User Experience Evolution of M-Learning Applications

Amir Dirin

and Marko Nieminen

Business Information Technology, Haaga-Helia University of Applied Science, Helsinki, Finland

Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

Keywords: Usability, User Experience Design, Mobile Learning.

Abstract: The development of a mobile learning application is associated with many challenges including timely

technology, richness of the learning content, pedagogy, usability, and the design of user experience. Users’

expectations and requirements on m-learning applications have evolved since the beginning of this

millennium. The evolvement is mainly a result of the advancement of mobile technologies, devices, and

network services. Users’ expectations are based on previous experiences, expertise level, and the context that

users have previously worked. The focus of this paper is on mobile learning usability and user experience.

We elaborate on m-learning applications’ user experience evolution from 2003 to 2016. The results

demonstrate that usability needs to be complemented with user experience analysis when developing m-

learning applications.

1 INTRODUCTION

Knowledge and educational material has become

widely available for anybody with access to internet

and desire to pursue it. Wealth of material is available

online, free of charge, at any time. Easy access to

communication, information, and knowledge has also

resulted in social and cultural changes: for instance,

people rarely manage a day without a mobile phone

or access to the Internet.

This easy access to knowledge creates additional

and perhaps even surprising demands for the design

of learning content and applications. Learning content

and applications need to compete and stay up-to-date

with other important and entertaining information and

services.

Mobile learning aims to overcome the constraints

of traditional educational settings where learning and

teaching happen in classrooms behind closed

doors. M-learning has been around for almost two

decades, but so far it has failed to draw serious

attention of educational institutes in comparison with

e-learning. Utilizing smart devices for educational

purposes is associated with several challenges

including the usage of a small device with many

limitations on display, keypad, and memory. Mobile

learning applications also compete with students’

time regarding other applications in the used device,

including games.

There have been significant improvements in the

technological capabilities of mobile devices during

the last decade including mobile application

development processes. New gadgets smartphones

and tablets have been developed that are equipped

with many advanced technologies and capabilities,

including WIFI (Henry & Luo, 2002) and NFC

(Madlmayr et al., 2008). Furthermore, these devices

have become more intelligent than ever before due to

the embedded sensors, camera, and high quality audio

and video equipment. The challenging drawbacks of

these devices, namely the memory space and

processing power, have been overcome in many

ways. Network operators provide fast data

connectivity to their subscribers at a relatively low

cost.

Smartphone usage among youth is increasing

(Lee et al., 2014) at the expense of PC usage (Sung &

Mayer, 2012). Mobile applications including games,

social networking, and professional tools, are

proliferating in application stores. Mobile learning

(m-learning) applications are competing for learners’

time and attention, and they must meet learners’

educational requirements while also encourage

frequent use (Seong, 2006).

M-learning applications require careful design

and development considerations as they deal with

learning and learners alike. This is particularly true in

formal learning settings where m-learning

154

Dirin, A. and Nieminen, M.

User Experience Evolution of M-Learning Applications.

DOI: 10.5220/0006370301540161

In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2017) - Volume 1, pages 154-161

ISBN: 978-989-758-239-4

applications are meant to be used for long periods of

time. In this respect, sustainability plays an important

role. A contextual analysis of user’s relation to m-

learning applications is one way to address such

challenges.

Mobile learning applications’ usability has

initially been applied in the form of usability

inspections, although it was soon realized that this

was not sufficient (Po et al., 2004). Therefore,

alternative solutions, models, and frameworks have

been proposed to anticipate these challenges. There

have been significant methodological improvements,

usability guidelines, and pedagogical development.

Kukulska-Hulme (2007) has emphasized that “for

broad and long-term adoption the experience really

matters”.

Seong (2006) formulates three usability

evaluation categories for a mobile learning

application, namely the user interface, the interaction,

and the interface design. Furthermore, Seong (2006)

recommends ten usability guidelines to measure the

mobile learning application’s usability.

Simultaneously, researchers have proposed a

systematic mobile learning application design and

development methodology in order to gain better

usability and user experience (UX). This includes

recommendations for the learner-centered design and

development of m-learning applications (Basaeed et

al., 2007; Low et al., 2006; Soloway et al., 1994;

Wong, 2012).

