-learning, this
study has certain limitations. First, the subjective responses of the students
regarding their learning concentration lacked scientific objectivity, and their
concentration state was not assessed in real time. Second, the students who
participated in this study were not totally randomly selected because all of
them were education majors. Third, the investigation was performed only in a
classroom environment; thus, the out-of-classroom setting must be considered in
future studies. Finally, this study is more like a laboratory study, not considering
students’ learning activities in actual curriculum.
In general, many factors can be positively correlated to the learning concen-
tration of students, such as learning interest, learning motivation, gender, task
difficulty, and learning content. Our future research plan includes to (a) conduct
18 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

this kind of study in the actual curriculum with larger sample sizes; (b) determine
which media format or media combinations, other than video courseware, could
improve the learning concentration and academic achievement of students;
(c) apply the eye-tracking technology and brainwave monitoring to identify
the concentration of students in m-learning; and (d) identify whether there are
differences in m-learning concentration among genders, surroundings, and time.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article: This work was sponsored by a project funded by
the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
and the Qing Lan Project.

References
Allert, J. (2004). Learning style and factors contributing to success in an introductory
computer science course. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Advanced
Learning Technologies, 2004, 385–389. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357442
Ally, M., & Tsinakos, A. (2014). Increasing access through mobile learning. Retrieved from
http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/558
Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and
mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and
Learning, 5(1), 1–21.
Bester, G., & Brand, L. (2013). The effect of technology on learner attention and achieve-
ment in the classroom. South African Journal of Education, 33(2), 1–15.
Bomsdorf, B. (2005). Adaptation of learning spaces: Supporting ubiquitous learning in
higher distance education. In N. Davies, T. Kirste, & H. Schumann (Eds.), Mobile
computing and ambient intelligence. Dagstuhl, Germany: Leibniz-Zentrum Für
Informatik.
Brand, L. M. (2010). The effect of technology on attention and concentration within the
classroom context. Retrieved from http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/558
Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2009). M-Learning: An experiment in using SMS to support
learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology,
40(1), 78–91.
Chen, C. J., Toh, S. C., & Ismail, W. M. F. W. (2005). Are learning styles relevant to
virtual reality? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 123–141.
Chen, C. M., & Huang, S. H. (2014). Web based reading annotation system with an
attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading perform-
ance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(5), 959–980.
Chen, C. M., & Sun, Y. C. (2012). Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials
on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners. Computers
& Education, 59(4), 1273–1285.
Li and Yang 19

Chen, C. M., & Wang, H. P. (2011). Using emotion recognition technology to assess the
effects of different multimedia materials on learning emotion and performance.
Library & Information Science Research, 33(3), 244–255.
Chen, I. H., Yang, Y. T. C., & Hsu, S. W. (2013). Development and evaluation of a
concentration questionnaire for students in classroom. Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2013, 4226–4230.
Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education
(AACE).
Chen, I. J., Chang, C. C., & Yen, J. C. (2012). Effects of presentation mode on mobile
language learning: A performance efficiency perspective. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 28(1), 122e137.
Chen, N. S., Hsieh, S. W., & Kinshuk, A. (2008). Effects of short-term memory and
content representation type on mobile language learning. Language Learning &
Technology, 12(3), 93–113.
Chun, M. M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2007). Interactions between attention and memory.
Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17(2), 177–184.
Costabile, M. F., De Angeli, A., Lanzilotti, R., Ardito, C., Buono, P., & Pederson, T.
(2008, April). Explore! possibilities and challenges of mobile learning. Proceedings
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 145–154).
New York, NY: ACM.
Cruse, E. (2011). Using educational video in the classroom: Theory, research and practice.
Retrieved from http://www.safarimontage.com/pdfs/training/usingeducationalvideo
intheclassroom.pdf
Cruz, Y. (2013, July). Examining the Effect of Learning Styles on Mobile Learning
Adoption. IEEE 13th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies
(ICALT), 2013, 510–511. doi:10.1109/ICALT.2013.168
Delgado, M. R., Phelps, E. A., & Robbins, T. W. (Eds.). (2011). Decision making, affect,
and learning: Attention and performance XXIII (Vol. 23). Oxford University Press.
Deng, Y. Y. (2015). An exploration of split-attention effect in the iPad-supported class-
room settings. China Modern Educational Equipment, (16), 97–98.
Denk, M., Weber, M., & Belfin, R. (2007). Mobile learning–challenges and potentials.
International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 1(2), 122–139.
Echeverrı́a, A., Nussbaum, M., Calderón, J. F., Bravo, C., Infante, C., & Vásquez, A.
(2011). Face-to-face collaborative learning supported by mobile phones. Interactive
Learning Environments, 19(4), 351–363.
Felder, R. M. (1993). Reaching the second tier. Journal of College Science Teaching,
23(5), 286–290.
Freitas, A., & Schlemmer, E. (2013). Mobile learning: Definition, uses and challenges.
In L. A. Wankel & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Increasing student engagement and retention
using mobile applications: Smartphones, skype and texting technologies (Vol. 47,
pp. 47–82). Bingley, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Gappi, L. L. (2013). Relationships between learning style preferences and academic per-
formance of students. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology
(IJERT), 4(2), 7.
Ge, X. S. (2006). The top ten factors of influencing learning attention. Instructional
Research, 6, 555–557.
20 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Gilakjani, A. P. (2012). The significant role of multimedia in motivating EFL learners’

