| Summary: | Close links between students' conceptions of and approaches to learning were established in the past research. However, only a few quantitative studies investigated this relationship particularly with regard to mobile learning (m‐learning). The correlation between learners' conceptions and approaches to m‐learning was analysed using a partial least squares analysis applied to data obtained from a sample of 971 undergraduate students in China. The results indicated that students' conceptions of m‐learning could be classified into reproductive, transitional, and constructive levels. Students may hold multiple m‐learning applications than a predominant one; hence, examining m‐learning as one monolithic entity may provide limited information. Latent profile analysis identified four learning profiles based on students' preferred m‐learning applications: passive, mixed, surface‐supportive, and high‐engagement.. Moreover, a general trend was observed, whereby students with reproductive and surface‐supportive learning profiles showed a tendency to adopt surface approaches, whereas those expressing constructive and mixed learning profiles were more inclined to adopt deep approaches. Interestingly, students with transitional conceptions and high‐engagement learning profiles tended to take both surface and deep approaches. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic Previous studies have confirmed that conceptions of learning are closely linked with approaches to learning that tend to influence on learning performance.Conceptions of ubiquitous learning/mobile learning (m‐learning) appeared a hierarchy, ranging from reproductive to constructivist conceptions. What this paper adds This study indicated that students' conceptions of m‐learning can be classified into reproductive, transitional, and constructive levels. Accordingly, the results of the latent profile analysis revealed four learning profiles that were able to characterize students in terms of their critical applications of m‐learning, namely, the high‐engagement, mixed, surface‐supportive, and passive m‐learning profiles.A general trend was observed, whereby students with reproductive and surface‐supportive learning profiles showed a tendency to adopt surface approaches, whereas those expressing constructive and mixed learning profiles were more inclined to adopt deep approaches. Interestingly, students with transitional conceptions and high‐engagement learning profiles tended to take both surface and deep approaches. Implications for practice and/or policy The structure relationship between conceptions of and approaches to m‐learning and the role of different m‐learning profiles in approaches to m‐learning deepened the understanding of m‐learning processes and outcomes.In order to develop suitable approaches to m‐learning and motivations specific to Chinese educational context, college educators and teachers might consciously guide students to cultivate their perceptions of m‐learning based on the findings in this study.
|
|---|