Narrative-based learning using mobile devices

Enrique Sánchez-Rivas (Department of Didáctica y Organización Escolar, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Málaga, Malaga, Spain)
Manuel Fernando Ramos Núñez (Department of Didáctica y Organización Escolar, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Málaga, Malaga, Spain)
Magdalena Ramos Navas-Parejo (Department of Didáctica y Organización Escolar, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Málaga, Malaga, Spain)
Juan Carlos De La Cruz-Campos (Department of Didáctica y Organización Escolar, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Málaga, Malaga, Spain)

Education + Training

ISSN: 0040-0912

Article publication date: 29 August 2022

Issue publication date: 27 February 2023

1495

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this paper is to explore whether the use of an active learning methodology implemented through a mobile phone can help future teachers to develop more effective reading promotion activities than those based on traditional learning methodologies.

Design/methodology/approach

A study was conducted based on the comparison of perceptions of two groups of teacher training students. The experimental group was trained in an active methodology to promote reading on mobile phones, whilst the control group was trained in a classical methodology also using the same devices. Variables were observed using a self-administered questionnaire, and the scores obtained were analysed from their descriptive statistics of the comparison of means of Kruskal–Wallis H test.

Findings

The results showed that students perceived significant improvements associated with active learning methodology. The variables with the most remarkable results were those related to better use of the class, participation and satisfaction. However, the ubiquitous variable obtained the fewest differences, maybe because both learning methodologies were applied using mobile devices.

Originality/value

The conclusions of this study clearly suggest that combining active learning methodologies and the use of mobile phones to promote reading could lead to better results than applying traditional learning methodologies. The value of this study paves the way for future research to move forward in the discovery of effective teaching strategies based on active methods and mobile devices.

Keywords

Citation

Sánchez-Rivas, E., Ramos Núñez, M.F., Ramos Navas-Parejo, M. and De La Cruz-Campos, J.C. (2023), "Narrative-based learning using mobile devices", Education + Training, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 284-297. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2022-0244

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Enrique Sánchez-Rivas, Manuel Fernando Ramos Núñez, Magdalena Ramos Navas-Parejo and Juan Carlos De La Cruz-Campos

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and no commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


Introduction

This research focusses on a didactic method based on project work. For this purpose, it performs an empirical analysis of a teaching and learning experience on the development of reading promotion processes through mobile devices.

The didactic method we analyse is our own creation based on a much consolidated proposal among teachers: Project-Based Learning (PBL), which is a didactic method that takes advantage of the students' experience in the classroom through a process of teacher-guided research. The main phases of the method are as follows: (1) identification of the focus and the project goal; (2) design of the project and research for development; and (3) construction of a learning product for presentation (Vergara, 2015). These phases constitute the starting point for the design of the didactic experience under study.

Another important aspect to consider in the design of our didactic proposal is the pedagogical philosophy of PBL. It is an active learning method, since as it proposes a didactic situation in which the teacher takes on the role of mediator or organiser of didactic situations and the students take on an active role in their learning process. In addition, it promotes aspects such as: cooperation, horizontal communication and peer learning (Trujillo, 2016). This active character, through the pedagogical elements, is present in our didactic design.

The approach to the researched situation is conducted from the perspective of students of the bachelor's degree in Primary School Education, whose professional career is teaching at the basic levels of the educational system. In line with González López (2009), students' perception is considered a representative indicator of the quality of university teaching. Previous studies on active learning methodologies in the university concluded that students perceive significant improvements in different components of didactics (Allsop et al., 2020; González-Fernández et al., 2013).

In this study, PBL is adapted adding the contributions made by neuroscience to learn from narratives (Cable et al., 2013; Rizzolatti et al., 1996; Small et al., 2007; Stephens et al., 2010; Zak, 2015). The adaptations to the original method result in a new variant of PBL, which we have named Narrative-Based Learning (NBL). We define NBL as an active learning methodology that promotes research based on a narrative (story, novel, or film). It starts creating an emotional bond towards the narrative and finishes applying the learning product on the creation of own narratives.

When reviewing the literature, a large number of empirical studies on PBL can be found. The lines of research opened on this active methodology focus on the perception of the agents involved in its implementation (students and teachers); and, to a lesser extent, on its impact on the learning processes and products. Due to their impact, the works of Amante et al. (2010), Jollands et al. (2012), Kanigolla et al. (2014), Lee et al. (2017) and Wurdinger and Qureshi (2015) must be outlined.

All reviewed papers show that PBL promotes a more effective learning than traditional methods (Almulla, 2020; Granado-Alcón et al., 2020; Maros et al., 2021; Nóbile et al., 2021). In addition, the use of educational technology significantly improves motivation and ubiquitous learning (Almenara et al., 2017; Ashour, 2020; Hassoun, 2015). In this study we aim to find out whether such improvements over traditional methods can also be attributed to NBL in our reference context.

