Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v11i1.5982 Ouiame Filali Marzouki Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco ouiamefilali@gmail.com Mohammed Khalidi Idrissi Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco khalidi@emi.ac.ma Samir Bennani Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco sbennani@emi.ac.ma Abstract—This meta-analysis has two aims: a) to address the main effects of social constructivist mobile learning environments on learners’ knowledge acquisition and their academic achievements b) to address potential factors re- garding design principles and instructional methods for successful social con- structivist mobile environments in a blended learning context. We selected 24 articles that meet the inclusion criteria: empirical studies implementing mobile learning in a blended environment using social constructivism approach. The selected studies are not identical in terms of instructional strategies, tools and devices, period and student’s expertise level. These factors lead to variations in the magnitude of the effect sizes. The review reveals that there is a positive ef- fect of mobile learning on the knowledge acquisition, learners’ achievements, attitudes and motivation despite the high cognitive load. This is shown through the combined effect size. A last remarkable finding related to retention is that students in such environments fulfill their academic tests, but remember less the acquired knowledge after a retention period. Keywords—mobile learning, instructional approaches, pedagogical activities, social constructivism, collaborative learning, blended learning, meta-analysis. 1 Introduction We are witnessing an era of an accelerated technological progress characterized by new innovations, high availability of information, easy access to digital resources and, especially, by a permanent presence of mobile technologies in our daily lives. How- ever change is not made without inconvenience. In fact, as mentioned by Kuznecoff 18 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis [1], it has become a common occurrence to observe students who are physically pre- sent, yet mentally preoccupied by non-course-related material on their mobile devices. Educational systems around the world suffer from the use of traditional approaches and a weak and unstructured integration of technologies. Most educators are still trapped in the use of Behaviorist methods, which are teacher-centered and based on the transmission of knowledge through seminars, lectures, presentations and exercis- es. These methods are typically focused on knowledge memorizing and reproduction, characterized by lack of personal involvement in the learning activity. An environ- ment of this kind does not promote social interaction, collaboration, problem solving and critical thinking. We end up with workforce that does not necessarily match the market needs and expectations in terms of creativity, autonomy and efficiency. Recent education systems reforms around the world have attempted to improve the teaching and learning process. The solution was to implement more interactive learn- ing environments based on technology and constructive methods promoting real-life problem-solving skills and considering the fact that the learner is not a passive receiv- er but rather a knowledge producer and a principal actor in the educational activity. The implementation of such environments is still fairly limited given the shortage of resources, teachers’ reluctance and the lack of easy-to-use educational Frameworks. In this context, countless research projects (detailed below) explored and demonstrat- ed the effectiveness and educational benefits of mobile Learning, a concept largely referred to "a rational and planned use of mobile technologies for educational purpos- es ". Since the late 90s, Mobile Learning has been the subject of a number of projects and research. Each of these projects has gone through a wide range of areas using different technologies as PDAs, Cell Phones, Smartphones, MP3 Player; iPods, etc. examples of these projects are as follows: • Language learning: vocabulary and communication lessons [2], [3] [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. • K-12 learning, implementing: independent learning: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] constructivist environments [15], informal contexts [16] [17], etc. • Sciences [18] and [19], Social science [20], Mathematics [21]. • Mobile devices as a tool to encourage participation and feedback during seminars [22] • Mobile educational games : [24], [23] • Learning for student with difficulties, special needs and autist learners [26] [25] Many approaches were used to explore mobile learning potential effects on learn- ers’ engagement, motivation, critical thinking and knowledge acquisition. Social con- structivism is one of the most adapted approaches for such environment as it promotes collaboration, social interaction and positive attitudes. If one ponders the implementa- tion of mobile learning using social constructivist approach, a major question is: do learners for such environments reach the goals in a more effective way than learners who receive conventional instruction? And what are the best implementation practices to take full advantage of mobile learning in such context? iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 19 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis In order to find an answer to these questions, a meta-analysis was conducted. The focus is set on teaching methods and educational activities implemented in different experiments. The experiments results in terms of knowledge acquisition, learners’ academic achievements and attitudes toward using Mobile Learning are then high- lighted. The aim is to identify implementation issues and gather the key success fac- tors of a blended social constructivist learning environment based on mobile technol- ogies. The first part of the article gives an overview of the educational benefits of mobile technologies and sets the study context. We then present our meta-analysis including a set of experiments implementing mobile Learning according to social constructivist approach and their educational results. And to wrap this up, we will shed some light on guidelines and best teaching practices to fully utilize the potential of mobile Learn- ing. 2 Social Constructivism For Mobile Learning Environments Recent educational Frameworks bring to surface the importance of interaction, conversation and dialogue in learning and teaching [27]. They aim to put the learner at the center of the educational process whether in-class or online. The goal is to pro- vide an effective learning environment with the ability to engage individuals in a creative and high order critical thinking in regard to subjects at hand [15]. Mobile technologies seem to be the most adequate mean to create such learning environment. Mobile phones have positive effects on learning process and students show positive feedback and positive attitudes. They made better scores [28]. Accord- ing to [29], the deployment of mobile technologies is increasing students’ commit- ment, motivation and learning construction and it helps improve the learning