In their literature review concerning mobile

learning usability assessments, Navarro et al. (2016)

present an applied methodology for mobile learning

usability assessments. Additionally, they recommend

an evaluation framework for m-learning systems that

consist of two parts: pedagogical usability and user

interface usability. Their proposed set of guidelines

for user interface design mainly focus on the usability

of m-learning.

Yu and Kong (2016) investigate the mobile web

page interface design’s impact on ease of use,

interactivity, reading time, ease of learning, and

perceived user-friendliness in order to predict the

users’ satisfaction with the mobile browsing

experience. Their paper reveals the trend of using

usability factors such as ease of use to achieve a better

UX. Their attempt to address UX indicates that

usability is important in mobile learning, but not

sufficient.

These types of frameworks and guidelines

demonstrate that the usability of m-learning

applications is still evolving and that the existing

approaches are not sufficient to result in a

successfully deployed and accepted mobile learning

application.

2 TWO ERAS OF USER

EXPERIENCE

User experience (UX) has been considered to be an

important element of a mobile application’s success

(Roto et al., 2010). UX has become a viable

supplement to traditional HCI design, which is

indicated in recent practitioner discussions. UX

design is a multidimensional phenomenon in which

many factors influence success.

Despite the more than a decade-long (Hassenzahl

& Tractinsky, 2006) research and definition on user

experience, the concept still suffers from vague and

broad definition. This is, for instance, reflected in the

27 definitions of user experience reported as a result

of the Dagstuhl Seminar on Demarcating User

Experience (Roto et al., 2010) (see also

http://www.allaboutux.org/ux-definitions).

Application domain (e.g. m-learning) specific

definitions of UX are even more scarce. However,

Rusu et al. (2015) recognize that there is a tendency

to move from usability to user experience, although

there is a lack of formal widely-accepted definition of

UX among the CS communities.

The importance of UX was raised already in early

2000. The First Era of UX may be defined to have

taken place during 2000-2006 (Garrett 2000, Roto

2006) and might be entitled as the “technical

approach to UX” which still appears as the basis for

much of the UX related discussion. Garrett's (2000)

model on UX is conceptual model of a development

process to ensure the user´s experience of a website.

The model consists of five planes: the site objective,

the requirements, interaction design, information

design, and visual design.

Roto´s (2006) model on UX introduces human

responses as part of mobile browsing user experience.

The model identifies the different roles of mobile

device, browser, connection, and site attributes which

have an effect on mobile browsing experience.

The Second Era of UX (ISO, 2010) may be

defined to be about “human responses and emotions

as UX”. It presents a definition of UX that arises from

the direction of human responses and emotions. It

defines user experience as a “person’s perceptions

and responses that result from the use or anticipated

use of a product, system or service”.

Nielsen & Norman (2015) define user experience

as simplicity of a product, which comes with elegance

User Experience Evolution of M-Learning Applications

155

that users enjoy to own and enjoy to use. A similar

discussion is also offered by Keinonen (2008)

concerning whether the users’ needs and UCD are

sufficient for mobile application development.

Hassenzahl & Tractinsky (2006) define three

facets of UX: beyond instrumental, emotion and

affect, and the experiential. The beyond instrumental

aims at grasping and describing users’ needs to

achieve their holistic goals addressing also the

hedonic aspects that the product or service fulfils. The

affect and emotions deal with user’s internal state as

a result of the interaction with a product. The third

facet of the UX is “the experiental”, which deals with

the users´ overall experience as a whole.

The importance of user experience in educational

media such as e-learning platforms has also been

identified (Garaj, 2010; Sutcliffe & Alrayes, 2012).

Recently, the importance of user experience in

education, especially in m-learning environments,

has been noted (Shen, 2014).

Despite the methodological developments related

to m-learning applications’ usability and design, the

importance of the m-learning user experience factors

has not yet been researched thoroughly. From the

technical perspective, Yousafzai et.al (2016) propose

technical guidelines and taxonomy on m-learning

environment to overcome the existing multimedia-

enabled m-learning applications´ constraints. The

taxonomy addresses mobile device heterogeneity,

network performance, and content heterogeneity.

