Understanding tablet computer usage among primary school students in

underdeveloped areas: Students’ technology experience, learning styles and attitudes

Putjorn Pruet*, Chee Sian Ang and Deravi Farzin
School of Engineering and Digital Arts, University of Kent, CT27NT, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The need to provide low-cost learning technologies such as laptops or tablet computers in
ICT4D developing countries with the aim to bridge the digital divide as well as addressing the uneven
Mobile learning standards of education quality has been widely recognised by previous studies. With this aim
Tablet computer in mind, the Thai Government has launched the “One Tablet PC Per Child” (OTPC) policy and
Urban versus rural distributed 800,000 tablet computers to grade-one students nationwide in 2012. However, there
Gender differences is limited empirical evidence on the effectiveness of tablet computer use in the classroom. Our
Technology experience study examined students’ learning styles, attitudes towards tablet computer use and how these
Learning Styles are linked to their academic performance. The study has investigated 213 grade two students
Tablet computer attitudes
in economically underprivileged regions of North Thailand. Data collection was based on
Primary school students
questionnaires filled in by the students with the help of their teachers. Our results overall
suggested that there were some key significant differences in relation to students’ gender and
home locations (urban vs rural). In contrast to existing studies, both genders at this stage had
similar technology experience and positive attitudes towards tablet computer use. However,
we found girls had higher visual learning style (M=4.23, p<.032) than boys (M=3.96). Where
home location was concerned, rural students had more learning competitiveness and higher
levels of anxiety towards tablet use (M=1.71, p<.028) than urban students (M=1.33).
Additionally, we also found technology experiences, collaborative learning style and anxiety
affected students’ academic performance.

1. Introduction
Global economic competitiveness has increased rapidly,
therefore educational development is a major concern in many
countries around the world. Especially in developing countries,
improving educational standards and equality are seen to be
difficult and challenging due to inadequate educational resources
on a national level (school budget) and on a personal level (time
available for learning) (Bahamondez, Elba del Carmen
Valderrama, Winkler, & Schmidt, 2011). Similarly, as a result of
insufficient teaching resources and academic staff in Thailand,
3243 out of 15,515 schools in Thailand failed the National
Standards and Quality Assessment (NESQA) in 2008 (Lounkaew,
2013). Moreover, compared with the 65 countries participating in
the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in
2012, students in Thailand scored below the average, ranked 48th
in reading and science and 50th in mathematics (OECD, 2012). As
part of the OTPC policy of 2012, the Ministry of Education has
distributed 800,000 tablet computers which are installed with a
range of learning contents. According to ESDC’s (Centre for
Educational Supervision Development), a pilot study on
accomplishment of tablet use between 2011to 2012 showed that
students’ learning abilities have improved in the areas of listening,
speaking and reading (ESDC, 2013). However, current learning
provision on the tablet computer is lacking interactivity. In most
cases, children learn contents passively by watching teaching
video clips or listening to audio clips through learning applications
and websites presented on the tablet (Viriyapong & Harfield,
2013). It appears that the OTPC project in Thailand may repeat the
lack of success of “One Laptop Per Child” project, a well-known
prior project which deployed low cost laptop computers to students
in many developing countries (Cristia, Ibarrarán, Cueto, Santiago,
& Severín, 2012; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). With the ultimate
aim of preventing this possible failure and addressing the
improvement in education in underdevelopment areas, our
research team and Mae Fah Luang University (located in the
northernmost part of Thailand) carried out a study to understand
the current situation of tablet computer use in Thai schools. The
study will be carried out to investigate how students and teachers
currently use tablet computers in the classroom, to determine how
well tablet computers support learning. An in-depth understanding
of these issues will enable us to identify how a tablet-based
learning system can be best designed to support learning. The
objectives of this study are:
 To establish if there are significant differences in technology
experience, learning styles and attitudes towards tablet
computer usage between boys and girls (6-9 year olds)
 To examine if there are significant differences in technology
experience, learning styles and attitudes towards tablet
computer usage when compared with students’ home location
(urban/rural)
 To investigate which types of students (excellent, average and
weak learner) benefit the most from tablet computer usage

 Corresponding author. E-mail: pp303@kent.ac.uk (P.Putjorn), C.S.Ang@kent.ac.uk (C.S. Ang), F.Deravi@kent.ac.uk (F. Deravi)
 The paper is structured as following: firstly, review several case
studies in the areas of ICT4D, mobile learning and tablet computer
in education. Then the methodology and data collections will be
explained before preliminary research study results are presented.
