Perceptions of Transactional Distance in Blended Learning Using Location-Based Mobile Devices

Abstract

The current study demonstrates how blended learning using location-based mobile-learning experiences can be improved when student preparation is enhanced with techniques informed by the theory of Mediated Learning Experience (MLE). Our experiment used a sample of 216 junior-high students within the context of school field trips. Tablet computers were custom configured to implement mobile learning with an application dispensing both contextual content and field navigation assignments. A control group prepped for the field trips used traditional information and discussion while an experimental group prepped based on the principles of MLE. Following the experience, students’ subjective perceptions of transactional distance were examined. The findings suggested that those prepared with MLE principles experienced lower transactional distances and, hence, a better outcome. Additionally, gender and thinking style differences were found, highlighting the need to further adapt flexible teaching approaches in mobile-learning environments. Overall, the findings carry significant implications for pedagogic and technological aspects of implementing mobile technologies in education.

Keywords

thinking styles gender difference mediated learning experience transactional distance location-based mobile learning blended learning mobile devices field trips

Introduction

Learners are constantly on the move in location-based mobile-learning scenarios. Mobility provides a number of potential benefits and permits students to study nearly anywhere at any time with the help of technology (C. C. Chen & Huang, 2012). Learner mobility is more than physical geography (Roschelle, 2003). Indeed, learning can be enriched with varied and ever-changing contexts, related to subject matter correlated with an individual’s location (E. Brown et al., 2010). However, like all forms of distance learning, mobile learning is subject to a separation between teacher and students which may translate into pedagogical, collaborative, and other difficulties (Sailer, Schito, Kiefer, & Raubal, 2015; Sharples, Taylor, & Vavoula, 2010). Moore described this separation, which has been explored in distance learning environments, as Transactional Distance (TD; Moore, 1972, 2013; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Wengrowicz & Offir, 2013). The current study builds on this body of research from the perspective that location-based blended learning using mobile-learning components conducted without the physical presence of a teacher, is a distance teaching and learning activity (Benson & Samarawickrema, 2009; Traxler, 2010), and can be positively influenced through application of select distance learning theory. Location-based mobile learning provides a venue where teachers must be empowered with technology and move beyond the mere application of tools in spite of potential challenges (Dohn, 2009; Laurillard, 2009).

Communication differs in online environments for learning (B. Offir, Lev, Lev, Barth, & Shteinbok, 2004). As suggested by Moore and coworkers (Moore, 1986; Moore & Kearsley, 2005), reduction of TD enhances learning experiences and impacts learning outcomes (Ekwunife-Orakwue & Teng, 2014). We demonstrate this through application of strategies informed by Mediated Learning Experience (MLE) theory (Feuerstein, Klein, & Tannenbaum, 1991). In preparation for a location-based mobile-learning environment experience, we developed a process to encourage our students to become cognitively changeable and more able to mediate for themselves in new, changing contexts (Shamir, Tzuriel, & Rozen, 2006). Essentially, we believe that TD can be reduced in location-based mobile learning through the application of MLE theory. We accomplished this by highlighting subjective differences in student perceptions of TD in location-based mobile learning between an MLE (experimental group) and a nonmediated one (control group).

In the development of an MLE, we also considered several key thinking styles (e.g., those most relevant to students engaged in mobile learning), which have been described as contributing to achieving learning goals more effectively (Dunn & Honigsfeld, 2013; Fan & Zhang, 2014; Ford, 1985, 1995, Pask, 1976, 1988; Schmeck, 1988; Witkin, Moore, Goodenough, & Cox, 1977), and gender differences. Both elements were examined to better ensure that the mediated experience was relevant to the students participating in mobile learning. Thus, our central research question became: Does the intervention of a mediating teacher in a location-based, mobile learning environment reduce TD among students, identified by gender, having a variety of thinking styles?

Background

Mobile and Distance Learning

The concept of mobile learning refers to the use of hand-held, portable computers, which can be connected to the Internet, allowing the learner to move around in geographic space (Park, 2011). This results in ubiquitous learning opportunities, which enable student access to a wide variety of devices, services, and information sources that are available anywhere, whenever they are needed (McHaney, 2011; Tomei, 2016; van’t Hooft & Swan, 2007). Hence, the focus of mobile learning deflected from technology and learning scenes to the learners’ motivation to be mobile while maintaining their connectivity to a variety of digital information sources, regardless of space, location, and distance (Ciampa, 2014; Kearney, Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012). This meant that context could become a key component in learning experiences.

Location-based mobile learning is a process meant to turn learning space into a place, which carries value and significance for the learner (Khan, 2011). The mobile technology’s cluster of affordances (Woodill, 2010) is dynamic and may continue to change along with the constant technological development. Learners’ mobility enables, in many cases, the creation of distance and separation between them and the teacher, thus turning mobile learning into a form of distance learning (Park, 2011). In classic distance e-learning environments, both teacher and student are potentially close to formal knowledge (their potential exposure to this knowledge often is equal). On the other hand, in location-based mobile learning, the student may be located closer to the knowledge (in terms of physical distance) while the teacher might be located away from contextual knowledge in real time. In a location-based mobile-learning environment, the teacher and the student are thus located away from each other with the student potentially being moved into contextually relevant settings. This type of learning is considered to be a distance learning and teaching activity in prior research (Benson & Samarawickrema, 2009; Traxler, 2010). As such, a key theory of distance teaching and learning—TD theory, which was developed by Moore over a number of decades (Moore, 1972, 1973, 1983, 1986, 2013; Moore & Kearsley, 1996, 2005)—is relevant to the current research.

The TD Theory

The TD theory was developed to classify curricula based on the characteristics of separation between teachers and students in distance e-learning environments. Moore (1993, p. 22) borrowed the term transaction from Boyd (1980) as an expression of the mutual relations between the learning environment and the individuals active in it.

TD is measured by students’ subjective perception in light of their actual performances (Bischoff, Bisconer, Kooker, & Woods, 1996; Y. J. Chen, 2001a, 2001b; M. Zhang, 2003). This approach focuses on learning outputs. The outputs of a learning process, according to Dewey and Bentley (1960), are dictated by the mutual relations between the individual and his or her environment. This interaction is a two-way street: The environment affects the student’s thinking and perception, while the student’s perception affects the environment, which is shaped per his or her perceptions. Distance e-learning environments include many interactions, which can potentially create a TD (M. Zhang, 2003). Among these are:

Content Student-Content—This interaction allows the student to acquire intellectual knowledge using the learning materials. According to Moore (1989), this is a hidden interaction, an internal dialog of sorts, which is conducted in the student’s mind. The student conducts a “discourse” with the learning materials. The learners ask themselves about new things they learned, things they agree with, and things that are still missing for them to understand the learning materials. The nature of this interaction requires a high level of self-direction on the part of the learner, because they do not receive any direct mediation from the teacher or from any other external source.

Teacher Teacher-Student—This interaction provides feedback and enhances motivation and dialog between teacher and student. Students need direction from the teacher so they can know (a) whether they understand correctly; (b) how they should study specific contents, for example, whether it should be in-depth or superficial learning; and (c) the optional applications of the learning materials and how they should be explored. Teacher–student interaction is considered to be the most valuable interaction in distance e-learning environments (Moore, 1989, p. 103).

Peers Student-Student—This interaction refers to the exchange of knowledge, ideas, and feedback by peer dialog. Peer interactions enable students to have a better understanding of the teacher’s requirements, and are sometimes an integral part of an assignment. Moore (1989, pp. 103–104) hypothesized that peer interactions can enhance the motivation of younger students more than adult students.

Beyond these three, Hillman, Willis, and Gunawardena (1994) added a fourth interaction:

Technology Student-Technological interface—The interaction between student and technology, which mediates content, teacher, and peers. This interaction is related to the technological (Wells, 2002), pedagogical (Kirschner, 2002), and social (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002) affordances of technological tools available for the student. It may also be dependent on characteristics of the teacher (Aldunate & Nussbaum, 2013).