interest in English language learning. International Journal of Modern Education and
Computer Science (IJMECS), 4(4), 57.
Graf, S., & Liu, T. C. (2009). Supporting teachers in identifying students’ learning styles
in learning management systems: an automatic student modelling approach.
Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 3.
Han, J., Jo, M., Park, S., & Kim, S. (2005, August). The educational use of home robots
for children. IEEE International workshop on Robot and human interactive communi-
cation, 2005. ROMAN 2005 (pp. 378–383). New York, NY: IEEE.
Hidi, S. (2006). Interest: A unique motivational variable. Educational Research Review,
1(2), 69–82.
Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and
social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786–797.
Honey, P., & Mumford, A. (1992). The manual of learning styles. Berkshire, England:
Honey, Ardingly House.
Hongler, K. I. (2013). Is work-related mobile learning in public spaces effective?-
Acknowledging disruptions and human attention. Retrieved from http://www.makings
ciencenews.com/catalogue/papers/550/view
Hsieh, S. W., Jang, Y. R., Hwang, G. J., & Chen, N. S. (2011). Effects of teaching and
learning styles on students’ reflection levels for ubiquitous learning. Computers &
Education, 57(1), 1194–1201.
Hsu, C. C., Chen, H. C., Su, Y. N., Huang, K. K., & Huang, Y. M. (2012). Developing a
reading concentration monitoring system by applying an artificial bee colony algo-
rithm to e-books in an intelligent classroom. Sensors, 12(10), 14158–14178.
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based
mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students.
Computers & Education, 63, 327–336.
Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to
online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment? A study of software
usage instruction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 338–349.
Huang, G. Z., Wang, H. Y., Fang, H. G., & Lin, Y. S. (2011). Effect of cognitive styles on
context-aware ubiquitous learning—A case study on an elementary school butterfly
ecology course. Modern Educational Technology, 21(5), 18–23.
Huber, J., Steimle, J., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2010, October). Toward more efficient user
interfaces for mobile video browsing: An in-depth exploration of the design space.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 341–350). New York,
NY: ACM.
Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning
approach to improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers
& Education, 56(4), 1023–1031.
Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. (2014). Applications, impacts and trends of mobile
technology–enhanced learning: a review of 2008–2012 publications in
selected SSCI journals. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation,
8(2), 83–95.
Jaber, M. Y., & Bonney, M. (1996). Production breaks and the learning curve: the
forgetting phenomenon. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 20(2), 162–169.
Li and Yang 21

Jaber, M. Y., & Kher, H. V. (2002). The dual-phase learning–forgetting model.