Finally, results will be interpreted in the discussion section.
Limitations of the study, future directions and in-depth analysis
will be concluded at the end.
1. Literature review
As this study was conducted in Thailand, both the background
and current situation of Thai education are reviewed. We then
explore how ICT is utilised in the fields of education settings, case
studies of mobile and tablet computer in education and the reason
why we need to better understand the learners.
1.1 Basic education and unequal educational standards in
Thailand
Education for all children in Thailand is a right which is
provided by the Thai Government through the Ministry of
Education. All children are able to receive standard education
equally including minority children (non-Thai) who live in
Thailand. To address the rapid economic and social growth and
with the goal to improve the quality of education provision for all
students, the National Education Act (1999s) and basic education
core curriculum (2008s) were provided by the Thai Government.
Key elements included are the provision of 12 years (previously 9
years) of free compulsory education, provision of a new learning
pedagogy model (learner centre-model) and the promotion of
students’ and teachers’ learning by utilising ICT. However, more
than a decade following the introduction of education
improvement by Thai Government many indicators showed
continuous weakness (Fry & Bi, 2013). According to The Global
Competitiveness report in 2013, the quality of primary education
in Thailand was ranked 86th out of 148 countries (World Economic
Forum, 2013). Underperformance of primary and secondary
schools was evident, particularly in remote areas where they are
facing problems with a lack of learning materials and a shortage
of qualified teachers, especially in the core subjects (Mathematics,
Science and English) (Atagi, 2011). Consequently, the Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012 reported that
Thai students’ performance in Mathematics was below average
(50th) when compared to other 65 counties e.g. Singapore (2 nd) and
Vietnam (17th). Additionally, results indicated serious inequality
between city and rural students; 49.7% of rural students had low
achievement scores in Mathematics and only 2.6% of high scores
were found in upper class students. Systematic research of
Lounkaew (2013) confirmed that shortage of learning materials
(computer) affected students’ performance in rural areas. The
average number of students per computer in primary school is 14
(Porntipsatien, Kanthamanon, & Funilkul, 2013). Therefore,
improving educational quality and bridging the gap of education
disparity are high priorities.
1.2 ICT4D
According to Heeks (2008), since 1956, the idea of adopting
Information Communication Technology (ICT) for the purposes
of social, political, economic and education development in
developing countries was recognised and called ICT4D
(Information and Communication Technology for Development) .
The history of ICT4D can be divided into three generations. First
generation, ICT4D 0.0, ICT was used only in the government and
business sectors. Next generation, ICT4D 1.0, increased the use of
ICT to tackle poverty and targeted the improvement of health,
education, gender equality and environment. Presently, we are on
the third generation of ICT4D 2.0: the implementation, by the use
of low cost technologies and devices such as tablets, laptops and
web 2.0 (Heeks, 2008). The 2012 “One Laptop Per Child” OLPC
program was introduced by two non-profit organisations in the
USA (Cristia et al., 2012). 2012). XO laptops, a low cost laptop
computer (targeted price at $100 USD) were built to provide
multimedia, collaborative UI and educational software (Yeh,
Gregory, & Ritter, 2010). Approximately two million units were
distributed and implemented in developing countries around the
world such as Uruguay, Peru, Mexico, Ethiopia, Cambodia, Brazil
and India (Kraemer, Dedrick, & Sharma, 2009). Indeed, the results
from a large scale pilot’s evaluation in 319 schools in Peru showed
that the program increased the ratio of students per computer from
0.12 to 1.18. Additionally, students gained more ability to use
general software (word processor) and access to the internet
(Cristia et al., 2012).
Beyond the use of laptop computers in education, the delivery
of education through mobile devices such as the mobile phone and
tablet computer is dramatically increased. In 2014 alone, mobile
broadband subscriptions have grown almost five times faster than
six years earlier (will reach 2.3 billion worldwide) and the growth
rates in developing countries are projected to be twice as high as
in developed countries (International Telecommunication Union,
2014). Rural areas of the developing world now have better
opportunities to use technology through mobile devices. There are
several reasons that mobile devices can empower the
communication and interaction between teachers and learners in
underdeveloped areas. These include high rates of penetration,
ownership, portability and information deliverability (Valk,
Rashid, & Elder, 2010).
