Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu

Using mobile learning to increase environmental awareness

Huseyin Uzunboylu a,*, Nadire Cavus b,1, Erinc Ercag a,2
a
Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Near East University, North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Turkey
b
Department of Computer Information Systems, Near East University, North Cyprus, Via Mersin 10, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Mobile learning or m-learning, a relatively new concept, has attracted the interest of educators, research-
Received 13 January 2008 ers, and companies developing learning systems and instructional materials. This study investigated the
Received in revised form 11 September use of integrating use of mobile technologies, data services, and multimedia messaging systems to
2008
increase students’ use of mobile technologies and to develop environmental awareness. Data was col-
Accepted 15 September 2008
lected using ‘‘usefulness of mobile learning systems” questionnaire from a sample consisting of 20 male
and 21 female undergraduates enrolled in computer education and instructional technologies classes at
the Near East University in North Cyprus. Students voluntarily participated in a six-week program using
Keywords:
m-Learning
mobile telephones to transmit photographs of local environmental blights and to exchange pictures and
Environmental awareness observations. Participants learned ways to maintain clean environments and increased their awareness of
Collaborative learning environmental concerns. Responses on questionnaire differed significantly based upon gender and grade.
Gender Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Grade

1. Introduction

The personal use of mobile telephones and related technologies has increased markedly since the late 1960s (Chen, Myers, & Yaron,
2000; Ling & Vaage, 2000; Lundby, 2002; Roschelle & Pea, 2002). More than 90% of Finnish students (Divitini, Haugalokken, & Norevik,
2002) and Irish students (Hegarty, 2004) own mobile telephones. Within educational environments, students frequently move from place
to place (Muhlhauser & Trompler, 2002), but the mobile telephones they carry are immediately accessible throughout the day (Cereijo-Roi-
bas & Arnedillo-Sanchez, 2002).
Mobile learning or m-learning (ML) has increasingly attracted the interest of educators, researchers, and companies that develop learn-
ing systems and publish instructional materials. This technology provides the potential for collaborative interaction and learning oppor-
tunities for geographically dispersed persons and groups (Biström, 2005; Edwards et al., 2002). Although currently applied in small-
scale projects, ML is potentially useful in more educational settings. Small and familiar to students, mobile telephones do not require tech-
nological training, do not intimidate users, and remain unobtrusive in classrooms (Nyiri, 2003). Current research has capitalised on these
advantages with public discourse within disadvantaged communities (Ananny, Strohecker, & Biddick, 2004), delivering content (Hoppe,
Joiner, Milrad, & Sharples, 2003) and supporting disadvantaged youth by teaching literacy and numeracy skills (Mitchell & Doherty, 2003).
Short message service (SMS) and wireless application protocols (WAP), two types of wireless data communication, have gained increas-
ing global popularity, although their use in online education has been limited (Motiwalla, 2007). The common use of telephones and mes-
saging for facilitating friendships and socialization (Bauman, 2003; Taylor & Harper, 2002) has established a role for the mobile telephone
as a means of collaborative learning. Few studies, however, have investigated educational outcomes of ML.

2. Theoretical foundation

Social constructivist theory assumes that students act and reflect within an environment. Problems solving is followed by reflecting and
abstracting and increasing experiential knowledge (Motiwalla, 2007). Conversation theory (Pask, 1975) and social constructivist theory
(Brown & Campione, 1996) provide a foundation and support for the use of mobile devices. Conversation theory assumes that learning

* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +90 3922236464x393.

E-mail addresses: huzunboylu@neu.edu.tr (H. Uzunboylu), nadirecavus@neu.edu.tr (N. Cavus), eercag@neu.edu.tr (E. Ercag).
1
Tel.: +90 3922236464x3053/+90 392223646x305.
2
Tel.: +90 3922236464x110.

0360-1315/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.008
382 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389

requires continuous two-way conversations and interaction between teachers and students and among classmates (Motiwalla, 2007). Two
m-learning studies at European universities supported by conversation theory and the use of SMS for collaboration. Bollen, Eimler, and
Hoppe (2004) emulated a wireless, handheld (W/H) device on a personal computer to allow students to send SMS messages regarding var-
ious topics that an instructor aggregated and categorized on an electronic whiteboard. Stone, Briggs, and Smith (2002) assessed the effec-
tiveness of SMS as a conversational mechanism for improving mobile teaching and a learning environment. Effectiveness was measured by
quickness of responses, quality of data collected, complexity of messages, and the quality and quantity of messages. Students liked using
SMS and responded favourably toward the use of W/H devices for interacting and learning. Response were more and quicker than when
using electronic mail.
Bowman and Bowman (1998), Karayan and Crowe (1997), Lowry, Koneman, Osman-Jouchoux, and Wilson (1994), and Palloff and
Pratt (2001) extended conversation theory and social constructivist theory to mobile environments. For the reason that wireless devices
offer highly individualized communication and the potential for collaborative communication, they provide flexible tools for faculty
members that complement existing technologies, extend learning beyond classrooms and homes to remote sites such as airports and
train stations, which lack hard-wired computers with web access (Virvou & Alepis, 2005). Roblyer (2003), Roschelle (2003) and Penuel,
Tatar, and Roschelle (2004) noted the potential use of wireless learning environments in education to complement learner-centered
instruction, which Hoppe et al. (2003) referred to as ‘‘active, productive, creative and collaborative learning methods”(p. 255). Wireless
technologies, however, offer new learning options. Lehner and Nosekabel (2002), for instance, extended a web-based virtual university to
mobile devices by developing wireless e-learning and communication environment (WELCOME), an m-learning platform that comple-
mented e-learning environments by translating content for wireless devices for accessing calendars, phonebooks, event alerts, and other
campus services.
Mobile technologies potentially promote, facilitate, and enhance student collaboration and interaction, processes that serve as a means
for accessing, discovering, discussing, and sharing environmental concerns via multimedia messaging services (MMS), SMS, electronic mail,
or MSN Messenger. Students can converse with each other, question each other, and share opinions about environmental concerns. Col-
laboration could also occur outside the classroom, unlimited by geography, space, or time, although traditional classroom instruction infre-
quently supports collaboration. Mobile telephones with cameras permit students to photograph environmental problems and serve as a
means for sharing concerns with friends. Thus, students can pose questions related to the environment, collaborate with classmates, learn
new knowledge, and formulate plans to solve environmental problems. ML potentially moves learning outside classrooms and into stu-
dents’ environments, both real and virtual, thus reconceptualizing learning as personal, situational, collaborative, and lifelong. To imple-
ment ML, Attewell (2005) suggested five broad categories of technology to consider: transport, platform, delivery, media technologies,
and development languages (see Fig. 1).

