The current study examines the impact of new media, specifically the introduction of tablets, on student learning. Student groups were asked to build learning materials on either personal computers (PCs) or tablets. The study further investigated building this material in video and text forms. The results were analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance. Tablet use lead to superior outcomes, but this result was conditional on critical thinking stage. For instance, tablet use resulted in better outcomes in the fourth (evaluation) stage of critical thinking. In the first three and fifth stages of critical thinking, tablets provided no significant advantage over PCs. From a learning strategies perspective, tablets lead to more employment of all three strategies investigated: elaboration, rehearsal, and organization. In terms of media type, video presentation was more effective in the first stage of critical thinking (problem identification), while text worked better in the fourth stage of the process (evaluation).
AlbaneseM.MitchellS. (1993) Problem-based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine68(1): 52–81.
2.
AndoM.UenoM. (2010) Analysis of the advantages of using tablet PC in e-Learning. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE 10th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Sousse, Tunesia.
3.
ApiolaM.TedreM. (2013) Deepening learning through learning-by-inventing. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice12: 185–202.
4.
BalslevT.De GraveW. S.MuijtjensA. M. M.ScherpbierA. J. J. A. (2005) Comparison of text and video cases in a postgraduate problem-based learning format. Medical Education39: 1086–1092.
5.
BekkeringE.JohnstonA. C.WarkentinM.SchmidtM. B. (2009) An empirical assessment of technology adoption as a choice between alternatives. Information Resources Management Journal22(4): 23–44.
6.
BourneJ.BrodersenA.CampbellJ.DawantM.ShiaviR. (1996) A Model for on-line learning networks in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education85(3): 253–262.
7.
BowdishB.ChauvinS.KreismanN.BrittM. (2003) Travels towards problem based learning in medical education (VPBL). Instructional Science31(4–5): 231–253.
8.
Brookfield, S. (1987). Developing critical thinkers. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
9.
BrophyS.WalkerD. (2005, June) Case study of the pedagogical impact of tablet PCs as a presentation medium in large-scale engineering classrooms. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon.
10.
CompeauD.HigginsC.HuffS. (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly23(2): 145–158.
11.
CornoL.MandinachE. (1983) The role of cognitive engagement in classroom learning and motivation. Educational Psychologist18(2): 88–108.
12.
CunninghamP.SextonS.WilliamsJ. (2009, June) Why come to class? Posting notes from tablet PC lectures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, TX.
13.
DavenportT.PrusakL. (1998) Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know, Cambridge: England Harvard Business School Press.
14.
DavisF. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
15.
DeekF.KimmelH.McHughJ. (1998) Pedagogical changes in the delivery of the first‐course in computer science: Problem solving, then programming. Journal of Engineering Education87(3): 313–320.
16.
DuchB.GrohS.AllenD. (2001) The power of problem-based learning: A practical “how to” for teaching undergraduate courses in any discipline, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
17.
DuncanT.McKeachieW. (2005) The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire. Educational Psychologist40(2): 117–128.
18.
Gadbury-AmyotC. C.PurkJ. H.WilliamsB. J.Van NessC. J. (2014) Using tablet technology and instructional videos to enhance preclinical dental laboratory learning. Journal of Dental Education78(2): 250–258.
19.
GarrisonD. (1992) Critical thinking and self-directed learning in adult education: An analysis of responsibility and control issues. Adult Education Quarterly42(3): 136–148.
HancockD.BrayM.NasonS. (2002) Influencing University students’ achievement and motivation in a technology course. The Journal of Educational Research95(6): 365–372.
22.
HawkT. F.ShahA. J. (2007) Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education5(1): 1–19.
23.
KaminC.O’SullivanP.YoungerM.DeterdingR. (2001) Measuring critical thinking in problem-based learning discourse. Teaching and Learning in Medicine13(1): 27–35.
24.
KanetJ. J.BarutM. (2003) Problem‐based learning for production and operations management. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education1(1): 99–118.
25.
KockN.VervilleJ.GarzaV. (2007) Media naturalness and online learning: Findings supporting both the significant‐and no‐significant‐difference perspectives. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education5(2): 333–355.
26.
LiC.BellarmineT. (2009) Enhancing students’ learning in Electronics Engineering Technology courses by using mobile Tablet PC technology. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Austin, Texas, USA.
27.
LohaniV. K.CastlesR.LoJ.GriffinH. (April–June 2008) Tablet PC applications in a Large Engineering Program. Computers in Education Journal18(1): 52–63.
28.
McHaneyR. (2011) The new digital shoreline: How Web 2.0 and millennials are revolutionizing higher education, Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing.
NewmanD. R.WebbB.CochraneC. (1995) A content analysis method to measure critical thinking in face-to-face and computer supported group learning. Interpersonal Computing and Technology3(2): 56–77.
PachlerN.BachmairB.CookJ.KressG. (2010) Mobile learning, Boston, MA: Springer.
33.
PaivioA. (1991) Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie45(3): 255.
34.
PerryR.HladkyjS.PekrunR.PelletierS. (2001) Academic control and action control in the achievement of college students: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology93(4): 776–789.
35.
PintrichP. (2004) A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review16(4): 385–407.
36.
PintrichP. R.SchraubenB. (1992) Students’ motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks. Student Perceptions in the Classroom7: 149–183.
37.
RoschelleJ.TatarD.ChaudburyS.DimitriadisY.PattonC.DiGianoC. (2007) Ink, improvisation, and interactive engagement: Learning with tablets. Computer40(9): 42–48.
38.
SaveryJ.DuffyT. (1995) Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology35(5): 31–38.
39.
SchneckenbergD. (2004) The European eCompetence Initiative: A network for eLearning excellence in higher education. Paper presented at the EDEN 2004 Conference Proceedings-New Challenges and Partnerships in an enlarged European Union, Budapest, Hungary.
40.
SchneckenbergD. (2009) Understanding the real barriers to technology-enhanced innovation in higher education. Educational Research51(4): 411–424.
41.
SiemensG. (2005) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning2(1): 3–10.
42.
SloanR. (2012–2013) Using an e-Textbook and iPad: Results of a pilot program. Journal of Educational Technology Systems41(1): 87–104.
43.
SteifP.DollárA. (2009) Study of usage patterns and learning gains in a web‐based interactive static course. Journal of Engineering Education98(4): 321–333.
44.
StoddardJ.MarcusA. (2010) More than “showing what happened”: Exploring the potential of teaching history with film. The High School Journal93(2): 83–90.
45.
SzaboM.KanukaH. (1999) Effects of violating screen design principles of balance, unity, and focus on recall learning, study time, and completion rates. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia8(1): 23–42.
46.
TrontJ.FilerK.ScalesG.PreyJ. (2009) Implementing a tablet PCs requirement program. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.
47.
WiesnerT.LanW. (2004) Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education93(3): 195–204.
48.
WixomB.ToddP. (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research16(1): 85–102.
49.
ZushoA.PintrichP.CoppolaB. (2003) Skill and will: The role of motivation and cognition in the learning of college chemistry. International Journal of Science Education25(9): 1081–1094.