1.3 Mobile Learning with Tablet Computers
The global tablet computer market is growing rapidly as a result
of the core competence of mobility and the introduction of touch
interfaces (ease of use, more intuitive and more customisable than
keyboard and mice) (Nichols, 2007). According to IDC research,
tablet computers dominate the desktop PC market with 180.9
million shipments compared to 134.4 million shipments of desktop
PCs (IDC, 2013). Gartner also predicted that in 2015 tablet
computers will achieved 349.1 million units of worldwide sales
compared to 263 million units of desktop computers (Gartner,
2014). This trend persuades educators, researchers and policy
makers around the world to adopt tablet computers into their areas
of interest.
After Microsoft introduced a tablet PC with pen technology in
2002 where users can interact directly with software applications
through its screen by pen rather than keyboard, they were widely
used in personal, business and education settings (Sneller, 2007).
According to Mock (2004), prior of tablet computers were used as
a presentation device in the classroom which allowed teachers to
easily deliver teaching materials and writing notes while they are
teaching like whiteboard use. After that, the effectiveness and
impact of tablet computer use were widely studied in higher
education (Rawat, Elahi, & Massiha, 2008). As a result of the
revolution of the iPad tablet computer in 2010 by Apple, which is
designed to use fingers as a pen, the enormous adoption of tablet
computers in schools has resulted in more than 3,300 schools in
the USA having tablet computers (iPads) to conduct teaching and
learning activity in the classroom (Clarke, Svanaes, &
Zimmermann, 2013). Many European countries have adopted low
cost devices to provide a ubiquitous learning environment
(anywhere anytime access to ICT learning resources), promote
personalised learning and stimulate collaborative learning between
teachers and students (Balanskat et al., 2013). In Asia, Singapore
has quickly responded to the expansion of the use of tablet
computers in education by providing a tablet computer to every
child in schools across the country since 2013 (Clarke et al., 2013).
Following this trend, the Ministry of Education in Thailand has
distributed tablet computers to 129,632 students nationwide. The
project is set to continue to reach its full implementation in 2015
which is the year of regional economic integration among ASEAN
countries (Viriyapong & Harfield, 2013). Several studies have
stated that it is important to prepare children in the digital age
because digital media promotes children’s critical thinking and
active learning and allows them to have control over what they are
doing (W. Van De Bogart, 2012). Moreover, W. Van De Bogart
(2012) cited that more than 58 percent of 5-8 year olds have used
a tablet computer in the USA. As a result of the changing of
children’s consumption of media, this issue will place the
challenge for us to understand and work effectively with children
who become more familiar with innovative use of the tablet
computer.
1.4 Understanding local contexts and genders
Understanding the different local contexts is crucial. Several
studies showed that the main failure of the deployment of mobile
learning in the field is related to “the ignorance of local contexts”
(Viriyapong & Harfield, 2013; Warschauer & Ames, 2010). For
example, OLPC project did not pay enough attention to human,
political and local context as a result failing projects were found in
many developing countries. They focused mainly on delivering
new technology to the people but did not consider the people’s
needs and how they would use the technology efficiently
(Warschauer & Ames, 2010). The hardware and software design
was unrealistic or impractical to use in the field. Researchers also
said there is no empirical study to indicate the significant
improvement of students in academic performance (Cristia et al.,
2012). It may be the case that children in developed countries use
technological devices in their learning (laptops) in different ways
to children in developing countries regardless of their context
(Hansen et al., 2012).
Gender equality is an important research topic in mobile-based
learning as several studies have revealed that gender inequality in
education still persists especially in developing countries
(Balasubramanian, Thamizoli, Umar, & Kanwar, 2010; Donner,
2008; Gulati, 2008). For example, in Thailand, there are still fewer
girls than boys attending primary school (Romanow 2012). To
date, The World Bank reported that the ratio of girls to boys
primary enrolment decreased from 97.3% in 2012 to 95.3% in
2013 compared to 98.8% (2012) in developing countries in East
Asia & Pacific (The World Bank, 2014a). Moreover, several
researchers have investigated the relationship of gender
differences between boys and girls relative to technology
experience and their attitudes and claimed that there are significant
differences such as boys are more likely to have higher experience
with using technology than girls (MacCallum, 2009). It is argued
that “females are at a disadvantage relative to men when learning
about computers or learning other material with the aid of
computer-assisted software” (Cooper, 2006). It is worthwhile to
bridge the gap between genders at an early age because as children
get older, girls are more likely to develop negative attitudes
towards computer technology and resist applying for jobs related
to science and technologies (Comber, Colley, Hargreaves, & Dorn,
1997). Cooper (2006) suggested that the root of the widening gap
comes from anxiety when students interact with technology. If we
can increase technology experience, anxiety towards technology
use will be reduced (Bozionelos, 2001; Fagan, Neill, &
Wooldridge, 2003; Maurer, 1994). Narrowing the gap between
genders and disparity of schools towards technology use is
challenging. Therefore, taking into account and understanding the
differences in attitude and experience between boys and girls in
cases of technology experience and their attitude towards learning
technology use would be essential.
