Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 434438

World Conference on Educational Sciences 2009

Improving critical thinking skills in mobile learning

Nadire Cavusa*, Huseyin Uzunboylub
b

a
Department of Computer Information Systems, Near East University, Lefkosa 98010, Northern Cyprus
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies, Near East University, Lefkosa 98010, Northern Cyprus

Received October 20, 2008; revised December 11, 2008; accepted January 02, 2009

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of mobile learning over the critical thinking skills. The volunteer sample
in this experimental study consisted of 41 undergraduates enrolled in computer education classes at the Near East University in
North Cyprus. The students critical thinking disposition was measured by California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory
Scale (CCTDI). Also, the usefulness of mobile learning systems (UMLS), a questionnaire adapted by Motiwalla (2007), was
used to collect data. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis techniques; arithmetic mean and standard
deviation. Overall, students attitudes toward the usefulness of a mobile learning system improved significantly at the end of the
experimental study. It was found that after the study the students creativity improved significantly. Furthermore, researchers
found that outdoor experiences influenced students attitudes positively. Additionally, results indicate that in this study, working
collaboratively and sharing information were built into a group activity.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: M-learning; environmental awareness; collaborative learning; critical thinking; mobile technologies; SMS; MMS; Messenger; GPRS; WAP.

1. Introduction
Mobile learning or m-learning (ML) has increasingly attracted the interest of educators, researchers, and companies that
develop learning systems and publish instructional materials. This technology provides the potential for collaborative interaction
and learning opportunities for geographically dispersed persons and groups (Bistrm, 2005; Edwards et al., 2002). Although
currently applied in small-scale projects, ML is potentially useful in more educational settings. Small and familiar to students,
mobile telephones do not require technological training, do not intimidate users, and remain unobtrusive in classrooms (Nyiri,
2003). Also, within educational environments, students frequently move from place to place (Muhlhauser & Trompler, 2002), but
the mobile telephones they carry are immediately accessible throughout the day (Cereijo-Roibas & Arnedillo-Sanchez, 2002).
The use of wireless/handheld devices includes students and instructors using discretionary periods while traveling by bus or train
to complete course assignments or prepare lessons (Virvou & Alepis, 2005).
Short Message Service (SMS) and Wireless Application Protocols (WAP), two types of wireless data communication, have
gained increasing global popularity, although their use in online education has been limited (Motiwalla, 2007). The common use
of telephones and messaging for facilitating friendships and socialization (Bauman, 2003; Taylor & Harper, 2002) has
established a role for the mobile telephone as a means of collaborative learning. Few studies, however, have investigated
educational outcomes of ML (Uzunboylu, Cavus & Ercag, 2009). BenMoussa (2003) identified several benefits of using mobile
applications, which generally permit users to control or filter the flow of information and communication using individualized or
personalized devices. The influence of constructivism has resulted in more self-directed and exploratory classroom activities
(Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005). Perhaps one of the most sophisticated uses of m-learning to date is the Mobile Author Project

* Nadire Cavus. Tel.: +90-392-223-6464; +90-392-223-6461.

E-mail address: nadirecavus@neu.edu.tr.

1877-0428 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.078

Nadire Cavus et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 434438

435

(Virvou & Alepis, 2005), which allows instructors to create an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) for any subject. Also, the Mobile
Learning Tool (MOLT) developed by Cavus and Ibrahim (2009) investigates the use of wireless technologies in education,
particularly for learning technical English words using text messaging. They were concluded that away from the regular
classroom environment, students completed daily activities and learned new technical words. It is well known that one of the
most important issues in education is critical thinking. Richard (1991) defines critical thinking as reaching consequences based
on observation and knowledge. Norris (1985) describes critical thinking as students practice of all previous knowledge on a
specific topic and the evaluation of their own thinking skills and the change of behaviors. According to Ennis (1985) is a
reasonable, reflective, responsible and skilled thinking process which focuses on what to believe and what to do (Ivie, 2001). If
students use critical thinking skills, they gain clear and bright views in depth, they are more interested in events, they approach in
a more reasonable manner and they become fairer (Connerly, 2006). On the other hand, Rudd, Baker and Tracy (2000) state
critical thinking is a reasoned, purposive, and introspective approach to solving problems or addressing questions with
incomplete evidence and information and for which an incontrovertible solution is unlikely. Latterly, Moore and Parker (2007)
underline critical thinking is the careful and deliberate determination of whether to accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a
claim. An other outlook from Facione (2007) that suggested critical thinking is thinking that has a purpose (proving a point,
interpreting what something means, solving a problem), but critical thinking can be a collaborative, noncompetitive endeavor.
Today, another important role of education in understanding, protecting, and solving environment problems has been universally
recognized since 1970 (Shobeiri, Omidvar & Prahallada, 2006). Since 2000, researchers have considered the use of
environmental education in schools, colleges, and universities (Iozi, 1989; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Shin, 2000). Researchers
subsequently examined students knowledge and attitudes towards the environments (Ramsey & Hungerford, 1989; Thompson &
Gasteiger, 1985; Weigel & Weigel, 1978) and methods for teaching environmental awareness (Attarian, 1996; Bryant &
Hungerford, 1977; Howe & Disinger, 1988; Leeming et al., 1993; Shepard & Speelman, 1985).