experi- ence. Mobile technologies enable learning process to take place in a multiplicity of formal and informal contexts and allow better monitoring and guidance for instruc- tors. These learning scenarios vary from structured experiences, supervised by the teacher in semi informal places and we take for example museums and libraries, and experiences in learner’s generated-contexts outside of the classroom. Mobile technologies became omnipresent in our lives through their multiple fea- tures allowing mobile learning to overcome time and space limitations of the tradi- tional formal learning. [27] They are at the same time multimedia access tools, con- nectivity tools, capture tools; representation and analysis tools. Essentially they have helped do the following: • support students’ motivation, encourage their sense of responsibility [30], improve their commitment [31] and promote their learning and retention [32]; • help increasing individual’s organizational skills and self-regulatory capacity of learning through planning applications [33] [30]; • support communication, collaboration and knowledge building via real-time data sharing [33] [30]; • offer both individualized and social interactive learning environment [34] and promote student-student and student-teacher interactions [30]; 20 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis • improve learners’ reasoning skills and self-confidence [30]; • support independent, constructivist and contextualized learning [30] [21]; • offer active and experiential learning opportunities [13] allowing quick note taking through photos, sound and video recording; Mobile learning was mostly implemented using social constructivist approach as it promotes collaboration, interaction. Social constructivism considered to be one of the deep approaches, is characterized by an orientation towards sense-making, construct- ing of personal understanding and active learning. Some of the descriptions of these approaches are authentic, learner-centered and active [13]. Such paradigms consider learning to be an active and interpretive process of "sense making" rather than facts memorizing [35]. The knowledge acquired is a product of the learning experience and the nature of the learning activity. Social constructivist Learning environments follow the bellow design principles: • put all the learning activities in a larger task; • make the learner feel more engaged in the problem solving; • design tasks and learning experiences to reflect the complexity of the environment in which learners will work; • set up the learning environment to support and challenge the learner's thinking; • encourage idea testing versus alternative views and contexts; • provide opportunities for support and reflection both on the learning content and process; • Moreover, social constructivism emphasizes on the fact that knowledge construc- tion is an interactive social exchange [36]. The social context is very important in the construction of knowledge through interaction with peers and teachers during learning tasks [37]. The educational benefits of mobile technologies in such contexts have encouraged researchers to explore them in multiple learning scenarios. Scenarios that we have chosen to study and analyze in this article to measure the previously mentioned mo- bile learning contributions and to help answer the questions: “What is the effect of using social constructivist mobile learning on leaners’ knowledge acquisition and learning achievements? Why some environments fail while others succeed? And what are the contexts and educational activities to advocate for a successful implementation of Mobile Learning in a blended social constructivist environment?” 3 Research Questions Two sets of research question guided this meta-analysis. First, we addressed the main effects of mobile learning on the experiments outcomes: learning acquisition and academic achievements. Secondly, key factors of a successful implementation of such environments in terms of expertise level, instructional strategies, and experiment duration and retention period. We also investigated the influence of mobile learning on learners’ attitude and cognitive load. iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 21 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 4 Method 4.1 Criteria Of Inclusion Before searching the literature for work pertaining to the effects of social construc- tivist mobile learning, we determined the criteria for inclusion in our analysis. ! The work has to be empirical. Although non empirical literature and literature reviews were selected as sources of relevant research, this literature was not in- cluded in the analysis. ! The characteristics of the learning environments had to fit the previously described core model of mobile learning ! Mobile learning should be implemented in a blended learning environment ! Studies should have been published after 2009 ! Subjects of study should be students in tertiary education ! To maximize ecological validity, the study had to be conducted in a real-life class- room rather than under more controlled laboratory conditions. 4.2 Literature Search The review and integration of research literature begins with the identification of the literature. A wide variety of computerized databases were screened: the Educa- tional Resources Information Center (ERIC) catalogue, Elsevier (Science direct), APA PsycNET (APA research database), LIBIS (Library Catalog of the University of Leuven), SAGE Journals, EBSCO's databases, also, the current contents connect was searched. The following keywords were used: mobile learning, mobile learning exper- iments/studies, higher education, social constructivism, mobile learning case studies. The literature was selected based on reading the abstracts. 4.3 Coding Study Characteristics We defined the characteristics central to our review and analyzed the articles we’ve selected on the basis of these characteristics. Specifically, the following information was recorded in tables: • First author and year of the publication • Study domain • Number of subjects • Duration and year of study • Learning strategy/method • Principal outcomes of the research • Method of analysis and the statistical values • Subjects’ level 22 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis Outcomes related to knowledge acquisition were considered. One condensed table was created that contain potential critical characteristics. The table is included in Appendices A. In the table, the statistical values were summarized and reported as effect size (ES) and p-value. 