1.5 Understanding Students’ Learning Styles, Technology
Experience and Attitudes
Understanding the preferred learning styles is crucial in order to
design effective mobile learning technology. Students are different
and have individual interests (Cox, Sproles, & Sproles, 1988).
Long term memory and retention is enhanced if individual
preference is taken into account regarding what mode of
instruction or study learners favour (Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, &
Bjork, 2008). Moreover, Dunn, Beaudry, & Klavas (2002) stated
that “students’ achievement increases when teaching methods
match their learning styles”. Although tablet computers are
gradually being adopted to supported traditional learning materials
in school around the world, there are limited numbers of research
studies on the use of tablet computers and learning styles
especially among younger students. However, some literature was
found regarding higher level education that the academic
achievement of students dramatically improves when individual
preferred learning styles are tackled (cited in (Abidin, Rezaee,
Abdullah, & Singh, 2011)). It is difficult to predict if this will also
be the case if these devices are deployed for primary school
students in the developing world.
Information Technology literacy is a key empowerment in
teaching and learning (Ezziane, 2007). It is claimed that “enabling
every student to gain access to instructional resources including
technology and support services would promote academic
excellence” (Mutula, 2005). For instance, research in Thailand
revealed that rural school students have lower academic
performance than urban students due to the differences of
accessing and using technologies in schools (Kantabutra & Tang,
2006). According to a study in Spain, “children who have much
better access to technology, with more technology exposure and
prior knowledge probably experienced less frustration and errors
in their problem solving attempts” (Ferrer, Belvís, & Pàmies,
2011). On the other hand, it has also been found that students who
have less access to, and use of, technologies such as computers and
the internet are likely to gain low academic achievement as a result
(Warschauer, Knobel, & Stone, 2004) and fall behind their
classmates (Mutula, 2005).
2. Methodology and data collection
2.1 OTPC specifications
The tablet’s specifications are 7-inch touch screen, a main
storage unit of 16GB, 1GHz dual core CPU, 512MB RAM, an
Android 3.2 operating system compatible with Android 4.0 and a
front camera (Figure 1). These devices are installed with national
digital learning contents including Science, Maths, Thai, English,
Buddhism, History and Civics (Figure 2) (Leighton, 2012). The
government also provided lesson plans of how the tablets should
be used for teaching in the classroom. Learning contents on the
tablets for grade two students are mostly provided as a text and
images based form (e-book) similar to the physical national printed
study books (Figure 3). In contrast, the grade one learning contents
provided contain more opportunity for interaction such as cartoon
animation, music and after lesson exercises (Figure 4). These
exercises are multiple choice and games.

Figure 1. OTPC tablet computer (Dujanuthat, 2012)
Figure 2. Screen capture of learning contents menu
(SIPA, 2013)
Figure 3. Screen capture of grade 2 learning content
(videolearning.com, 2014)
Figure 4. Screen capture of after lesson exercises (SIPA, 2013)
2.2 School backgrounds
The current study was conducted in four schools located in and
around Chiang Rai (Figure 6), a city at in the northernmost part of
Thailand bordering Laos and Myanmar. Two urban (Anuban
Chiang Rai and Tessaban Seven) and two rural schools (Ban Mae
Khaw Tom and Ban Sun Kong) were selected for this study.
Tessaban Seven school was established by Chiang Rai municipal,
the main language for teaching is Thai with English as a second
language and Chinese as a third language. This school is located
in the centre of Chiang Rai, close to the government offices area.
Another urban school is Anuban Chiang Rai, a government
supported school located in the heart of Chiang Rai. The school
provides education from grade one to six. Students come from
different family backgrounds and diverse areas of Chiang Rai. Ban
Mae Khaw Tom School is a government supported rural school
which is approximately 30 km from Chiang Rai city. Students in
this school are from hill tribes and Thai nationals who come mostly
from farming family. The other rural school is Ban Sun Kong,
located in Mae Chan, approximately 42 km from the city. Most of
the students in this school are disadvantaged and tribal children.