Extending the focus from technical characteristics

of m-learning, Ali & Arshad (2016) propose an

acceptance model that aims to affect the students’

intention to adopt an m-learning application. They

extend the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of

Technology (UTAUT) model (Venkatesh et al. 2003)

with three supplementing factors: mobility,

interactivity, and enjoyment. Badwelan et al (2016)

reach even more toward non-technical characteristics

in determining the factors that influence students‘

intention to use m-learning. Their results show that

the added UTAUT factors personal innovativeness,

lecturer’s influence, and self-management of the

learner had a significant impact on students’ intention

to use m-learning. Dirin (2016) identifies satisfaction,

delightfulness, reliability, and adjustability as

important UX factors for m-learning application

sustainability in the attempts to move more towards

non-technical and “beyond instrumental”

(Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006) aspects of m-

learning.

The previously presented two “conceptual eras of

UX” are used to address the evolvement of m-

learning applications over the last decade. In the

following sections, we analyse the impact of UX to

m-learning applications in respective eras. The aim is

to reflect on students’ and teachers’ evolving

expectations towards future m-learning applications.

3 SAMPLES ON EVOLVING UX

IN M-LEARNING

The following three case applications demonstrate

how user experience has evolved over time in m-

learning. The analysis of these sample applications

indicates how the users´ expectations have changed

from instrumental to beyond instrumental and

experiental needs, as modelled by Hassenzahl &

Tractinsky (2006) over time.

3.1 Java Applet for a Java Course

(UX Era 1)

The introduction of m-learning applications relates to

the emergence and diffusion of mobile devices and

applications in general. The Java-applet-based m-

learning application (see Figure 1) helped students to

access the resources of a Java programming course

including lecture notes, assignments, and other

information such as feedback from a teacher using a

Java-enabled mobile phone. Additionally, students

could submit their laboratory and home assignments

through the application if they had access to the

network.

The gathered requirements from teachers, courses

assistants, and students indicate that users raised only

functional demands and needs. For example, teachers

and course assistants have concerned about the

uploading course related materials while students

were concerned about downloading materials. Or,

Students asked for possible administrative features

such as registering for a course.

The reliability of the application was the only user

experience related requirement which highlighted by

users for java m-learning application.

The screenshot (Figure 1) presents an example of

the application’s user interface. The visual design of

the java mobile learning application was restricted to

the existing development environment (J2ME) on the

phone. The user interface (“Main Menu”) is divided

into the following categories: presentation (“esitys”),

activities (“toiminta”), communication

(“yhteydenpito”), and administration (“hallinto”)

according to the virtual course delivery model by

Brusilovsky & Miller (2001).

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

156

Figure 1: The “Java Course” M-learning application.

The application can be seen to conform to Garrett´s

(2000) technology and process focused elements of

user experience model. The design and development

of the application was done by identifying the users´

needs and defining the technical, structural, and

functional requirements accordingly.

However, the development of this application

reached towards the model presented by Roto (2006).

The human response in relation to the application was

evaluated through usability testing. There were many

concerns raised by the users regarding connectivity,

slow performance of the device, low memory, and

short battery life. The slow data transfer connection

and high data exchange cost were among major

drawbacks in the application´s usage. Connectivity

was considered to impact content delivery, usability,

and even support for offline usage. These were

relevant concerns but the technology and the

development environments at the time prevented the

finding of a proper workaround to overcome the

technical constraints.

3.2 Adaptive M-Learning Application

(UX Era 2)

The adaptive m-learning application for driving

licence candidates (see Figure 2) was a joint project

between Haaga-Helia University of Applied Sciences

and Haaga Driving School in Helsinki. This

application helps the driving school candidates to

study and access the compulsory driving school

theory lessons on their smartphones. Furthermore, the

administration tool helps the instructors to trace

students’ theory progress and driving experiences.

The main goal of the project was to design a

functional m-learning application as a proof of

concept. The design, development, and assessment of

this case study application is published in (Dirin &

Casarini, 2014).

Figure 2: The “Driving School” M-learning application.

This m-learning application assists driving school

students and instructors in their daily teaching and

learning activities. The application helps the driving

school candidates to study and access the compulsory

driving school theory lessons on their smartphones.

The administration tool helps the instructors to trace

students’ theory progress and driving experiences.