4.4 Selecting A Method According to [38]; [39] and [40]; we have chosen a statistical Meta analyses for our purpose. This analysis was supplemented by more inclusive vote counts based on sign test. Vote counting methods: Meta-analyses use ‘vote counting’ to compare the num- ber of positive studies with the number of negative studies. Vote counting is limited to answering the simple question “is there any evidence of an effect?” [41]. To do a vote count of directional results, the reviewer must count the number of comparisons that report significant results in the positive direction and compare this to the number of comparisons reporting significant results in the negative direction [38]. In performing the vote count, we have counted experiments reporting significant positive effects and negative findings. Some studies contain multiple experiments, they were all counted. Statistical meta-analysis: A statistical meta-analysis is the quantitative accumula- tion and analysis of effect sizes and other descriptive statistics across studies. Metric for expressing effect sizes: Kline defined the effect size as the magnitude of the impact of the intervention on the outcome. The effect size is recognized by researchers in a variety of disciplines as a simple and straightforward way to quantify the effects of an intervention relative to some benchmark comparison (as reported by [42]). [40] suggests using the standardized mean difference that would be comparable across studies in meta-analysis when the studies do not use the same scale. This met- ric is appropriate when the means of two groups are being compared. The standard- ized mean difference (d-index) effect size was used as a metric to measure the strength and effect of mobile learning on knowledge acquisition and academic achievements. Combining effect sizes across studies: Once an effect size had been calculated for each study, the effects testing the same hypothesis were averaged. Unweighted and weighted procedures were used. Theses weighted combined effect sizes were tested for statistical significance by calculating the 95% confidence interval. [38]. Analyzing variance in effect sizes across studies: The last step was to examine the variability of the effect sizes via a homogeneity analysis. This can lead to a search for potential moderators. So we can distinguish the factors affecting mobile learning effects. To test whether a set of effect sizes is homogeneous, a Qt statistic is computed. A statistically significant Qt suggests the need for further grouping of the data. The between-groups statistic (Qb) is used to test whether the average effect of the group- ing is homogeneous. A statistically significant Qb indicates that the grouping factor contributes to the variance in effect sizes, in other words, the grouping factor has a significant effect on the outcome measure analyzed [38]. iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 23 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 5 Results Twenty four studies met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis (Table VI). On the 24 studies, 22 (91.7 %) presented data on learning acquisition and achievements effects, 4 (16.7 %) reported data on students’ practical skills effects while 11 (45.83 %) reported data on effects concerning learners’ attitudes, cognitive load and satisfac- tion. These percentages add up to more than 100 since several studies presented out- comes of more than one category. All the information related to included experiments are detailed in table VI (Appendix A); such as duration, scope, the instructional strat- egies used, year of study and main results. Symbol used in table VI are explained in the legend (Appendix B). This section is dedicated to our analytical study of experiments using social con- structivism methods such as Social Learning, reflective Learning, Cooperative Learn- ing, Project-based Learning, etc. 5.1 Main Effects Of SCML On Learning Acquisition The main effect of social constructivist mobile learning on learning acquisition is detailed in Table I. A total of 22 studies measure students’ academic achievements in a mobile learning environment. The results of the combined effect size were statistically significant. These results suggest that students in such contexts acquire more knowledge compared to conven- tional learning environments and get better learning achievements which reflect the positive effect. The vote count shows a positive tendency with 17 studies yielding a significant positive effect and only 4 studies yielding a significant negative effect (unweighted ES=0.624, weighted ES= 0.431, CI: +/- 0.115). Researches [39] have proposed that Hattie’s criterion is appropriate for evaluating the effect size in educa- tion contexts, in which >0.60 is high, around 0.4 is medium and around 0.2 is low. Therefore we adopt this criterion to interpret the effect size in our research. It was found that using social constructivist mobile learning had a medium effect size for learning achievements. Distribution of effect sizes: The results of the homogeneity analysis (Table 1) suggest that further grouping of the knowledge acquisition data is necessary to under- stand the moderators of the effects of social constructivist mobile learning. As indi- cated by statistically significant Qt statistics, one or more factors other than chance or sampling error account for the heterogeneous distribution of effect sizes for knowledge acquisition. Table 1. Main Effects Of Social Constructivism Mobile Learning Environments outcome sign + sign - Studies Na Average ES Qt unweighted weighted (95% CI) academic achievements 17 4 22 0.624 0.431 (+/-0.115) 176.299 (p=0.000) all weighted effect sizes are statistically significant +/- number of studies with a significant (at 5% level) positive/negative finding A: Number of total non-independent outcomes measured 24 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 5.2 Moderators Of SCML The studies included in the meta-analysis can all be categorized as quasi- experimental. All experiments use a random sampling of the participants and are all based on a comparison between groups belonging to the same institution. Learning environments implement social constructivism mobile learning as a part of a single course. Thus, there are no methodological or design differences between studies. Expertise-level of students: The experiments were grouped according to students’ expertise level as a possible moderator of SCML environment. Table II reports the results of vote counting and effect size measures as follow: • Nine studies involving 1st year students: 7 with significant positive effect and 2 with significant negative effect • Two studies involving 2nd year students. The 2 of them reports significant positive effects • Three studies involving 3rd year students with no significant effect • Twelve studies involving junior and senior students with 8 reporting significant positive effect and 4 reporting significant negative effect. The analysis of moderators suggests that significant variation in effect sizes exists for academic achievements (Qb = 4.804, p<0.0001). The results of these analyses are summarized in table 2. The weighted combined effect sizes are all positive with a high effect size in second year which may be explained by the expertise and maturity gained by learners in comparison with 1st year students. Retention period: Some studies conducted delayed tests after different retention period to evaluate long term mobile learning effects on academic achievements. Table 3 presents the result of the analyses with retention period as moderating variable. The following categories resulted: • Five studies with retention period, including 2 with significant positive effect and 2 others with significant negative effect • 17 studies with no retention period. Twelve of them reports significant positive effect and three with significant