The literature review on NBL shows that this is a new method. The publications are recent, and the number of empirical investigations is significantly lower in relation to the PBL. In addition, most of the studies are prospective. The purpose of NBL research focusses on the identification of preconditions, possibilities, and difficulties regarding the implementation of the method. The studies by Serna-Rodrigo (2020) and Shinas and Wen (2022) can be included in this line of research.

To implement NBL in the teaching experience under study, we have made use of the students' own mobile devices in an m-learning process (also known as mobile learning). Thus, following Brazuelo and Gallego (2011, p. 17), “the construction of knowledge, the resolution of learning problems and the development of different skills or abilities in an autonomous and ubiquitous way is facilitated”. Research on the prospects of the use of ICT in education highlights that mobile technology has the highest rates of impact on students (Klimova, 2019).

Based on an experimental class designed combining m-learning and active learning methodologies, our observation is focussed on the student's perception in relation to different teaching aspects that have a direct impact on the teaching and learning quality. Then, we compare with an ordinary class in our context, where m-learning is implemented through a traditional teaching method.

In the framework of Educational Sciences, the principles of traditional pedagogy are as follows: one-way communication in the classroom; directive teaching, in which the teacher presents the knowledge that students must acquire; a passive learning role of students; and a rigid and closed definition of tasks and expected results (Sarramona and López, 2008). The method used to compare NBL is in line with these pedagogical principles.

This paper aims to produce knowledge that contributes to the evolution towards innovative pedagogical models at university. To this end, the objective is to contribute to understand the perception of university students on the application of NBL teaching method through mobile devices. To this end, we have observed variables related to the perception of the teaching process, such as: better use of the teaching experience, participation in learning and ubiquity; and variables more related to the perception of learning, such as: motivation, performance, and satisfaction. In previous researches, these variables have already been proven to be useful for observing the position of students and teachers in a given didactic situation (Colomo-Magaña et al., 2020; Sánchez-Rivas et al., 2019).

Considering the objectives and the reference context of the study, the following research question is asked: Does NBL method through m-learning improve students' perception of teaching and learning over a method based on traditional teaching principles?

Based on this question, the conjectural answer is specified through the following hypothesis (H) and its corresponding dependent variables (DV) and independent variables (IV):

NBL (IV) improves the student's perception of better use of the teaching experience (DV1), classroom participation (DV2), motivation (DV3), performance (DV4), ubiquity of learning (DV5) and satisfaction (DV6) over a method based on the principles of traditional pedagogy.

Methodology

Experimental design

This study was designed as an initial approach to the teaching situation researched.

From a methodological point of view, the purpose and the nature of the proposed objectives led us to formulate a comparative survey study for two groups (control and experimental), using a questionnaire as a data collection tool.

Taking as a reference the proposal of Cohen and Manion (1990) to conduct a survey study, and in order to organise the research actions, the three sequential stages were established as follows: approach; intervention and data collection and data analysis and reflection.

The approach was the initial research stage, where the teaching methodology was designed, and the classroom intervention was planned, following the sequence: emotional bond, research, and creation.

Emotional bond was the first teaching phase, which guided the students in an initial approach to the narrative, prior to reading. It sought to arouse interest in the subject matter, characters, and their experiences; and to grow an emotional bond between the narrative and the future readers. This phase was developed by promoting the discovery of the context, the approach to vocabulary and the formulation of a reading-driving question.

Narrative research was the second teaching phase. Whilst reading the narrative, the students conducted a guided research process, which oriented learning towards the proposed objectives. Locations, characters, and evolution of the argument plot were analysed.

The creation phase was developed based on the knowledge from the previous phases: personal emotions, narrative context, locations, characters, learning, etc. The task for the students consisted in creating their own narratives to publish them using their smartphones.

The experimental part of this research was conducted in a context of official university teaching. In some groups, the teachers taught the concerned core theme as in previous courses, using, for comparative purposes, a so-called “traditional” method. In other groups, the teachers developed an alternative teaching experience based on NBL method. In both cases, the students' own smartphone devices were used (see Table 1).

Data analysis and reflection

Once the core theme was given in the participating groups, the questionnaire was shared. Data analysis delivered results that are also addressed in this paper. Reflective practice sessions, where all members of the research team took part, were conducted to draw conclusions based on the results obtained. The most significant interpretations made possible to draw up the conclusions set out below.

Participants

The key element of our research is the description of the variables defined for the total reference population (N = n): the students enrolled in the subject “Information and Communication Technologies applied to education” within the bachelor's degree in Primary School Education of the University of Malaga (Spain). This is an academic course taught as basic training for all groups of the first academic year. An overall of 298 students from five different groups participated in the research. Two groups (n1 = 120) followed NBL methodology for the core theme “Encouraging Reading with Technology”, and the other three groups (n2 = 178) followed the traditional method for the same core theme.

