Students frequently utilize digital devices and applications to assist studying. Past research has yielded mixed results on their effectiveness, and scant research has compared portable technologies with each other or focused on smartphones specifically. We compared college students’ learning of vocabulary on paper, laptop, and smartphone. Students were randomly assigned to one platform for reviewing vocabulary flashcards, and then they completed a memory quiz and answered questions regarding perceptions of these technologies. Results showed equivalency in students’ learning across platforms, with the only exception being that students spent longer reviewing paper flashcards. Self-reported cognitive load and satisfaction were equal across platforms. Quantitative and qualitative data also suggested that, though students quickly label both laptops and smartphones as helpful for education, they see more educational value in laptops. This research suggests that smartphones present new ways of learning, but care must be taken with how smartphones are utilized in educational settings.
AckermanR.GoldsmithM. (2011).
Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
17(1), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022086
2.
Al-FuraihA.Al-AwidiH. (2020).
Teachers’ change readiness for the adoption of smartphone technology: Personal concerns and technological competency. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,
25, 409–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9396-6
3.
Al-HaririM.Al-HattamiA. (2017).
Impact of students’ use of technology on their learning achievements in physiology courses at the University of Dammam. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences,
12(1), 82–85.
4.
AnjaniputraA.SalsabilaV. (2018).
The merits of Quizlet for vocabulary learning at tertiary level. Indonesian EFL Journal,
4(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.25134/ieflj.v4i2.1370
5.
AnshariM.AlmunawarM.ShahrillM.WicaksonoD.HudaM. (2017).
Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference?Education and Information Technologies,
22, 3063–3079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9572-7
6.
AshcroftR. J.CvitkovicR.PraverM. (2018).
Digital flashcard L2 vocabulary learning out-performs traditional flashcards at lower proficiency levels: A mixed-methods study of 139 Japanese university students. The EuroCALL Review,
26(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.4995/eurocall.2018.7881
7.
BasogluE.AkdemirO. (2010).
A comparison of undergraduate students’ English vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
9(3), 1–7.
BogdanR.BildenS. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.).Pearson.
10.
BurgessS.MurrayA. (2014).
Use of traditional and smartphone app flashcards in an introductory psychology class. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies,
13, 1–7.
11.
CallaghanR. (2018).
Developing mobile teaching practice: A collaborative exploration process. Technology, Knowledge, & Learning,
23, 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9319-y
12.
ChangS.LeyK. (2006).
A learning strategy to compensate for cognitive overload in online learning: Learner use of printed online materials. Journal of Interactive Online Learning,
5(1), 104–117.
13.
ChenG.ChengW.ChangT.ZhengX.HuangR. (2014).
A comparison of reading comprehension across paper, computer screens, and tablets: Does tablet familiarity matter?Journal of Computers in Education,
1(2–3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-014-0012-z
14.
DavisK. A. (2013). Using electronic flashcards for student self-evaluation of readiness for exams [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 120th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, GA, United States.
15.
DelgadoP.VargasC.AckermanR.SalmerónL. (2018).
Don’t throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review,
25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
16.
DizonG. (2016).
Quizlet in the EFL classroom: Enhancing academic vocabulary acquisition of Japanese university students. Teaching English With Technology,
16(2), 40–56.
17.
DuJ.KerkhofP.Van KoningsbruggenG. (2019).
Predictors of social media self-control failure: Immediate gratifications, habitual checking, ubiquity, and notifications. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
22, 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0730
18.
DunloskyJ.RawsonK.MarshE.NathanM.WillinghamD. (2013).
Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1529100612453266
GerjetsP. (2017). Learning and problem-solving with hypermedia in the twenty-first century: From hypertext to multiple web source and multimodal adaptivity. In SchwanS.CressU. (Eds.), The Psychology of Digital Learning (pp. 61–88).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49077-9_4
21.
GlaserB.StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.
Aldine.
22.
GoldingJ.WasarhaleyN.FletcherB. (2012).
The use of flashcards in an Introduction to Psychology class. Teaching of Psychology,
39(3), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312450436
23.
HammS.DrysdaleJ.MooreD. (2014). Towards a mobile learning pedagogy. In McConathaD.PennyC.SchugarJ.BoltonD. (Eds.), Mobile pedagogy and perspectives on teaching and learning.
IGI Global.
24.
HanS.YiY. (2019).
How does smartphone usage of college students affect academic performance?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
35(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12306
25.
HargittaiE. (2010).
Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in internet skills and uses among members of the “net generation.”Sociological Inquiry,
80(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2009.00317.x
26.
HartwigM.DunloskyJ. (2012).
Study strategies of college students: Are self-testing and scheduling related to achievement?Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
19, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0181-y
27.
JohannesN.VelingH.VerwijmerenT.BuijzenM. (2019).
Hard to resist? The effect of smartphone visibility and notifications on response inhibition. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
31(4), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000248
28.
KablanZ.ErdenM. (2008).
Instructional efficiency of integrated and separated text with animated presentations in computer-based science instruction. Computers and Education,
51, 660–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.07.002
29.
