QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY:

GENERATIONAL (Y, X, & BOOMER) REACTIONS AND LEARNING

EFFECTIVENESS OF ASYNCHRONOUS, MOBILE-BASED ONLINE

LEARNING VERSUS ASYNCHRONOUS, COMPUTER-BASED ONLINE

LEARNING

by

W
Ernest Reginald (Reggie) Smith III
IE
PETTI VAN REKOM, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
EV
KEITH J. JOHANSEN, Ph.D., Committee Member

JANET M. MCMAHILL, Ph.D., Committee Member

PR

Feranda Williamson, Ed.D., Dean, School of Education

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

March 2014
 UMI Number: 3636661

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

W
IE
UMI 3636661
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
EV
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
PR

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 W
© Ernest Reginald (Reggie) Smith III, 2014
IE
EV
PR
 Abstract

Today, mobile devices are being used to deliver learning to students. However, there is

no research to determine if learning is as effective as computer-based online learning.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate whether and to what extent

asynchronous mobile device learning (m-learning), compared to asynchronous computer-

based e-learning, can improve (Level 1) learner reaction/satisfaction among Y, X, and

Boomer generations and increase (Level 2) learning effectiveness. Participants completed

a module of an online course. For reaction/satisfaction data, a postsurvey instrument was

administered online and for effectiveness data, participants completed pre- and posttests.

W
Study results showed that there was an increase in mean scores of actual learning for both
IE
e-learning (10.70) and m-learning (13.20) with m-learning showing the largest mean

score gain; however, the mean score results demonstrated statistically no significant
EV
differences between e-learning and m-learning groups in overall learning. The

significance of this study lies in the fact that mean scores improved for actual learning for
PR

both e-learning and m-learning along with some significant correlations between

Generation Y/Millenials generations regarding enjoyment of mobile technology for

learning; however the data failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences,

likely due to the small sample size. This study enhances the understanding of mobile

learning and the potential increase in cross-generational use of mobile delivery more

frequently for a global workforce of an estimated 8 billion devices by 2016 and as an

original inquiry this study contributes to the body of knowledge regarding the satisfaction

and efficacy of mobile learning.

 Dedication

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of

comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and
controversy.
---Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my parents, Mr. & Mrs. Ernest

Reginald Smith Jr., and especially to the memory of my mother, Barbara Odessa

Holbrooks Smith (May 2, 1943-March 4, 2013), who passed during the final stages of my

journey to obtain this doctoral degree. They and their network of friends provided me a

wonderful childhood. Their unwavering support, unconditional love, contagious humor,

W
honest guidance, and loving discipline helped to guide the “grit” of this little Negro boy,
IE
known as “Little Reggie,” to stand firm during times of challenge and controversy, build

upon failure, and continue moving forward. I am grateful to them for empowering me as
EV
a “man” to change the world!
PR

Grit is sticking with your future — day in, day out, not just for the week,
not just for the month, but for years — and working really hard to make
that future a reality.
---Dr. Angela Lee Duckworth

iii
 Acknowledgments

To make our way, we must have firm resolve, persistence, tenacity. We

must gear ourselves to work hard all the way. We can never let up.
---Dr. Ralph Bunche

First, I want to thank Danyell Irby, my wife, for her support; voiceover work; and

patience with the endless, sleepless, and moodiness-filled years to “get ’er done.” I also

thank London Smith, my daughter, for originally inspiring me to pursue a doctoral

degree. The birth of a child is amazing and tends to focus a laser beam on what is truly

important in life. I extend a big thank you to my brother, David Smith, for being such a

W
great sibling, listener, and friend. Never could forget my Largo Community Church

Family and Dr. H. Jack and Corin Morris. IE

Second, I want to thank my Capella University mentor, Dr. Petti Van Rekom, for
EV
her expertise, encouragement, firm kick at times, friendship, and guidance throughout

this process. I also want to thank my other committee members, Dr. Keith J. Johansen

(Capella Univ.) and Dr. Janet M. McMahill (Drake Univ.), for their guidance, friendship,
PR

and dedication in helping to make this degree a reality for me. God blessed me with one

SUPER-DUPER COLLABORATIVE COMMITTEE! THE BEST EVER!!!