Other research has placed additional emphasis on how context relates to TD Theory. For example, Brown, Sharples and coworkers pointed out the importance of context and how this concept plays an integral role in location-based mobile learning (E. Brown et al., 2010; Sharples et al., 2010). Sailer et al. (2015, p. 241) reviewed the challenges of location-based mobile learning and emphasized how teachers must consider context as they develop learning units. They suggested that five aspects are relevant to challenges in location-based mobile learning. These included environment, technology, teaching, learner, and teacher’s spatial cognitive competences. Each challenge, they suggest, must be considered within the fuzzy context precipitated by location-based mobile learning (Sailer et al., 2015).

TD and Mobile Learning

There is little doubt that mobile learning can impact TD. Park (2011) suggests that mobile learning adds a new dimension to traditional TD frameworks. This dimension reflects innate characteristics of mobile technologies in ways that can support both individual and social aspects of learning. The new dimensions create a continuum varied by levels of TD and individual or social learning. Park describes four general types of mobile-learning experiences which include (a) high TD socialized m-learning, (b) high TD individualized m-learning, (c) low TD socialized m-learning, and (d) low TD individualized m-learning. Type 1 has an analog in traditional technology-mediated classroom group activities where assignments are completed by student groups. Type 2 is characterized by student–teacher interaction with adoption of distance learning into existing mobile lifestyles. Type 3 ensures students interact with instructors and peers using their mobile devices and offers an ideal approach for TD reduction in the context of mobile learning. Finally, Type 4 focuses on key characteristics of mobile learning that support blended or hybrid learning. Students interact loosely and more freely experience learning objects in a mobile environment at their own pace in a self-regulated manner (Sha, Looi, Chen, & Zhang, 2012).

Thinking Style

A variety of studies explore the impact of thinking styles on teaching and learning patterns (L. Zhang, 2001; L. Zhang & Sternberg, 2000). These studies suggest that higher correlations exist between learners’ thinking style and available learning styles; and this results in a more effective learning process (Dunn & Honigsfeld, 2013; Fan & Zhang, 2014; Ford, 1985; Pask, 1976, 1988; Witkin & Goodenough, 1977). Similarly, various studies describe relationships between thinking style (B. Offir, Bezalel, & Barth, 2007), positions, self-image (B. Offir & Katz, 1992), and other psychological variables (B. Offir & Cohen-Fridel, 1998), and the level of students’ academic achievements in technological distance e-learning and teaching environments (Liu, Magjuka, & Lee, 2008; Shany & Nachmias, 2001). Further, Zhang (2000) reports, based on a study of teachers, that: “both teaching approaches and thinking styles are context dependent” (p. 558). This suggests that location-based mobile learning, being focused on context, could have a relationship with thinking style and teaching approaches (Ally, 2008; Riding & Rayner, 2013).

The Theory of Mental Self-Government

A variety of different tools can be used for the assessment of intellectual styles (L. Zhang, Sternberg, & Rayner, 2011). Among these, Sternberg’s (1997) Mental Self-Government theory suggests that every person has a unique profile of thinking styles, rather than a single style of thinking. The 13 thinking styles presented by Sternberg (1997) are not dichotomous, but rather scalable. The styles are divided into five dimensions: functional (legislative, executive, and judicial), formative (monarchic, hierarchic, oligarchic, and anarchic), levels (global and local), scope (internal and external), and leaning (liberal and conservative). Two of these dimensions, the functional and the levels dimensions, were included in the current study because of their relevance to mobile learning and its context for learning. Specifically, in location-based mobile learning, students need to exhibit autonomy in their learning processes and a characteristic of m-learning is to ensure autonomous learning (Liaw, Hatala, & Huang, 2010, p. 448). The nature of m-learning is to expand the boundaries of learners through context-specific experiences (E. Brown et al., 2010) and this dimension provides insight into learners’ orientations as being either local or global thinkers. Figure 1 illustrates the dimension and thinking styles used in this study.

Figure 1.

Categories of thinking styles with functions and levels dimensions expanded.

Although other thinking style dimensions were available, they were not used in the current study. Instead, we focused on situation-specific thinking styles based on the circumstances in which our student learning experiences were structured (Novak & Hoffman, 2008; Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Zhang, 2005). We made a preevaluation of the learning environment and the relevant activities in order to match the situation to the environment. Specifically, in the tour, our students were divided randomly into small groups of four to five. We did not allow them to work alone. That meant the scope dimension could not be applied. There was no option to choose between learning alone or learning in groups. The other dimension which was not included was formative. This dimension, which describes preference for order of tasks, was not related to our current study, since the education tasks were linear in order to ensure that students visited all places along the tour based on the predefined objectives. There was no option to choose a different sequence.

Likewise, the leaning dimension was not included. This dimension refers to liberal and conservative aspects of a task. These aspects were not part of our study. For example, the liberal category fosters creative and innovative approaches to work while the conservation leaning relates to using a more standard approach. The students could not choose a work approach. The tasks and stations were predefined.

We did however use the function and level dimensions. We examined the relationship to autonomy in our study based on Moore’s (2013) theory which was composed of three categories that are similar to the functional dimension: engagement of the student to the learning goal, engagement in managing the learning, and self-evaluation of the learning done by the student. The functional dimension categories were legislative, executive, and judicial.

The level dimension was included because the mediation experiment offered two options to present the learning materials and to measure student self-efficacy. The first option was to start with a global approach and an emphasis on abstracting knowledge. This option focused on the big picture view of the tour (global goals) and then moved to concrete items as the tasks progressed. The second option was the local dimension. In this instance, students first focused on details and usually spent only a minimum time considering the broader, global perspective.

The Theory of MLE

The current study draws on the theory of MLE as a consolidated, comprehensive model that can be integrated with Vygotsky’s (1980, p. 86) theory to provide a methodological framework. These theories encourage learning and help understand the role of teachers in general, and their special role in a location-based mobile learning in particular (Feuerstein, 1980; Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, 1979). MLE acknowledges that a human mediator can intervene between stimulation in the learning environment and the learner, and that this mediation leads to the learners’ cognitive-autonomous development. The mediator’s role is to cause and generate a wide variety of strategies, which are formulated into action routines and habits. Those, in turn, are preconditions for normal cognitive functioning. Overall, the teacher’s mediation encourages the student to become cognitively changeable, thus enjoying the learning experience and developing the ability to mediate for themselves or for others in new learning situations (Shamir et al., 2006).

TD and Gender

TD can also be affected by gender. Horzum (2011) argues that this aspect has no impact on TD, whereas others imply that there are indeed gender differences in TD in distance e-learning environments (González-Gómez, Guardiola, Martín-Rodríguez, & Montero-Alonso, 2012; Rovai, 2002; Rovai & Baker, 2005). The explanation suggested in these studies is that TD is affected, in part, by a sense of community or a lack thereof (student–student and student–teacher relationships), and this feeling is gender dependent. Girls tend to enhance this sense by using their communication skills, and thus feel less lonely in distance e-learning environments, and their sense of TD may be reduced compared with that of boys (Rovai, 2002). It was also found that girls tend to attribute greater importance to the planning phase of the learning process and to the communication channels with the teacher in these e-learning environments (González-Gómez et al., 2012), which further contributes to their lower sense of TD. On the other hand, in a study that examined girls’ Distance Learning Willingness, it was found that these kinds of environments were less favorable among girls than among boys (Randler, Horzum, & Vollmer, 2014).

Hypotheses

The current research seeks to better understand how intervention by a mediating teacher can improve learning experiences where context plays a role (E. Brown et al., 2010; Sharples et al., 2010). To do this, we have explored location-based, mobile learning in a way that considers student thinking styles and measures resulting in improvement through a reduction in TD. As reported earlier, Zhang (2000) posits that “both teaching approaches and thinking styles are context dependent” (p. 558). This research provides unique evidence that an appropriate teaching approach can be more effective in location-based mobile learning, and this effectiveness may be impacted by thinking styles. As described in our literature review, thinking styles have been categorized into five dimensions and two of these, Functions and Levels, are investigated in our study. These two dimensions each include several thinking styles, which are used by individuals to varying degrees. To start the investigation of our research question, we first wished to determine whether thinking styles alone impact TD in location-based mobile-learning experiences. Our hypotheses were:

Hypothesis H1a: People with different thinking styles in the functions dimension will experience different levels of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

Hypothesis H1b: People with different thinking styles in the levels dimension will experience different levels of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

The next step in our research was to determine if an MLE makes a difference in location-based mobile-learning outcomes. Therefore, we tested whether a well-formulated MLE makes an impact in location-based mobile-learning venues. Our hypothesis was:

Hypothesis H2: Students from the experimental group (e.g., exposed to mediation) will experience different levels of TD than those from the control group in a location-based mobile learning setting.