International Journal of Production Economics, 76(3), 229–242.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Jumisko-Pyykkö, S., & Häkkinen, J. (2005, November). Evaluation of subjective video
quality of mobile devices. Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM International
Conference on Multimedia (pp. 535–538). New York, NY: ACM.
Kang, C., & Zhou, A. B. (2009). The effect of representational mode of information and
personality traits of learners on the learning in multimedia environment. Psychological
Development and Education, 25(1), 81–90.
Keefe, J. W., & Monk, J. S. (1988). Learning style profile: Technical manual. Reston, VA:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Kirschner, P. A., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban
legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.
Kolb, D. (1985). Learning style inventory. Boston, MA: McBer.
Krank, M., Stewart, S. H., O’Connor, R., Woicik, P. B., Wall, A. M., & Conrod, P. J.
(2011). Structural, concurrent, and predictive validity of the Substance Use Risk
Profile Scale in early adolescence. Addictive behaviors, 36(1), 37–46.
Lin, Q. S. (2012). The application of multimedia technology in web education. Physics
Procedia, 33, 1553–1557.
Liu, P. L. (in press). Using eye tracking to understand the responses of learners to
vocabulary learning strategy instruction and use. Computer Assisted Language
Learning.
Liu, S. H., Liao, H. L., & Peng, C. J. (2005). Applying the technology acceptance model
and flow theory to online e-learning users’ acceptance behavior. E-learning, 4(H6), H8.
Liu, S. H., Liao, H. L., & Pratt, J. A. (2009). Impact of media richness and flow on
e-learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 52(3), 599–607.
Liu, T. C., Lin, Y. C., Tsai, M. J., & Paas, F. (2012). Split-attention and redundancy
effects on mobile learning in physical environments. Computers & Education, 58(1),
172–180.
Lynch, T. G., Woelfl, N. N., Steele, D. J., & Hanssen, C. S. (1998). Learning style
influences student examination performance. The American Journal of Surgery,
176(1), 62–66.
Maniar, N., Bennett, E., & Gal, D. (2007, March). The effect that screen size has on
video-based m-learning. In Fifth Annual IEEE International Conference on Pervasive
computing and communications workshops, 2007. PerCom workshops’ 07 (pp. 145–148).
New York, NY: IEEE.
Maniar, N., Bennett, E., Hand, S., & Allan, G. (2008). The effect of mobile phone screen
size on video based learning. Journal of Software, 3(4), 51–61.
Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic
self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models
of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397–416.
Mason, L., Pluchino, P., Tornatora, M. C., & Ariasi, N. (2013). An eye-tracking study of
learning from science text with concrete and abstract illustrations. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 81(3), 356–384.
Metcalf, D., Raasch, S., Milrad, M., Hamilton, A., & Cheek, D. (2008, March). My
sports pulse: Increasing student interest in STEM disciplines through sports themes,
22 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

games and mobile technologies. Fifth IEEE International Conference on Wireless,

Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in Education, 2008. WMUTE 2008 (pp. 23–30).
New York, NY: IEEE.
Nash, S. S. (2007). Mobile learning, cognitive architecture and the study of literature.
Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 4, 811–818.
Norazah, M. N., Ridzwan, C. R., & Arif, A. A. (2013). Relationship between the accept-
ance of mobile learning for AutoCAD course and learning style in polytechnic.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 177–187.
Ocepek, U., Bosnić, Z., Šerbec, I. N., & Rugelj, J. (2013). Exploring the relation between
learning style models and preferred multimedia types. Computers & Education, 69,
343–355.
Paget, R. (2010). A guide to study and revision. Retrieved from www.lulu.com
Pallapu, P. (2007). Effects of visual and verbal learning styles on learning. Institute for
Learning Styles Journal, 1(1), 34–41.
Park, H. (2005, November). Design and development of a mobile learning management
system adaptive to learning style of students. IEEE International Workshop on
Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2005. WMTE 2005 (pp. 67–69).
New York, NY: IEEE.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Pimta, S., Tayraukham, S., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2009). Factors influencing mathematic
problem-solving ability of sixth grade students. Online Submission, 5(4), 381–385.
Renninger, K., & Wozniak, R. H. (1985). Effect of interest on attentional shift, recogni-
tion, and recall in young children. Developmental Psychology, 21(4), 624.
Rogers, Y., & Price, S. (2008). The role of mobile devices in facilitating collaborative
inquiry in situ. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(03),
209–229.
Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2012). Problem-based learning and student motivation:
The role of interest in learning and achievement. In G. O’Grady, E. H. J. Yew, K. P.
L. Goh, & H. G. Schmidt (Eds.), One-day, one-problem (pp. 85–101). Singapore:
Springer.
Sampson, D. G., & Zervas, P. (2013). Context-aware adaptive and personalized
mobile learning systems. In D. G. Sampson, P. Isaias, D. Ifenthaler, & J.
M. Spector (Eds.), Ubiquitous and mobile learning in the digital age (pp. 3–17). New
York, NY: Springer.
Saran, M., Cagiltay, K., & Seferoglu, G. (2008, March). Use of mobile phones in lan-
guage learning: Developing effective instructional materials. In Fifth IEEE
International Conference on Wireless, Mobile, and Ubiquitous Technology in
Education, 2008. WMUTE 2008. (pp. 39–43). IEEE.
Sharples, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I., Milrad, M., & Vavoula, G. (2009). Mobile learning
(pp. 233–249). Netherlands: Springer.
Shih, B. Y., Chen, C. Y., & Li, C. E. (2013). The exploration of the mobile mandarin
learning system by the application of TRIZ theory. Computer Applications in
Engineering Education, 21(2), 343–348.
Li and Yang 23