With regard to the sample, it should be noted that all participants had their personal smartphones. This was a great advantage since the knowledge and skills level on the device was remarkably high. The students had no issues on installing reading or content creation apps (presentations, podcast, comics, etc.). Thanks to the university's WIFI connection, there were no navigation difficulties on the different resources designed for the NBL application.

Instrument

The design of the data collection instrument was based on a qualitative strategy: the focus group (León and Montero, 2003). In view of the nature of the study, we considered that the most appropriate instrument was a five point Likert-type scale questionnaire (5 = always, 4 = often, 3 = sometimes, 2 = hardly ever and 1 = never).

In its design process, the questionnaire was subject to a content validity test, by an expert judgement, based on the assessment of a group of fifteen university teachers. Each expert evaluated the items and classified them as “unnecessary”, “useful” or “essential”. From the experts' scores, the Content Validity Index (CVI) was determined. As a result of this review process, and in accordance with the recommendations (Lawshe, 1975), items under a validity ratio of 0.49 on the CVI were removed. The resulting questionnaire included 24 items. The group of experts also provided a qualitative assessment through the comments section proposed for each item and for the questionnaire as a whole. Based on these contributions, some wordings were reformulated and the items were structured in six blocks of questions: better use of the teaching experience, classroom participation, motivation, performance, ubiquity and satisfaction. Each of these blocks corresponds to a dependent variable (Table 2).

The expert-validated version of the questionnaire was tested in a pilot, conducted through our university's Moodle platform. The data obtained in the pilot allowed to determine the degree of internal consistency of the questionnaire, with Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The results were assessed based on the criterion proposed by (Mateo, 2012). Thus, values above 0.7 were considered acceptable. According to this reference, the results of Cronbach's alpha (Table 2) allow us to ensure the reliability of the instrument. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this instrument is not exempt from the influence of validity threat elements, which may come from the research team itself (given its status as implementer) and from the previous experiences of the participants in pedagogical innovation processes.

Data analysis

The data obtained were analysed using the SPSS statistical software (version 25). As required for hypothesis verification, data analysis focussed on descriptive statistics, followed by further comparison of the mean scores achieved by each of the methods on the dependent variables.

The first phase of data analysis was an initial data discovery, for descriptive purposes. This action resulted in a univariate descriptive analysis and the cleaning of the data matrix for grouping the mean scores associated with each variable. Based on the sample mean for each item, the mean of the dimensions of each observed methodological scope (comprising the seven dependent variables) was calculated.

The second phase of data analysis consisted of a bivariate analysis. The first task was to determine the significance of the variance between the two methods. For this purpose, the sample parametric assumptions were analysed applying the Kruskal–Wallis H test.

Results

The results of the initial data discovery analysis (Table 3) focussed on the mean scores of the subjects in the control group (traditional method) and the experimental group (NBL method) in each item of the questionnaire.

Comparison of mean scores showed that NBL method generally yields higher scores than traditional method. In items 15 and 16, related to performance (DV4), scores were significantly lower than the mean of the other items (x = 3.52). Subjects in the experimental group perceived that NBL does not improve the traditional method on the possibility of applying the acquired knowledge (item 15) or on the proportionality between effort and learning results (item 16).

The scores of the control group following traditional method showed a lower mean (x = 2.00) than NBL in all dimensions of the variables, except for those related to ubiquity (DV5). The scores obtained in items 17, 18 and 19 showed that subjects perceive that the traditional method using their smartphone had given them the possibility to access the narrative when needed (item 17); it allowed them to check the planned phases and tasks through the teaching and learning process when needed (item 18); and learning had extended beyond the classroom (item 19).

Drilling down into the descriptive level, the bar chart shows the differences between NBL and traditional method that were already showed by the measures of central tendency (Figure 1).

The differences between NBL and traditional method showed by descriptive statistics led to a comparison of the scores of the dependent variables using inferential statistics, so as to determine the significance in variance. Prior to the comparison of means, the parametric assumptions regarding homoscedasticity and normality of the sample were checked.

The values obtained through Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness of fit test (applying Lillierfors significance correction) are below the significance level (α0,05), so we accepted that the variables observed were not normally distributed (Table 4).

With regard to the homogeneity of the sampling variance, Levene's statistic test resulted in a significance (α0,05) in two variables (DV3 and DV5), and values lower in the others (Table 4). This led us to accept that there was no homogeneity in variance.

The results obtained proved that the parametric assumptions regarding the sampling were not met. On that basis and considering that we had two different groups (experimental and control), and a subject is not at more than one level of the independent variable, we chose to perform the comparison of means using the Kruskal–Wallis H test.

The results of the Kruskal–Wallis H test were within significance parameters (α0,05), which confirmed the existence of statistical significance in the differences found between NBL and traditional method in all variables analysed (Table 4).