2.1. Emergence of ML

The influence of constructivism has resulted in more self-directed and exploratory classroom activities (Karagiorgi & Symeou, 2005).
Wireless devices provide immediate feedback by allowing students to interact with instructors and classmates and to access course mate-
rials from any location. BenMoussa (2003) identified several benefits of using mobile applications, which generally permit users to control
or filter the flow of information and communication using individualized or personalized devices. Mobile connectivity potentially improves
collaboration via real time or instant interactivity regardless of time or location. And mobile connectivity potentially benefits users, who

GPRS WAP
3G E-mail
Infra Red Transport Options Delivery Options SMS
Bluetooth MMS
PCdownload HTTP

Pocket PC
Windows CE
Technology Symbian
Platform Options
Selection Palm O
J2ME
Pogo

Flash
C Development Languages
WML Video
VoiceXML Audio files
Media Options Phone calls
HTML
XHTML Teleconferencing
Voice recognition
TV broadcast
Fig. 1. Factors to consider in implementing ML (Attewell, 2005).
 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389 383

have immediate access to service providers, and increased productivity better balances their work lives and enhances learning
environments.
Perhaps the most sophisticated use of m-learning to date is the mobile author project (Virvou & Alepis, 2005), which allows
instructors to create an intelligent tutoring system (ITS) for any subject. Accessed from a personal computer, ITS retrieves, records,
and reports student performance to instructors. In addition, the system is customizable to meet student requirements and provide
individualized advice to students. Also, the mobile learning tool (MOLT) developed by Cavus and Ibrahim (2008) investigates the
use of wireless technologies in education, particularly for learning technical English words using text messaging. Logicode GSM
(2007), an ActiveX control package, and Visual Basic were used to format and forward text messages via Bluetooth and a mobile phone
attached to a personal computer. Away from the regular classroom environment, students completed daily activities and learned new
technical words.

2.2. Gender and computer mediated communication

Findings have been mixed regarding the role that gender plays in computer-mediated communication (Brandtzg & Stav, 2004; Jeong &
Davidson-Shivers, 2006; Söderqvist, Hardell, Carlberg, & Mild, 2007. Males often post more messages and longer ones than females during
mixed-gender discussions (Herring, 1999; McConnell, 1997; Ross, 1996). Males contribute more than females, but females remain less dis-
advantaged in online discussions than during face-to-face exchanges (McConnell, 1997). Other researchers have found that females posted
more messages than males (Davidson-Shivers, Muilenburg, & Tanner, 2000, 2001; Savicki, Kelley, & Ammon, 2002). Davidson-Shivers, Mor-
ris, and Sriwongkol (2003) found that messages posted by males and females were similar in frequency and type in large-chats and group
discussions. Collaborative tools form the core of ML such as chats, electronic mail, discussion groups, file sharing, and whiteboards. As a
result, user participation has been regarded as important. To date, whether gender plays a role in ML and environmental awareness has
not been investigated.

2.3. W/H devices and ML

Wilska (2003) characterized the use of mobile telephones as individualistic and isolated, but researchers have shown that young per-
sons communicate with each other successfully using W/H devices and the importance of peer collaboration (Hyeonjin & Hannafin, 2008;
Johnson & Johnson, 1986; Moallem, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978). Mobile devices have become important in the social lives of young and older
adults for scheduling, sharing information, listening to music, and transmitting pictures. Despite the incalculable growth and potential for
using W/H devices and computer networks, wireless e-learning and ML remain in their infancy. ML combines mobile computing with e-
learning, integrating individualized or personal learning with any-time, anywhere learning (Quinn, 2001). The use of W/H devices includes
students and instructors using discretionary periods while traveling by bus or train to complete course assignments or prepare lessons (Vir-
vou & Alepis, 2005). In business, time-management has been improved by converting workers’ inactive time into productive hours (Ben-
Moussa, 2003).