They use their own tribal languages (eg. Akha, Lahu and Karen)
but are able to use Thai for basic communication. Most of them
stay in school accommodation because their homes are on the
mountain close to the border between Thailand and Myanmar.
Figure 6. Chiang Rai, Thailand map
Figure 7. Schools’ environment (top) urban (bottom) rural
2.3 Tablet Teaching and Learning Practices The Computer Attitude Measure (CAM) and Internal Consistency
Reliability for Seven-Factor Structure of the TAC (Christensen &
Currently, only grade two students are using government Knezek, 2009). Background information about computer and
provided tablets which they acquired when they were in grade one. tablet computer use was collected (Sharp, Rogers, & Preece,
Due to the delay of a second shipment of new tablets, first grade 2007). Due to the age of participants, simple wording was used,
students in this year are still waiting for their tablets. Typically, and answers to questions were scaled as two values (like and
tablets are used as supporting teaching and learning in the dislike) and represented with an emoticon (Reynolds-Keefer &
classroom. In urban schools, students have a special one-hour Johnson, 2011). The study took place during the tablet class which
tablet learning class twice a week. Students are able to read and is an additional class for the students who want to use the tablet to
study the lessons on their own. During tablet class, students will review the course content. The research team collected the data
learn how to use tablet computers and review learning contents with the assistance of the classroom teacher. The teacher
which they have learnt in the normal (non-tablet) classes. Teachers introduced the research team to the students. The research team
will remind them of some facts and key points, and then let the introduced the aim of the study and distributed questionnaire
students follow the lesson on the tablet computers. Urban students sheets to the students in the classroom. The teacher read the
are permitted to take the tablet computer home at weekends. questions out loud and the research members and teachers helped
Teachers will provide exercises for the students to do with tablet some students with their questionnaire when they encountered
computers such as exploring specific learning topics or searching problems. Additionally, students’ grades were acquired from their
related information about particular topics by using Google or teachers for statistical analysis. The grades were ranked as three
YouTube (no child contents filter was installed in the machine). categories (excellent, average and weak learner).
In rural schools, teachers have to design and conduct tablet lessons
by themselves following the national tablet’s lesson plan. The 4. Data analysis
majority of students come from rural areas or are hill tribe children
who have lower academic performance than urban students. In 4.1 Demographic Profile of Students
some lessons, teachers will allow students to use tablet computers
to review lessons in the specific topics. As a result of cartoon The study involved 213 grade two students whose ages ranged
animation, music and games in tablet computer lessons, students from 7-16 years old (Table 1). It should be noted that some
are willing to learn enthusiastically and they are happy. disadvantaged and tribal students in rural schools are older than
Sometimes, when the teacher allows students to have free time to normal national standard age of second grade students (7-9 years
use tablets, they are likely to discover other applications such as old). Because of their rural location these schools are more flexible
drawing pictures, taking and editing photos or playing games in regarding the age of the students attending to ensure all local
learning contents. There is no provision for students in rural children have access to education.
schools to take the tablet computers home at the weekend, due to
security reasons. And, if the tablet computer is damaged, it is
Table 1. Demographic profiles of students in urban and rural areas
complicated to claim and repair.