Third, I want to thank the organizations and individuals (Note: Names are

included because there was no way to deidentify them without compromising the

usefulness of the study.) who helped me to pull all of the elements of this dissertation

together: Dr. Judith Bayliss, Defense Acquisition University (DAU) and Dr. Bill

Bahnmaier, DAU Alumni Association, for your support and guidance; Dr. Jolly Holden

and Mr. Alex Autry, Federal Government Distance Learning Association (FGDLA), for

iv
constant feedback, candid advice, and guidance; Mr. Joseph Camacho, Joint Knowledge

Online (JKO), for your content and support; Jeff Place, Questionmark, for your patience,

humor, and dedication in helping me to sync things together; and Jay Wilder, Brainshark,

for a great delivery platform. I extend another big thank you to the following people, all

of whom helped me to field and pilot test: Dr. Jim Kirkpatrick (Kirkpatrick Partners); Dr.

Jolly Holden (FGDLA); Dr. John Mattox (Metrics that Matter); Peter Berking Advanced

Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative; Jason Haag (ADL); Judy Brown (ADL); Kevin

Brown (JKO); Jennifer Gildea (Research Assistant); Nicie Grier (National Guard –

Civilian); David Sales (JANUS Research Group) and Maven Nova (Booz Allen

W
Hamilton). In addition, an appreciative shout out goes to Jennifer Gildea, my editor and
IE
research assistant, for adding another set of “good” eyes to keep me from going 100%

crazy and to Barb Elwert, my Canadian editor, for getting me out of the gate and on my
EV
way to completion.

Fourth, I want to thank my academic and social foundation, from which this effort
PR

grew: Bishop McNamara High School; Dr. Gladys J. Willis, Lincoln University (LU), for

your guidance and unwavering belief in me; Reggie E. Walker (LU), for the long talks

and council; Herschel Bailey ’66 (LU), for helping me to grow; Ms. Constance Lundy

(LU), for your open door and friendship; Lisa Bacon (LU), for allowing me to lead and

learn; Eric C. Webb, for having my back and pushing me to raise the bar; Arthur Slade,

for being a lifelong friend and brother and never could forget the Coqui Crew (Eric,

Leon, Dion, Ray B., Chuck, Ray S. Elwood, Edmond, George, Chis, Jason, Tyjuan, etc.)

for your support, encouragement, friendship and humor. Fellow board members from the

Patriots Training Technology Center, Berkeley College, Stevens Institute of Technology

v
Webcampus and the U.S. Distance Learning Association (USDLA): Dr. John G. Flores

(USDLA), for your friendship and guidance, and for always being there; Kimberly

Airasian, for your kind words, humor, and friendship; Patricia Marcelonis, for the “ear”

and friendship; Dr. Marilyn Gardner, for your friendship; Dr. Andy Dipaolo; Dr. Darcy

W. Hardy; Dr. Carter D. Ward; Dr. Denzil Edge; Dr. Don Olcott, Jr.; Dr. Daryl Diamond;

Elaine Shuck; George R. Collins; Janet Major; Jenny Jopling; Marci Powell; Marshall E.

Allen; Michael A. Baker; Dr. Jolly T. Holden; Dr. Janet McMahill; Julie E. Young; Ken

Conn; Pam Birtolo; Dr. Pamela S. Pease; Paul Roitman Bardack, Esq.; Dr. Rob

Robinson; Samantha Penney; Sunay Palsole; Todd A. Hitchcock; and Bill Jackson

W
(posthumously).
IE
Finally, I want to thank my family and friends: Clifton (posthumously) and

Gladys (posthumously) Taylor (Grandparents); Ernest (posthumously) and Gertrude

EV
“Tuni” Smith Sr. (Grandparents); Edith Mebane (Godmother); Harold Boyd (Godfather);

The Jenkins – Albert, Patricia, Jerryle, Jeff, Jerome, Taunya and Tracy; The Diggs-
PR

Melvin, Luncille (posthumously), LaGrand and Melva; the entire Mitchell-Harris Family;

Fair Hill Drive Families (Diggs, Brown’s, Slade’s, Burkes, Carr’s, Thames, Koger’s,

Austin’s, Frazier’s, Payne’s, Adams, Strayhorn’s, Buckner’s, Nash’s) and many more

that surrounded me with the village I needed at each stage of my development.

It takes a village to raise a child.

