Victorie Penn

In the literature review section of the quantitative research article, multiple models of
student dropout causes were explained in order of relevance. The authors began by examining
theories related to school dropout in a traditional educational setting. Other theories and models
were mentioned thereafter explaining current research on dropout rates for adult distance
education. The literature review concluded with the most applicable theory to the research in that
the dropout rates of nontraditional adult students are affected by individual characteristics,
external, and internal factors. The authors used these factors to construct their research questions.
In contrast, the literature review contained in the qualitative research article explored the
definitions and functions of mobile learning. The meaning of mobile learning was first clarified
and analyzed as a way to support learning that is formal, informal, authentic, and context aware.
Furthermore, the authors stated that the use of mobile learning encourages engagement,
collaboration, and nonconformity to a desktop computer for assignments. There was no direct
correlation between the research questions and the literature review for the qualitative article,
however the questions created from the focus group were written to encompass the elements
discussed in the literature review.
The qualitative and quantitative articles contained a variety of references used in their
literature review sections. In the qualitative article, the authors explored research from a balance
of several books, articles, and presented papers. More than ten references were cited in
discussing how mobile learning is defined and important to students and teachers. The
quantitative article differed in that it cited more books than articles, but was written using a
reduced amount of materials. Less than ten references were explored in examining dropout
models and significance of the study. It is to be mentioned that both authors used educationallybased research, using professional literature to guide their processes.
In locating the intent of each study, stark differences were observed. In the quantitative
article, the purpose of the study was found after the literature review and before the research
questions. Direct language was used to inform the reader that discovering factors affecting
dropout decisions in adult distance learners was the aim of the research. Although the researchers
of the qualitative study also clearly notified the reader of the researchs objectives, this was
located after a brief introduction and before the literature review. The authors explained that the
purpose of their study was to examine how higher education students were affected by mobile
learning.
In terms of presentation, the qualitative and quantitative articles shared basic research
components, but varied in graphic design and the type of information imparted to the reader.
Specifically, the studies both presented an abstract, introduction, methods, results, conclusion,
and references. For graphic design elements, the qualitative article included the use of color, one
table explain the selection of universities in the study, decorative pictures, and a numbered
outline format. The quantitative article differed in that it presented the reader with a basic black
and white format, but made more extensive use of tables, graphs, and flowcharts to explain adult
dropout models and data. Additionally, the type of information conveyed by the qualitative

Victorie Penn

article focused strongly on the definitions and positives of its topic, while the quantitative article
concentrated more on historical foundations and applicability of the study.
Both articles included sound research methods such as literature review and accordance
with ethical policies for human subjects, but contrasted widely in how the research was designed
and conducted overall due to following the model appropriate to the research. In the quantitative
article, 147 nontraditional adult students were the focus of the study. They were selected from a
large Midwestern university via e-mail after the authors narrowed their search to online learners
enrolled between fall 2005 and summer 2007. The tool used to gather data was an electronic
survey questionnaire that included six questions about family and organizational support and five
questions to measure satisfaction and relevance of their online course. The analysis tool for this
study was MANOVA. In contrast, the qualitative article drew its research from nine participants
attending three different universities. The conditions that the authors sought for their study
included public and private four year colleges, professors active in using mobile learning for
teaching and learning for two or more semesters, and students in said classes. Interviews were
conducted with the focus group via Skype, where researchers asked a series of questions related
how the student used and was affected by mobile learning or the absence thereof. After data was
compiled from the interviews, inductive analysis was used to determine how the students were
affected by mobile learning.

References

Gikas, J. & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and
Higher Education, 19, 18-26.

Park, J., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners' decision to drop out or persist
in online learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207-217