Journal of Technology and Science Education

JOTSE, 2021 – 11(1): 44-52 – Online ISSN: 2013-6374 – Print ISSN: 2014-5349
https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

ENHANCE LEARNING EXPERIENCE USING TECHNOLOGY IN CLASS

Luai Al-Labadi , Saurabh Sant

Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, University of Toronto Mississauga (Canada)
[email protected], [email protected]

Received July 2020

Accepted September 2020

Abstract
Majority of the students now have access to portable devices that can provide countless information at
their fingertips through various resources such as learning games and interactive applications. These
resources allow immediate communication and interaction between students and instructors. In this study
we measured students’ perception of the effectiveness of using technological tools in lectures on their
academic performance and their level of understanding of the course topic. Students, who have taken
statistics courses at the University of Toronto completed a survey that identified variables connected to
their perception of using technology in class and the ways in which, in turn, their learning experiences
were enhanced. The results of the survey showed that a significant portion of students perceived that they
gained a deeper level of understanding of lecture contents when technology was used in class. Thus,
based on the results of our study, we recommend that instructors take advantage of using technology in
their class in order to create a more immersive learning environment for their students than using
traditional instructional methods.

Keywords – Mathematics, Mobile learning, Engagement, Perception, Performance, Statistics,

Undergraduate.

To cite this article:

Al-Labadi, L. & Sant, S. (2021). Enhance learning experience using technology in class. Journal of
Technology and Science Education, 11(1), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

----------

1. Introduction
As technology becomes widely accessible to students’ overtime, there has been a trend among instructors
utilizing technology in class to better engage students with course contents, compared to traditional
teaching methods. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics state that: “Technology is essential in
teaching and learning mathematics; it influences the mathematics that is taught and enhances students’
learning” (NCTM, 2000: page 11). While educators have been trying to figure out ways to best incorporate
a technological tool in class, there have been some limitations in their research on effectively adapt, for
instance, mobile devices into teaching and learning (Wang & Higgins, 2006).

Mobile learning (M-learning) or use of technology in class refers to using educational applications on
laptops, phones, personal computers and tablets (Traxler, 2005). These technological applications facilitate
the interaction between instructors and students in real time, since students can instantly answer and ask
questions while using them. Moreover, instructors can clear students’ misconceptions before moving onto

-44-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

the next topic or can focus on topics students find difficult. They can also create short quizzes or learning
games to test for students’ understanding of a topic. Thus, by including technological applications into live
lectures, instructors will have the opportunity to optimize students’ learning experience. Some notable
educational applications include the use of Top Hat, iClicker, Piazza and Kahoot (Wang & Tahir, 2020).

Furió, Juan, Seguit and Vivó (2015) compared mobile learning with traditional instructional methods.
Although, students’ learning outcomes in the two teaching methods were not statistically significant, the
authors noted that, mobile learning was found to be more satisfying and immersive among students, and
had a higher motivational effect compared to traditional learning methods that were used in classrooms.

The advantages of Mobile learning are that it provides instructors with immediate feedback from
students, creates incentives for students to learn through scoring points, motivates collaboration with
peers and fosters learning by trial and error.

Kim’s (2019) study analyzed students’ academic performance in a medical English course taught using
traditional methods and mobile learning. Kim’s study found mobile learning to be beneficial since
students were able to provide instant text responses to their instructor’s inquiry. As a result, instructors
were provided with richer information about students’ motivation and expectations of their learning.
Instructors were also able to gauge students’ level of understanding through quizzing tools and
immediate feedback. Students performed significantly better by using the mobile learning as it provided
them with active classroom engagement and frequent feedback. In turn, students enhanced their
learning outcomes. The limitations of Kim’s paper were that small sample size was used, and it did not
provide direct evidence as to whether or not students’ improvement of their learning was attributed to
mobile learning. Other factors may have affected the learning outcomes in Kim’s study, including
students’ past experiences, their social persuasions and their physiological and psychological states of
mind.