Discussion

In this study we have focussed on the university students' perception on two teaching methods to promote the development of reading competence: NBL method and the so-called “traditional” method, for comparative purposes. Overall, it is confirmed that a teaching method based on an active position of the student in the learning process, such as NBL, has significant advantages from the student's perspective versus teaching methods based on the reception of knowledge. These conclusions are in line with other studies on the use of active learning methodologies in the classroom (Lugosi and Uribe, 2022; Miller and Metz, 2014).

Both methods have been implemented through educational technology and the students' own smartphone devices have been used as the main resource. We believe that this fact has decisively influenced the teaching and learning process beyond the classroom, measured as “Ubiquity”. This is the only variable reported with similar values in both methods, what suggests that, rather than the method, the use of a technological resource was the decisive factor for the results. Previous work on the use of the smartphone as a teaching resource has also found advantages linked to ubiquity (Brazuelo and Gallego, 2011; Uther, 2019).

The incorporation of educational technology is also linked in previous work to increased motivation (Boyce et al., 2014). In our case, we cannot confirm that relationship. Although we have observed an increase in motivation, we consider that it cannot be attributed to the technological resource, but to the combination between the NBL and the use of the Smartphone. In this sense, we agree with Cabero Almenara (1994), who argues that technology by itself does not improve teaching; it is the binomial formed by technology and pedagogy that achieves significant improvements.

More specifically, some of the advantages directly related to didactics and attributed to active methods (Baepler et al., 2014; Caesar et al., 2016) have also been found in NBL in our reference context. The learning aspects perceived by the students as improvement over the traditional method are better use of the class and participation in the learning process. This is an expected result, as NBL complies with the principles of active learning and the reviewed research on the implementation of storytelling and creativity in the classroom shows that these competences not only add value to learning but also to the organisation of learning situations (Daouk et al., 2016; Di Blas, 2022; Katuščáková and Katuščák, 2013; Linds et al., 2021).

With regard to the most associated variable to personal willingness to learn, the greatest differences were found between both methods. As expected, NBL improves the perceptions on the motivation to learn. This is a proven effect of active learning methodologies (Powell et al., 2012). However, it was not expected that the subjects in the control group suffered from low motivation on an established didactic situation in our context, also based on m-learning. All reviewed researches identify an increase in the student motivation due to technology implementation (Lindquist and Long, 2011; Mujico and Herrarte, 2019; Rosas et al., 2003; Stockwell, 2013; Tang et al., 2022). Our results do not follow this research line, and it can only be explained if we considered that the teaching actions of the traditional method are far from what our students consider an interesting and motivating teaching.

On the assessment of the variable related to the learning impact on the student, also called performance, it is noticed that NBL improves important aspects for deep learning such as access and understanding of new knowledge. This is another advantage found in active learning methods: engagement in the teaching process directly affects to the quality of acquired learnings (McQuiggan et al., 2008). However, the students do not perceive NBL favours the application of new knowledge. This impairs the possibility of meaningful learning from NBL, as applying acquired knowledge is a key to achieve it (Ausubel, 1968). From a pedagogical design perspective, this finding suggests a review of the method in order to increase the application of acquired learnings.

The perception of effort is in line with the performance results. Our students considered that there is no relationship between the effort invested and the learning acquired. This relationship is balanced in other studies on active methods (Carreira and Marzábal, 2018; Hmelo-Silver, 2004; O'Brocta and Swigart, 2013). In our opinion, that NBL is not likewise perceived as other active methods is due to the fact that it proposes tasks that involve great effort and dedication by the students, such as research on a novel or creation of a narrative. We believe that the learning acquired is not deficient, but the effort needed is high. Besides, we also identified it as a component of the method to be reviewed for future applications.

According to Rios et al. (2018), we understand that teaching improvements have a direct impact on satisfaction. In this regard, the satisfaction variable has a dual function. Firstly, it captures students' perception of a personal position on the process experienced. It makes us reflect and evaluate it from a holistic perspective. Secondly, satisfaction should be consistent with the results obtained in the other variables. For example, a high satisfaction value together with low values in the considered teaching dimensions could not be explained.

The good results obtained by satisfaction in all its dimensions lead us to conclude that, in general, subjects have a positive perception of NBL as a whole, even though some components of the method can be improved.

Other studies have also found high values on participants' satisfaction when assessing learning situations based on the principles of active learning methodologies (Hyun et al., 2017; Pelletreau et al., 2018) or through technology, especially mobile devices (Mao, 2014).

In conclusion, and taking as a reference the formulated hypothesis, the results obtained allow us to state that NBL, implemented by using mobile devices, is perceived by the student as a better methodological alternative than the method applied by the teacher of the subject “Information and Communication Technologies applied to education” for the core theme “Encouraging Reading with Technology”.

NBL has enabled better personal use of the teaching experience, greater participation of students in their learning processes and a significant degree of ubiquity of learning, related with the use of students' mobile devices as the main learning resource (rather than NBL).