negative effect. Results on homogeneity analysis suggest significant variation in effect sizes for learning acquisition outcome can be attributed to retention period influences (Qb=19.19, p=0.0001). Weighted combined effect size of studies with no retention period (ES=0.652) is considerably higher comparing to studies with delayed tests (ES=0.032). Our analysis is in agreement with Zhang, 2011 results. In fact, even if mobile learning help increase students’ academic achievements, the mere use of mobile tech- nologies does not help integrating acquired knowledge into long term memory which might explain delayed tests results and the low effect size. There are many factors that possibly explain the small effect size like knowing that all the needed information are permanently stored in our devices and can be retrieved whenever we want (brain external hard drive). Being exposed to much information while using mobile technol- ogies can as well affect memorization process. iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 25 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis Instructional strategy / Educational method: Three main methods were used in the selected studies. Collaborative/interactive learning, individual/autonomous learn- ing and personalized learning. Results are presented in Table 4. Collaborative strategy was implemented using forums, messaging and social net- works. Sharing students’ own work and evaluating each other’s contributions were main activities used in the studies. Personalized strategy was mainly based on adapting the learning process to learn- ers’ pace using SMS. While multimedia, self-assessment self-observation, note taking and instant messaging were used to implement individual learning. Homogeneity analysis suggest that significant variation in effect sizes as well as ef- fects on knowledge acquisition (Qb = 17.62, p=0.000). Weighted combined effect sizes are all positive. A ranking based on the size of the weighted combined effect sizes gives the following: individual learning (ES=0.273), personalized learning (ED=0.64) and collaborative learning (ES=0.918) showing that more the activities favor interaction and respond to students’ preferences larger the ascertain effect Table 2. Expertise Level As Moderating Variable expertise level sign + sign - studies N Average ES Q Qb unweighted weighted (95% CI) 1st year 7 2 9 0.6795 0.578 (+/- 0.195) 26.553 (p<0.0001) 4.804 p<0.0001 2nd year 2 0 2 0.998 0.996(+/-0.51) 19.462 (p=0.35) 3rd year 0 0 2 - - - All 8 4 12 0.57 0.292(+/- 0.006) 125.48 (p=0.000) All weighted effect sizes are statistically significant Two sided sign-test is significant at the 5% level Table 3. Retention Period As Moderating Variable Retention sign + sign - studies N Average ES Q Qb unweighted weighted (95% CI) retention 2 2 5 0.18 0.032(+/-0.197) 47.621 (p=0.75) 19.19 (p<0.0001) no retention 12 3 17 0.973 0.652(+/-0.15) 109.485 (p=0.000) All weighted effect sizes are statistically significant Two sided sign-test is significant at the 5% level Intervention duration: Table 5 summarizes the results of dividing the studies into those that lasted less than one month, 1 semester and 2 semesters. The division leads to more homogeneous groups (Qb=41.45, p=0.000). All weighted combined effects are positive. Studies which lasted longer (more than one semester) report higher effect size. (ES=0.9 , ES = 0.6). 26 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis Even if learners are accustomed to the use of mobile technologies in their daily life, integrating those tools to educational contexts still represent a new concept. Thus, learners need more time to use them appropriately and effectively. Table 4. Educational Method As Moderating Variable instructional strategy sign + sign - studies N Average ES Q Qb unweighted weighted (95% CI) collaborative 5 0 5 0.9766 0.918(+/- 0.246) 9.546 (p<0.0001) 17.62 (P=0.000) individual 13 3 17 0.55 0.273(+/-0.14) 148.092 (p=0.00012) personalized 3 0 3 0.7 0.64(+/-0.315) 1.235 (p<0.0001) All weighted effect sizes are statistically significant Two sided sign-test is significant at the 5% level Table 5. Duration As Moderating Variable duration sign + sign - studies N Average ES Q Qb unweighted weighted (95% CI) 2 semesters 3 0 3 0.6 0.6(+/-0.33) 0.087 (p=0.0004) 41.45 (P=0.000) <=1 semester (3- 6months) 10 1 14 1.34 0.9(+/- 0.2) 76.156 (p=0.000) <= 1 month (hours-4 weeks) 6 3 9 0.175 0.15(+/-0.18)) 59.177 (0.206) All weighted effect sizes are statistically significant Two sided sign-test is significant at the 5% level 5.3 Main Effects Of SCML On Attitude 12 studies report results on students’ attitudes towards using mobile technologies. All results are positive with a mean of 3.86 on five-point Likert scale. Learners’ ex- pressed their satisfactory and favorable attitudes towards mobile learning integration in educational contexts. Studies used questionnaire and interviews to assess mobile learning usefulness, students’ involvement, satisfaction and interest while and after experiments. Most students’ answers “I agree” or “I strongly agree” to following questions: • Are you satisfied with the experiment? • Do you thing learning with mobile learning is more fun and effective? • Did you enjoy the experiment? • Does mobile learning promote the motivation and engagement? • Did mobile learning help you to learn better? iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 27 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 6 Findings And Discussion The research question of this meta-analysis dealt with the influence of social con- structivist mobile learning on the acquisition of knowledge. The vote count as well as the combined effect size (ES=0.431) suggest a robust positive effect from social con- structivist mobile learning on students’ achievements. According to Cohen, in [44], the combined effect for knowledge acquisition is moderate. 6.1 Moderators Of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Effects Expertise level of students: The analysis suggested that the expertise level of the students is associated with the variation in effect sizes. The results for knowledge acquisition give a consistent positive picture for different levels. The distribution of combined effects sizes shows a higher effect size for 2nd year students proving that students have to be more mature and experienced to effectively use mobile learning in educative contexts. Retention period: This moderator analysis indicates that students in such contexts gain more knowledge but remember less the acquired knowledge after a retention period. A possible explanation is that the use of mobile technologies is funny and efficient but students get easily distracted which doesn’t help integrating knowledge into long term memory. Also the great amount of information received makes it diffi- cult to recall. Instructional strategy: In other contexts, research has shown that instructional method and used strategies influence the finding. In this review the effects of mobile learning are moderated by the method knowledge was delivered. The result indicates that more social interaction is used, the larger the ascertained effects of social con- structivist mobile learning. Collaborative learning, personalized and individual learning were mainly used along the studies. Individual learning studies showed the smaller effect size, reflecting that even when using such innovative devices, social interactions should be advocated in learning contexts. It is recommended to favor personalized environments and deliv- er knowledge according to learner’s own pace and preferences but being a member of a community and sharing knowledge and work increase learner’s motivation which help him learn more and achieve better. Duration: The most important conclusion resulting from the analysis of the im- plementation duration factor seems to be the increasing effect size of mobile learning on knowledge acquisition, if the experiment lasts longer. Thus, integrating mobile technologies in educational contexts still represent a new concept; learners need more time to get used to it. Teachers also need more time to adapt their methods and con- tent to such technologies. Mobile learning experiments should last at least one semes- ter before we get significant positive results. 