---African Proverb

vi
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables x

List of Figures xii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 6

W
Purpose of the Study 7

Rationale
IE 7

Research Questions and Hypotheses 8

EV
Significance of the Study 10

Definitions of Terms 10
PR

Assumptions and Limitations 20

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 22

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 24

Introduction 24

History of m-Learning and e-Learning 29

Trends in m-Learning and e-Learning 37

Asynchronous m-Learning and e-Learning 46

Mobile Technology: The New Learning Delivery System 48

Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y/Millennials as Learners 57

vii
 Training Evaluations of m-Learning and e-Learning 62

Adult Learners and m-Learning Versus e-Learning 72

Critical and/or Conceptual Debates 76

Gaps in Research and/or Theories 83

Summary 84

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 86

Introduction 86

Research Design 86

Research Questions and Hypotheses 88

W
Variables 90

Study Sample
IE 91

Instruments 97
EV
Data Collection 99

Pilot Study/Test 104

PR

Validity and Reliability 106

Data Analysis 108

Ethical Considerations 111

Summary 114

CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 116

Introduction 116

Data Collected 117

Instruments and Learning Content Module 123

Instrument Reliability 128

viii
 Results 129

Conclusion 142

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 144

Introduction 144

Discussion of the Results 150

Implication of the Results for Practice 156

Recommendations for Future Research 158

REFERENCES 161

APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT 171

W
APPENDIX B. PRE- AND POSTTEST INSTRUMENT 172

APPENDIX C. DATA COLLECTION PLAN

IE 175

APPENDIX D. CORRELATION MATRIX 176

EV
APPENDIX E. SAMPLE SCREEN SHOTS OF MOBILE BASED / M-LEARNING 177

APPENDIX F. SAMPLE SCREEN SHOTS OF COMPUTER BASED / E-

PR

LEARNING 178

APPENDIX G. PILOT TEST SCRIPTS – MOBILE-BASED / M-LEARNING 179

APPENDIX H. PILOT TEST SCRIPTS – COMPUTER-BASED / E-LEARNING 210

APPENDIX I. INFORMED CONSENT 223

APPENDIX J. RECUITING INITIAL CONTACT LETTER FOR PARTICIPANTS 227

APPENDIX K. E-MAIL / SOCIAL MEDIA RECRUITING LETTER FOR

PARTICIPANTS 228

APPENDIX L. RECRUITING PORTAL/WEBSITE/NEWSLETTER POSTING

LETTER PARTICIPANTS 230

ix
 List of Tables

Table 1. Terminology Comparisons Between e-Learning and m-Learning 36

Table 2. Pedagogical Changes 45

Table 3. Assignments and Tests Changes 45

Table 4. Presentation, Exam, and Assignment Changes 49

Table 5. Quasi-Experimental Design 88

Table 6. Research Questions / Hypothesis Alignment 90

Table 7. Data Collection Plan (Abbreviated) 103

Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Test Scores per m- or e-Learning

W
System 109

Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations of Survey Scores per m- or e-Learning

IE
System and Generational Affiliation 110

Table 10. Flesch reading ease, Fog Scale level, and Flesch-Kincaid grade levels 124
EV
Table 11. Generational Differences between the Pre- and Posttest Scores 131

Table 12. Year of Experience Differences between the Pre- and Posttest Scores 132
PR

Table 13. Professional Category Differences between the Pre- and Posttest Scores 133

Table 14. Device Experience Level Differences between the Pre- and Posttest Scores 134

Table 15. Means and Standard Deviations of Test Scores per m- or e-Learning
System 135

Table 16. T-Test Results for Level 2 Learning 136

Table 17. Descriptive Statistics for Survey Scores by Device Group and Generation 137

Table 18. Mean Survey Scores 138

Table 19. Mean Survey Scores T-Test Results 139

Table 20. Means and Standard Deviations of Survey Scores per m- & e-Learning
System and Generational Affiliation 140

x
Table 21. Correlation matrix 141

Table 22. Study Comparison of Participation Levels 154

W
IE
EV
PR

xi
 List of Figures

Figure 1. The Perpetual Perfect Storm: The major growth factors driving the adoption
of m-learning 4

Figure 2. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels 8

Figure 3. Web access by region 26

Figure 4. Member opinions from 0 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 27

