05.01.2013 Views

April 2012 Volume 15 Number 2 - Educational Technology & Society

April 2012 Volume 15 Number 2 - Educational Technology & Society

April 2012 Volume 15 Number 2 - Educational Technology & Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Reflection<br />

Reflection is an intellectual and affective activity in which individuals are engaged in exploring their experiences to<br />

reach new understandings and appreciations (Boud et al., 1985). Additionally, Soloman (1987) viewed reflection as a<br />

harmonic process of an individual’s past experiences, actions and lessons learned. It can help with constructing one’s<br />

knowledge and meaning. In learning processes, reflection plays a major role and is very helpful for promoting<br />

learning performance (McNamara et al., 2006). Consequently, learners can review, test, and modify their own ideas<br />

while engaging in reflective practice.<br />

Additionally, Yukawa (2006) pointed out the reflection process consists of three stages: (1) returning to experience,<br />

(2) attending to feelings, and (3) reevaluating experience. In these activities, collaborative learning environment<br />

plays an important role in providing the potential for applying new teaching and learning strategies. More<br />

specifically, a collaborative environment could stimulate group members to collaboratively reflect (i.e., Coreflection)<br />

on the group performance and reach a shared conclusion about reflection. Co-reflection is defined as ‘‘a<br />

collaborative critical thinking process involving cognitive and affective interactions between two or more individuals<br />

who explore their experiences in order to reach new inter subjective understandings and appreciations” (Yukawa,<br />

2006; p. 206).<br />

According to this view, the present study thus emphasizes the effect of ML on learners’ reflection levels and further<br />

explores the educational implications of traffic violation reflection.<br />

Gender and age<br />

From the viewpoint of traffic violations, research on adults has proposed gender and age differences in compliance<br />

with traffic rules (Chang & Yeh, 2007). Besides, research indicated males expect less negative outcomes concerning<br />

traffic violations than female (Parker et al., 1992). Moreover, previous study has shown male pedestrians violate<br />

more rules than female pedestrians do (Moyano Diaz, 2002).<br />

On the other hand, regarding the gender and age issues for computer-mediated education, it has captured the interest<br />

of computer educators for decades. Several studies have examined the role of gender and age in computer-related<br />

attitudes and the use of newer networked technologies (Shashaani, 1997; Uzunboylu et al., 2009). The results<br />

indicated learners’ characteristics have been regarded as important factors to predict their intention and performance.<br />

However, recent studies suggest the gender and age gap regarding technology use is disappearing (Sieverding &<br />

Koch, 2009; Uzunboylu et al., 2009). Additionally, to date, whether gender and age play a role in ML and traffic<br />

violations have not been investigated.<br />

Based on the above, the present study utilized gender and age as the personal characteristics to understand its<br />

importance in influencing the attitudes toward mobile technology in an ML environment and the level of traffic<br />

violation reflection.<br />

Research purpose and questions<br />

This study was to integrate mobile communication technologies and a global positioning system (GPS) to construct<br />

an instant, convenient report of the mobile network service system named the Mobile Traffic Violation Reporting<br />

System (MTVRS), to improve learners’ traffic violation reflection level. Our evaluation mainly focused on<br />

answering the following four questions: (1) What are the effects of ML on traffic violations? (2) Do the learners’<br />

gender and age affect the usefulness of ML systems for traffic violations? (3) Does the traffic violation reflection<br />

level on the post-test increase more significantly than the pre-test? (4) What are the effects of learners’ gender and<br />

age in group activities while taking different distributions for the reflection levels about traffic violations?<br />

181

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!