2.4. Environmental awareness

The role of education in understanding, protecting, and solving environment problems has been universally recognized since 1970
(Shobeiri, Omidvar, & Prahallada, 2006). Since 2000, researchers have considered the use of environmental education in schools, colleges,
and universities (Iozi, 1989; Palmberg & Kuru, 2000; Shin, 2000). Newhouse (1990) suggested that attitudes and feelings toward other per-
sons or objects are important factors in influencing human behavior. Researchers subsequently examined students’ knowledge and atti-
tudes towards the environments (Ramsey & Hungerford, 1989; Thompson & Gasteiger, 1985; Weigel & Weigel, 1978) and methods for
teaching environmental awareness (Attarian, 1996; Bryant & Hungerford, 1977; Howe & Disinger, 1988; Leeming, Dwyer, Porter, & Cobern,
1993; Shepard & Speelman, 1985). The relationship between attitudes toward the environment and human behavior, however, has been
infrequently explored (Ma & Bateson, 1999). On the other hand, researchers found that outdoor experiences influenced students’ attitudes
(Driver & Johnson, 1984; Howe & Disinger, 1988; Knapp, 1996; Ramsey & Hungerford, 1989; Shepard & Speelman, 1985–1986). Using
group discussions about environmental problems, Jaus (1984) investigated short-term and long-term effects of environmental instruction
on the attitudes of third graders. Matthews and Riley (1995) noted the use of concrete, environmentally positive, action-oriented experi-
ences; a relevant context; long-term involvement; support; and follow-up.
Ma and Bateson (1999) and Musser and Diamond (1999) found that students in different grades expressed positive attitudes toward
environmental concerns. Some researchers suggested that young children held more positive attitudes than older students; e.g., Malkus
and Musser (1997) found that first graders were more concerned about the environment than third or fifth graders. Malkus and Musser
(1993), and Szagun and Pavlov (1993) reported similar findings. The most important point is that, to date, researchers have not investigated
the application of ML for increasing environmental awareness. In this study, working collaboratively and sharing information was built into
a group activity to encourage undergraduates to create a virtual map by transmitting snapshots and text gathered while exploring a geo-
graphical area in North Cyprus.

3. Purpose of the study

This study investigated the use of integrating mobile telephones, data services (i.e., WAP, SMS, and multimedia messaging service
[MMS]) to increase students’ use of mobile technologies and develop environmental awareness. Three research questions were addressed:

1. What is the relationship between ML and environmental awareness?

2. Does gender play a role in ML and environmental awareness?
3. Does grade play a role in ML and environmental awareness?
384 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389

4. Method

4.1. Participants

The volunteer sample in this study (N = 41) consisted of 20 male and 21 female undergraduates enrolled in computer education
classes at the Near East University in North Cyprus. Thirteen students were second-year students (sophomore), 14 were third-year
students (junior), and 14 were fourth-year (senior) students. The mean age of participants was 21.37 years, ranging from 19 to 24.
Each participant completed a preproject and a postproject questionnaire. The six-week project and study, not part of regular curric-
ulum, was completed during June–July 2007. Expenses for the study were paid by North Cyprus TURKCELL, a commercial provider of
mobile services.

4.2. Instrument

The usefulness of mobile learning systems (UMLS), a questionnaire adapted by Motiwalla (2007), was used to collect data (see Table 1),
new items were added for use in this study to measure students’ satisfaction with mobile learning systems. This 23-item questionnaire
focuses on the usefulness of mobile telephones for increasing students’ awareness of environment concerns. Each participant completed
the UMLS before the project began and after its completion. The questionnaire addresses three dimensions: Asynchronous communication,
synchronous communication, and mobile communication. Respondents rate each item on a 1–5 Likert scale from ‘‘strongly agree” (5) to
‘‘strongly disagree” (1). The validity of the translated questionnaire was established by a review of three experts in educational technology.
Selected items were revised based upon their comments and recommendations. The administration of the revised questionnaire to 30
undergraduates yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .93.

4.3. Procedure

Researchers posted a notification of the project onto a campus advertisement board to announce the need for student volun-
teer to participate in a study using mobile technologies to study environmental topics. Researchers subsequently met with inter-
ested students enrolled in classes in the department of computer education and instructional technologies (CEIT). The purpose,
goals, and expectations of the study were explained to potential participants. Forty-five undergraduates originally agreed to par-
ticipate. During this initial, the group discussed the environment and related concerns in general. The researchers identified
immediately that the students did not rate environment problems as a high in their lives. Data were collected from students
regarding the brand and model of their mobile telephones. Three students could not participate because their mobile telephones
lacked cameras. After students were asked a few questions about ML and their environmental concerns, 45 students completed
the UMLS.
During the six weeks that followed, students used mobile telephones to photograph local subjects, which included environmental
blights and social events. Each student forwarded a minimum of six snapshots weekly to the researcher-moderator via MMS, who num-
bered and uploaded selected photographs to the project’s website. Participants used mobile telephones to connect to the website and re-
view the photographs displayed online. Participants’ comments were forwarded to the moderate using SMS or electronic mail. The address
was provided by TURKCELL (the largest GSM operator in North Cyprus) enabling classmates to review comments and photographs posted
on the website. Each student submitted at least 36 pictures and used WAP to forward comments to classmates and the moderator. Students
downloaded Windows Live Messenger, a free software program for mobile telephones, to discuss students’ postings, an activity based upon
the assumption that collaborative discussions would result in building more positive attitudes. The moderator monitored but did not par-
ticipate in students’ discussions. Discussions, usually 30–60 min each week, were saved on the moderator’s laptop computer. Students re-
viewed the photographs and suggested solutions for overcoming environmental problems. The moderator was available to help students
who encountered problems.
Four students were eventually removed from the sample because of the poor quality of their pictures. At the end of the project, students
completed the UMLS a second time. Subsequently, North Cyprus TURKCELL reimbursed students of the fees paid for SMS, MMS, electronic
mail, and the general packet radio service (GPRS) connection for MSN messenger for their mobile telephones.