2. The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of mobile learning over the critical thinking skills. The study focuses on
answering these questions:
Is there a significant difference in pre-experience test and post-experience test results of the usefulness of mobile learning
systems (UMLS) questionnaire?
1. Is there a significant difference in pre-experience test and post-experience test results of the creativities of the participants?

436

Nadire Cavus et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 434438

3. Method

3.1. Participants
The volunteer sample in this study (N = 41) consisted of 20 males and 21 female undergraduates enrolled in computer
education classes at the Near East University in North Cyprus. Thirteen students were second-year students (sophomore), 14
were third-year students (junior), and 14 were fourth-year (senior) students. The mean age of participants was 21.37 years,
ranging from 19-24. Each participant completed pre-experience and post-experience questionnaires. Expenses for the study were
paid by North Cyprus TURKCELL, a commercial provider of mobile services.
3.2. Instrument
The students critical thinking disposition was measured by California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory Scale
(CCTDI). California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory Scale was developed by Facione, Facione and Giancarlo (1992) and
was adapted into Turkish by Kkdemir (2003). It includes seven subscales which is determined theoretically and tested
psychometrically. The CCTDI consists of 75 Likert-type questions that represent seven critical thinking constructs. The
developers report an overall reliability Chronbachs of .90 and scale reliability scores from .72 - .80. Total scores range form 75450. However, in order to determine the critical thinking disposition, a total point of these subscales is used Facione, Facione and
Giancarlo (1992).
The usefulness of mobile learning systems (UMLS), a questionnaire adapted by Motiwalla (2007), was used to collect data.
This 23-item questionnaire focuses on the usefulness of mobile telephones for increasing students awareness of environment
concerns. Each participant completed the UMLS before the project began and after its completion. The questionnaire addresses
three dimensions: Asynchronous communication, synchronous communication, and mobile communication. Respondents rate
each item on a 1-5 Likert scale from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The Cronbachs alpha of the questionnaire is
.93.
3.3. Procedure
Mobile technologies potentially promote, facilitate, and enhance student collaboration and interaction, processes that serve as
a means for accessing, discovering, discussing, and sharing environmental concerns via multimedia messaging services (MMS),
short message service (SMS), electronic mail, or MSN Messenger. Students can converse with each other, question each other,
and share opinions about environmental concerns. Collaboration could also occur outside the classroom, unlimited by geography,
space, or time, although traditional classroom instruction infrequently supports collaboration. Mobile telephones with cameras
permit students to photograph environmental problems and serve as a means for sharing concerns with friends. Thus, students
can pose questions related to the environment, collaborate with classmates, learn new knowledge, and formulate plans to solve
environmental problems. ML potentially moves learning outside classrooms and into students environments, both real and
virtual, thus re-conceptualizing learning as personal, situational, creativity, collaborative, and lifelong. All the activities during
the study were organized so that students could use their critical thinking skills.
3.4. Data analysis
The data was analyzed using descriptive statistical analysis techniques; arithmetic mean and standard deviation.