The improvements perceived in NBL also extend to the introspective perspective. Students are much more motivated to face their learning process than in the previous method. They identify better access and understanding of the new knowledge, although opportunities for its application are not found. And they understand that NBL has very high levels of demand in terms of time and effort investment. Nevertheless, students who have experienced NBL are much more satisfied with the teaching experience than those under the traditional method.

This study has important limitations due to its own nature. The situation of the university students' object of the research is heterogeneous and changing. Each classroom is different, and this fact affects the study described in this paper. In this regard, choosing a population limited to university students suggests avoiding extrapolation of results beyond its context. However, these limitations related to sampling size and research context location have not been an obstacle to decisions aimed at improving teaching in our faculty, so the planned initial objective is met.

In order to further enhance university teaching quality in other contexts, research processes following this paper are advisable. We are convinced to suggest the scientific community to develop new researches that further study teaching approaches. It would be interesting to conduct studies that expand the population and include students from several universities. Concurrently, and considering the great complexity of education, the variables studied should be increased. We agree with Bisquerra Alzina (2004) on the suitability of using data analysis procedures that correlate more than two variables. The complexity of educational phenomena shows limitations if few variables or only bivariate analysis are considered. A large number of variables are involved in education, and they should be much deeper and globally analysed following a multivariate approach.

With regard with limitations, it should be noted that the personal variable associated with the teacher who conducts the subject has a huge impact. Undoubtedly, the referenced professional paradigm, the teacher's personality or the way of interacting with the students greatly determines satisfaction to a teaching methodology. This should be considered if the study involves different professionals as in this study. Similarly, the content of the subject could also influence satisfaction to the teaching method. Attractive content, at the students' interest and motivation, could report higher levels of satisfaction with the teaching method. In our case, even in similar core themes, the development of the contents may be slightly different as two different professionals have undertaken their programming.

This study is part of an open line of research that has the potential to improve didactics in university contexts. Active learning methods bring considerable advantages for university teaching (Anaya, 1996). These methods are not perfect, as our students perceive in relation to NBL. As they are new and rebuilt in each context, they require constant observation of their development. Therefore, we recommend the scientific community to generate knowledge on active methods in order to contrast, improve, and adapt them to their reference context. This is not a new recommendation, other studies have pronounced in the same sense (Andres, 2019; Duţă and Rafailă, 2014; Holdsworth and Maynes, 2017).

More specifically, we encourage the scientific community to elaborate on a question that has arisen in our research. In our study, smartphone use following a traditional learning method did not report high levels of motivation. We cannot predict how the “motivation” variable would have behaved outside of m-learning, but we consider that technology without following an active methodology does not represent a great improvement in terms of student motivation either. This conviction does not allow the assertion, and we invite the scientific community to work on this hypothesis.

Figures

Mean scores for each variable and method

Figure 1

Mean scores for each variable and method

Comparison between NBL and traditional teaching actions

Teaching actionNBLTraditional method
Narrative presentationDevelopment of an emotional bond to the plot from the discovery of its most interesting elementsIntroduction to the plot made by the teacher at the beginning of the theme
Reading processReading on smartphoneReading on the format chosen by the students
Work on the readingGuided research to recreate locations, analyse characters and extract learningsCreation of summaries by chapters in digital format
Knowledge assessmentApplication of the acquired knowledge to create their own narrative and publication in digital supportMultiple-choice digital questionnaire

Source(s): Prepared by the author

Questionnaire structure

Methodological scopeAssociated DVItemCronbach's alpha
Better use of the teaching experienceDV11–40.92
Classroom participationDV25–80.89
MotivationDV39–120.83
PerformanceDV413–160.78
UbiquityDV517–200.87
SatisfactionDV621–240.80

Source(s): Prepared by the author

Mean scores grouped by item and method (NBL–Traditional)

NBLTraditional
MeanSDMeanSD
Better use of the teaching experience (DV1)
1The teaching method facilitates the learning from a narrative3.981.002.231.11
2The teaching method makes learning meaningful4.050.961.850.85
3The sequence of activities allows a deeper understanding of the narrative beyond reading4.190.902.300.81
4The time spent in this core theme is valued as beneficial3.061.091.840.62
Classroom participation (DV2)
5The student perceives that he/she has played an active role in the learning process3.690.951.950.80
6The student can provide personal ideas and proposals3.580.961.840.91
7The student perceives a generation of an experience that encouraged interaction in the team or class3.751.011.880.88
8The student perceives that the teacher's role has ease his/her participation3.401.052.190.84
Motivation (DV3)
9The teaching method improves willingness to read the selected narrative3.620.901.960.95
10The teaching experience is perceived as interesting3.740.831.760.86
11The teaching experience is perceived as fun3.460.981.740.88
12Learning from this experience is perceived as useful4.190.791.470.63
Performance (DV4)
13The teaching method allows access to knowledge through a selected narrative3.201.211.750.81
14The teaching method allows to understand knowledge through a given narrative2.791.181.660.80
15The teaching method enables to apply the new acquired knowledge1.900.731.740.91
16Learning is proportional to effort invested1.730.641.700.84
Ubiquity (DV5)
17The student accesses the story when needed3.410.942.320.82
18The student can check the phases and tasks of the teaching method when needed3.600.811.800.88
19Learning is extended beyond the classroom sessions3.760.683.800.78
20Learning can be applied beyond the training scope4.190.722.340.79
Satisfaction (DV6)
21The student perceives the training process as intellectually stimulating3.940.841.950.71
22The student considers the teaching method aligned with the innovation in teaching methodology3.860.922.120.67
23Teaching and learning processes are of high quality3.660.971.960.77
24The student considers the learning results fit with his/her expectations for a more interesting method than traditional ones3.850.751.960.82