4.4. Data analysis

The UMLS was used to assess students’ attitudes toward ML and their awareness of environmental problems. A paired t-test was used to
compare preproject and postproject means. A t-test of independent samples was used to compare preproject and postproject means be-
tween females and males. A one-way ANOVA was used to compare means among grades. Tukey’s HSD test was used to identify the source
of significant differences (0.05 level of confidence).

Table 1
Paired-t test for preproject–postproject means on the UMLS

UMLS Mean N SD Mean difference t Significance (two-tailed)

Preproject 45.2 41 20.22 44.56 12.47 .001*
Postproject 89.76 41 9.79
*
Significant at the 0.001 level of confidence.
 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389 385

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Mobile learning and environmental awareness

The preproject mean recorded on the UMLS was 45.2 (SD = 20.22); the postproject mean was 89.76 (SD = 9.79), a mean difference of
44.56 (see Table 1). A paired-samples t-test was used to compare preproject and postproject means. The results differed significantly, t
(40) = 12.47, p = .001). Overall, students’ attitude toward the usefulness of ML improved significantly.
Table 2 presents the preproject–postproject means and standard deviations for each UMLS item. On the postproject survey, a mean of 4
or more was recorded for items 1, 11, 13, 16, 20, 22, and 23. Before the project began, participants generally did not associate the use of
mobile technologies and environmental concerns. At the end of the project, students’ attitudes changed positively.
Following the use of mobile technologies (SMS, MMS, electronic mail, messenger) students observed environments more carefully,
increasing their awareness of environmental blights. The use of mobile technologies resulted in students more highly regarding their ben-
efits and use for considering environmental problems. The highest score was recorded on the postproject questionnaire for item 13: ‘‘MLS is
useful as a supplement to environmental issues” (M = 4.14). Students learned to value mobile technologies and their use for reporting and
sharing these problems by facing environmental problems in real time. Item 1 ‘‘MLS is useful in creating environmental awareness”, before
the study began, participants generally did not connect the use of mobile technologies and environmental concerns (M = 1.95). At the end
of the project, their attitudes changed. Following the use of mobile technologies (SMS, MMS, electronic mail, messenger) students’ observed
environments more carefully and significantly increased their awareness of environmental blights (M = 4). ‘‘MLS adds value to e-learning in
environmental issues”. The postproject mean (M = 4.02) was significantly higher than the preproject mean (M = 1.9). The use of mobile
technologies resulted in students more highly regarding their benefits and use for considering environmental problems. ‘‘MLS allows con-
verting idle time into productive with regard to environmental issues”. Participants evaluated the use of free time and its use to address
environment problems, recording a postproject mean of 4.04. ‘‘MLS can be used as a supplementally for any existing course”. After com-
pleting this project, students realized the potential use of mobile technologies for learning any subject (M = 4.02). ‘‘Information regarding to
environmental issues that is shared via chatting with MLS is more effective” and ‘‘When MLS is used with Messenger, it gives the user
opportunity to join discussions about environmental issues without the limitation of time and space”. Postproject means for these items,
4.07 and 4, respectively, revealed that students perceived the importance of using discussion tools with ML. These tools permitted the dis-
cussion of environmental problems with friends irrespective of time and place. Briefly, after completing the project, students realized the
potential use of mobile technologies for learning any subject and perceived the importance of using discussion tools with ML. These tools
permitted the discussion of environmental problems with friends irrespective of time and place.
Participants expressed satisfaction with using ML for increasing environmental awareness, results found by Van’t Hooft, Diaz, and Swan
(2004). The majority of a sample of 217 students liked using mobile devices, regarding ML as fun and a valuable learning tool. A review of
relevant literature confirms that mobile technologies potentially engages students in creative, collaborative, critical, and communicative
activities, although their use varied in applying digital and mobile technologies to environmental topics.

5.2. Gender

Descriptive statistics collected from the UMLS based upon gender are presented in Table 3. A t-test of independent samples did not find
a significant difference between UMLS scores based upon gender. The mean postproject score of females on UMLS was 91.52 compared to

