SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Eğitimde Yenilikçilik Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2 Özel Sayı

Determine the Usage of Mobile Applications Among University Students

Nadire Çavuş(Near East University)
Hüseyin Biçen(Near East University)
Pages
37–45
Publication Date
2018-10-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of the research showed  that students frequently use Whatsapp, Facebook, and YouTube through other mobile  applications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Net Generation people have grown up with new technologies such as  Internet, high powered computers and mobile phones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:But traditional teaching methods are not enough to keep  them occupied, so it is necessity in order to ensure Web 2.0 learning tools and mobile  applications in the education arena.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the research showed  that students frequently use Whatsapp, Facebook, and YouTube through other mobile  applications.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mobile applications · technology enhanced learning · Whatsapp

Abstract

Net Generation people have grown up with new technologies such as  Internet, high powered computers and mobile phones. They like to multi-task and prefer  to collect and learn information through multimedia such as pictures, audios, animations  etc. more than text. In other words, they are able to engage with multiple sources of  information at the same time. But traditional teaching methods are not enough to keep  them occupied, so it is necessity in order to ensure Web 2.0 learning tools and mobile  applications in the education arena. The main aim of this study is to determine the usage  of mobile applications among university students. 144 voluntary university students  attended the study. Data was collected by questionnaire and descriptive statistics, paired  t-test, frequency, and percentage methods were used. The results of the research showed  that students frequently use Whatsapp, Facebook, and YouTube through other mobile  applications.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çavuş, N., Biçen, H. (2018). Determine the Usage of Mobile Applications Among University Students. İstanbul Eğitimde Yenilikçilik Dergisi, Cilt: 1 Sayı: 2 Özel Sayı, 37–45. https://ajindex.com/articles/1655987

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331.
  2. Duffy, P. (2007). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(2), 119-130.
  3. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M. & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education: a chance to facilitate informal and process oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55, 92-100.
  4. Erkollar, A, & Onerer, B. (2011). Trends in social media application: the potential of Google+ for education shown in the example of Bachelor’s Degree course on Marketing. Communications in Computer and Information Sciences, 257, 569-578.
  5. Harris, M. (2011). Using YouTube to enhance student engagement. Retrieved February, 3, 2012 from http://www.ponce.inter.edu/html/retencion/using%20youtube.pdf
  6. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503- 520.
  7. Johnson, K. (2011). The effect of Twitter posts on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 21-38.
  8. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: is there distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732.
  9. Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M. Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting Twitter to the test: assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287.
  10. Junco, R., Heiberger, G. & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119-132.
  11. Kennedy, G., Judd, T., Dalgarno, B., & Waycott, J. (2010). Beyond natives and immigrants: exploring types of net generation students. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 332-343.
  12. Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers and Millenials: Understanding the new students (pp. 37-47). Educause Review.
  13. Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2010). Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. New York: Basic Books.
  14. Roodt, S., Joubert, P., De Villiers, C., & Oelofse, N. (2009). Collaborative learning in the Web 2.0 environment: an undergraduate case study. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (pp. 2249-2260). ISBN: 978-84-612-9801-3.
  15. Roodt, S., & De Villiers, C. (2011). Using YouTube as an innovative tool for collaborative learning at undergraduate level in Tertiary education. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conferences on Information Systems Management and Evaluation (pp.223-230). http://issuu.com/acpil/docs/www.academic-conferences.org
  16. Salomon, D. (2013). Moving on from Facebook using Instagram to connect with undergraduates and engage in teaching and learning. College & Research Libraries News, 74(8), 408-412.
  17. Sipahi, B., Yurtkoru, E. S., & Cinko, M. (2010). Sosyal Bilimlerde SPSS’le Veri Analizi. Istanbul: Beta Yayınları.
  18. Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  19. Wesch, M. (2011). The old revolution. Retrieved 24 April, 2014 from http://campustechnology.com/articles/2011/03/23/the-old-revolution.aspx