Ubiquitous Learning vs. Electronic Learning: A Comparative Study on Learning Activeness and Learning Achievement of Students with Different Self-Regulated Learning

27Citations
Citations of this article
159Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This research examines the effect of ubiquitous learning strategies using various self-regulated learnings on learning activeness and learning achievement of student in higher education. Quasi-experimental pretest-posttests with non-equivalent control group design is used as the method of this research. The subjects of this research are 113 students. The instrument used to measure the students’ learning activeness is a learning activeness questionnaire developed by the researcher referring to the theory of learning activeness by Sardiman, whereas objective test is to evaluate students’ learning achievement, and online self-regulated learning questionnaire (OSLQ) as adapted from Barnard is utilized to measure the self-regulated learning of the research subjects. The data is then analyzed through two-way MANOVA technique. The findings of the research conclude that: (1) there were significant differences in learning activeness and learning achievement between groups which learned using ubiquitous learning strategies and electronic learning strategies; (2) there were significant differences in learning activeness and learning achievement between students when integrated with high self-regulated learning and low self-regulated learning; (3) there was an interaction between ubiquitous learning and electronic learning strategies integrated with self-regulated learning on learning activeness and learning achievement of students.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Suartama, I. K., Sulthoni, Ulfa, S., Setyosari, P., Yunus, M., & Sugiani, K. A. (2021). Ubiquitous Learning vs. Electronic Learning: A Comparative Study on Learning Activeness and Learning Achievement of Students with Different Self-Regulated Learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(3), 36–56. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i03.14953

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free