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for UMLS items

Items Preproject Postproject Mean

difference
M SD M SD
1. MLS is useful for creating environmental awareness 1.95 .92 4.00 .74 2.05
2. MLS is a good discussion tool for creating environmental awareness 1.98 .96 3.92 .76 1.94
3. MLS is easy to use for creating environmental awareness 2.02 .99 3.75 .97 1.73
4. MLS made it easier to understand environmental awareness 2.20 .96 3.90 .86 1.70
5. MLS makes a good forum for interaction 2.02 .96 3.92 .85 1.90
6. MLS makes it easier to discuss environmental issues with other students 1.93 1.03 3.80 .90 1.87
7. MLS makes it easier to discuss environmental issues with the instructor 1.93 1.06 3.90 .92 1.97
8. MLS is a convenient platform to access discussions about environmental issues 2.22 .88 3.87 .84 1.65
9. Overall, satisfaction with MLS with regard to environmental issues is acceptable 2.12 1.19 3.92 .96 1.80
10. MLS has the potential to become a good learning tool with regard to environmental issues 1.95 1.34 3.97 .96 2.02
11. MLS adds value to e-learning environmental issues 1.90 1.29 4.02 1.06 2.12
12. MLS allows instant access to environmental issues regardless of your location 1.98 1.26 3.85 1.04 1.87
13. MLS is useful as a supplement to environmental issues 2.05 1.34 4.14 .76 2.09
14. MLS is an effective learning aid or assistant for students with regard to environmental issues 2.20 1.40 3.78 1.06 1.58
15. MLS is an effective method for providing personalized information with regard to environmental issues 1.85 1.22 3.80 .93 1.95
16. MLS allows converting idle time into productive with regard to environmental issues 1.93 1.33 4.04 .74 2.11
17. MLS allows convenient access to discussions related to environmental issues – anywhere and any-time 1.76 1.14 3.80 .87 2.04
18. Information sent by MLS via messages is more effective 1.76 1.18 3.70 .98 1.94
19. MLS allows access to information from the website about environmental issues 1.85 1.15 3.80 1.05 1.95
20. MLS can be used as a supplemental tool for any existing course 1.68 1.13 4.02 .94 2.34
21. Information regarding environmental issues sent by MLS with MMS is more effective 2.15 1.30 3.56 .98 1.41
22. Information regarding environmental issues shared via chatting with MLS is more effective 1.83 1.28 4.07 .79 2.24
23. Using MLS with messenger gives users opportunity to join discussions about environmental issues without the limitation 1.95 1.41 4.12 .87 2.17
of time and space
386 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389

Table 3
Preproject–postproject scores on the UMLS: gender

Gender N Preproject Postproject

M SD M SD
Male 20 52.50 19.69 87.90 8.90
Female 21 37.95 18.42 91.52 10.47

87.9 for males, a difference that was not significant (p = .241). The preproject difference between males and females, however was statis-
tically significant (p = .017).
Rees and Noyes (2007) did not find any significant differences for the use of mobile telephones based upon gender. On the other hand,
they reported that more females than males used voice calling and text messaging for interpersonal motivation, but females used text mes-
saging more frequently than males. These researchers found that females and males used mobile telephone differently, males using voice
calling more than females, but females using SMS more than males. Males used mobile telephones more for communication, and females
used them more for fulfilling emotional needs. Borae and Joohan (2005) reported that females identified a higher interpersonal motivation
to use telephone technology than males and more often used mobile telephones for text messaging. Drotner (2001) found that females
were more likely to use mobile telephones and SMS than males.
Several researchers found that a greater proportion of females than males expressed positive attitudes and greater concern toward envi-
ronmental concerns (Davidson & Freudenburg, 1996; Gardos & Dodd, 1995; Tikka, Kuitunen, & Tynys, 2000; Yılmaz, Boone, & Andersen,
2004). According to Davidson and Freudenburg (1996), more males than females expressed concern about risk-related environmental
problems such as toxic chemical waste and nuclear power. Arcury, Johnson, and Scollay (1986) and Hes-Quimbita and Pavel (1996), how-
ever, found that females were more sensitive than males regarding environmental topics, although some researchers during the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s did not identify any significant difference between males and females regarding general attitudes toward the
environment.
Three effects of gender and the environment have been identified. First, females approach environmental topics with more sensitivity
than males, which was the case in this project. Second, according to several researchers (Anastasios & Grousopoulou, 2009; Tsai, 2008),
males use mobile technologies such as SMS, MMS, electronic mail, and the GPRS more than females. Third, students were asked to use mo-
biles telephones and concentrate on local environmental topics. Thus, females used mobile telephones as frequently and effectively as
males did. The use of mobile technologies awakened an awareness of environmental problems. Preproject and postproject mean results
of male and female seen in Fig. 2.

5.3. Grade

Descriptive statistics collected from the UMLS based upon grade are presented in Table 4.
Second-year students recorded the highest postproject score, and third-year students recorded the lowest postproject score (see Table
4). A one-way ANOVA found significant differences in scores on the UMLS among the three grades (see Table 5). Tukey’s HSD test was used
to identify the source of significant F ratios (see Table 6). Postproject scores differed significantly between students in grades 2 and 3 and
between students in grades 3 and 4.
Therefore, third-year students are anxious whether or not they will graduate and this situation makes them not to consider the envi-
ronmental issues so much. They just seem to focus on their personal career. In other words, it can be said that environmental awareness is
not in the first priority on the third-rank students’ minds and priority. In addition, curriculum of third-year students includes more courses
with more theoretical emphasis and this brings limitations to their social lives. Shaw and Marlow (1999) also found grade differences in
environmental awareness. First-year students exhibited a greater awareness of environmental awareness a more positive perception of
information and communication technology than second-year and third-year students (Malkus & Musser, 1997; Musser & Diamond,

100
M=91.52
90
M=87.90
80

70

60
Male
50 M=52.5
Female
40

30 M=37.95

20

10

Preproject Postproject

Fig. 2. Preproject and postproject mean results of male and female.

 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389 387

Table 4
Preproject–postproject scores on the UMLS: grade (class level)

Grade N M SD SE
Preproject 2 13 45.39 20.85 5.78
3 14 50.64 23.55 6.29
4 14 39.57 15.36 4.11
Total 41 45.20 20.22 3.16
Postproject 2 13 93.08 8.23 2.28
3 14 83.86 7.56 2.02
4 14 92.57 10.88 2.91
Total 41 89.76 9.79 1.53

Table 5
One-way ANOVA for grade on the UMLS

Sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Preproject Between groups 858.719 2 429.360 1.053 .359
Within groups 15491.720 38 407.677
Total 16350.439 40
Postproject Between groups 741.495 2 370.748 4.553 .017*
Within groups 3094.066 38 81.423
Total 3835.561 40
*
Significant at the 0.05 level of confidence.

