Share This Article:

Cognitive Principles in Mobile Learning Applications

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:258KB) PP. 456-463
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2015.64043    3,179 Downloads   4,129 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

As m-learning (mobile-learning) applications are rapidly growing, it is important to incorporate principles of human cognition in those applications. In the present study, a foreign language learning application environment was developed using various learning methods in order to identify optimal m-learning applications. Using computer-based learning experiments that assimilate an m-learning environment, participants were tested over their long-term memory retention of newly learned German vocabulary words. Specifically, we compared the effectiveness of rote learning, retrieval practice, repeated retrieval practice, and the keyword method. Experiment 1 showed that repeated retrieval practice was more beneficial for memory especially for longer retention intervals. Experiment 2 yielded that repeated retrieval practice was more effective for learning German vocabulary words than the keyword and rote learning methods. No statistical differences were found between the keyword and rote learning conditions. The present research suggests that retrieval practice can be effectively incorporated in m-learning applications. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Huffman, W. & Hahn, S. (2015). Cognitive Principles in Mobile Learning Applications. Psychology, 6, 456-463. doi: 10.4236/psych.2015.64043.

References

[1] Anderson, J. R. (2000). Learning and Memory. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
[2] Barrs, K. (2012). Fostering Computer-Mediated L2 Interaction beyond the Classroom. Language Learning & Technology, 16, 10-25.
[3] Craik, F. I. M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of Processing and the Retention of Words in Episodic Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 104, 268-294.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.268
[4] Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Acton, M., Voelkel, A. R., & Etkind, R. (2007). Comparing and Combining Retrieval Practice and the Keyword Mnemonic for Foreign Vocabulary Learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 499-526.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1287
[5] Godwin-Jones, R. (2011). Mobile Apps for Language Learning. Language Learning & Technology, 15, 2-11.
[6] Kang, S. K. (2010). Enhancing Visuospatial Learning: The Benefit of Retrieval Practice. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1009-1017.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.1009
[7] Kang, S. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. (2007). Test Format and Corrective Feedback Modify the Effect of Testing on Long-Term Retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 528-558.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620
[8] Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. (2007). Repeated Retrieval during Learning Is the Key to Long-Term Retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151-162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.004
[9] Pyc, M. A., & Rawson, K. A. (2009). Testing the Retrieval Effort Hypothesis: Does Greater Difficulty Correctly Recalling Information Lead to Higher Levels of Memory? Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 437-447.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.004
[10] Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating False Memories: Remembering Words Not Presented in Lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803-814.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
[11] Sagarra, N., & Alba, M. (2006). The Key Is in the Keyword: L2 Vocabulary Learning Methods with Beginning Learners of Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 90, 228-243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00394.x
[12] Sandberg, J., Maris, M., & de Geus, K. (2011). Mobile English Learning: An Evidence-Based Study with Fifth Graders. Computers & Education, 57, 1334-1347.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.015
[13] Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New Conceptualizations of Practice: Common Principles in Three Paradigms Suggest New Concepts for Training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x
[14] Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2006). USENET Orthographic Frequencies for the 40,481 Words in the English Lexicon Project. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
[15] Sungkhasettee, V. W., Friedman, M. C., & Castel, A. D. (2011). Memory and Metamemory for Inverted Words: Illusions of Competency and Desirable Difficulties. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 973-978.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0114-9
[16] Tulving, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2000). The Oxford Handbook of Memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
[17] Yue, C. L., Bjork, E., & Bjork, R. A. (2013). Reducing Verbal Redundancy in Multimedia Learning: An Undesired Desirable Difficulty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 266-277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031971
[18] Zaromb, F. M., & Roediger, H. (2010). The Testing Effect in Free Recall Is Associated with Enhanced Organizational Processes. Memory & Cognition, 38, 995-1008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.995

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.