Per Zhang (2000), both teaching approaches and thinking styles are context dependent. In the current research, development of a context-dependent learning experience using location-based mobile learning was the focus of our research question. We brought together both concepts, MLE and thinking styles, to formulate our third set of research hypotheses. Three thinking styles in the functional dimension of learning styles inform Hypothesis 3a: legislative, executive, and judicial. Hence, an environment mediated in accordance with the individuals’ thinking style allows them to optimize their activity, experience success, and reduce their TD. Therefore, our hypothesis was:

Hypothesis H3a: There is an interaction effect between thinking style in the functions dimension and whether students were provided with an MLE in terms of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

In the levels dimension of thinking styles, two thinking styles were presented: global and local. Mediation adjusted to a global or local thinking style may contribute to reducing TD and enhancing satisfaction in performing an assignment in a location-based mobile-learning environment. Therefore, our hypothesis was:

Hypothesis H3b: There is an interaction effect between thinking style in the levels dimension and whether students were provided with an MLE in terms of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

As described in our literature review, researchers have suggested that TD can be affected by gender (Horzum, 2011) in distance e-learning environments. To test this general finding in a location-based mobile-learning environment, our first research hypothesis dealing with gender simply became:

Hypothesis H4: Gender influences the level of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

We believe a multidimensional examination of the impact a TD on gender is important and may be better understood by exploring possible interactions between student characteristics (thinking style and gender) and learning approach characteristics (mediation). To accomplish this, our hypotheses were:

Hypothesis H5a: An interaction exists between thinking style in the functions dimension, gender and research groups in the indexes of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

Hypothesis H5b: An interaction exists between thinking style in the levels dimension, gender and research groups in the indexes of TD in a location-based mobile learning setting.

Methodology

In general, the current study involved development and deployment of a location-based mobile-learning experience for 9th- and 10th-grade students. The experience was created using a mobile app called Go-Arc. Contextual information was encoded and used to guide students through their learning. This information included details such as a recommended sequence of locations, guide maps, user navigation options, and preloaded background and instructional information related to current location. The study was conducted as an experiment with two independent groups. One group received a mediating experience and the other did not. Activity-based data were collected during the field trip experience. Following the experience, student subjects were given a questionnaire to further explore their perceptions of learning. The following sections provide details on each phase of the experiment.

Go-Arc Application Development

The student learning experience for this research was implemented with an application called Go-Arc. Go-Arc is a tool specifically designed for development of location-based mobile learning. Learning outcomes were developed to encourage exploration, navigation through the city, and summarization of important knowledge gained. Activities included recording video, answering questions about various landmarks, reading supplemental information, integrating material with visual artifacts, following and creating routes, taking and sharing pictures of both artifacts and student enrichment activities, and other items. Student outputs from the Go-Arc application were automatically saved on the application website and reviewed by researchers.

Sample

The sample included 216 students from five junior-high schools in Israel. Consent was provided by the schools and parents. The responses were anonymous. We first explained research goals and then stated we wished to examine student attitudes on this type of unique learning. The research team conducted a short meeting and presented all phases of the experiment, and we emphasized no right or wrong answers existed. Student participation was voluntary. We provided a consent letter sent home with students explaining the research and the team member roles, and provided contact details for any questions. The participants were told that they could skip any question and remove themselves from the experiment at any time they wished. We started with 270 participants: 190 in the control group and 80 in the experiment group. Some left the experiment, so our final respondent counts were 159 for the control group and 57 for the experimental group.

No significant differences in demographics or responses based on school or class were detected. Student participants were aged 14 to 17 (M = 15.54, SD = .56). The sample was randomly divided into two groups for classes where permission was given to conduct the experimental portion of the study: the experimental group (n = 57) and the control group (n = 159). About half of the participants (51.9%) were boys, and the rest (48.1%) were girls. Broken down further, the experimental group was 50.9% male and 49.1% female. The control group was 52.2% male and 47.8% female. No significant difference in composition was indicated between the two groups (χ²= .03).

Structuring the Experiment

Prior to the field trip, the control group went through a traditional preparation session, while the experimental group’s preparation session was based on MLE principles. Data were collected while the participants used the preprogrammed tablet devices. The field trip was titled Following the Menorah, and its subject was the ancient Menorah of the Temple, its representations throughout history, and its national meaning over the years. The students’ activity was divided into three phases: launching, tour, and closing.

The launch phase

The launch phased was designed to help introduce students to the subject of the tour and its activities. This session lasted about 45 to 60 minutes in both the experimental and the control groups. The experimental group was exposed to the MLE preparatory activity, which had been developed by the tour’s content developers. The session included introduction to the learning materials, explanations about operating the device, and a Q&A session. The teachers in the experimental group operated per MLE principles as instructed by the researcher. Various elements included are as follows:

Training the experimental group teacher

The experimental group teachers met the researchers a day before the tour. During their training session, the teachers learned about the principles of MLE teaching and their implementation during the field trip. The session began with an introduction, presenting MLE theory and its influence on students’ self-direction. A booklet and video, which were prepared in advance, were handed to the teachers, and they could go through these items and make notes. At this stage, the teachers discussed the need for this method and were extremely interested in its potential, after being exposed to its principles and possible implementations in a mobile-learning environment.

Implementation of mediated teaching by teachers at the launch phase

Prior to the field trip, the teachers met the students from the experimental group and ran the launch session per the principles they studied the day before. The teachers acted per the following five principles:

Intentionality and reciprocity: The mediating teachers strove to bring the students’ attention to the highest possible level. This was done mainly by two things: (a) The teachers told the students that they were about to be exposed to a unique field trip that incorporated the use of tablet devices, challenging assignments, and multisensory experiences. Their objective was to raise curiosity among the students and make them understand the responsibility they will be taking by conducting the tour independently. (b) The teachers made it clear that the students’ attention during the launch session was essential for the success of the tour. The students, in turn, were very interested and were willing to cooperate to increase their success in the academic assignments.

Mediation for meaning: The teachers learned to be aware of their body language while presenting the tour and its contents. The teachers’ body language had to convey seriousness and responsibility, while also conveying innovativeness and curiosity. The teachers communicated the tour’s meaning to the students by presenting the learning method with mobile technology, which the students know and love. At this stage, the mediation included two elements, both designed to enhance the students’ motivation: (a) stressing the importance of the subject matter in terms of values (the Menorah as a national symbol) and learning material; and (b) a short discussion was held, in which the students were asked how they thought the use of tablets could make the tour more interesting and meaningful for them.

Mediation for transcendence: In mediation of transcendence, the mediator goes beyond concrete experiences and focuses on strategies, rules, and principles. Accordingly, the teachers took three steps: (a) they presented one example for an assignment included in the tour (projected on a big screen); (b) they asked the students what they thought was the best way to perform this assignment, and similar assignments, during the tour; and (c) the students were asked to formulate some brief, effective rules that would increase their success in the assignments during the tour.

Mediation for a feeling of competency: The students were given verbal or nonverbal (reassuring) information, which allowed them to control the learning process independently and successfully. The teachers presented three basic rules for the students: (a) In each station during the tour, start with the easiest assignment and then move on to the more complicated ones; (b) you are not obligated to complete every assignment; we will appreciate the effort, beyond the actual results; and (c) you, as students, can control the tour using the tablet. Other students your age have already completed it successfully.

Mediation for the regulation of behavior: To reduce the level of students’ impulsive behavior during the field trip, or to accelerate their activities per the specific requirements of each assignment, the students were instructed to be aware of their time management and to make intelligent decisions during the tour. The students were asked (a) to create a reminder of the deadline for the tour and the final meeting point; (b) to use a watch (or the watch-app on their tablets) to plan the time allocated for completing each assignment in each station and decide whether to continue the assignment or skip it in order to finish the tour on time; and (c) to prepare a note with the teacher’s name and number in case they got lost or encountered any other technical problem. Students were reminded that the tour would take the entire time.