Robb and Shellenbarger (2012) encourage the use of mobile learning in class. They remind educators that
students are growing up in a technology-rich environment, and that, students thrive in their performance
when immediate feedback are instantly provided to them from their instructors. They further note that,
students tend to learn better by actively doing and discovering solutions to problems at hand. For instance,
M-learning engages students to actively participate in class, maintain students’ interest and can foster
deeper understanding of the context being discussed in lectures.

As part of our study, we try to overcome some of the limitations highlighted in earlier studies by using a
bigger sample size and define more variables that can contribute to students’ perception of their learning
experience when technology is used in class. We then try to determine the overall perception of students
on the effectiveness of using technology in class by closely examining each variable included in this study.

The reminder of this paper is as follow. Section 2 discusses our motivation and objectives for this work.
Section 3 describes our approach for implementing mobile learning in class. Section 4 involves
constructing the questionnaire and the sampling process. Section 5 addresses descriptive analyses of the
results. Section 6 describes our research methodology, in which we utilize a quantitative method for
analyzing a survey data and identifying the significance of various variables (survey-items) for measuring
students’ perception of using technology in class to enhance their learning. The results of this paper are
summarized in Section 7. We conclude the paper in Section 8. A copy of the Questionnaire is placed in
the Appendix.

2. Motivation and Objective

Due to the advancement in technology, there has been an increase in preferences by students to use
technology in class to help gain better understanding of the lecture material. However, quantitative studies
that consider, for instance, the effect of using mobile learning on students’ attitude toward mathematics
are limited (Fabian, Topping & Barron, 2016; Sung, Chang & Liu, 2016; Wang & Tahir, 2020). To address
this gap in the educational literature, this study designed a survey to identify variables (survey-items) that

-45-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

will determine how students’ perception of the use of technology in lectures are effective in
undergraduate courses related to mathematics and statistics. Relying on the analysis of the survey data, we
aim to propose short-term solutions that instructors can take advantage of when they use technology in
class in order to enhance their students’ learning experience.

3. Background: Implementing Mobile Learning in Class

To research the effect of mobile learning on students’ perceptions of their learning experience in class,
Top Hat (cf. www.tophat.com) was commonly used as the main educational application in Statistics
courses at University of Toronto. Top Hat is an, in class, online learning tool. The instructor asks
questions on the lecture slides and students’ respond using their phones, iPads, laptops, or any other
devices with an internet connection. Moreover, students are able to see their marks for the question being
asked in the lecture, immediately after answering. The instructor may choose to provide students with part
marks for participation and allocate the rest of the marks for when students provide correct answers. A
small registration fee is required to be paid by students to use Top Hat in class. Special arrangements were
made if the students did not have a device for answering lecture questions, or if the Top Hat fee is
beyond their financial means.

Most students involved in this research studied at least one course using Top Hat in the Fall term and at
least another course without using Top Hat (or any mobile learning tool) in the Winter term by the first
author of this paper. Typically, in courses where Top Hat is incorporated, one or two Top Hat questions
are considered in each lecture. Each question is marked out of 1, with 0.5 marks for simply entering any
answer and 0.5 marks for entering the correct answer. That is, about half of the marks are basically
achieved through participation in lectures. Students must attend and answer questions in their registered
lecture section to earn marks. Students receive an email from the instructor explaining in detail how to set
up and use Top Hat in class. Once a student is registered, the answers to Top Hat questions are only
recorded if the student is physically present in the lecture since Top Hat requires students share their live
location. Students are allowed to miss responding up to 3 questions; if n questions are asked, then the
students’ marks will be calculated out of n-3. No other adjustments were made for missed quizzes to
avoid unfair advantage among students. The total marks of Top Hat questions worth 10% of the total
marks of in the course.