Table 6
Tukey’s HSD test for grade

Dependent variable (I) Grade (J) Grade Mean difference (I J) SE Significance 95% Confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
Postproject 2 3 9.22 3.48 .030* .74 17.70
4 2 .51 3.46 .988 8.98 7.97
3 8.71 3.41 .038* .40 17.03
*
Significant at the 0.05 level of confidence.

1999; Wojtowicz, 1995; Yılmaz et al., 2004). Shaw and Marlow found that younger students had more positive attitudes toward environ-
mental issues than older students.

6. Conclusions

The use of ML and related technologies offers a means to address a broad range of topics and an avenue for learning. ML had not been
previously explored as a means of environmental education in the North Cyprus. This paper may assist researchers in other countries inter-
ested in the creation and use of new educational technologies. Mobile technologies were used in this study as a means to increase students’
awareness about technology and environmental concerns.
This project enabled students to collaborate and provide feedback regarding content and the use of ML. Classmates exchanged informa-
tion and pictures using mobile telephones. Students observed deteriorated environments and used mobile telephones with cameras to
photograph and transmit pictures via SMS messages in real time. Environmental awareness of males and females increased significantly,
and attitudes toward maintaining clean environments and preventing pollution improved. Effect size (Cohen’s d) was slightly more for
males (1.83) than females (1.68), but the increase for both groups was striking. Participants expressed satisfaction with the capability
of using ML anywhere, any place, and any-time. Survey scores of females increased more than males, but no significant difference was
found between postproject scores based upon gender. Second-year undergraduate students recorded significantly higher postproject
scores than third-year or fourth-year students. Thus, attitudes toward the environment are seems related to grade or age. Reasons for rank-
ing the importance of environment topics, however, remain unknown.
Mobile devices provided a means to engage males and females and to develop positive attitudes toward maintaining environments, a
finding supported by Swan, Van’t Hooft, Kratcoski, and Unger (2005), and the use of mobile technology and ML benefited both genders.
Using mobile telephone outside of the classroom has excited and interested many participants in this project. They seemed comfortable
with the technologies used and with the educational use for mobile telephones. It is hoped that similar projects will encourage investiga-
tions by other researchers. Members of the Department of CEIT were interested in this project and monitored its progress. When the results
were announced, they expressed increasing interest by asking questions about the study and discussed the possible use of similar tools in
their classes. Long-term, ML will likely provide a suitable platform for use in a wide range of educational settings.

6.1. Recommendations

Mobile technologies should be used to increase environmental awareness of students. The broader use of ML and sophisticated tech-
nologies requires schools to establish core and elective courses that support environmental topics and other subjects. Students in many
388 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389

disciplines could be provided opportunities to engage in on-campus and outdoor activities that include ML and mobile technologies. Many
providers of mobile telephone services would sponsor educational projects or offer discounts to institutions and students for completing
educational activities, limiting the costs for securing needed technologies, particularly if they better understand the value and potential
usefulness for ML.
Future studies should include larger samples and extend for longer durations. Increasing the efficiency of technologies would permit
participants to upload photographs immediately, eliminating the need for the moderator. Securing greater financial support would result
in the use of ML by a wider range of students. This project was completed on a limited budget. A redesign of the project’s website would
result in improving the display on students’ mobile telephones. TURKCELL is expected to soon add videoconferencing to its mobile services,
permitting students to discuss and view environmental concerns in real time.

Acknowledgements

This research project was sponsored by North Cyprus TURKCELL (a mobile operator in Northern Cyprus). The participation of students at
the Near East University in Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies are gratefully acknowledged.