Figure 5. The historical time line of distance learning 31

Figure 6. The family tree of distance learning 32

Figure 7. M-learning hype cycle (forecast) 34

W
Figure 8. Shift in spending 40

Figure 9. Relationships among D-, E-, and M-learning

IE 42

Figure 10. Wireless virtual learning environment of today (above) and wireless virtual
learning environment of tomorrow (below) 43
EV
Figure 11. The portion of down-time to prime-times for 20-, 40-, and 80-minute
learning episodes, when taught as one lesson 55

Figure 12. Average Prime- and Downtimes in Learning Episodes 56

PR

Figure 13. Generations explained 58

Figure 14. Generational differences in online activities 59

Figure 15. Generation X learners 61

Figure 16. Levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy revised 70

Figure 17. Hierarchical model of intrinsic (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM). AM:
Amotivation 76

Figure 18. Helping learners to learn and making learning more interesting 79

Figure 19. Asynchronous m-learning compared to asynchronous e-learning collection

process 103

xii
Figure 20. Correlation matrix 111

Figure 21. Informed consent/study process 112

Figure 22. Demographic by group and number of participants 120

Figure 23. Demographic by group and experience level 121

Figure 24. Demographic by group and age/generational range 120

Figure 25. Demographic by group and professional category 122

Figure 26. Demographic by group and years of experience 123

W
IE
EV
PR

xiii
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

With the explosive growth in the use of personal mobile devices such as cell

phones, there has evolved an increased opportunity for these same devices to wirelessly

deliver learning opportunities anytime or anywhere (Adkins, 2008; Wexler, Brown,

Metcalf, Rogers, & Wagner, 2008). However, mobile-based online learning (m-learning)

has not been confirmed to be more, less, or equally as effective as computer-based online

learning (e-learning). It also is not known whether and to what extent asynchronous m-

W
learning, compared to asynchronous e-learning, can improve Level 1 reaction and

increase Level 2 learning of knowledge according to Kirkpatrick’s (1998) outcome-based

IE
evaluation model. Generally, Level 1 reaction measures participants’ satisfaction, and
EV
Level 2 learning measures changes in knowledge. Measuring Level 1

reactions/satisfaction enabled the researcher to determine how much the participants like

using m-learning or e-learning over the other across the Y (born 1977-1990, age 18-32);
PR

X (born 1965-1976, ages 33-44); or Boomer (born 1946-1964, ages 45-63) generations.

Measures of Level 2 learning allowed the researcher to examine and compare learning

effectiveness between m-learning and e-learning.

Background of the Study

There has been little to no research to confirm the efficacy of m-learning as

compared to e-learning. For this study, asynchronous m-learning and e-learning were

examined and compared, but synchronous learning was not examined. In addition,

different generations (i.e., Y, X, and Boomer) are participating online in different ways,

1
such as the rate at which they download videos, post chats and play games; this may

suggest differing levels of acceptance to using online learning via e-learning or m-

learning due to various degrees of familiarity with technology. This study complements

and supports the field of training and performance improvement, as it sought to examine

learner reactions and the efficacy of learning through a comparison of relatively new

compact asynchronous delivery systems via mobile-online smartphones to existing,

noncompact asynchronous desktop, laptop, or tablet delivery systems for learning.

Both e-learning and m-learning can be accessed via the Internet on a desktop,

W
laptop, or tablet (iPad type) computer; however, m-learning adds true anytime/anywhere

functionality with the portability of compact mobile devices, providing the primary
IE
distinction between the two modes of delivery. For this study, e-learning (computer) and
EV
m-learning (mobile) were examined separately based upon this difference in size and

portability. Typically, a desktop, a laptop, or a tablet computer is not easily portable and

cannot “fit in a pocket or purse” (Wexler et al., 2008, p. 7). The term mobile has changed
PR

scope as technology has evolved. For the purpose of this study, mobile refers to the use of

a smartphone, and does not include the use of a desktop, a laptop, or a tablet computer,

all of which are bulky devices that the participants cannot carry on a regular basis.