28 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 6.2 Learners’ Attitude Twelve studies report learners’ positive attitude when testing social constructivist mobile learning. Learners were satisfied from using mobile learning. They found it fun, motivating and more effective than conventional classroom. Some students [46] are willing to continue learning via mobile technologies because they increase interaction with both classmates and teachers. 6.3 Similar Studies [39] conducted a meta-analysis to measure mobile learning effects on learning achievement. The analysis included experiments from 1993 to 2013 implemented for different learning stages from primary to university. It was found that using mobile devices in education has a medium effect size (ES=0.523) for learning achievement. The study evaluated also the trends in implementing mobile learning and results show that more handheld devices are used in mobile learning experiments which are designed for formal settings. This meta-analysis also made similar conclusions about mobile learning effects on learning achievements and provide further validation of the findings from the men- tioned study. However, our study focuses mainly on experiments involving students from tertiary education and implementing social constructivist approach. 6.4 Other Findings Analyzing the different studies allowed us to come up with other conclusions re- garding social constructivist mobile learning implementation as follow. Mobile devices – Personalized environments Developing customized Mobile Learning systems is high cost demanding, and re- quires great effort from instructional designers and educators. Additionally, they are difficult to adapt against different operating systems (Android; iOS, windows phone, Linux, etc.). Advocating the use of predefined features can overcome these limitations by ensuring an environment easy to manage/maintain, a better usability and common setup for learners. Using learners’ own device allows to: • Promote ownership: students work in a private and personalized environment that drives towards individualized learning. • Reduce the cognitive load: learners are familiar with their own devices and fea- tures which reduces the cognitive load that is caused by being introduced to a new environment. • Reduce cost: cost is a major limitation when implementing a Mobile Learning environment especially if there is a need for high-performance device. Technology adopters categories: Here we note five technology adopter categories [45]: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards. With this in mind, we must advocate the following practices, especially during early integration of mobile learning: iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 29 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis • give learners the freedom to choose adequate specifications and preferences of technological tools; • focus on activities sharing and team working in order to set off the curiosity of skeptics and encourage them to use these technologies; • demonstrate successful examples of Mobile systems in other learning situations; • Provide community of practice involving learners (technological natives) and educators considered relatively reticent. Emphasis is placed mostly on students but we must not ignore educators. They are not familiar with the use of mobile tech- nologies in such contexts. There should be a sharing of experience and knowledge with their students; • Favor activities on PC and mobile devices for the first use versus mobile based platforms. Experiments show that better results were obtained when students had the freedom to choose between different devices, including laptops; Implementing intercative and collaborative strategies: Learning is a social pro- cess of building knowledge and skills. The social dimension in formal settings is par- ticularly ignored especially in transmissive courses where interaction is mainly unidi- rectional from educator to learner. Using mobile technologies can promote social interaction. Experiments now favor social networks, microblogs and instant discussions, re- flecting the importance of social interaction that represents a motivational and engag- ing asset. Especially since learners are familiar with such contexts whose implementa- tion remains easy. This dimension promotes reflection. And by definition, reflection represents the human capacity for higher-order thinking, specifically, our Ability to make connections between thoughts [45]. Developing this feature via mobile technol- ogies can be done through microblogs, supervised discussions on social networks regarding various topics. This represents an opportunity to criticize students’ own work and that of others, and it opens windows for reflection. The added value of mobile technologies for collaborative learning is the ability to integrate real-world problems. In fact, activities such as investigation, academic pro- jects and internships can be effectively implemented. Mobile technologies can be used to collect data (text and multimedia), to receive tutors’ feedback and mentorship and to assure that all group members are up to date on overall work progress and as a result guarantee effective work. Mobile technologies can also be used as a documen- tary source or a reference tool and as a mean to simplify the integration of scaffold- ing; tutors must be clear on objectives and should assign roles to each student when needed. Moreover, students can use moblogs or Facebook pages for instant sharing results, to be aware of other groups’ progress and to use comments for advice and orientations. Accordingly, widen the activity scope and allow everyone to work in synergy. Collaborative activities promote role shifting, enhance real-world problems solving and critical thinking. Multimedia tools: Social networks, messaging and RSS feeds should be advocated when implementing mobile learning, but also multimedia. [47] indicated that the multimedia was perceived by students with substantially high value. This suggested that the mobile application with multimedia inclusion not only enhanced cognition, eased off learning anxiety, and heightened learning motivation, but also provided 30 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis enough visual and auditory support to meet learners’ learning needs in reading and listening skill development. 