4. Results and Discussion

Figure 1 presents the pre-experience test and post-experience test means and standard deviations for total point UMLS
questionnaire. The pre-experience test mean on the UMLS was 45.20 (SD = 20.22); the corresponding post-experience test mean
was 89.76 (SD = 9.79). The mean difference was 44.56. A paired-samples t-test compared the pre-experience test and postexperience test mean of the UMLS. The results differed significantly, t (40) = 12.47, p = .01. The pre-experience test mean was
1.97, and the post-experience test mean was 3.90. Overall, students attitude toward the usefulness of a mobile learning system
improved significantly.
100
80
60

89,76

Post-experience test

40
20
0

Pre-experience test

45,2

Nadire Cavus et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 434438

437

Figure 1. Mean of UMLS questionnaire

Figure 2 present the pre-experience test and post-experience test means and standard deviations for CCTDI scale. The preexperience test mean on the CCTDI was 211.39 (SD = 37.91); the corresponding post-experience test mean was 247.68 (SD =
54.56). The mean difference was 36.29. A paired-samples t-test compared the pre-experience test and post-experience test mean
of the CCTDI. The results differed significantly, t (40) = 3.49, p = .001. The pre-experience test mean was 2.81, and the postexperience test mean was 3.30. After the study the students creativity improved significantly.

250
240
247,68

230
220

Pre-experience test
Post-experience test

210
200

211,39

190
Figure 2. Mean of CCTDI scale

5. Conclusion
Overall, students attitudes toward the usefulness of a mobile learning system improved significantly at the end of the
experimental study. It was found that after the study the students creativity improved significantly. This is other favorable result
of the study for the researchers. Kkdemir (2003) states when critical thinking education is the part of the ongoing education,
students are not only more successful academically but also they are more positive socially. Interestingly, the study of Ip et al.,
(2001) stated that in the majority of sub-scales of CCTDI, students showed a negative disposition towards critical thinking. On
the other hand, researchers found that outdoor experiences influenced students attitudes (Driver & Johnson, 1984; Howe &
Disinger, 1988; Knapp, 1996; Ramsey & Hungerford, 1989; Shepard & Speelman, 1985-86) exactly as in our study.
Furthermore, using group discussions about environmental problems, Jaus (1984) investigated short-term and long-term effects
of environmental instruction on the attitudes of third graders. Additionally, results indicate that in this study, working
collaboratively and sharing information was built into a group activity to encourage undergraduates to create a virtual map by
transmitting snapshots and text gathered while exploring a geographical area in North Cyprus.

Acknowledgements
This research project was sponsored by North Cyprus TURKCELL (a mobile operator in Northern Cyprus). The participation
of students at the Near East University in Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies are gratefully
acknowledged.

References
Attarian, A. (1996). Integrating values clarification into outdoor adventure programs and activities. Journal of Physical education, 67(8), 41-44.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
BenMoussa, C. (May, 2003). Workers on the move: New opportunities through mobile commerce. Paper presented at the meeting of the Stockholm Mobility
Roundtable, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bistrm, J. (2005). Peer-to-peer networks as collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at HUT T-110.551 Seminar on Internetworking. Retrieved
from http://www.sit.fi/~johnny/collp2p.pdf/
Bryant, C. K., & Hungerford, H. R. (1977). An analysis of strategies for teaching environmental concepts and values clarification in kindergarten. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 137 117)
Cavus, N. & Ibrahim. (2009). D. M-learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(1), 78-91.
Cereijo-Roibas, A., & Arnedillo-Sanchez, I. (2002). Pathway to m-learning. In European workshop on mobile & contextual learning, Birmingham, UK.
Connerly, D. (2006). Teaching Critical Thinking Skills to Fourth Primary Teaching Students Identified as Gifted and Talented. Iowa: Graceland University.
Driver, B. L., & Johnson, L. A. (Winter, 1983-84). A pilot study of the perceived long-term benefits of the Youth Conservation Corps. Journal of Environmental
Education, 15(2), 3-11.
Edwards, K., Newman, M., Sedivy, J., Smith, T., Balfanz, D., & Smetters, D. K. (2002). Using speakeasy for ad hoc peer-to-peer collaboration. Paper presented
at ACM 2002 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW 2002), New Orleans, Louisiana.