References

Ananny, M., Strohecker, C., & Biddick, K. (2004). Shifting scales on common ground: Developing personal expressions and public opinions. International Journal of Continuing
Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 14(6), 484–505.
Anastasios, A. E., & Grousopoulou, A. (2009). Students’ thoughts about the importance and costs of their mobile devices’ features and services. Telematics and Informatics, 26(1),
57–84.
Arcury, T., Johnson, T., & Scollay, J. (1986). Ecological worldview and environmental knowledge: The ‘‘new environmental paradigm”. Journal of Environmental Education, 17,
35–40.
Attarian, A. (1996). Integrating values clarification into outdoor adventure programs and activities. Journal of Physical Education, 67(8), 41–44.
Attewell, J. (2005). From research and development to mobile learning: Tools for education and training providers and their learners. In Proceedings of mLearn 2005. Retrieved
from <http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Attewell.pdf>.
Bauman, Z. (2003). Liquid love: On the frailty of human bonds. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
BenMoussa, C. (2003). Workers on the move: New opportunities through mobile commerce. Paper presented at the meeting of the Stockholm mobility roundtable, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Biström, J. (2005). Peer-to-peer networks as collaborative learning environments. Paper presented at HUT T-110.551 seminar on internetworking. Retrieved from <http://
www.sit.fi/johnny/collp2p.pdf/>.
Bollen, L., Eimler, H., & Hoppe, U. (2004). SMS-based discussions-technology enhanced collaboration for a literature course. In The 2nd IEEE international workshop on wireless
and mobile technologies in education (pp. 21–22), Taipei, Taiwan.
Borae, J., & Joohan, K. (2005). In a different voice (and text): Gender differences in communication motives and uses of mobile phone. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
international communication association, New York, NY.
Bowman, R. L., & Bowman, V. E. (1998). Life on the electronic frontier: The application of technology to group work. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 428–445.
Brandtzg, P. B., & Stav, B. H. (2004). Barn og unges skravling på nettet – Sosial støtte i cyberspace? (Social Support in Cyberpace Among Children and Young People). Tidsskrift
forUngdomsforskning, 4(1), 27–47.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser
(Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bryant, C. K., & Hungerford, H. R. (1977). An analysis of strategies for teaching environmental concepts and values clarification in kindergarten. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 137 117).
Cavus, N., & Ibrahim, D. (2008). M-learning: An experiment in using SMS to support learning new English language words. British Journal of Educational Technology, doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00801.x.
Cereijo-Roibas, A., & Arnedillo-Sanchez, I. (2002). Pathway to m-learning. In European workshop on mobile & contextual learning, Birmingham, UK.
Chen, F., Myers, B., & Yaron, D. (2000). Using handheld devices for TESTs in classes. Retrieved from <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/pebbles/papers/CMU-CS-00-152.pdf>.
Davidson, D., & Freudenburg, W. (1996). Gender and environmental risk concerns: A review of available research. Environment and Behavior, 28, 302–339.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Morris, S., & Sriwongkol, T. (2003). Gender differences: Are they diminished in on-line discussions? International Journal on E-Learning, 2(1), 29–36.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L., & Tanner, E. (2000). Synchronous and asynchronous discussion: What are the differences in student participation? Ed-Media 2000: World
conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L., & Tanner, E. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous discussion: What are the differences in the student
participant? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25, 351–366.
Divitini, M., Haugalokken, O. K., & Norevik, P. A. (2002). Improving communication through mobile technologies: Which possibilities? Paper presented at the IEEE international
workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education, Växjö, Sweden.
Driver, B. L., & Johnson, L. A. (1983–1984). A pilot study of the perceived long-term benefits of the Youth Conservation Corps. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(2), 3–11.
Drotner, K. (2001). Medier for fremtiden børn, unge og det nye medielandskab. København: Høst & Søn.
Edwards, K., Newman, M., Sedivy, J., Smith, T., Balfanz, D., & Smetters, D. K. (2002). Using speakeasy for ad hoc peer-to-peer collaboration. Paper presented at ACM 2002
conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW 2002), New Orleans, Louisiana.
Gardos, V., & Dodd, D. (1995). An immediate response to environmentally disturbing news and the environmental attitudes of college students. Psychological Reports, 77,
1121–1122.
Hegarty, S. (2004). Can’t live with them, can’t live without them. Irish times (p. 17). Dublin, Ireland.
Herring, S. (1999). The theoretical dynamics of gender harassment online. The Information Society, 15(3), 151–167.
Hes-Quimbita, G., & Pavel, M. (1996). Assessing an environmental attitude development model: Factors influencing the environmental attitudes of college students. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 394438).
Hoppe, H. U., Joiner, R., Milrad, M., & Sharples, M. (2003). Guest editorial: Wireless and mobile technologies in education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 255–259.
Howe, R., & Disinger, J. (1988). Teaching environmental education using the out-of school settings and mass media. ERIC/SMEAC Environmental Education Digest, N.o 1.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 759). Retrieved from <http://www.m-learning.org/
archive/docs/Cal03%20paper%20Ultralab%20Apr%2003.pdf>.
Hyeonjin, K., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Grounded design of web-enhanced case-based activity. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 161–179.
Iozi, L. A. (1989). What research says to the educator. Part one: Environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20, 3–7.
Jaus, H. H. (1984). The development and retention of environmental attitudes in elementary school children. Journal of Environmental Education, 15(3), 33–36.
Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568.
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31–32.
Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology and Society, 8(1), 17–27.
Karayan, S. S., & Crowe, J. A. (1997). Student perspectives of electronic discussion groups. The Journal, 24, 69–71.
Knapp, C. E. (1996). Just beyond the classroom: Community adventures for interdisciplinary learning. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 388 485).
Leeming, F., Dwyer, W., Porter, B., & Cobern, M. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8–21.
Lehner, F., & Nosekabel, H. (2002). The role of mobile devices in e-learning: First experiences with a wireless e-learning environment. Paper presented at the IEEE international
workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education, Växjö, Sweden.
 H. Uzunboylu et al. / Computers & Education 52 (2009) 381–389 389