7 Conclusion And Future Work In the previous publications we focused on mobile learning environment features and components [48]. We also proposed the adaptation of the MISA- Method of engi- neering learning system- for Mobile Learning design [49]. This requires incorporation of Mobile Learning specifics and appropriate learning and teaching approaches. The article at hands reports to this context, and enables extraction of the best teaching practices in a mobile learning environment. All the studies reviewing mobile learning show the importance attached to the use of mobile technologies through multiple experiments and research projects in differ- ent contexts and disciplines. The survey conducted on 2012 by EDUCAUSE, Center for Applied Research, on Mobile IT in higher education, states that students are the ones that are driving the adoption of mobile computing devices, such as cellphones, smartphones, and tablet computers, 67% of surveyed students believe that mobile devices are important to their academic success. This does not exclude the limitations of this paradigm and the need to structure and regulate the implementation of Mobile Learning for better results. Technology integration in learning and teaching processes cannot be made ran- domly and without pedagogical basis. As reported in [1], a survey examined students’ use of digital devices, while in class, for non-classroom-related reasons. Across six universities and over 700 participants, findings show that, while in class, 86% of par- ticipants used these devices for texting, 68% for emailing, and 66% for social net- working. Thus we need guidelines with mobile learning best practices and instruc- tional methods. Mobile learning should not replace traditional education but rather help students and teachers by providing services that facilitate teaching and learning. [50] The most successful experiments are those that have used mobile technology as a teaching tool in a blended learning environment. Nevertheless there is an urge to work within the limits of mobile devices and to consider breaking down tasks as to match mobile technologies environment [24]. Moreover, Mobile learning should be distinguished from e-learning. Recent research- es (e.g [51]) still define mobile learning as a mobile form of e-learning. Effective integration of mobile technology into the teaching and learning process can only be successful by appropriate teaching methods. Reason why, we have chosen to study mobile projects implementing deep educational approaches, because they promote learners’ interactivity, sharing, collaboration, autonomy and independence and most of all they are learner-centered. Every single teaching method, subject of our study, is adequate to a specific context, to make the most of mobile technology An implementation that respects previously presented practices promises to solve reluctance problems to new technologies, reduce the digital gap between generations and improve learner’ information literacy. The use of technology in learning envi- iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 31 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis ronments with the proper guidance and monitoring enables the learner to acquire the skills needed for lifelong learning. Experiments are concentrated in Europe, Asia and America; this does not exclude Africa from this trend where mobile Learning is becoming more and more appealing. Africa as an emergent continent represents a serious opportunity of growth in terms of mobile subscribers; representing 8% year to year margin increase between 2008 and 2012. In terms of forecasts, Africa and Latin America are expected to show a year to year combined growth rate of 7% to 8% for the next 5 years. According to the same source, in terms of penetration rate of mobile telephony in the population (130% in 2013), Morocco has moved from 56th to 52nd place out of 144 countries. This growth is attributed to the multitudes of mobile service providers and the competitive market nature. With that in mind and moving forward, we will use educational system in Morocco as a study case. Investigation is already in place regarding the acceptability and per- ception of postgraduate students toward Mobile Learning and its ability to improve the quality of the Moroccan education system REFERENCES 1. Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile Phones in the Classroom: Ex- amining the Effects of Texting, Twitter, and Message Content on Student Learn- ing. Communication Education, 64(3), 344-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2015.10 38727 2. G Ogata, H., Matsuka, Y., El-Bishouty, M. M., & Yano, Y. LORAMS: linking physical objects and videos for capturing and sharing learning experiences towards ubiquitous learning. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organization, 3(4), (2009), 337– 350. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2009.027452 3. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Huang, S. X., & Wu, T. T. A knowledge engineering approach to developing e-libraries for mobile learning. Electronic Library, 26(3), (2008). 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470810879464 4. Thornton, P., & Houser, C. M-learning in transit. In P. Lewis (Ed.), the changing face of CALL ((2002), pp. 229-243). 5. Thornton, P., & Houser, C. Using mobile web and video phones in English language teaching: Projects with Japanese college students. Directions in CALL: Experience, exper- iments & evaluation ((2003), pp. 207-224). 6. Thornton, P., & Houser, C. Using mobile phones in English Education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, (2005), 217-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2729.2005.00129.x 7. Levy, M., & Kennedy, C. Learning Italian via mobile SMS. Mobile Learning: A Hand- book for Educators and Trainers. London: Taylor and Francis, (2005). 8. Kiernan, P.J., & Aizawa, K. Cell phones in task based learning: Are cell phones useful language learning tools? ReCALL, 16(1), (2004), 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095 8344004000618 9. S. Chen, T.C. Kao & J.P. Sheu & Gwo-Jong Yu, A Mobile Butterfly-Watching Learning System for Supporting Independent Learning - Proceedings of The 2nd IEEE International Workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education (WMTE’04)- 0-7695-1989- X/04. 2004 IEEE 32 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 10. Y.S. Chen, T.C. Kao & J.P. Sheu, A mobile learning system for scaffolding bird watching learning - Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2003) 19, 347-359 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2003.00036.x 11. S. Elliot, Cathleen N., Phyllis B., Barry F., Joseph K., & Ron Marx - Handheld Devices are Ready-at-Hand- COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM June 2001/Vol. 44, No. 6 12. Koh, R.K.C.; Tan, H.X.L.; Duh, H.B.-L., Information Empowerment through Mobile Learning - MobileHCI’09. ACM 978-1-60558-281-8. 