438

Nadire Cavus et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 434438

Ennis, R., (1985). Goals for critical thinking curriculum. A. Costa (Ed.), Developing Minds ; A Heourse Book for Teaching Thinking: Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 54-57.
Facione, A. P. (2007). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. http://www.insightassessment.com/pdf_files/what&why2006.pdf
Facione, P. A., Facione, N. C., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1992). The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory: Test manual. Millbrae, CA: California
Academic Press.
Howe, R., & Disinger, J. (1988). Teaching environmental education using the out-of school settings and mass media. ERIC/SMEAC Environmental Education
Digest, No 1. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 759) Retrieved from
http://www.m-learning.org /archive /docs/Cal03%20paper%20Ultralab%20Apr%2003.pdf
Iozi, L. A. (1989). What research says to the educator. Part one: Environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20,
3-7.
Ip, W.Y., Lee, D.T.F., Lee, I.F.K., Chau, J.P.C., Wootton, Y.S.Y., & Chang, A.M. (July, 2000). Disposition towards critical thinking: A study of Chinese
undergraduate nursing students. Journal of Advanced Nursing, (32)1, 84-90.
Ivie, S. D. (2001). Metaphor: a model for teaching critical thinking. Contemporary Education, 72 (1), 18-23.
Jaus, H. H. (1984). The development and retention of environmental attitudes in elementary school children. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(3), 33-36.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1), 1727.
Knapp, C. E. (1996). Just beyond the classroom: Community adventures for interdisciplinary learning. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 485)
Kkdemir, D. (2003). Decision Making and Problem Solving under Uncertainty. Unpublished doctorate thesis, Ankara University, Institute of Social Sciences.
Leeming, F., & Dwyer, W., Porter, B., & Cobern, M. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental
Education, 24(4), 8-21.
Moore, B. & Parker, R. (2007). Critical Thinking. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation, Computers & Education, 49(3), 581-596.
Muhlhauser, M., & Trompler, C. (2002). Learning in the digital age: Paving a smooth path with digital lecture halls. In IEEE 35th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on critical thinking. Educational Leadership, 8, 40-45.
Nyiri, K. (2003). Mobile communication: Essays on cognition and community. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Palmberg, I. E., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32-36.
Paul, R.W. (1991). Staff development for critical thinking: Lesson plan remodelling as the strategy. A. L. Costa (Ed.). Developing Minds (A Reseource Book For
Teaching thinking). Revised Education, Volume1, Alexandria, Virginia:ASCD.
Ramsey, J. M., & Hungerford, H. (1989). The effects of issue investigation and action training on environmental behavior in seventh grade students. Journal of
Environmental Education, 20(4), 29-34.
Reed, J. H. & Kromrey, J. D. (2001). Teaching critical thinking in a community college history course: Empirical evidence from infusing pauls model. College
Student Journal, 35(2), 201-216.
Rudd, R., Baker, M., & Hoover, T. (2000). Undergraduate agriculture student learning styles and critical thinking abilities: Is there a relationship? Journal of
Agriculture Education, 41(3), 2-12.
Shepard, C., & Speelman, L. R. (Winter, 1985-1986). Affecting environmental attitudes through outdoor education. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2),
20-23.
Shin, D. S. (2000). Environmental education course development for preservice secondary school science teachers in the Republic of Korea. The Journal of
Environmental Education, 31(4), 11-18.
Shobeiri, S. M., Omidvar, B., & Prahallada, N. N. (2006). Influence of gender and type of school on environmental attitude of teachers in Iran and India.
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 3(4), 351-357.
Taylor, A. S., & Harper, R. (2002). Age-old practices in the New World: A study of gift-giving between teenage mobile phone users. Paper presented to the
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
Thompson, J., & Gasteiger, E. (1985). Environmental attitude surveys of university students: 1971-1981. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1), 13-22.
Tiwari, A., Lai, P., So, M., & Yuen, K. (June, 2006). A comparison of the effects of problem-based learning and lecturing on the development of Students
critical thinking. Medical Education, (40)6, 547.
Uzunboylu, H., Cavus, N. & Ercag, E. (2009). Using mobil learning to increase environmental awareness. Computers & Education, 52, 381-389.
Virvou, M., & Alepis, E. (2005). Mobile educational features in authoring tools for personalized tutoring. Computers and Education, 44, 53-68.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: the development of a measure. Environmental and Behavior, 10(1), 3-15.