After completing the mediating teaching session, the tablets were handed out to the students, and they all experienced a practice assignment, which required them to operate the device, read an assignment and accompanying information, and then document themselves on camera and upload the footage to the server. During this stage, the teachers moved into individual or group mediation activities, per the students’ requests and needs. They continued to implement the MLE principles (particularly mediation for the regulation of behavior). Figure 2 illustrates the process.

Figure 2.

User interface of the educational application.

The tour phase

During the tour, which lasted about 8 hours, the participants used tablet devices with a location-based educational application. The application’s home page presented the tour’s subject matter which included a GPS-based navigation map. This guided the students through the different stations in their route. Each station included essential information sources, media files, and educational assignments. Participants were asked to navigate between the different stations in the tour, look through the information and media files, answer questions, perform assignments such as taking pictures and photos of relevant objects in their environment, initiate interactions with people around them, document interviews with passersby, and so on. All student outputs were automatically uploaded to the application’s servers and were presented to the participants at the end of the tour.

The tour was 6 km set in an urban area. The students were divided randomly in advance into cohorts. All groups walked together and progressed separately based on their performance of the tasks at each station. All students started the tour at the same time and were given an ending time and location where all groups were told to convene. The groups were aware of the time element which helped them pace their tasks and ensure they would arrive at the end on time.

A set of initial guidelines were provided by the research team prior to students starting the tour. These instructions provided ways to contact teachers for support if necessary. Teachers were located in key areas so students were able to contact them face-to-face directly in case of emergency. Mobile phone numbers were also provided. Additionally, guides from the education institute were placed at several stations, so the students were able to contact them and get technical support if needed. While we did not collect specific statistics related to support, the research team’s impression, and subsequent discussions with students indicated that the support option was used infrequently and only for situations where they felt that they lost their way or might not be on time to complete. No technical problems were observed.

The closing session

At the end of the tour, the students reconvened for a closing session (see Figure 3). The students from the control group were exposed to all uploaded outputs, and conducted a nonstructured experience-based discourse about their impressions from the tour. Students from the experimental group were also exposed to their visual outputs (similarly to the control group), but unlike their peers, the session was given an added value by implementing the principles of mediation for meaning (discussing the insights and meanings of the tour experiences, particularly those documented by the students) and mediation for transcendence (highlighting and conceptualizing the required functions in this type of mobile learning). At the end of the closing session, a final questionnaire was handed out to all the participants in both groups.

Figure 3.

The students present and describe what they have learned during the tour in front of their peers.

Research Tools

The research questionnaires were handed out in two phases. Prior to the tour, participants were asked to fill out (a) a background details questionnaire which requested gender, age, class, address, and owner of mobile phone, and (b) a thinking-style assessment questionnaire. After the tour, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire to assess their sense of TD which included questions specifically modified to indicate the m-learning aspect of their experience.

Results

Instrument Validation

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted using the Amos 20 program to validate the applicability of the questionnaires’ structure (Arbuckle, 2011). The current study drew on recommendations provided by Jackson, Gillaspy, and Purc-Stephenson (2009) in their study of nearly 200 published CFA studies, and selected four commonly reported parameters in its fit assessment.

The Thinking Styles Assessment Questionnaire was designed to examine people’s different thinking patterns (Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Wagner, 1992). The questionnaire includes 20 items (found in Appendix A), representing five styles: legislative, executive, judicial, global, and local. Collected data were assessed for fit with CFA. Results suggested overall fit of the data set matched theoretical criteria, and the structure was validated with χ²df²= 1.66; p = .001; CFI = .94; RMSEA = .055.

The TD Assessment Questionnaire, constructed by M. Zhang (2003), was used to assess students’ TD in e-courses. Zhang’s original questionnaire included items related to educational interaction derived from 42 articles, which were divided into five conceptual, content areas. After consulting experts in the field trip’s content area and considering the relevance of areas pertinent to mobile learning, 32 items from the original survey development were selected as sources for the current study’s questions (see Appendix B). The questions related to the content areas are as follows: Questions 2 to 4 (Perceptions of the Web or Mobile Environment); Questions 5 to 6 (Perceptions of the Course or Tour Content); Questions 7 to 11 (Perceptions of the Instructors in the Program or Tour); Questions 12 to 22 (Perceptions of the Other Students in this Program or Tour); and Questions 23 to 32 (Perceptions of the Whole Program or Tour).

Participants were asked to rate the extent of their agreement with each statement on a 5-level Likert scale (1 = completely disagree; 5 = completely agree) where a higher response indicates a lower TD—indicating a supportive dialog and flexibility of the educational activity. The survey was provided to the students after a detailed explanation. They were instructed orally and in writing on the survey that they should relate their answers to the specific mobile-based, learning activity planned for the tour. The final model’s level of fit was good at χ²df²= 1.93; p = .001; CFI = .92; RMSEA = .066.

The reported parameters in the current study include the top four most commonly used descriptive statistics in CFA studies and were evaluated per generally accepted fitting-level thresholds of: CFI of .90 to .94; and RMSEA of .055 to .072 (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Jacksone et al., 2009; Murphy, 2003; Saggino, Cooper, & Kline, 2001). Both the thinking styles and the TD instruments were tested for model fit in this way.

Primary Study Results

Descriptive statistics were collected to examine the distribution of thinking styles and TD indexes for the overall sample. Table 1 shows the results for the means of all five thinking style with indexes that range between 4.42 and 5.21. The means in the functional dimension ranged between 4.57 and 5.21, while the means in the levels dimension ranged between 4.42 and 4.45.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations of the Thinking Styles Indexes (N = 216).

Aspect	The index	M	SD
Functional	Legislative	5.21	1.12
	Executive	5.04	1.24
	Judicial	4.57	1.21
Levels	Global	4.45	1.19
Levels	Local	4.42	1.25

Note. The index values range between 1 and 7, with a high value suggesting a high level of the specific thinking style.

Table 2 provides the means of all five TD indexes which ranged between 3.51 and 3.90. In general, this means students reported a low to medium TD. A higher value in this index means a lower sense of TD, which reflects a supportive dialog and flexibility of the educational activity.

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations of Transactional Distance (N = 216).

The index	M	SD
Technological environment	3.69	0.97
Learning contents	3.62	0.92
Communication with the teacher	3.51	0.90
Communication between students	3.90	0.84
Whole program	3.78	0.88

Note. The indexes’ values range between 1 and 5, with a high value suggesting a low transactional distance—that is, a more positive feeling of the students in the relevant index.

Results Related to Research Hypotheses

Analysis of the data was based on two separate three-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) tests in an array of 2 (gender) × 3 (thinking style) × 2 (study group) for thinking styles in the functions dimension (see Table 3) and the levels dimension (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Findings of MANOVA Test of Transactional Distance by Gender, Thinking Style in the Functions Dimension, and Research Group.

Transactional distance index	Gender (H4)			Thinking style (functions dimension—H1a)			Research groups (H2)			Thinking style × research groups (H3a)			Thinking style × gender × research groups (H5a)
Transactional distance index	F (5, 200)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (10, 402)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (5, 200)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (10, 402)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (10, 400)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$
Multivariate test	0.26	.937	.006	0.50	.891	.012	3.44	.005	.079	0.90	.536	.022	3.70	.000	.085

Table 3 presents a MANOVA test of TD. No differences were found in the sense of TD between learners with different thinking styles in the functions dimension, sig = .89, F(10, 204) = 0.50 $η_{p}^{2}$ = .012. Hypothesis H1a was therefore rejected.

A difference was found between research groups, sig = .005, F(5, 200) = 3.44, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .079, and Hypothesis H2 was accepted. On the other hand, no interaction was found between thinking styles in the functions dimension and the research groups, sig = .536, F(10, 402) = .90, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .022. Hypothesis H3a was thus rejected. Similarly, no difference was found in the sense of TD between gender groups, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006, sig = .937, F(5, 200) = .26, and Hypothesis H4 was also rejected. An interaction was found between the thinking style in the functions dimension and the research groups, sig = .000, F(10, 400) = 3.70, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .085, and Hypothesis H5a was therefore accepted.