In contrast to the Java Applet mobile learning

application, the user expectations for this application

were much more than just the mere functionalities of

the application or just extending the uses of the

mobile devices. The users’ needs and requirements of

the potential application included many non-

functional requirements which Hassenzahl &

Tractinsky (2006) refer to as “beyond instrumental”

characteristics. The following are examples of non-

functional requirements that users raised during the

elicitation phase: 1. Customization of the potential

application based on users´ preferences 2. The

resources provided to users based on the context and

user competences 3. Instructors follow students´

progress reliably. Figure 2 reveals that the above non-

functional requirements were tackled through 1. The

user is able to customize application feel and look at

any time. 2. Through color-coding, the adaptive m-

learning application provides instance feedback to

users on the context. 3. Instructors follow the

students’ progress through the color-coded interface.

The application was designed to allow users to

combine external services to the application

including, for instance, the search for information

through their preferred internet search engine.

The responsive design of the application makes

the mobile device adaptive to users’ contextual

requirements. This is an “affect mechanism” to depict

the negative emotions. Furthermore, the application

makes use of colors, visual symbols, and familiar

icons to raise positive emotions during the use of the

service.

This adaptive m-learning application also helped

User Experience Evolution of M-Learning Applications

157

the user to receive feedback on learning instantly.

During the driving experiment the application notifies

the instructor on candidate’s performance.

Additionally, the application delivers pop-up

messages as notifications on occurred mistakes and

provides guidance to fix them.

3.3 Business Game Application

(UX Era 2)

This mobile learning application helps users to

become familiar with the complex premises and the

offices in different buildings. In the “Business Game”

(see Figure 3) application (Dirin & Vainio, 2015) the

user study was performed to learn about the target

users’ application preferences. The qualitative data

from the user study was analyzed and categorized to

produce the requirements. The designer focused on

designing the product concept to be most appealing to

users. User scenarios were applied and various

application concepts were assessed by the users. The

low-fidelity paper-based prototype created using

Balsamiq Mockups helped to obtain more specific

feedback from users.

Users’ expectations on presenting the content as a

game illustrate the “beyond instrumental”

requirements. This non-functional requirement was

raised in the concept design phase of the application.

Furthermore, users’ demand on having different game

characters to play the game indicated that users strive

for an emotional relation towards the application.

Figure 3 presents sample of a character that we

proposed in the business game application.

Engagement with the application and communication

with other peers are considered as important

complementing non-functional requirements that

reflect the “beyond instrumental” needs.

The desired increasing complexity in playing the

game was raised by users in the usability test

reflecting the hedonic aspects towards the

application. Emotion appeared to provide a basis for

the selection of the characters and affect was detected

while analyzing achievements after playing each

game. The “game appeal” appeared to increase

learners’ motivation to complete the game and go

through the whole learning content.

Figure 3: Sample of role character for the “Business Game”

m-learning application.

4 DISCUSSION

The usability evaluation of the initial Java m-learning

application (UX era 1) indicated that users do value

high the utilization of their mobile device for

educational purposes despite their initial mental

model on m-learning as an “upgraded text messaging

service”. The more recent applications’ (UX era 2)

design and development reveals that students´

demands and expectations were more than just

“usable” consisting only of effective and efficient

performance with the application. Users of the Java

m-learning application desired to use their mobile

devices solely for educational purposes which

Hassenzahl & Tractinsky (2006) present as

“instrumental”. This approach emphasizes that the

developers need to create a usable application which,

according to ISO 9241, ends up being effective,

efficient, and satisfying.

One may argue that the users’ motivations to use

the mobile devices for educational purposes has

significantly changed. The users of the latest mobile

learning applications have already learnt to use

mobile devices for a multitude of purposes including

the educational. These include using Google to

search, online dictionaries, emails, calendars, etc.

In our case descriptions, the users in the first

group (the “Java Course” m-learning application) did

not have prior experience with mobile learning and,

therefore, were eager to enhance the uses and

functionality of the device towards educational

activities. In the “Java Course” m-learning

application, the main requirements were focused on

task-related and functional aspects. The second

group, however, had already extensively used their

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

158

mobile devices for a multitude of purposes including

the educational process. The users of the new mobile

learning applications expect usability (efficiency,

effectiveness, and satisfaction) as a “de-facto

characteristic” for any mobile learning application.

The work by Yu and Kong (2016) justifies the

importance of moving from usability toward user

experience in web browsing on a small screen. They

demonstrate the importance of design in facilitating

the ease of use and ease of interactivity in order to

achieve the ease of learning and reading.

The two latter cases from “UX era 2” go beyond

the “usability” boundaries reaching towards the

hedonic aspects. The users of these m-learning

applications emphasized the responsive and

subjective experience on the use of the application.