Silander, P., Sutinen, E., & Tarhio, J. (2004). Mobile collaborative concept mapping-
combining classroom activity with simultaneous field exploration. Proceedings of the
2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education,
2004 (pp. 114–118). New York, NY: IEEE.
Sleegers, P. J. C., Moolenaar, N. M., Galetzka, M., Pruyn, A., Sarroukh, B. E., & van der
Zande, B. (in press). Lighting affects students’ concentration positively: Findings from
three Dutch studies. Lighting Research and Technology.
Soloman, B. A., & Felder, R. M. (1997). Index of learning styles questionnaire. Retrieved
from http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html
Sulaiman, W. I. W., Mahbob, M. H., & Azlan, A. A. (2011). Learning outside the
classroom: Effects on student concentration and interest. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 12–17.
Takahashi, K., & Arita, K. (2013). A warning system in e-learning using web cameras.
Procedia Computer Science, 22, 571–579.
Tan, T. H., & Liu, T. Y. (2004, August). The mobile-based interactive learning environ-
ment (MOBILE) and a case study for assisting elementary school English learning.
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
2004 (pp. 530–534). New York, NY: IEEE.
Terrell, S. R., & Dringus, L. (2000). An investigation of the effect of learning style on
student success in an online learning environment. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 28(3), 231–238.
Ting, Y. L. (2013). Using mobile technologies to create interwoven learning interactions:
An intuitive design and its evaluation. Computers & Education, 60(1), 1–13.
Wyatt, T. H., Krauskopf, P. B., Gaylord, N. M., Ward, A., Huffstutler-Hawkins, S., &
Goodwin, L. (2010). Cooperative m-learning with nurse practitioner students. Nursing
Education Perspectives, 31(2), 109–113.
Yang, Y. T. C., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Empowering students through digital game
authorship: Enhancing concentration, critical thinking, and academic achievement.
Computers & Education, 68, 334–344.
Yang, X., Guo, X., & Yu, S. (in press). Effects of cooperative translation on Chinese EFL
student levels of interest and self-efficacy in specialized English translation. Computer
Assisted Language Learning.
Yang, X., Li, X., & Lu, T. (2015). Using mobile phones in college classroom settings:
Effects of presentation mode and interest on concentration and achievement.
Computers & Education, 88, 292–302.
Zhang, L. (2013, September). Mobile phone technology engagement in EFL classroom.
Proceedings of the 2013 International conference on software engineering and computer
science, Atlantis Press, Hubei, China.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in
e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness.
Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27.
Zhao, X., Anma, F., Ninomiya, T., & Okamoto, T. (2008). Personalized adaptive content
system for context-aware mobile learning. International Journal of Computer Science
and Network Security, 8(8), 153–161.
24 Journal of Educational Computing Research 0(0)

Author Biographies
Xiaojie Li is a graduate student in the school of wisdom education at Jiangsu
Normal University. Her research interests include mobile learning, concentra-
tion, and online learning.

Xianmin Yang is an associate professor in the School of Wisdom Education at

Jiangsu Normal University. He has published more than 40 academic papers
indexed by SSCI, EI, and CSSCI (Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index). His
research interests mainly include mobile and ubiquitous learning, technology-
enhanced learning, and digital learning resource R&D.