Source(s): Prepared by the author

Results for factorial analysis of variance and parametric assumptions

Dependent variableType of methodKruskal–WallisLeveneKolmogorov–Smirnov
CoefficientSigCoefficientSigCoefficientSig
Better use of the teaching experience (DV1)NBL33.570.002.590.100.480.00
Traditional32.740.002.590.100.420.00
Classroom Participation (DV2)NBL29.700.009.040.030.540.00
Traditional28.180.009.040.030.410.00
Motivation (DV3)NBL39.020.000.070.780.450.00
Traditional38.800.000.070.780.430.00
Performance (DV4)NBL14.350.002.570.110.430.00
Traditional14.110.002.570.110.390.00
Ubiquity (DV5)NBL23.310.000.280.590.420.00
Traditional23.420.000.280.590.430.00
Satisfaction (DV6)NBL39.040.0014.250.000.450.00
Traditional37.350.0014.250.000.360.00

Source(s): Prepared by the author

References

Allsop, J., Young, S.J., Nelson, E.J., Piatt, J. and Knapp, D. (2020), “Examining the benefits associated with implementing an active learning classroom among undergraduate students”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 418-426.

Almenara, J.C., Robles, B.F. and Díaz, V.M. (2017), “Dispositivos móviles y realidad aumentada en el aprendizaje del alumnado universitario”, RIED: Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 167-185.

Almulla, M.A. (2020), “The effectiveness of the project-based learning (PBL) approach as a way to engage students in learning”, SAGE Open, Scopus, Vol. 10 No. 3, doi: 10.1177/2158244020938702.

Amante, B., Lacayo, A., Pique, M., Oliver, S., Ponsa, P. and Vilanova, R. (2010), “Evaluation of methodology PBL done by students”, 2010 IEEE Transforming Engineering Education: Creating Interdisciplinary Skills for Complex Global Environments, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1109/TEE.2010.5508811.

Anaya, G. (1996), “College experiences and student learning: the influence of active learning, college environments and cocurricular activities”, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 611-622.

Andres, H.P. (2019), “Active teaching to manage course difficulty and learning motivation”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Scopus, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 220-235, doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1357073.

Ashour, S. (2020), “How technology has shaped university students' perceptions and expectations around higher education: an exploratory study of the United Arab Emirates”, Studies in Higher Education, Scopus, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2513-2525, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1617683.

Ausubel, D.P. (1968), Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, Holt Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Baepler, P., Walker, J.D. and Driessen, M. (2014), “It's not about seat time: blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms”, Computers and Education, Vol. 78, pp. 227-236, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006.

Bisquerra Alzina, R. (2004), Metodología de la Investigación Educativa, La Muralla, Madrid.

Boyce, C.J., Mishra, C., Halverson, K.L. and Thomas, A.K. (2014), “Getting students outside: using technology as a way to stimulate engagement”, Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 815-826, doi: 10.1007/s10956-014-9514-8.

Brazuelo, F. and Gallego, D. (2011), Mobile Learning. Los Dispositivos Móviles Como Recurso Educativo, Eduforma, Sevilla.

Cabero Almenara, J. (1994), “Nuevas tecnologías, comunicación y educación”, Comunicar: Revista Científica Iberoamericana de Comunicación y Educación, available at: https://redined.educacion.gob.es/xmlui/handle/11162/68103.

Cable, D.M., Gino, F. and Staats, B.R. (2013), “Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers' authentic self-expression”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 1-36, doi: 10.1177/0001839213477098.

Caesar, M.I.M., Jawawi, R., Matzin, R., Shahrill, M., Jaidin, J.H. and Mundia, L. (2016), “The benefits of adopting a problem-based learning approach on students' learning developments in secondary geography lessons”, International Education Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 51-65.

Carreira, M.D.C.S. and Marzábal, O.R. (2018), “Aprendizaje basado en metodologías activas en una materia de posgrado en Economía”, Innovative Strategies for Higher Education in Spain, 2018, pp. 98-111, ISBN 978-94-92805-05-8, available at: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6966342.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1990), Métodos de Investigación Educativa, La Muralla, Madrid.