There is a distinct difference between synchronous and asynchronous learning,

therefore, this study maintained a focus solely on asynchronous learning. According to

Holden and Westfall (2006), a “synchronous learning environment supports live, two-

way oral and/or visual communications between the instructor and the student [and] an

asynchronous learning environment exists when communication between the instructor

2
and the student is not real-time” (p. 10). Asynchronous e-learning, “often referred to as

computer-assisted instruction or computer-based training (CBT), includes any type of

instruction or training that is delivered by a computer” (Simonson, 2009, p. 18). Because

the study examined possible differences in satisfaction and efficacy of computer and

mobile technology medicated learning, the study was limited to asynchronous learning.

In addition, the term accessibility, as it is used in this study, refers to how

frequently and easily users can access online learning. The assumption is that users

access the content and learn via an m-learning environment more frequently than via an

W
e-learning environment because of the ease of accessibility of broadband connections to

the Internet and the compact portability of these devices to “fit in a pocket or purse”
IE
(Wexler et al., 2008, p. 7). However, accessibility does not imply or state that
EV
effectiveness is measured by how often or how easily one can access the content. Instead,

level 2 learning effectiveness was measured in this study via pre- and posttest scores

based upon newly acquired learning with level 1 reactions being measured via the use of
PR

a survey instrument, aligning with Kirkpatrick’s (1998) outcome-based evaluation model.

This new mobile and accessible environment has fueled tremendous growth

regarding the use of mobile devices globally. According to Ambient Insight (as cited in

Adkins, 2008),

A “perfect storm” is driving an increase in [m-learning] adoption rates. The

“perfect storm” [as seen in Figure 1] refers to the overall environment for an
explosion in the use and access to mobile devices to include content, [improved]
broadband, improved mobile devices and lower prices [that] provide for broader
access for a diverse population [both geographically and / or by class structure
ranging from the wealthiest to the poorest individuals]. (p. 10)

3
Adoption rates refer to the increased number of mobile cell phones in use. “With 5.9

billion mobile-cellular subscriptions, global penetration reaches 87%, and 79% in the

developing world” (International Telecommunication Union, 2011, p. 1). This 87%

global penetration is expected to reach 110% or almost 8 billion subscribers by the end of

2016 (Portio Research, 2012).

W
IE
EV
PR

Figure 1. The Perpetual Perfect Storm: The major growth factors driving the adoption of
m-learning. Adapted from “The US Market for Mobile Learning Products and Services:
2010-2015 Forecast and Analysis” by S. Adkins, 2011, p. 7. Retrieved from
[Link]
[Link] Copyright 2012 by Ambient Insight.
Reprinted with permission.

4
 With billions of people around the world using mobile devices, the use of

asynchronous learning suggests a broader support of access to learning opportunities can

be provided for learners on their terms. Holden and Westfall (2006) stated, “[An]

asynchronous learning environment exists when communication between the instructor

and the student is not happening in real-time [via the use] of text materials (print or

electronic) and discussion boards” (p. 10). They also noted that asynchronous learning

incorporates the following elements:

W
1. Provides for more opportunity for reflective thought
2. [Is not] constrained by time or place
3. Delays reinforcement of ideas
4. Provides for flexibility in delivery of content
IE
5. May have higher attrition rate and may extend time for completion. (p. 10)
EV
Because of the constant cycle of new innovative technologies to include mobile

devices, asynchronous and synchronous learning capabilities have the potential to expand

access to a much broader global audience. As Brown and Metcalf (2008) asserted, mobile
PR

phones are “capable of delivering videos and simulations in addition to text, email, and

voice messaging…user interfaces [UIs] have all improved – and continue to improve” (p.

2). This observation and continued innovation have enabled the mobile industry to grow

as well as to provide richer content for learners on the go. One recent study from Merrill

Lynch (as cited in Brown & Metcalf, 2008) demonstrated that mobile learning provided

via a BlackBerry device to a global audience resulted in higher test scores in less time.

This study highlighted the potential impact of mobile learning, which can provide not

5
only access to learning content on learners’ terms but also benefits to learners and

organizations.

A study comparing asynchronous m-learning to asynchronous e-learning to

determine learning effectiveness in improving test scores and improved reactions is

worthwhile because the findings contribute to the literature regarding m-learning and

how it might be used to reach an expanding mobile workforce. This outcome also may

provide a competitive advantage to organizations by improving reaction/satisfaction and

increasing the effectiveness of learning. In addition, the findings may provide

W
information that will lead to savings in time and money.