Table 4 presents a multivariate ANOVA test of the TD and the thinking style in the levels dimension. No differences were found in the sense of TD between learners with different thinking styles in the levels dimension, sig = .565, F(5, 204) = .78,

η_{p}^{2}

= .019. Hypothesis H1b was therefore rejected. A difference was found between the research groups, sig = .009, F(5, 204) = 3.14,

η_{p}^{2}

= .072, and like the testing conducted on the functions dimension, Hypothesis H2 was supported by this test. No difference was found in the sense of TD between gender groups, sig = .840, F(5, 204) = .41,

η_{p}^{2}

= .019, and Hypothesis H4 was also rejected. No interaction was found between thinking styles in the levels dimension and the research groups, sig = .847, F(5, 204) = .40,

η_{p}^{2}

= .010. Hypothesis H3b was therefore rejected. No interaction was found between thinking styles in the levels dimension, gender, and research groups, sig = .284, F(5, 204) = 1.26,

η_{p}^{2}

= .030, and, Hypothesis H5b was rejected.

Table 4.

Findings of MANOVA Test of Mutual Transactional Distance by Gender, Thinking Style in the Levels Dimension, and Research Group.

Transactional distance index	Thinking style (levels dimension—H1b)			Gender (H4)			Research groups (H2)			Thinking style × research groups (H3b)			Thinking style × gender × research groups (H5b)
Transactional distance index	F (5, 204)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (5, 204)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (5, 204)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (5, 204)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$	F (5, 204)	Sig	$η_{p}^{2}$
Multivariate test	0.78	.565	.019	0.41	.840	.010	3.14	.009	.072	0.40	.847	.010	1.26	.284	.030

To better understand the findings regarding Hypothesis H5a, univariate ANOVA tests were conducted with the different aspects of TD: technology, content, teacher, peers, and program. A significant interaction of thinking style × gender × research group was found in four of the five TD indexes: Technology, sig = .001, F(5, 204) = 7.55, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .069; content, sig = .016, F(5, 204) = 4.21, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .040; peers, sig = .029, F(5, 204) = 3.61, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .034; and program, sig = .003, F(5, 204) = 6.12, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .057. The teacher index revealed no significant interaction effect. The interactions are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Interaction effect of thinking style in the functions dimension, gender, and research group on the technology, content, peers, and program indices.

The figures and the analysis of pairwise comparisons with correlation to multiple comparisons per Bonferroni’s method show that in the indexes of technology (a), peers (e), and program (h), the sense of TD was significantly lower among girls with executive thinking style (p < .05), who were exposed to mediation compared with those who were not. It should be mentioned that no significant differences were found between the groups among girls with legislative or judicial thinking styles. Among boys, no significant differences were found in these indexes between the research groups, for all three thinking styles.

Furthermore, in the content (c) index, it was found that the sense of TD among girls with a legislative thinking style was significantly lower (p < .05) among participants who were not exposed to mediation compared with those who were. No significant differences were found in this index between the groups among girls with executive or judicial thinking styles. Among boys, no significant differences were found in these indexes between the research groups, in all three thinking styles.

In the program (c) index, the sense of TD among girls with an executive thinking style was significantly lower (p < .05) among participants who were exposed to mediation compared with those who were not, similarly to the findings concerning the general, technology, and peers’ indexes. Furthermore, among girls with a legislative thinking style, the sense of TD was significantly lower (p < .05) among participants who were not exposed to mediation, similarly to the findings concerning the content index. It should be mentioned that no significant difference was found between the groups among girls with judicial thinking style. Among boys, however, this index revealed that among participants with a legislative thinking style, the sense of TD was significantly lower (p < .05) among participants who were exposed to mediation. No significant difference was found in this index between the groups among boys with executive or judicial thinking styles.

While no significant interaction was found between TD index, thinking style in the levels dimension and research groups, considering the size of the effect ( $η_{p}^{2}$ = .030), a univariant ANOVA test was conducted to examine the interaction between thinking styles, gender, research group, and the various indexes of TD. An interaction was found between the sense of TD, gender, and thinking style in the levels dimension only for the technology index, sig = .039, F(1, 208) = 4.33, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .020, as presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Interaction effect of thinking style in the levels dimension, gender, and research group on the technology index.

Looking at Figure 5 and the analysis of pairwise comparisons with correlation to multiple comparisons per Bonferroni’s method, we can see that the sense of TD in the technology index among boys (b) with a global thinking style was significantly lower (p < .05) among participants who were exposed to mediation. No significant difference was found in this index between the groups among boys with local thinking styles. Among girls (a), however, no significant difference was found in these indexes between the research groups, in both thinking styles.

In conclusion, the findings suggest that the assumption concerning a difference in the sense of TD between research groups was validated, and this difference may vary per the participants’ gender and thinking style. In the functional dimension, the general index, as well as the indexes for technology, peers, and program, the sense of TD was significantly lower (p < .05) among girls who were exposed to mediation and are characterized by an executive thinking style, compared with girls who were not exposed to mediation. In the functions dimension, in the program index, the sense of TD was significantly lower among boys who were exposed to mediation and are characterized by a legislative thinking style, compared with boys who were not exposed to mediation. It should be mentioned that in the functions dimension, in the indexes of content and program, the sense of TD was significantly lower among girls from the control group who are characterized by a legislative thinking style, compared with girls in the experimental group. Additionally, in the levels dimension, in the technology index, the sense of TD was significantly lower among boys in the experimental group who are characterized by a global thinking style, compared with boys from the control group.

Discussion

Mobile technology has to be considered when developing modern learning experiences. The current study integrated knowledge from areas such as distance learning, MLEs, and blended learning to determine if TD could be reduced and learning enhanced. The current study drew from Park’s framework of mobile learning in the context of distance education (Park, 2011). We support Wishart’s contention that mobile learning is complicated (Wishart, 2015). Often, mobile learning becomes an enabling tool and offers learning experiences difficult to classify into existing frameworks (Hsu & Ching, 2015; Teall, Wang, Callaghan, & Ng, 2014).

We believe our study offers significant implications for pedagogic, technological, and systematic aspects of implementing new mobile technologies in education. For instance, we found that gender-dependent differences exist between students’ thinking styles and their sense of TD following a location-based mobile learning experience with MLE-based intervention for a test group. This means that gender considerations are important when developing new learning experiences that integrate mobile technologies. Table 5 presents a summary of the hypotheses testing. Table 6 presents the significant aspects of the same information broken down by interaction factor concerning the sense of the TD variable by research groups and gender. Teacher interaction was not significant (p = .205) and was not included in the table.

Table 5.

Summary of Hypotheses Testing.

H1a	People with different thinking styles in the functions dimension will experience different levels of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Rejected
H1b	People with different thinking styles in the levels dimension will experience different levels of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Rejected
H2	Students from the experimental group (e.g., exposed to mediation) will experience different levels of transactional distance than those from the control group in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Accepted
H3a	There is an interaction effect between thinking style in the functions dimension and whether students were provided with a mediated learning experience in terms of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Rejected
H3b	There is an interaction effect between thinking style in the levels dimension and whether students were provided with a mediated learning experience in terms of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Rejected
H4	Gender influences the level of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Rejected
H5a	An interaction exists between thinking style in the functions dimension, gender and research groups in the indexes of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Accepted
H5b	An interaction exists between thinking style in the levels dimension, gender and research groups in the indexes of transactional distance in a location-based mobile-learning setting.	Rejected

Table 6.

Summary of Interaction Findings.

	Boys		Girls
Thinking style	Legislative	Global	Legislative	Executive
Technology	N.S.	Mediation > No mediation	N.S.	Mediation > No mediation
Peers	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	Mediation > No mediation
Program	Mediation > No mediation	N.S.	Mediation > No mediation	Mediation > No mediation
Content	N.S.	N.S.	Mediation > No mediation	N.S.

Note. Mediation—experimental group, No mediation—control group. The inequality signs represent significant differences between the research groups in the variable of transactional distance. N.S. = not significant.