The feelings of joy and ownership affect users´

emotional engagement with the application. The

“beyond instrumental” and “experiential” requirements

have become more important for m-learning application

acceptance and continuing utilization.

In addition to technology, changes have also

occurred in students’ and teachers’ social lives and

cultural surroundings. Over the years, people have

become more dependent on their mobile devices.

Hence, smartphones and their use have a significant

impact on m-learning applications’ concept, design,

and development.

Alongside the maturing of mobile technology in

general, users’ attitudes and expectations regarding

the m-learning applications’ design and performance

have also altered. Unlike the situation in 2003, smart

devices are now equipped with extensive in-device

applications to meet users’ various daily needs.

Additionally, millions of third-party applications are

available for download in the different platform

stores. Almost all these applications are competing

for users’, including students’, time and dedication.

These changes have resulted in additional

expectations for m-learning applications’ design,

features, application performance, and user

experience.

Nonetheless, the technological advancements in

smart devices and in networks have not impacted the

identity of m-learning stakeholders or their overall

roles and contributions. Consequently, the

technological advancements and social changes

mandate and emphasize the importance of m-

learning-related pedagogical, usability, and user

experience considerations during design and

development. At the time of the “Java Course” m-

learning application contemporary technology was

used to deliver timely user experience. This meant

better functionality and usability of the application.

More recent implementations need to go beyond that.

Aligned with the smart gadgets´ technological

advancement, many solutions aim at anticipating the

technical changes. This may not be sufficient

anymore. Mere technology-oriented solutions are not

sufficient to result in continuous usage of mobile

learning application. Instead, the changing social and

cultural surroundings provide a source of analysis for

the “beyond instrumental” aspects that may be crucial

for the acceptance of the applications.

These aspects are visible in the presented cases.

In 2004 the users only wanted to have the Java course

content as an application on their mobile phones

while in 2013, having only the content in the phone

was not sufficient. Users demand the application to be

fun to use, adaptable, and adjustable.

As the focus of mobile learning application design

appears to move from technical to experiential, the

success of mobile learning applications depends on

the “experiential design”. In their recent research,

Kuderna-Iulian et al. (2015) recognize the importance

of behavior and emotions in learning and the

acceptance of a software product. Their multimodal

monitoring tool for collecting emotional feedback

through mobile devices’ sensors provides interesting

ways forward in analysing such impacts in using an

m-learning application.

The technological developments have also had an

impact on educational institutes’ attitudes toward m-

learning application utilization and, most of all, on

students’ expectations of m-learning applications’

enhancement (Dirin & Nieminen, 2014) of their

educational process. Therefore, in contemporary

educational institutes (Collins & Halverson, 2010)

with current social setups (Vannoy & Palvia, 2010),

m-learning applications have become a response to

student and staff demands regarding their educational

activities.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This paper aims at illustrating the changing landscape

of user experience in m-learning. User experience in

educational context plays an important role as the

applications need to motivate learners for sustainable

usage. Initially, the focus has been on technical

solutions. However, there is potential to focus more

on the emotional and experiental side in m-learning

application development. Mobile gadgets and the

applications have become ubiquitous daily tools.

They provide context-independent sharing,

transferring or receiving educational material,

User Experience Evolution of M-Learning Applications

159

information, and knowledge. Hence, m-learning is

ubiquitously merging knowledge with smart devices,

which means learning and teaching are not restricted

by place and time constraints as in traditional

educational institutes where knowledge sharing

happens in only one context.

Our analysis of the UX evolvement of mobile

learning applications indicates that mere

technological solutions are not anymore enough to

attract users to use mobile learning applications. This

study reveals that user experience in m-learning is

still emerging and has room for further study and

development. The research demonstrates that user

experience challenges with m-learning applications

have mainly been tackled technically according to

technology and process focused models on UX.

Contributions on user experience factors addressing

emotional needs in m-learning are vague. Users’

demands for sufficient usability and user experience

have significantly increased in line with mobile

penetration among students and m-learning adoption

by educational institutes. As users’ expectations and

requirements have evolved over the time, traditional

application design and development approaches are

not sufficient in developing m-learning applications.

Applying the latest technology to come up with a

mobile learning application is important; however, it

is not sufficient for engaging users emotionally for

continuous usage.