KarpickeJ.ButlerA.RoedigerH.III. (2009).
Metacognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practice retrieval when they study on their own. Memory,
17(4), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802647009
KimI.KimR.KimH.KimD.HanK.LeeP. H.MarkG.LeeU. (2019).
Understanding smartphone usage in college classrooms: A long-term measurement study. Computers and Education,
141, 103611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103611
32.
KongY.SeoY.ZhaiL. (2018).
Comparison of reading performance on screen and on paper: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education,
123, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.05.005
33.
KornellN. (2009).
Optimising learning using flashcards: Spacing is more effective than cramming. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
23, 1297–1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1537
34.
KupzukS.DalyE.AndersenM. (2011).
A comparison of two flash-card methods for improving sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
44, 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-781
35.
LeyB.OgonowskiC.HessJ.ReichlingT.WanL.WulfV. (2014).
Impacts of new technologies on media usage and social behavior in domestic environments. Behavior & Information Technology,
33(8), 815–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.832383
36.
LeynesP. A.FlynnJ.MokB. A. (2018).
Event-related potential measures of smartphone distraction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
21(4), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0630
37.
MorenoR.ValdezA. (2005).
Cognitive load and learning effects of having students organize pictures and words in multimedia environments: The role of student interactivity and feedback. Educational Technology Research and Development,
53, 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02504796
38.
MoysJ.LovelandP.DysonM. (2018).
eInk versus paper: Exploring the effects of medium and typographic quality on recall and reading speed. Visible Language,
52(3), 75–95.
39.
NakataT. (2011).
Computer-assisted second language vocabulary learning in a paired associate paradigm: A critical investigation of flashcard software. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
24(1), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.520675
40.
PaasF.TuovinenJ.TabbersH.van GervenP. (2003).
Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist,
38, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3801_8
PutnamA.SungkhasetteeV.RoedigerH.III. (2016).
Optimizing learning in college: Tips from cognitive psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
11(5), 652–660. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616645770
43.
RemónJ.SebastianV.RomeroE.ArauzoJ. (2017).
Effect of using smartphones as clickers and tablets as digital whiteboards on students’ engagement and learning. Active Learning in Higher Education,
18(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469787417707618
44.
RobinsonT.CroninT.IbrahimH.JinksM.MolitorT.NewmanJ.ShapiroJ. (2013).
Smartphone use and acceptability among clinical medical students: A questionnaire-based study. Journal of Medical Systems,
37(3), 9936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-013-9936-5
45.
SageK.AugustineH.ShandH.BaknerK.RayneS. (2019a).
Print, computer, and tablet: Equivalent learning in the digital age. Education and Information Technologies,
24(4), 2477–2502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09887-2
46.
SageK.KrebsB.GroveR. (2019b).
Flip, slide, or swipe? Learning outcomes from paper, computer, and tablet flashcards. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,
24(3), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9345-9
47.
SageK.PiazziniM.DowneyJ.MasilelaL. (2020). Reading from print, laptop computer and e-reader: Differences and similarities for college students’ learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. 2, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1713264
48.
SageK.RauschJ.QuirkA.HalladayL. (2016).
Pacing, pixels and paper: Flexibility in learning words from flashcards. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research,
15, 431–456.
49.
ShawC.TanS. (2015).
Integration of mobile technology in educational materials improves participation: Creation of a novel smartphone application for resident education. Journal of Surgical Education,
72(4), 670–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2015.01.015
50.
ShinD.ShinY.ChooH.BeomK. (2011).
Smartphones as smart pedagogical tools: Implications for smartphones as u-learning devices. Computers in Human Behavior,
27, 2207–2214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.017
51.
SingerL.AlexanderP. (2017).
Reading across mediums: Effects of digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. The Journal of Experimental Education,
85(1), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794
52.
StecM.BauerM.HopgoodD.BeeryT. (2018).
Adaptation to a curriculum delivered via iPad: The challenge of being early adopters. Technology, Knowledge, and Learning,
23, 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9301-8
53.
SungY.ChangK.LiuT. (2016).
The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers and Education,
94, 252–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
54.
TeoH.OhL.LiuC.WeiK. (2003).
An empirical study of the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
58, 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00008-9
55.
ThorntonB.FairesA.RobbinsM.RollinsE. (2014).
The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology,
45(6), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000216
56.
TosselC.KortumP.ShepardC.RahmatiA.ZhongL. (2015).
You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him learn: Smartphone use in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology,
46(4), 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12176
57.
VandewaetereM.ClareboutG. (2013).
Cognitive load of learner control: Extraneous or germane load?Education Research International,
2013, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/902809
58.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.DavisG.DavisF. (2003).
User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly,
27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
59.
WilliamsA.PenceH. (2011).
Smart phones, a powerful tool in the chemistry classroom. Journal of Chemical Education,
88, 683–686. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200029p
60.
ZengY.BaiX.XuJ.HeC. (2016).
The influence of e-book format and reading device on users’ reading experience: A case study of graduate students. Publishing Research Quarterly,
32, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9472-5