A difference was found in the sense of TD between the two research groups (H2). A similar pattern was found in a study by Sen and Samdup (2009), which pointed out the impact of a face-to-face mediation on satisfaction and way of learning of students in open and distance e-learning courses. The feeling of proximity and immediacy felt by the participants in distance e-learning is affected, to a large extent, by the teacher’s actions before and during the learning process (Schutt, Allen, & Laumakis, 2009). Additionally, the current study suggests that an interaction exists between thinking styles in the functions dimension, gender, and research groups in the indexes of TD (H5a).

TD Among Girls

TD among girls with an executive thinking style was lower among those who were exposed to mediating teaching compared with those who did not receive any preliminary mediation. An executive thinking style is dominant among people who prefer to execute assignments in the normally acceptable way, per pregiven instructions. Such learners will tend to focus on practices and rules of activities created by others (Sternberg, 1997) and will be actively engaged in the learning process.

Similar to the executive style, a low sense of TD toward mobile technology, which has been used in the current study, suggests that the learner was an active participant in the tour and perceived the technology as an effective tool for performing the assignments (access to information sources, navigation, getting assignments, and sending them). A low sense of TD toward peer students means that the learners could watch the performances of their peers and get help when needed. Furthermore, this index reflects satisfaction from the fact that the students encouraged each other during the assignments and assisted each other in making the relevant decisions. The general TD index, and particularly the program one, also suggest that the learners were active participants and that they expressed themselves and enjoyed and felt a sense of belonging. These indexes highlight students’ active participation.

It should be noted that in the program index (a learner who is an active participant, who feels satisfied and enjoys a sense of belonging), boys whose dominant thinking style is legislative and who were exposed to mediation before the trip reported a lower TD compared with their peers (with the same dominant thinking style) who were not exposed to this type of teaching. On the other hand, girls whose dominant thinking style is legislative, and who were exposed to mediation, reported a higher sense of TD compared with their peers (with the same dominant thinking style) who were not exposed to mediating teaching.

TD Among Boys

The TD of boys whose dominant thinking style is global and who were exposed to mediation was lower than that of their peers with the same global style who were not exposed to mediation. The low sense of TD in the technology index reflected a positive preference for the use of mobile technology to access information sources, receive assignments, and send them. Mobile technology was perceived as something that does not disturb their involvement in the tour, but rather encourages active learning much like serious games (Girard, Ecalle, & Magnan, 2013).

The current findings should be regarded as part of the general context of the mediation activity to which the boys in this study were exposed. Students with a global thinking style prefer to look at the bigger picture of the learning process before going into details. They tend to absorb detailed learning materials almost accidentally, without noticing the connections between the bits of information, but after learning enough, they can suddenly see the “whole picture” (Graf, Viola, & Leo, 2007, p. 82). In the current study, the educational tour was constructed as several stations, each presenting a cluster of educational assignments. Global style students, who failed to understand the tour’s bigger picture in advance, felt less satisfied at the end compared with those who could grasp the way in which the details may come together to present a general idea or a goal.

Global style students needed advance preparation. Per the MLE principles applied in our study in the experimental group, the teachers emphasized the meaning of the tour’s contents and overall goals. Thus, global style students could address their need to see the overall picture before entering the executional detailed phase of learning. Additionally, the third principle of the mediation was mediation for transcendence: The mediating teacher goes beyond experiences and focuses on strategies, rules, and principles. This transcendence is exactly the overall picture which global style students need to perform better in detailed assignments. Thus, global style students exposed to mediation experienced a higher sense of satisfaction (and hence a lower sense of TD) compared with global style students who were not exposed to this mediation.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies

The current study can be a used as a link in a chain of studies concerning location-based mobile learning. Reference to its limitations and suggestions for future studies are therefore in order. First, scenarios of location-based mobile learning are still rare in the education system. As far as we know, such a learning methodology is implemented in only a few places, and particularly in informal education. The lack of appropriate teacher training and particularly the need to develop digital contents are obstacles that prevent this learning methodology from becoming more common. These obstacles are reflected in the limitations of the current study in terms of the sample, the research tools, and the research process. For instance, to reach conclusions relevant to a wider sector of the population, it is necessary to expand the sample and include students of different ages, similar activities in different locations, or even different activities (different subjects) in the same location. To examine change versus stability in the values of the dependent variables, it is recommended to conduct longitudinal studies, with repeating measurements in additional time periods (multiple field trips and various subjects). The studies should also incorporate accompanying qualitative methodologies, such as in-depth interviews with students and teachers, to better understand the motivational and emotional processes experienced in this unique type of learning. Additional limitations for the study relate to its generalizability. The subjects for this study comprised a relatively homogenous group from a single city.

Conclusions

The current study suggests that TD in location-based mobile learning may be different than TD in traditional distance learning. In cases of stationary e-learning, the physical distance between the teacher, the student, and their physical environment is almost meaningless. The virtual environment allows them to coexist and learn within it. Both the teacher and the student can choose different learning spaces per their individual needs and convenience. However, in location-based mobile learning, the space in which learning happens is a key element in the process. Location becomes subject matter, and it is chosen intentionally ahead of time. Moreover, during learning, students are found in the same physical environment, while the teacher is located away from it. As we have seen in the literature, physical distance carries implications over cognitive, psychological, pedagogic, and other aspects. A low TD should be defined as one of the main goals of mobile learning. Low TD reflects satisfaction and a sense of success in relation to the human, physical, and technological environmental components. This study provides evidence that TD in blended learning can be reduced through the use of MLE-based interventions where mobile learning is a primary approach.

A location-based mobile-learning environment is unique compared with existing e-learning environments because its physical element is an essential part of the learning process. The physical environment is used as essential learning content, rather than functioning merely as a facility. Furthermore, such an environment is highly dynamic and unlike traditional e-learning, the spatial knowledge cannot be converted into a digital representation. The feeling of being physically present in a specific place, and particularly the social interaction within it, gives the location its subjective meaning in the eyes of the learner.

Footnotes

Appendix A: Questions Used to Assess Thinking Styles

Legislative	1	When faced with a problem, I use my own ideas and strategies to solve it.
	2	I like problems where I can try my own way of solving them.
	3	When working on a task, I like to start with my own ideas.
	4	Before starting a task, I like to figure out for myself how I will do my work.
Executive	5	When discussing or writing down ideas, I follow for formal rules of presentation.
	6	Before starting a task or project, I check to see what method or procedure should be used.
	7	I like situations in which my role or the way I participate is clearly defined.
	8	I like to follow definite rules or directions when solving a problem or doing a task.
Judicial	9	When faced with opposing ideas, I like to decide which is the right way to do something.
	10	I like to check and rate opposing points of view or conflicting ideas.
	11	I like projects where I can study and rate different views and ideas.
	12	I like situations where I can compare and rate different ways of doing things.
Global	13	I like situations or tasks in which I am not concerned with details.
	14	In doing a task, I like to see how what I do fits into the general picture.
	15	I like situations where I can focus on general issues, rather than on specifics.
	16	I like working on projects that deal with general issues and not with nitty-gritty details.
Local	17	I prefer to deal with specific problems rather than with general questions.
	18	I like to collect detailed or specific information for projects I work on.
	19	I like problems where I need to pay attention to detail.
	20	In discussing or writing on a topic, I think the details and facts are more important than the overall picture.

Appendix B: Questions Used to Assess Transactional Distance and M-Learning.