Statement of the Problem

IE
M-learning is rapidly expanding globally due in part to ubiquitous broadband
EV
Internet access and has the potential to improve Level 1 reaction and increase Level 2

learning. However, a gap remains in understanding the difference between m-learning

and e-learning in terms of whether one is more effective than the other in improving the
PR

test scores of newly acquired knowledge, and potential cross-generational differences.

With m-learning products and services reaching $246.9 million in the U.S. (Brown &

Metcalf, 2008), there must be further examination into whether the use of mobile devices

can improve reactions and learning effectiveness. This study provided data to expand the

knowledge in this field through understanding reactions and learning effectiveness. This

may foster further study with regard to how a busier, cross-generational, mobile

workforce can take advantage of and harness the power of m-learning to deliver the

learning needed, suggesting that this study’s examination of reaction/satisfaction and

6
learning effectiveness may contribute to potential solutions to match technology to

learning in a more mobile global society.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate whether and to what

extent asynchronous m-learning, compared to asynchronous e-learning, can improve

Level 1 reaction across Y, X, and Boomer generations and increase Level 2 learning

effectiveness according to Kirkpatrick’s (1998) outcome-based evaluation model. A

general understanding of cross-generational satisfaction and learning effectiveness is

W
unknown; therefore, this study had the potential to contribute to the body of knowledge

regarding the satisfaction and efficacy of mobile learning.

IE
Rationale
EV
The training and performance improvement (T&PI) field is concerned with

improving workforce performance; as such, this study helped to clarify whether the new

m-learning delivery system is as effective as standard computer-mediated delivery (e-

PR

learning) in improving reactions and learning effectiveness. Today’s workforce is mobile

and busy, which means that people do not have the time to take a day away from work to

attend training in person or synchronously delivered e-learning. Companies are always

looking for a competitive advantage with regard to learning effectiveness. Portable m-

learning has the potential to increase learning effectiveness, unlike laptop or tablet

computers, which are not as easily portable or able to “fit in a pocket or purse” (Wexler et

al., 2008, p. 7). This study supports the field of T&PI in seeking to determine whether a

7
mobile delivery system for learning is as effective as that provided by desktop or laptop

computers.

Because this was a study of delivery systems, not a specific course or module,

Level 1 and Level 2 outcomes based upon Kirkpatrick’s (1998) evaluation model were

compared using postsurvey scores (Level 1) and pre- and posttest scores (Level 2) in

conjunction with an online modularized course. The Kirkpatrick evaluation model

supports learning and improved performance with further details explained in chapter 3.

More specifically, Kirkpatrick’s model includes four levels or steps of outcome

W
evaluation (see Figure 2).
IE
EV
PR

Figure 2. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels

Adapted from “Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation certification program,
preparation materials,” by D. l. Kirkpatrick & J. D. Kirkpatrick, 2009. Retrieved from
[Link]
aspx?fileticket=9X5z3fE09ug%3d&tabid=70&mid=482 Copyright 2009 by
Kirkpatrick Partners. Reprinted with permission.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The study was guided by two research questions (RQs) and four hypotheses:

8
 RQ1: To what extent is there a significant difference between the mean learning

test scores of learners using asynchronous m-learning (mobile) compared to learners

using asynchronous e-learning (computer)?

H01: There is no significant difference between the mean learning test scores of

learners using asynchronous m-learning (mobile) compared to learners using

asynchronous e-learning (computer).

Ha1: There is a significant difference between the mean learning test scores of

learners using asynchronous m-learning (mobile) compared to learners using

W
asynchronous e-learning (computer).

RQ2: To what extent is there a significant difference between the mean

IE
reaction/satisfaction survey scores of learners using asynchronous m-learning (mobile)
EV
and asynchronous e-learning (computer) based on the learner-specific factor of

generational differences (i.e., Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation

Y/Millennials)?
PR

H02: There is no difference in improved reaction/satisfaction survey scores of

learners using asynchronous m-learning (mobile) and asynchronous e-learning

(computer) based on the learner-specific factor of generational differences (i.e., Baby

Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y/Millennials).

Ha2: There is a difference in improved reaction/satisfaction survey scores of

learners using asynchronous m-learning (mobile) and asynchronous e-learning

(computer) based on the learner-specific factor of generational differences (i.e., Baby

Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y/Millennials).