No abstract

No abstract

This Research Full paper presents finding of factors influencing the use of mobile-based assessments in higher education. With the growing popularity of mobile learning in higher education, there exists a potential of using mobile devices to deliver various types of assessments. The study aimed to find out factors influencing the adoption of mobilebased assessments, perspectives on types of assessments suitable to deliver such assessments and challenges faced by academics and students in South Pacific in using these assessments. An online survey was created using the case study approach with a blend of quantitative and qualitative questions assisted by Technology acceptance (TAM) and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) models. The factors from TAM and UTAUT considered for this study were perceived usefulness, behavioral intension to use, perceived trust and attitude by introducing output quality and social influence as external variables. The participants (n = 35) comprised of science, business and economics, arts, law, education and technical and further education academics from a higher education institute in the South Pacific. The study revealed that focusing on mobile assessment quality design and trust are the important factors for academics to accept mobile-based assessments in higher education. Furthermore, game-based, self-and peer, classroom polling, formative, adaptive and personalized assessments were the types of assessment preferred by academics to be delivered through the mobile devices. The major challenges identified for academics were connectivity, lack of skills in designing effective mobile-based assessments, lack of e-teaching pedagogy and student cheating issues. For students' the major challenges identified by academics were internet connectivity, device availability, distractions and device competency, readability and disability issues.

In general, people believe that if we want our children to be good in and relate well to science, or to enable at least a few of them eventually to become scientists themselves, we may need to be clear about what science is and the nature of its method. Individuals can then wield the method of science, making them scientists. This way of thinking is firmly committed to the view that science is what a scientist does, times the number of scientists that there are. Thus we might hope to foster in children certain behaviours that are conformable to 'the method of science'. If this is the case, then we would expect every student who takes science to understand and be good in science. However, this is not the case. A contention of the paper is that the main enabling conditions for the ignition of science are in fact writing and literacy. The implication is that a culture that is well used to literacy from past generations will have an advantage vis-à-vis school science learning as compared to a culture that remains significantly oral, and has had very few generations to adjust to the range of possible uses that writing opens. This could possibly be a causal explanation of differences in science achievement levels between iTaukei (Indigenous Fijian) and Indo-Fijian students at school.