Type	No.	Original statements	Statements for m-learning	Existence	Reason of omission	High response indicates— TD degree
Perceptions of the web or mobile environment	1	It is difficult to pay attention to the instructor in the web environment.	It is difficult to pay attention to the instructor in the web environment.	omitted	Not relevant, because the instructors were not available online in the mobile environment
	2	I have adequate access to the resources I need.	I have adequate access to the resources I need during the tour.	V		low
	3	The fact that I’m online does not inhibit my class participation.	The fact that I’m online with mobile technology does not inhibit my learning participation.	V		low
	4	An efficient system is provided for students and instructors to exchange materials.	An efficient system is provided for students and instructors to exchange materials.	V		low
Perceptions of the course or tour content	5	The contents of the courses are great interest to me.	The contents of the tour are great interest to me.	V		low
	6	I don’t know why I have to learn the materials.	The content of the tour was important to me	updated		low
Perceptions of the instructors in the program or tour	7	The instructors generally answer the student’s questions.	The instructors generally answer the student’s questions.	V		low
	8	The instructors pay no attention to me.	The instructors pay no attention to me.	V		high (reverse scored)
	9	I receive prompt feedback from the instructors on my academic performance.	I receive prompt feedback from the instructors on my academic performance.	V		low
	10	The instructors were helpful to me.	The instructors were helpful to me.	V		low
	11	The instructors are available to answer my questions.	The instructors were available to answer my questions.	V		low
Perceptions of the other students in this program or tour	12	I learned a lot from observing the interactions among the students.	I learned a lot from observing the interactions among the students.	V		low
	13	The students in this program challenged me to do my best work.	The students in this tour challenged me to do my best work.	V		low
	14	I get along very well with my classmates.	I get along very well with my classmates.	V		low
	15	I feel valued by the class members in this program.	I feel valued by the classmates in this tour	V		low
	16	My classmates in this program regard my ideas and opinions very highly.	My classmates in this program regard my ideas and opinions very highly.	V		low
	17	My classmates respect me in this program.	My classmates respect me in this tour.	V		low
	18	I am good working with the other students in the program.	I am good working with the other students in the tour	omitted	Unclear and has already included in the previous statements
	19	I feel a sense of kindred spirit with my fellow classmates.	I feel a sense of kindred spirit with my fellow classmates.	V		low
	20	The class members can be turned to when I need help in the course.	My classmates can be turned to each other when needed help during the tour.	V		low
	21	There are students I can turn to in this program.	There are students I can turn to in this program.	omitted	Already included in the previous statement
	22	The class members are supportive of my ability to make my own decisions.	My classmates are supportive of my ability to make my own decisions.	V		low
Perceptions of the whole program or tour	23	I was Thoroughly engaged in learning in this program.	I was thoroughly engaged in learning in this tour	V		low
	24	I enjoyed learning in this program.	I enjoyed learning in this tour	V		low
	25	I often expressed myself in classes.	I often expressed myself in classes.	V		low
	26	I was encouraged to express my opinions.	I was encouraged to express my opinions.	V		low
	27	I feel part of a learning community in this program.	I feel part of a learning community in this tour	V
	28	Overall interaction is low in this program.	Overall interaction is low in this program.	omitted	Unclear and has already included in the previous statements e.g. #12, #23)
Perceptions of the outside environment	29	The environment outside of this class (for example: your home environment, work neighborhood, finances, etc.) has been helpful with my learning in the class.	Visiting the various places during the tour was essential and helpful for learning	updated		low
Perceptions of learning	30	I have learned a great deal in the online program.	I have learned a great deal in this tour.	V		low
	31	I have made tremendous progress toward my goal in the subject areas.	I have made tremendous progress toward my goal in the subject areas.	V		low
Students satisfaction	32	Overall. I am satisfied with this program.	Overall. I am satisfied with this tour	V		low

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 disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was prepared using internal university funding sources.

Author Biographies

Nitzan Elyakim, PhD, is a professor at the Talpiot, Orot-Israel, and Jerusalem colleges of education, Israel. He gives courses on Master’s in Educational Administration Degree Programs and on ICT in educational innovation systems. He is also a member of School of professional Development lecturers at the Mofet Institute, Israel—A Center for Research, Curriculum and Program Development in Teacher Education. His research interests include examining the leadership effect of pedagogical innovation in technology-intensive environments and its impact on user perceptions and patterns of behavior in these environments.

Iris Reychav, PhD, is a professor of Industrial Engineering and Management and Head of the Collaborative Learning Technology Lab at Ariel University. She holds an MSc in Industrial Engineering and Management, and has 10 years’ experience at Motorola in the field of information systems. She earned her PhD from Bar-Ilan University’s Graduate School of Business Administration, and did her post-doctoral work at Tel Aviv University in cooperation with INSEAD. Her current research interests include knowledge management technologies, mobile learning, and technologies in health and education.

Baruch Offir, PhD, is a professor and head of the Distance Learning research laboratory of the Bar-Ilan University School of Education, and head of the School of Education at Ariel University. His research interests include the construction of decision-making models for the assimilation of advanced technological systems in learning. The goal of his studies is to achieve harmony between teachers’ contributions, the contributions of technological systems, and teaching methods. Professor Offir graduated from the University of London. He was the founder and head of the IDF project for using computers in teaching and learning.

Roger McHaney, PhD, is a professor of management information systems at Kansas State University. He is a University Distinguished Teaching Scholar and holds the Daniel D. Burke Chair for Exceptional Faculty. His doctorate in computer information systems and quantitative analysis is from the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas. He has worked extensively in the computer simulation field and has authored numerous articles and textbooks.

References

Aldunate

Nussbaum

(2013). Teacher adoption of technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 519–524. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.017.

Ally

(2008). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In: Anderson

(ed.) The theory and practice of online learning, Edmonton, AB: AU Press, Athabasca University, pp. 15–44.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2011) AMOS, Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Benson

Samarawickrema

(2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5–21. doi:10.1080/01587910902845972.

Bischoff

W. R.

Bisconer

S. W.

Kooker

B. M.

Woods

L. C.

(1996). Transactional distance and interactive television in the distance education of health professionals. American Journal of Distance Education, 10(3), 4–19.

Boyd

R. A.

(1980) Redefining the discipline of adult education (adult education association handbook series in adult education), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Brown, E., Sharples, M., Clough, G., Tangney, B., Wishart, J., Wijers, M., . . . Specht, M. (2010). Education in the wild: Contextual and location-based mobile learning in action. A report from the STELLAR Alpine Rendez-Vous Workshop Series, Nottingham, UK.

Chen

Y. J.

(2001a) Dimensions of transactional distance in the world wide web learning environment: A factor analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 459–470.

Chen

Y. J.

(2001b) Transactional distance in World Wide Web learning environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 38(4), 327–338.

10.

Chen

C. C.

Huang

T. C.

(2012). Learning in a u-Museum: Developing a context-aware ubiquitous learning environment. Computers & Education, 59(3), 873–883.

11.

Ciampa

(2014). Learning in a mobile age: An investigation of student motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(1), 82–96.

12.

Dewey

Bentley

A. F.

(1960) Knowing and the known, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

13.

Dohn

N. B.

(2009). Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges for education. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(3), 343–363.

14.

Dunn

Honigsfeld

(2013). Learning styles: What we know and what we need. The Educational Forum, 77(2), 225–232.

15.

Ekwunife-Orakwue

K. C. V.

Teng

T.-L.

(2014). The impact of transactional distance dialogic interactions on student learning outcomes in online and blended environments. Computers & Education, 78: 414–427.

16.

Fan

Zhang

(2014). The role of learning environments in thinking styles. Educational Psychology, 34(2), 252–268.

17.

Feuerstein

(1980) Instrumental enrichment: An intervention program for cognitive modifiability, Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

18.

Feuerstein

Klein

P. S.

Tannenbaum

A. J.

(1991) Mediated learning experience (MLE): Theoretical, psychosocial and learning implications, Tel Aviv, Israel: Freund Publishing House Ltd.

19.

Feuerstein

Rand

Hoffman

M. B.

(1979) The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques, Glenville, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.

20.

Ford

(1985). Learning styles and strategies of postgraduate students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 65–77.

21.

Ford

(1995). Levels and types of mediation in instructional systems: An individual differences approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(2), 241–259.

22.

Girard

Ecalle

Magnan

(2013). Serious games as new educational tools: How effective are they? A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(3), 207–219.

23.

González-Gómez

Guardiola

Martín-Rodríguez

Ó.

Montero-Alonso

M. Á.

(2012). Gender differences in e-learning satisfaction. Computers & Education, 58(1), 283–290. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.08.017.

24.

Graf

Viola

S. R.

Leo

(2007). In-depth analysis of the Felder-Silverman learning style dimensions. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 79–93. doi:10.1080/15391523.2007.10782498.

25.

Hillman

D. C. A.

Willis

D. J.

Gunawardena

C. N.

(1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.

26.