Colomo-Magaña, E., Sánchez-Rivas, E., Ruiz-Palmero, J. and Sánchez-Rodríguez, J. (2020), “Teaching perception about gamification of the evaluation in the subject of History in secondary education”, Información Tecnológica, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 233-242, doi: 10.4067/S0718-07642020000400233.

Daouk, Z., Bahous, R. and Bacha, N.N. (2016), “Perceptions on the effectiveness of active learning strategies”, Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 360-375, doi: 10.1108/JARHE-05-2015-0037.

Di Blas, N. (2022), “Authentic learning, creativity and collaborative digital storytelling: lessons from a large-scale scale case-study”, Educational Technology and Society, Scopus, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 80-104.

Duţă, N. and Rafailă, E. (2014), “Importance of the lifelong learning for professional development of university teachers – needs and practical implications”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 127, pp. 801-806, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.358.

González López, I. (2009), “La autopercepción de la Formación universitaria: evaluación y calidad”, Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 157-170, ISSN 1989-0397.

González-Fernández, N., García, A.R. and Talledo, I.S. (2013), “Percepción de estudiantes de grado sobre el uso de metodologías activas y evaluación formativa en el desarrollo de competencias socio profesionales”, Investigación e Innovación Educativa al Servicio de Instituciones y Comunidades Globales, Plurales y Diversas, Vols 2013, pp. 416-426, ISBN 978-84-695-8363-0, available at: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4378699.

Granado-Alcón, M.C., Gómez-Baya, D., Herrera-Gutiérrez, E., Vélez-Toral, M., Alonso-Martín, P. and Martínez-Frutos, M.T. (2020), “Project-based learning and the acquisition of competencies and knowledge transfer in higher education”, Sustainability, Scopus, Vol. 12 No. 23, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.3390/su122310062.

Hassoun, D. (2015), “All over the place”: a case study of classroom multitasking and attentional performance”, New Media and Society, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 1680-1695, doi: 10.1177/1461444814531756.

Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2004), “Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn?”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 235-266, doi: 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3.

Holdsworth, S. and Maynes, N. (2017), “But what if I fail?” A meta-synthetic study of the conditions supporting teacher innovation”, Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l’éducation, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 665-703.

Hyun, J., Ediger, R. and Lee, D. (2017), “Students' satisfaction on their learning process in active learning and traditional classrooms”, International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 108-118.

Jollands, M., Jolly, L. and Molyneaux, T. (2012), “Project-based learning as a contributing factor to graduates' work readiness”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 143-154, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2012.665848.

Kanigolla, D., Cudney, A., Corns, E., M.S. and Samaranayake, V.A. (2014), “Enhancing engineering education using project-based learning for Lean and Six Sigma”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-61, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-02-2013-0008.

Katuščáková, M. and Katuščák, M. (2013), “The effectiveness of storytelling in transferring different types of knowledge”, Proceedings of the European Conference on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1, pp. 341-348.

Klimova, B. (2019), “Impact of mobile learning on students' achievement results”, Education Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 90, doi: 10.3390/educsci9020090.

Lawshe, C.H. (1975), “A quantitative approach to content Validity 1”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 563-575, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.

Lee, H.-J., Kim, H. and Byun, H. (2017), “Are high achievers successful in collaborative learning? An explorative study of college students' learning approaches in team project-based learning”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 418-427, doi: 10.1080/14703297.2015.1105754.

León, O.G. and Montero, I. (2003), Métodos de Investigación en Psicología y educación, McGraw-Hill, Madrid.

Lindquist, T. and Long, H. (2011), “How can educational technology facilitate student engagement with online primary sources? A user needs assessment”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 224-241, doi: 10.1108/07378831111138152.

Linds, W., Jhunjhunwala, T., Nadarajah, L., Starnino, A. and Vettraino, E. (2021), “Unlocking creativity: 6-Part Story method as an imaginative pedagogical tool”, Learning Landscapes, Scopus, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 203-218, doi: 10.36510/LEARNLAND.V14I1.1053.

Lugosi, E. and Uribe, G. (2022), “Active learning strategies with positive effects on students' achievements in undergraduate mathematics education”, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 403-424, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2020.1773555.

Mao, C. (2014), “Research on undergraduate students' usage satisfaction of mobile learning”, Creative Education, Vol. 5 No. 8, pp. 614-618, doi: 10.4236/ce.2014.58072.

Maros, M., Korenkova, M., Fila, M., Levicky, M. and Schoberova, M. (2021), “Project-based learning and its effectiveness: evidence from Slovakia”, Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 29, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2021.1954036.

Mateo, J. (2012), “La investigación ex post-facto”, in Bisquerra, R. (Ed.), Metodología de Investigación Educativa, La Muralla, Madrid, pp. 195-229.

McQuiggan, S.W., Rowe, J.P., Lee, S. and Lester, J.C. (2008), “Story-based learning: the impact of narrative on learning experiences and outcomes”, in Woolf, B.P., Aïmeur, E., Nkambou, R. and Lajoie, S. (Eds), Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Springer, pp. 530-539, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-69132-7_56.