4. Data Gathering Tool

We designed an anonymous survey with 11 questions where each question refers to a variable (a
survey-item) that attributes to learning experience in class. The questions were made to be short and
concise as possible to avoid any ambiguity. Next, the instructor emailed and posted the anonymous survey
on Statistics course websites via Quercus for students to complete. This urged them to fill out the
questionnaire.

The questionnaire consisted of the following items (variables to be include in the analysis): (1) whether
students’ used technology in class before; (2) the extent to which using technology in class helped increase
students’ final mark; (3) the extent to which using technology in class increased engagement in class; (4)
the extent to which using technology in class was beneficial in terms of understanding the course material;
(5) the extent to which students recommend taking courses that uses technology; (6) the extent to which
the subscription cost affected students’ decision in using technology; (7) students’ indication of the
number of completed courses that used technology in them; (8) the extent to which the instructor
answered students’ concerns anonymously with the use technology; (9) the extent to which students agree
whether more instructors should use technology in class; (10) the extent to which students prefer courses
with the use of technology over courses without them; and (11) the extent to which students prefer to
write quizzes using technology. The completion of survey was optional for students. The sample size for
this study consists of students who genuinely wanted their opinions heard. A copy of the questionnaire
can be found in the appendix.

-46-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

5. Data Summary
A total of 196 students studying statistics completed the survey near the end of winter semester in
2019-2020 academic year. Students who completed the survey were enrolled in upper-year statistics
courses hence they had taken at least few courses which used technology in lectures.

Before analyzing the survey results, we had to ensure that the questions in the survey measures the
research topic consistently and reliably, and are inter-related to each other. To determine the reliability and
consistency of the test items in the survey, Cronbach’s alpha was run on the entire sample size of 196
students. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha to measure the internal
consistency of the scale, with preferred values between 0.7 and 1. The obtained Cronbach’s alpha value of
the study-questionnaire is 0.824, which indicates that the survey-items are internally consistent and hence
the questionnaire is reliable.

Table below summarizes the frequencies and percentage of responses to each of the survey-items in the
questionnaire.

Based on 196 responses, 97% of the students have used mobile learning in classrooms. Majority (67%) of
the students agreed that they found use of technology in classroom to be beneficial in terms of their
understanding of the material and would prefer courses with mobile learning methods over traditional
methods (58%). 50% of the students were able to have their questions/concern answered anonymously
through the use of mobile learning and would prefer instructors to use mobile learning to enhance their
understanding of a course topic.

Item Frequency Percentage

1 Used technology in Class
Yes 190 96.94
No 6 3.06
2 Did using technology in class help increase your final mark?
Yes 104 54.7
No 20 10.6
Neutral 66 34.7
3 Increase in engagement in class
Yes 106 55.8
No 31 16.3
Neutral 53 27.9
4 Beneficial in terms of understanding the course material
Yes 131 68.9
No 19 10
Neutral 40 21.1
5 Recommend taking courses which uses technology
Yes 114 60
No 21 11
Neutral 55 29
6 Subscription cost affect your decision
Yes 74 38.9
No 53 27.9
Neutral 63 33.2
7 Number of courses taken that used technology
Used for 1 course 15 7.9

-47-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

Item Frequency Percentage

Used for 2 courses 44 23.2
Used for 3+ courses 130 68.9
8 Did the instructor answer your concerns anonymously due to technology?
Yes 96 50.5
No 35 18.4
Neutral 59 31.1
9 Should more instructors use technology in class?
Yes 126 67
No 44 23.4
Neutral 18 9.6
10 Prefer courses with technology over courses without
Yes 69 36.3
No 38 20
Neutral 83 43.7
11 Prefer to write quizzes using technology
Yes 72 37.9
No 65 34.2
Neutral 53 27.9
Table 1. Frequency analysis for each item in the survey

6. Research Methodology
We used quantitative methodology to understand students’ perception of the effect of using technology
in statistics courses on their learning experience. The quantitative methodology reflects the philosophical
underpinning of positivism, which asserts that knowledge (e.g., perception of learning) can be examined
through observation and numeric data collection from a large number of people, which can help explain
why individuals (e.g., statistics students) behave the way they do (Sears & Cairs, 2010). For instance, a
survey design can provide quantitative descriptions regarding a large number of individuals’ perceptions
(Creswell, 2012).