In the future, mobile learning applications need

additional justification than just satisfying the

practical needs impacting the effectiveness and

efficiency of the application. User experience plays

an important role in motivating users for continuing

and sustainable usage of m-learning applications

through added emotional engagement.

Proper addressing of user experience increases the

possibilities for the m-learning applications to

compete on students' time with other entertaining and

engaging applications in their device. We suggest that

special attention should be put to the “beyond

instrumental” and “the experiential” aspects when

designing engaging mobile learning applications for

continuous and sustainable use.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks to students, educational institutes, and

partners company who helped to design, developed,

and utilize the applications.

REFERENCES

Ali, R. A., & Arshad, M. R. M. (2016). Perspectives of

Students’ Behavior Towards Mobile Learning (M-

learning) in Egypt: an Extension of the UTAUT Model.

Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research,

6(4), 1109–1114.

Badwelan, A., Drew, S., & Bahaddad, A. A. (2016).

Towards Acceptance M-Learning Approach in Higher

Education in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of

Business and Management, 11(8), 12–30. http://

doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v11n8p12.

Basaeed, E., Member, S., Berri, J., Member, S., & Zemerly,

M. J. (2007). Learner-Centric Context-Aware Mobile

Learning. Engineering Education, 2(2), 30–33.

Retrieved from

http://ewh.ieee.org/soc/e/sac/meem/public/old_issue/v

ol02iss02/MEEM020206.pdf.

Brusilovsky, P., & Miller, P. (2001). Course Delivery

System for Virtual University. Access to Knowledge:

New Information Technologies and the Emergence of

the Virtual University, 167–206.

Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2010). The second

educational revolution: Rethinking education in the age

of technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26,

18–27. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00339.x.

Dirin, A. (2016). Toward Enhancing User Experience in

Mobile Learning Applications. Aalto University.

Dirin, A., & Casarini, M. (2014). Adaptive M-Learning

Application for Driving Liceness Candidates Based on

UCD Framework for M- Learning Application

Development. In 6th International Conference on

Computer Supported Education.

Dirin, A., & Nieminen, M. (2014). State-of-the-Art of M-

Learning Usability and User Experience. The Fourth

International Conference on E-Learning (ICEL).

Dirin, A., & Vainio, V. (2015). Case Study: From

Requirements List to an Educational Game. In

Computer Supported in Education. Lisbon, Portugal.

Retrieved from http://www.csedu.org/

Garaj, V. (2010). M-learning in the education of

multimedia technologists and designers at the

University level: A user requirements study. IEEE

Transactions on Learning Technologies, 3(1), 24–32.

http://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2009.38.

Garrett, J. J. (2000). The Elements of User Experience,

2000. Retrieved from http://uxdesign.com/assets/

Elements-of-User-Experience.pdf.

Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006a). User experience

- a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology.

http://doi.org/10.1080/01449290500330331.

Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006b). User experience

- a research agenda. Behaviour & Information

Technology, 25(2), 91–97.

Henry, P. S., & Luo, H. (2002). WiFi: What’s next? IEEE

Communications Magazine,

40, 66–72. http://doi.org/

10.1109/MCOM.2002.1106162.

ISO. (2010). ISO 9241 Part 210: Human-centred design for

interactive systems. In ISO 9241 Ergonomics of

humansystem interaction.

CSEDU 2017 - 9th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

160

Keinonen, T. (2008). User-centered design and

fundamental need. Proceedings of the 5th Nordic

Conference on Human-Computer Interaction Building

Bridges - NordiCHI ’08, 211. http://doi.org/

10.1145/1463160.1463183.

Kuderna-Iulian, B., Marcel, C., & Mireca, V. (2015). A

multimodal affective monitoring tool for mobile

learning. In 14th RoEduNet International Conference –

Networking in Education and Research (RoEduNet

NER) (pp. 34–38). Craiova, Romania: ASL Publication.

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in

educational contexts: What have we learnt?

International Review of Research in Open and Distance

Learning, 8.

Lee, U., Lee, J., Ko, M., Lee, C., Kim, Y., Yang, S., …

Song, J. (2014). Hooked on smartphones: an

exploratory study on smartphone overuse among

college students. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

(pp. 2327–2336). http://doi.org/10.1145/

2556288.2557366.

Low, L., Connell, M. O., & Connellcitacteduau, M. O.

(2006). Learner-Centric Design Of Digital Mobile

Learning. In Framework (pp. 1–13).