Miller, C.J. and Metz, M.J. (2014), “A comparison of professional-level faculty and student perceptions of active learning: its current use, effectiveness, and barriers”, Advances in Physiology Education, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 246-252, doi: 10.1152/advan.00014.2014.

Mujico, F.G. and Herrarte, D.L. (2019), “Enhancing L2 motivation and English proficiency through technology”, Complutense Journal of English Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 59-78.

Nóbile, C.I., Domínguez, C., del, V.G., Berozonce, M.P.A. and Pérez, J. (2021), “Metodologías activas y gestión del conocimiento para promover la creatividad y la innovación en el aula”, Innoeduca: International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 61-74, doi: 10.24310/innoeduca.2021.v7i1.9887.

O'Brocta, R. and Swigart, S. (2013), “Student perceptions of a Top 200 Medication Course utilizing active learning techniques”, Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-53e2, doi: 10.1016/j.cptl.2012.09.001.

Pelletreau, K.N., Knight, J.K., Lemons, P.P., McCourt, J.S., Merrill, J.E., Nehm, R.H., Prevost, L.B., Urban-Lurain, M. and Smith, M.K. (2018), “A faculty professional development model that improves student learning, encourages active-learning instructional practices, and works for faculty at multiple institutions”, CBE—Life Sciences Education, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. es5, doi: 10.1187/cbe.17-12-0260.

Powell, N., Cleveland, R., Thompson, S. and Forde, T. (2012), “Using multi-instructional teaching and technology-supported active learning strategies to enhance student engagement”, Journal of Technological Integration in the Classroom, pp. 41-50.

Rios, T., Elliott, M. and Mandernach, B.J. (2018), “Efficient instructional strategies for maximizing online student satisfaction”, Journal of Educators Online, Vol. 15 No. 3, available at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1199228.

Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V. and Fogassi, L. (1996), “Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions”, Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 131-141, doi: 10.1016/0926-6410(95)00038-0.

Rosas, R., Nussbaum, M., Cumsille, P., Marianov, V., Correa, M., Flores, P., Grau, V., Lagos, F., López, X., López, V., Rodriguez, P. and Salinas, M. (2003), “Beyond Nintendo: design and assessment of educational video games for first and second grade students”, Computers and Education, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 71-94, doi: 10.1016/S0360-1315(02)00099-4.

Sánchez-Rivas, E., Sánchez-Rodríguez, J. and Ruiz-Palmero, J. (2019), “Percepción del alumnado universitario respecto al modelo pedagógico de clase invertida”, Magis, Revista Internacional de Investigación en Educación, Vol. 11 No. 23, pp. 151-168, doi: 10.11144/Javeriana.m11-23.paur.

Sarramona, J. and López, J.S. (2008), Teoría de la Educación, Grupo Planeta (GBS), Barcelona.

Serna-Rodrigo, R. (2020), “Posibilidades de los videojuegos no serios para el aprendizaje formal de la lengua y la literatura”, EDMETIC, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 104-125, doi: 10.21071/edmetic.v9i1.12245.

Shinas, V.H. and Wen, H. (2022), “Preparing teacher candidates to implement digital storytelling”, Computers and Education Open, Vol. 3, p. 100079, doi: 10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100079.

Small, D.A., Loewenstein, G. and Slovic, P. (2007), “Sympathy and callousness: the impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 143-153, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.005.

Stephens, G.J., Silbert, L.J. and Hasson, U. (2010), “Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 107 No. 32, pp. 14425-14430, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008662107.

Stockwell, G. (2013), “Technology and motivation in English-language teaching and learning”, in Ushioda, E. (Ed.), International Perspectives on Motivation: Language Learning and Professional Challenges, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 156-175, doi: 10.1057/9781137000873_9.

Tang, C., Mao, S., Naumann, S.E. and Xing, Z. (2022), “Improving student creativity through digital technology products: a literature review”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 44, Scopus, doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101032.

Trujillo, F. (2016), Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos. Infantil, Primaria y Secundaria, Ministerio de Educación, Madrid.

Uther, M. (2019), “Mobile learning—trends and practices”, Education Sciences, Scopus, Vol. 9 No. 1, doi: 10.3390/educsci9010033.

Vergara, J. (2015), Aprendo porque quiero. El Aprendizaje Basado en Proyectos (ABP) paso a paso, SM, Madrid.

Wurdinger, S. and Qureshi, M. (2015), “Enhancing college students' life skills through project based learning”, Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 279-286, doi: 10.1007/s10755-014-9314-3.

Zak, P.J. (2015), “Why inspiring stories make us react: the neuroscience of narrative”, Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on Brain Science, Vol. 2, pp. 1-13.

Corresponding author

Enrique Sánchez-Rivas can be contacted at: enriquesr@uma.es

Related articles