To test the significance of each item from the questionnaire, we employed one-sided z test for proportion
with significance level of 5%. We combined positive responses “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to each
survey-item and denoted them as a “Yes” response. We combined negative responses “Disagree” or
“Strongly Disagree” to each survey-items and denoted them as a “No” response. For the purpose of our
study, we did not include into our analysis “Neutral” responses since we could not determine in which
direction such response to an item tends to lean towards. Hence, the sample size of the significance test
for each variable (survey-item) is the number of students who responded either “Yes” or “No” to a
question. In the one-sided z test we define yes-responses correspond to frequency of “success” and
no-responses correspond to frequency of “not success” among the total frequency (that is, the total
number of students responding as either Yes or No) in each survey-item. The hypothesis test below was
conducted for each item. We let p be the true proportion of students who believe using technology in
class helped them in terms of each item presented in Table 2. Thus, the ratio, p, was calculated using two
categories of responses: Yes, No. We consider the following hypotheses:

H0: p=0.5 VS H1: p>0.5

The above statement means that we are testing, for example, whether the true proportion of students who
perceive that using technology in class helped them in terms of each of items asked in the survey exceeds
0.5.

-48-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

As expected, one of the many advantages of using technology in class was that majority of the students
indicated that they gained a greater level of understanding of the course material. This is evident from the
significant test of item 3 in Table 2 in which the p-value is notably less than 0.05 (significance level).

Table 2 summarizes the significance of each item’s test along with their corresponding p-values reported.

Item P-value Test

Did using technology in class help increase your final mark? <0.0000001 Significant
Increase in engagement in class <0.0000001 Significant
Beneficial in terms of understanding the course material <0.000001 Significant
Recommend taking courses which uses technology <0.000001 Significant
Subscription cost affect your decision 0.03797 Significant
Did the instructor answer your concerns anonymously due to technology? 0.000000008 Significant
Should more instructors use technology in class? <0.0000002 Significant
Prefer courses with technology over courses without 0.001865 Significant
Prefer to write quizzes using technology 0.3041 Insignificant
Table 2. p-values of one-sided z tests

7. Results
Z-tests were conducted to investigate which variables (survey-items) aided in the improvement of
students’ perception of their learning experience. Based on the results, there is strong evidence to
conclude that proportion of students who perceived that the use of technology in class helped improve
students’ overall learning experience in undergraduate courses related to mathematics and statistics were
significantly above 0.5. This means that, majority of the students benefited as they believed that their final
grade in the course increased. Furthermore, more students indicated that they were engaged in lectures
and were able to have their questions or concerns answered by instructors in real time. This resulted in a
noteworthy higher proportion of students who indicated that they understand the lecture material.
Moreover, bulk of the students preferred taking courses that uses technology over courses that do not and
would recommend more instructors to start utilizing mobile learning to improve the learning experience
of their students. However, there were mixed responses in terms of proportions of students who prefer
to write quizzes using technology or not.

8. Limitations and Conclusion

This was an observational study that invited students who took Statistics courses at the University of
Toronto to report their learning experiences with course contents in which their instructor used
technology to facilitate their learning. It is yet to be determined if similar results follow for courses in
other fields of study and other universities. Furthermore, this study utilized a survey to measure students’
perception of the use of technology on their learning experience. Therefore, causal relationships or
inferences cannot be established. We recommend that future studies design experiments to investigate the
effects of using technology in instructional methods on students’ learning outcomes. Such studies would
compare students’ academic performance in the experimental group where technology is being used in
class with the control group where technology is not being used in class. Moreover, future studies should
consider measuring students’ perception of their learning experience and how students’ perception of
their learning is affected by the teaching condition that they are situated in.