Horzum

M. B.

(2011). Developing transactional distance scale and examining transactional distance perception of blended learning students in terms of different variables. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 11(3), 1582–1587.

27.

Hsu

Y.-C.

Ching

Y.-H.

(2015). A review of models and frameworks for designing mobile learning experiences and environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 41(3), 1–22.

28.

Bentler

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

29.

Jackson

Gillaspy

Purc-Stephenson

(2009a) Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23. doi:10.1037/a0014694.

30.

Kearney

Schuck

Burden

Aubusson

(2012). Viewing mobile learning from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20(1), 1–17. doi:10.3402/rlt.v20i0/14406.

31.

Khan, B. (2011). Applying multi-agent software system to support citywide mobile learning. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:510875/FULLTEXT02.

32.

Kirschner, P. A. (2002). Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL? (pp. 7–47). Heerlen, The Netherlands: Open University of The Netherlands.

33.

Kreijns

Kirschner

P. A.

Jochems

(2002). The sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 8–22.

34.

Laurillard

(2009). The pedagogical challenges to collaborative technologies. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 5–20.

35.

Liaw

S. S.

Hatala

Huang

H. M.

(2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers and Education, 54(2), 446–454. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.029.

36.

Liu

Magjuka

R. J.

Lee

(2008). The effects of cognitive thinking styles, trust, conflict management on online students’ learning and virtual team performance. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 829–846.

37.

McHaney

R. W.

(2011) The new digital shoreline: How web 2.0 and millennials are revolutionizing higher education, Herndon, USA: Stylus Publishing.

38.

Moore

M. G.

(1972). Learner autonomy: The second dimension of independent learning. Convergence, 5(2), 76–88.

39.

Moore

M. G.

(1973). Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. The Journal of Higher Education, 44(9), 661–679.

40.

Moore

M. G.

(1983). The individual adult learner. In: Tight

Helm

(eds) Education for adults: Adult learning and education, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: The Open University, pp. 159–168.

41.

Moore

M. G.

(1986). Self-directed learning and distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7–24. Retrieved from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol1.1/moore.html.

42.

Moore

M. G.

(1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. http://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659 .

43.

Moore

M. G.

(1993). Theory of transactional distance. In: Keegan

(ed.) Theoretical principles of distance education, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 22–38.

44.

Moore

M. G.

(2013) Handbook of distance education, New York, NY: Routledge.

45.

Moore

M. G.

Kearsley

(1996). The theoretical basis for distance education. Distance education: A systems view, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, pp. 197–212.

46.

Moore

M. G.

Kearsley

(2005). Distance education: A systems view. Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 1(4), 70–72.

47.

Murphy

(2003). Factor structure of a coping scale across two samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(3), 627–647.

48.

Novak

T. P.

Hoffman

D. L.

(2008). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 56–72.

49.

Offir

Bezalel

Barth

(2007). Introverts, extroverts, and achievement in a distance learning environment. The American Journal of Distance Education, 21(1), 3–19.

50.

Offir

Cohen-Fridel

(1998). Psychological factors in conducting interactive distance learning systems. In: Davies

(ed.) Teleteaching 98: Distance learning, training, and education, Vienna, Austria: Austrian Computer Society, pp. 779–787.

51.

Offir

Katz

Y. J.

(1992). Computer related attitudes and self-image as a function of learners’ age. In: Aiken

R. M.

(ed.) Information processing 92: Education and society volume 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 80–84.

52.

Offir

Lev

Barth

Shteinbok

(2004). An integrated analysis of verbal and nonverbal interaction in conventional and distance learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 101–118.

53.

Park

(2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 78–102.

54.

Pask

(1976). Styles and strategies of learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2), 128–148.

55.

Pask

(1988). Learning strategies, teaching strategies, and conceptual or learning style. In: Schmeck

(ed.) Learning strategies and learning styles, New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 83–100.

56.

Randler

Horzum

M. B.

Vollmer

(2014). The influence of personality and chronotype on distance learning willingness and anxiety among vocational high school students in Turkey. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6): Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1928/3162.

57.

Riding

Rayner

(2013) Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behavior, New York, NY: Routledge.

58.

Roschelle

(2003). Keynote paper: Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.

59.

Rovai

A. P.

(2002). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5: 197–211. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00102-1.

60.

Rovai

A. P.

Baker

J. D.

(2005). Gender differences in online learning: Sense of community, perceived learning, and interpersonal interactions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 31–44.

61.

Saggino

Cooper

Kline

(2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(1), 3–9.

62.

Sailer, C., Schito, J., Kiefer, P., & Raubal, M. (2015). Teachers matter: Challenges of using a location-based mobile learning platform. In T. H. Brown & H. J. van der Merwe (Eds.), The mobile learning voyage—From small ripples to massive open waters. 14th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning, mLearn 2015 (pp. 239–255). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

63.

Schmeck

(1988) Learning strategies and learning styles, New York, NY: Plenum Press.

64.

Schutt

Allen

B. S.

Laumakis

M. A.

(2009). The effects of instructor immediacy behaviors in online learning environments. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(2), 135–148.

65.

Sen

R. S.

Samdup

P. E.

(2009). Revisiting gender in open and distance learning—An independent variable or a mediated reality? Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 24(2), 165–185. doi:10.1080/02680510902879528.

66.

Sha

Looi

C.-K.

Chen

Zhang

B. H.

(2012). Understanding mobile learning from the perspective of self-regulated learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 366–378.

67.

Shamir

Tzuriel

Rozen

(2006). Peer mediation the effects of program intervention, Maths level, and verbal ability on mediation style and improvement in Maths problem solving. School Psychology International, 27(2), 209–231.

68.

Shany, N., & Nachmias, R. (2001). The relationship between performance in a virtual course and thinking styles, gender, and ICT experience. In EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1698–1702). Waynesville, NC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).

69.

Sharples

Taylor

Vavoula

(2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In: Andrews

Haythornthwaite

(eds) Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 87–99.

70.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1997) Thinking styles, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

71.

Sternberg

R. J.

Wagner

R. K.

(1992) Thinking styles inventory, New Haven, CT: Yale University.

72.

Sternberg

R. J.

Zhang

(2005). Styles of thinking as a basis of differentiated instruction. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 245–253.

73.

Teall

Wang

Callaghan

J. W. P.

(2014). An exposition of current mobile learning design guidelines and frameworks. International Journal on E-Learning, 13(1), 79–99.

74.

Tomei, L. (Ed.). (2016). Exploring the new era of technology-infused education. Hersey, PA: IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1709-2.

75.

Traxler

(2010). Distance education and mobile learning: Catching up, taking stock. Distance Education, 31(2), 129–138. doi:10.1080/01587919.2010.503362.

76.

van’t Hooft

Swan

(2007) Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

77.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1980) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

78.

Wells

A. J.

(2002). Gibson’s affordances and Turing’s theory of computation. Ecological Psychology, 14(3), 140–180. doi:10.1207/S15326969ECO1403_3.

79.

Wengrowicz

Offir

(2013). Teachers’ perceptions of transactional distance in different teaching environments. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(2), 111–121.

80.

Wishart, J. (2015). Assimilate or accommodate? The need to rethink current use of the term “Mobile Learning.” In International Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (pp. 229–238). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

81.

Witkin

H. A.

Goodenough

D. R.

(1977). Field dependence and interpersonal behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84(4), 661–689. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/331379.

82.

Witkin

H. A.

Moore

Goodenough

D. R.

Cox

P. W.

(1977). Field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles and their educational implications. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 1–64. doi:10.3102/00346543047001001.

83.

Woodill

(2010) The mobile learning edge: Tools and technologies for developing your teams, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

84.

Zhang

(2001). Approaches and thinking styles in teaching. The Journal of Psychology, 135(5), 547–561. doi:10.1080/00223980109603718.

85.

Zhang

Sternberg

R. J.

(2000). Are learning approaches and thinking styles related? A study in two Chinese populations. The Journal of Psychology, 134(5), 469–489.

86.

Zhang

Sternberg

R. J.

Rayner

(2011) Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking, New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

87.

Zhang

(2003) Transactional distance in web-based college learning environments: Toward measurement and theory construction, Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved from http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd_retro/94.