13. Dyson L. E., Litchfield, A., Lawrence, E. Raban, R & Leijdekkers, P. - Advancing the m- learning research agenda for active, experiential learning: Four case studies - Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 2009, 25(2), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.14742/ ajet.1153 14. Zurita, G. and Nussbaum, M. (2004), A constructivist mobile learning environment sup- ported by a wireless handheld network. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20: 235– 243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2004.00089.x 15. Chu, H., Hwang, G.J., Tsai, C.C & Tseng, J.C.R. A two-tier test approach to developing location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers & Educa- tion 55 (2010) 1618–1627 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.004 16. Hou, H.-T., Wu, S.-Y., Lin, P.-C., Sung, Y.-T., Lin, J.-W., & Chang, K.-E. A Blended Mobile Learning Environment for Museum Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17 (2), (2014), 207–218. 17. Lai, Chih Hung, et al. "Improving experiential learning with mobile technologies." Wire- less and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2005. WMTE 2005. IEEE International Work- shop on. IEEE, 2005. 18. Hwang, Gwo!Jen, et al. "Development of a ubiquitous learning platform based on a real! time help!seeking mechanism." British Journal of Educational Technology 42.6 (2011): 992-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01123.x 19. Shih, J.-L., Chuang, C.-W., & Hwang, G.-J. An Inquiry-based Mobile Learning Approach to Enhancing Social Science Learning Effectiveness. Educational Technology & Society, (2010) 13 (4), 50–62. 20. Chiou, C. K., Tseng Judy, C. R., Hwang, G. J., & Heller, S. An adaptive navigation sup- port system for conducting context-aware ubiquitous learning in museums. Computers & Education, 55(2), (2010), 834–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.015 21. Tangney, Brendan, et al. "MobiMaths: an approach to utilising smartphones in teaching mathematics."- Mlearn2010 - 9th world conference on mobile and contextual learning 22. Reinhardt, Wolfgang, et al. "How people are using Twitter during conferences. "Creativity and Innovation Competencies on the Web. Proceedings of the 5th Edu Media (2009): 145- 156. 23. Gwee, Susan, Yam-San Chee, and Ek-Ming Tan. "Assessment of student outcomes of mo- bile game-based learning." Proceedings of the 18th international conference on computers in education. 2010. 24. McAlister, Moira J., and Peng Hui Xie. "Using a PDA for mobile learning. "Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2005. WMTE 2005. IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 2005. 25. Hamshire C. Crumbleholme H. & Duggan, K.. Using iPads to improve learning outcomes for students with disabilities, complex needs and autism., 2014 26. O’Malley, Patricia, et al. "Effectiveness of using iPads to increase academic task comple- tion by students with autism." Universal Journal of Educational Research 2.1 (2014): 90- 97. iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 33 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 27. Kearney, Matthew, et al. "Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective." Re- search in learning technology 20 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14406 28. Basoglu, E. B., & AKDEMIR, Ö. (2010). A comparison of undergraduate students' Eng- lish vocabulary learning: Using mobile phones and flash cards.TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3). 29. FitzGerald, Elizabeth, et al. "Augmented reality and mobile learning: the state of the art." International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning 5.4 (2013): 43-58. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijmbl.2013100103 30. Uden, L. Activity theory for designing mobile learning, Int. J. Mobile Learning and Organ- ization, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2007 31. Jamil, Mubashrah, J. Keith, and Jamil Hussain Shah. "Mobile Phone in Education: Under- graduates’ Experiences." Journal of Education and Practice4.27 (2013): 62-68. 32. Lohr, Manfred. "E-Learning Using iPads-An e-learning Scenario Using Mobile Devices and Sensors for Measurements." Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2011 11th IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/icalt.2011.75 33. Park, Yeonjeong. "A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing education- al applications of mobile technologies into four types." The International Review of Re- search in Open and Distributed Learning 12.2 (2011): 78-102. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i2.791 34. Berth, Mette. "Informal learning with mobile devices: Moblogging as learning resource." Proceedings of the Informal Learning and Digital Media: Constructions, Contexts, Conse- quences (2006). 35. Brickell, Gwyn, and Jan Herrington. "Learner challenges and situated learning: Engaging students at Sydney Olympic Park." (2004): 150-158. 36. Liestol, G. "Learning through situated simulations: Exploring mobile augmented reality." Research Bulletin 1 (2011): 2011. 37. Cochrane, Thomas. "Moving mobile mainstream: Using communities of practice to devel- op educational technology literacy in tertiary academics."MLearn 2007–Making the Con- nections 6th International Conference on Mobile Learning. 2007. 38. Dochy, F., Segers, M., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijbels, D. (2003). Effects of problem- based learning: A meta-analysis. Learning and instruction, 13(5), 533-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00025-7 39. 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 re- search synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comp edu.2015.11.008 40. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to me- ta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386 41. Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712 184 42. Turner, H. M., & Bernard, R. M. (2006). Calculating and synthesizing effect siz- es. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33, 42-55. 43. Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.021 44. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum 34 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 45. Gikas, Joanne, and Michael M. Grant. "Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media." The Inter- net and Higher Education 19 (2013): 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.06.002 46. Jaradat, R. M. (2014). Students' Attitudes and Perceptions towards using m-learning for French Language Learning: A case study on Princess Nora University. Int. J. Learn. Man. Sys, 2(1), 33-44. https://doi.org/10.12785/ijlms/020103 47. Wang, Y. H. (2016). Integrating self-paced mobile learning into language instruction: im- pact on reading comprehension and learner satisfaction.Interactive Learning Environ- ments, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1131170 48. Filali Marzouki, O., Retbi, A, Khalidi Idrissi, M. & Bennani, S., Mobile Education- proposing a Mobile Learning Model for Designing an Institutional Mobile Scenario. Re- search Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 7(21), 2014: 4584-4592. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.7.837 49. Filali Marzouki, O., Retbi, A, Khalidi Idrissi, M. & Bennani, S, Using the Method for en- gineering learning systems MISA to design new Mobile Educational Systems. Internation- al journal of education and information technologies volume 8, 2014. ISSN: 2074-1316 50. Lehner, Franz, and Holger Nösekabel. "The role of mobile devices in E-Learning first ex- periences with a wireless E-Learning environment." Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 2002. 51. López, Fernando A., and María Magdalena Silva. "M-learning patterns in the virtual class- room." RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal 11.1 (2014): 208-221. 52. de-Marcos, L., Hilera, J. R., Barchino, R., Jiménez, L., Martínez, J. J., Gutiérrez, J. A., ... & Otón, S. (2010). An experiment for improving students’ performance in secondary and tertiary education by means of m-learning auto-assessment. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1069-1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.003 53. Garcia-Cabot, A., de-Marcos, L., & Garcia-Lopez, E. (2015). An empirical study on m- learning adaptation: Learning performance and learning contexts.Computers & Educa- tion, 82, 450-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.007 54. Agca, R. K., & Özdemir, S. (2013). Foreign language vocabulary learning with mobile technologies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 781-785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.147 55. Azar, A. S., & Nasiri, H. (2014). Learners’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of mobile as- sisted language learning (mall) in L2 listening comprehension.Procedia-Social and Behav- ioral Sciences, 98, 1836-1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.613 56. Kim, T. H., & Jin, S. H. (2015). Development of auditory design guidelines for improving learning on mobile phones. Computers & Education, 91, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.011 57. Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students. Comput- ers & Education, 63, 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.004 58. Lin, Y. T., & Lin, Y. C. (2016). Effects of mental process integrated nursing training using mobile device on students’ cognitive load, learning attitudes, acceptance, and achieve- ments. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1213-1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2 015.03.076 59. Zhang, H., Wei, S. O. N. G., & Burston, J. (2011). Reexamining the effectiveness of vo- cabulary learning via mobile phones. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(3). iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 35 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 60. Oberg, A., & Daniels, P. (2013). Analysis of the effect a student-centred mobile learning instructional method has on language acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.649484 61. Li, Z., & Hegelheimer, V. (2013). Mobile-assisted grammar exercises: Effects on self- editing in L2 writing. Language Learning & Technology, 17(3), 135-156. 62. Kondo, M., Ishikawa, Y., Smith, C., Sakamoto, K., Shimomura, H., & Wada, N. (2012). Mobile assisted language learning in university EFL courses in Japan: Developing atti- tudes and skills for self-regulated learning. ReCALL,24(02), 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344012000055 63. Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452 3.2013.767917 64. Alemi, M., Sarab, M. R. A., & Lari, Z. (2012). Successful learning of academic word list via MALL: Mobile assisted language learning.International Education Studies, 5(6), 99. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n6p99 65. Thabit, K., & Dehlawi, F. (2012). Towards using MP4 players in teaching English lan- guage: An empirical study. Journal of Engineering, 2(8), 25-28. 66. Saran, M., & Sefero"lu, G. (2012). Mobile Language Learning: Contribution of Multime- dia Messages via Mobile Phones in Consolidating Vocabulary. Asia-Pacific Education Re- searcher (De La Salle University Manila), 21(1). 67. Baleghizadeh, S., & Oladrostam, E. (2010). The effect of mobile assisted language learn- ing (MALL) on grammatical accuracy of EFL students.MEXTESOL Journal, 34(2), 1-10. 68. Motallebzadeh, K., Beh-Afarin, R., & Rad, S. D. (2011). The Effect of short message ser- vice on the retention of collocations among Iranian lower intermediate EFL learners. Theo- ry and Practice in Language Studies, 1(11), 1514-1520. https://doi.org/10.4304/ tpls.1.11.1514-1520 69. Motallebzadeh, K., & Ganjali, R. (2011). SMS: Tool for L2 vocabulary retention and read- ing comprehension ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(5), 1111-1115 https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.5.1111-1115 8 Authors Ouiame Filali Marzouki Engineer degree in Computer Science in 2012, PhD Student in Computer Science With RIME team at the Mohamed V University Agdal, Mohammadia School of Engineers (EMI);Ongoing research interests: E-learning, M- Learning, design methods, EMLs, pedagogical approaches. (e-mail: ouiamefilali@gmail.com). Mohammed Khalidi Idrissi., Doctorate degree in Computer Science in 1986, PhD in Computer Science in 2009; Former Assistant chief of the Computer Science De- partment at the Mohammadia School of Engineers (EMI); Professor at the Computer Science Department-EMI; Ongoing res (e-mail: khalidi@emi.ac.ma). Samir Bennani Engineer degree in Computer Science in 1982; Doctorate degree in Computer Science, PhD in Computer Science in 2005; Former chief of the Com- puter Science Department at the Mohammadia School of Engineers (EMI); Professor at the Computer Science Department-EMI; Ongoing research interests: SI, Modeling in Software Engineering, Information System, eLearning content engineering, tutor- ing, assessment and tracking,(e-mail: sbennani@emi.ac.ma) 36 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis 9 Appendix A See Table 6. 10 Appendix B – Legend For Table 6 Study: First author and the year of publication Institute: Institute in which the experimental condition has taken place Level: Participants’ level 1 = first year, 2 = second year, 3 = third year, A in every year, L: last year Subjects: Number of subjects in the experimental condition (social constructivist mobile learning) / number of subjects in the control condition Strategy: Instructional strategy used in the experimental design C: collaborative learning Ind: Individual learning Per: Personalized learning PBL: Problem-based learning Retention: Is there a retention period between treatment and test? Y: Yes, N: No Operationalization dependent variable ( Operat. AV) MCQ: Multiple Choice Questions Questionnaires Practical case Skill exam Vocabulary test Results Effect size (ES): the sign of the ES shows if the result is greater (+) or small- er (-) If it was not possible to compute an ES, than only the sign of the results is given P-value: ns= not significant iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 37 Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis Table 6. Studies Measuring Learning Achievement 38 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis iJIM ‒ Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 39 iJIM – Vol. 11, No. 1, 2017 Effects of Social Constructivist Mobile Learning Environments on Knowledge Acquisition: A Meta-Analysis