In light of many advancement in technology, instructors can support and enhance their students’
academic performance by incorporating a technological tool into their instructional design. If technology
is implemented properly and used strategically, it can completely outweigh the benefits of using traditional
teaching methods. Students will be able to solidify their understanding of even the most mundane topics
taught in some courses. An ideal classroom setting would be where communication between students and
instructors is maximized. In turn, instructors are better able to foster deeper learning and, in turn, change

-49-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

their students’ perceptions to more positive views regarding the subject being taught. Student-instructor
communication can be supported by taking advantage of technological tools in both teaching and
learning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Fabian, M., Topping, K., & Barron, I. (2016). Mobile technology and mathematics: effects on students’
attitudes, engagement, and achievement. Journal of Computer in Education, 3(1), 77-104.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40692-015-0048-8

Furió, D., Juan, M.C., Seguit, I., & Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile vs. traditional learning. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 31, 189-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12071

Kim, K.J. (2019). Enhancing students’ active learning and self-efficacy using mobile technology in medical
English classes. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 31(1), 51‐60. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2019.118

NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.

Robb M. & Shellenbarger, T (2012). Using Technology to Promote Mobile Learning. Nurse Education,
37(6), 258-261. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0b013e31826f27da

Sears, A., & Cairns, J. (2010). A Good Book in Theory: Making Sense Through Inquiry (2nd ed.). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.

Sung, Y.T., Chang, K.E. & Liu, T.C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and
learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computer &
Education, 94, 252-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.002

Traxler, J. (2005). Defining mobile learning. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference: Mobile
Learning 2005 (261-266). Qawra, Malta.

Wang, A.I., & Tahir, R. (2020). The effect of using Kahoot! for learning – A literature review. Computer &
Education, 149, 103818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103818

Wang, S., & Higgins, M. (2006). Limitations of mobile phone learning. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 3-14.
https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v2n1.18

-50-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

Appendix
Use of technology in class
The purpose of this survey is to analyze the impact of using technology (such as: iClicker, Top Hat,
Kahoot or any interactive platform to communicate with the Instructor) within a course on student’s
overall academic performance. All information will be confidential. Thank you for your time and
cooperation.

1. Have you used technology in a course?

o Yes
o No

2. Did using technology in class help you to increase your final mark?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

3. Were you more engaged in a lecture with technology compared to lectures that do not use technology?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

4. Would you say that the use of technology in class is beneficial in terms of understanding the lecture
topic?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

5. Do you agree with the statement: “I would recommend someone to take a class that uses technology”?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

6. Did the cost of subscription affect your decision in using technology in class?
o Strongly Disagree (I bought subscription regardless of price)
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree (I did not buy subscription regardless of price)

7. How often did you use technology in your courses in your school career?
o I used it for 1 course
o I used it for 2 courses
o I used it for more than 3 courses

-51-
 Journal of Technology and Science Education – https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1050

8. Do you agree with the statement: “My professor was able to have my questions/concerns answered
anonymously because of the use of technology in class”?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

9. Do you want more professors to start using technology in class so that students can ask questions
anonymously?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

10. Do you agree with the statement: “I prefer a course that uses technology in class over a course that
does not”?
o Strongly disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly agree

11. Do you agree with the statement: “I prefer to write quizzes through Top Hat or iClicker over writing
quizzes on paper”?
o Strongly Disagree
o Disagree
o Neutral
o Agree
o Strongly Agree

Published by OmniaScience (www.omniascience.com)

Journal of Technology and Science Education, 2021 (www.jotse.org)

Article’s contents are provided on an Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Creative commons International License.
Readers are allowed to copy, distribute and communicate article’s contents, provided the author’s and JOTSE
journal’s names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete licence contents,
please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

-52-