Ling, R., & Vaage, O. F. (2000). Internet og mobiltelefon: Ikke lenger bare for de få. Samfunnspeilet, 6. Statistisk sentralbyrå.
Logiccode GSM SMS Active X DLL (V 2.2) (2007). Retrieved from <http://www.logicode.soft.com>.
Lowry, P. M., Koneman, R., Osman-Jouchoux, R., & Wilson, B. (1994). Electronic discussion groups: Using e-mail as an instructional strategy. Tech Trends, 39(2), 22–24.
Lundby, K. (Ed.), (2002). Knowmobile–Knowledge access in distributed training: Mobile opportunities for medical students. InterMedia, 5, University of Oslo.
Ma, X., & Bateson, D. J. (1999). A multivariate analysis of the relationship between attitude toward science and attitude toward the environment. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 31(1), 27–32.
Malkus, A. J., & Musser, L. M. (1997). Environmental concern in school-age children. Elementary and childhood education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407099).
Malkus, A. J., & Musser, L. M. (1993). Children and the new 3 rs (reduce, reuse, recycle): Attitudes toward the environment. Paper presented at the meeting for the society for
research in child development, New Orleans, LA.
Matthews, B. E., & Riley, C. K. (1995). Teaching and evaluating outdoor ethics education programs. Vienna, VA: National Wildlife Federation. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 401 097).
McConnell, D. (1997). Interaction patterns of mixed sex groups in educational computer conferences. Part I-empirical findings. Gender and Education, 9, 345–363.
Mitchell, A., & Doherty, M. (2003). M-learning support for disadvantaged youth: A mid-stage review. Retrieved from <http://www.m-learning.org/docs/Cal03%20paper%
20Ultralab%20Apr%2003.pdf>.
Moallem, M. (2003). An interactive online course: A collaborative design model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(4), 85–103.
Motiwalla, L. F. (2007). Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.
Muhlhauser, M., & Trompler, C. (2002). Learning in the digital age: Paving a smooth path with digital lecture halls. In IEEE 35th Hawaii international conference on system
sciences, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Musser, L. M., & Diamond, K. E. (1999). The children’s attitudes toward the environment scale for preschool children. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(2), 23–30.
Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitudes and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26–32.
Nyiri, K. (2003). Mobile communication: Essays on cognition and community. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmberg, I. E., & Kuru, J. (2000). Outdoor activities as a basis for environmental responsibility. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 32–36.
Pask, G. (1975). Minds and media in education and entertainment: Some theoretical comments illustrated by the design and operation of a system for exteriorizing and
manipulating individual theses. In R. Trappl & G. Pask (Eds.). Progress in cybernetics and systems research (Vol. 4, pp. 38–50). London: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
Penuel, W. R., Tatar, D. G., & Roschelle, J. (2004). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 353–370.
Quinn, C. (2001). Get ready for m-learning. Training and Development, 20(2), 20–21.
Ramsey, J. M., & Hungerford, H. (1989). The effects of issue investigation and action training on environmental behavior in seventh grade students. Journal of Environmental
Education, 20(4), 29–34.
Rees, H., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). Mobile telephones, computers and the Internet: Sex differences in adolescents’ use and attitudes. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 10(3), 482–484.
Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.
Roschelle, J., & Pea, R. (2002). A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change CSCL. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of computer support for collaborative learning.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Ross, J. A. (1996). Computer communication skills and participation in a computer-mediate conference course. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational
research association, New York, NY.
Savicki, V., Kelley, M., & Ammon, B. (2002). Effects of training on computer-mediated communication in single or mixed gender task groups. Computers in Human Behavior, 18,
257–269.
Shaw, G., & Marlow, N. (1999). The role of student learning styles, gender, attitudes and perceptions on information and communication technology assisted learning.
Computers & Education, 33(4), 223–234.
Shepard, C., & Speelman, L. R. (1985–1986). Affecting environmental attitudes through outdoor education. Journal of Environmental Education, 17(2), 20–23.
Shin, D. S. (2000). Environmental education course development for preservice secondary school science teachers in the Republic of Korea. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 31(4), 11–18.
Shobeiri, S. M., Omidvar, B., & Prahallada, N. N. (2006). Influence of gender and type of school on environmental attitude of teachers in Iran and India. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Technology, 3(4), 351–357.
Stone, A., Briggs, J., & Smith, C. (2002). SMS and interactivity-some results from the field, and its implications on effective uses of mobile technologies in education. In IEEE
international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education (pp. 104–108).
Swan, K., Van’t Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Unger, D. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
38(1), 99–112.
Szagun, G., & Pavlov, V. (1993). German and Russian adolescents’ environmental awareness. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the society for research in child
development. New Orleans, LA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 537). Retrieved from <http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage_01/0000019b/80/15/58/d1.pdf>.
Söderqvist, F., Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., & Mild, K. H. (2007). Ownership and use of wireless telephones: A population-based study of Swedish children aged 7–14 years. BMC
Public Health, 7, 105–115.
Taylor, A. S., & Harper, R. (2002). Age-old practices in the ‘New World’: A study of gift-giving between teenage mobile phone users. Paper presented to the conference on human
factors in computing systems, Minneapolis, MN.
Thompson, J., & Gasteiger, E. (1985). Environmental attitude surveys of university students: 1971–1981. The Journal of Environmental Education, 17(1), 13–22.
Tikka, P. M., Kuıtunen, M. T., & Tynys, S. M. (2000). Effects of educational background on students’ attitudes, activity levels, and knowledge concerning the environment. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 31(3), 12–19.
Tsai, C. C. (2008). The preferences toward constructivist Internet-based learning environments among university students in Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1),
16–31.
Van’t Hooft, M., Diaz, S., & Swan, K. (2004). Examining the potential of the handheld computers: Findings from the Ohio PEP project. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
30(4), 295–311.
Weigel, R., & Weigel, J. (1978). Environmental concern: The development of a measure. Environmental and Behavior, 10(1), 3–15.
Wilska, T. A. (2003). Mobile phone use as part of young people’s consumption styles. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(4), 441–463.
Virvou, M., & Alepis, E. (2005). Mobile educational features in authoring tools for personalized tutoring. Computers and Education, 44, 53–68.
Wojtowicz, G. G. (1995). Health and environmental protection: A survey of student attitudes. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 386447.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Yılmaz, O., Boone, W., & Andersen, H. O. (2004). View of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(12), 1527–1546.