Madlmayr, G., Langer, J., & Scharinger, J. (2008).

Managing an NFC Ecosystem. In Proceedings - 7th

International Conference on Mobile Business, ICMB

2008, Creativity and Convergence (pp. 95–101).

http://doi.org/10.1109/ICMB.2008.30.

Navarro, C. X., Molina, A. ., Redondo, M. A., & Reyes, J.-

R. (2016). Framework to Evaluate M-Learning

Systems: A Technological and Pedagogical Approach.

IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias Del

Aprendizaje, 11(1), 33–40.

http://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2016.2518459.

Nicolás, O., Carlos, J., & Aurisicchio, M. (2011). The

Scenario of User Experience. In DS 68-7: Proceedings

of the 18th International Conference on Engineering

Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through

Engineering Design, (pp. 1–12). Copenhagen,

Denmarik.

Nielsen, J., & Norman, D. (2015). The Definition of User

Experience.

Po, S., Howard, S., Vetere, F., & Skov, M. B. (2004).

Heuristic evaluation and mobile usability: Bridging the

realism gap. Mobile Human-Computer Interaction–

MobileHCI 2004, 3160, 591–592.

http://doi.org/10.1007/b100594.

Roto, V. (2006). WEB BROWSING ON MOBILE PHONES

- CHARACTERISTICS OF USER EXPERIENCE

(Dissertation). Retrieved from https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/

bitstream/handle/123456789/2784/isbn9512284707.pdf.

Roto, V., Law, E., Vermeeren, A., & Hoonhout, J. (2010).

User Experience White Paper: Bringing clarity to the

concept of user experience. Seminar on Demarcating

User Experience, 12.

Rusu, C., Rusu, V., Roncagliolo, S., & Carina, G. (2015).

Usability and User Experience: What Should We Care

About. International Journal of Information

Technologies and Systems Approach, 12.

http://doi.org/10.4018/IJITSA.2015070101.

Seong, D. S. K. (2006a). Usability guidelines for designing

mobile learning portals. Proceedings of the 3rd

International Conference on Mobile Technology,

Applications & Systems - Mobility ’06, 25.

http://doi.org/10.1145/1292331.1292359.

Seong, D. S. K. (2006b). Usability Guidelines for

Designing Mobile Learning Portals. ACM International

Conference Proceeding Series; Vol. 270 Proceedings of

the 3rd International Conference on Mobile

Technology, Applications & Systems, 25.

http://doi.org/http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1292331.129

2359.

Shen, R. (2014). Constructing a user experience-based

mobile learning environment : problems and solutions.

Fernuniversitä, Hagen Germany. Retrieved from

http://deposit.fernuni-hagen.de/2984/1/Diss_Shen.pdf.

Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-

centered design: the challenge for HCI in the 21st

century. Interactions. http://doi.org/10.1145/

174809.174813.

Sung, E., & Mayer, R. E. (2012). Students’ beliefs about

mobile devices Vs. desktop computers in South Korea

and the United States. Computers and Education, 59(4),

1328–1338.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.005.

Sutcliffe, A., & Alrayes, A. (2012). Investigating user

experience in Second Life for collaborative learning.

International Journal of Human Computer Studies.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.005.

Vannoy, S. A., & Palvia, P. (2010). The social influence

model of technology adoption. Communications of the

ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1743546.1743585.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D.

(2003). USER ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY: TOWARD A UNIFIED VIEW. MIS

Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. http://doi.org/10.2307/

30036540.

Wong, L. H. (2012). A learner-centric view of mobile

seamless learning. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 43(1). http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-

8535.2011.01245.x.

Yousafzai, A., Chang, V., Gani, A., & Noor, R. M. (2016).

Multimedia augmented m-learning: Issues, trends and

open challenges. International Journal of Information

Management, 36(5), 784–792. http://doi.org/

10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.010.

Yu, N., & Kong, J. (2016a). User experience with web

browsing on small screens: Experimental investigations

of mobile-page interface design and homepage design

for news websites. Information Sciences, 330, 427–443.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.004.

Yu, N., & Kong, J. (2016b). User experience with web

browsing on small screens: Experimental investigations

of mobile-page interface design and homepage design

for news websites. Information Sciences, 330

, 427–443.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.004.

User Experience Evolution of M-Learning Applications

161