Students Students Total
in urban in rural N=213
Item
area area
N (%) N (%) N (%)
Age range 7-16 M=8.31 M=9.52 M= 8.96
Gender
Boy 54 (47.8) 59 (52.2) 113 (53.1)
Girl 44 (44) 56 (56) 100 (46.9)
Education level
Figure 7: tablet computer class of urban school (left) and grade two 98 (46) 115 (54) 213 (100)
rural school (right) home location 98 (46) 115 (54) 213 (100)
School
Anuban Chiang Rai (urban) 55 (67.1) 27 (32.9) 82 (38.5)
2.4 Data Collection Procedure
Tessaban Seven (urban) 13 (50) 13 (50) 26 (12.2)
In this study, the students’ learning styles and attitude towards Mae Kaw Tom (rural) 29 (46.8) 33 (53.2) 62 (29.1)
tablet computer use were investigated. Questionnaires were Ban Sun Kong (rural) 1 (2.3) 42 (97.7) 43 (20.2)
administered with the help of teachers to collect data on student Academic Performance
basic profiles, technology experience, student learning styles and Excellent learner 17 (34) 33 (66) 50 (23.5)
attitude towards tablet computer use (see Appendix A for the full
Average learner 52 (48.1) 56 (51.9) 108 (50.7)
questionnaire). Specifically, to understand students’ learning
Weak learner 29 (52.7) 26 (47.3) 55 (25.8)
styles, participants were asked to answer questions in five
categories including VAK learning styles test: Kinaesthetic (learn
best by moving, touching and doing), Auditory (learn best by Generally, there were slightly more boys (53.1%) than girls
listening), Visual Learning style (learn best by seeing through (46.9%) studying in grade two of whom 46% live in urban areas
picture or diagram) (Cohen & Oxford, 2006) and Collaborative and another 54% live in rural areas. 46.8% urban students were
which is based on Index of Learning Styles (ILS) and Competitive found in Mae Kaw Tom (rural school) due to this school’s location
learning style (Riechmann & Grasha, 1974). Questions relating to close to both urban and rural areas. The distribution of students’
the user attitudes toward tablet computer use were divided into academic performance shows the majority of students were
four sections: Enthusiasm/Enjoyment, Anxiety, Avoidance/ characterised by the teachers to be average learners (50.7%)
Acceptance, and Productivity, which are based on Modification of compared with excellent learners (23.5%) and weak learners
(25.8%). Rural areas had more excellent learners (N=33) than 4.3 Students’ learning styles
urban areas (N=17) due to the students’ academic performance
being subjectively evaluated by their class teacher. To avoid a As aforementioned, consideration of students’ different learning
misleading result, separate consideration of students’ home styles is very important in order to achieve better learning
locations was performed. outcomes (Stickel & Hum, 2008). Therefore, we would like to look
into the different learning styles of students in relation to their
4.2 Technology experience home location and gender. Overall means in Table 4 indicated that
Kinesthetic learning style (M=2.74) is least preferred by the
According to Ezziane (2007), technology experience is a key majority of students who live in both urban and rural areas
to empowerment for teaching and learning. Thus, we examined compared to other learning styles.
technology experience among students in urban and rural areas Looking at the difference between urban and rural students, t-
(Table 2). tests (Table 4) showed that there was a significant difference in
competitive learning styles (p<.028) where rural students had a
Table 2. Frequency and percentage of students’ experience with higher competitive learning style (M=3.57) than urban students
(M=3.30). Similar results were found in the USA indicating that
technology between urban and rural area.
the students in the rural working class community were more
Urban Rural highly competitive than the suburban students (Butensky et al.
Items N=98 N=115 1976). We also found a significant difference in visual learning
N (%) N (%) styles between boys and girls (p<.032) where girls had higher
Have you used a tablet computer before? 92 (93.9) 111 (96.5) scores (M=4.23) than boys (M=3.96). Our result contrasts with the
Have you used a computer before?** 96 (98) 80 (69.6)
research looking into students in developed countries which found
no significant difference in learning style preferences between
Do you have internet at home?** 67 (68.4) 44 (38.3)
genders (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2007; Shaw & Marlow, 1999).
Do you have a tablet at home?** 62 (63.3) 44 (38.3)
Do you have a computer at home?** 74 (75.5) 62 (53.9)
Table 4. Mean scores of learning styles of students by gender and
Do you have a mobile phone at home? 92 (93.9) 107 93.0)
location
*Significant at p<.05, ** Significant at p<.01
Overall Home location Gender
Means Urban Rural Boy Girl
Chi-square tests showed that unsurprisingly, students in urban Item
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
areas had more experience of computer use than students in rural 2.74 2.72 2.75 2.81(1.090) 2.65
areas (x2 (1, N=115) = 29.71, p<.001). In addition, more urban Kinesthetic
(1.071) (1.147) (1.007) (1.048)
students had internet access at home than those who live in rural
3.84 3.78 3.90 (.959) 3.73 3.97
areas, x2 (1) = 19.22, p<.001. We also found more urban students Auditory
had tablet computers (x2 (1, N=98) = 13.23, p<.001) and (0.922) (1.031) (1.046) (.915)
computers (x2 (1) = 10.70, p<.001) at home than rural students. 4.08 4.03 4.13 (.932) 3.96 4.23
Visual
However, there was no statistical significance in the ownership (0.933) (.936) (1.003) (.827)*
of mobile phones. This is in line with previous studies in 3.44 3.28 3.58 3.35 3.55
developing countries where mobile phone ownership is prevalent Collaborative
(1.183) (1.191) (1.162) (1.208) (1.149)
(Sife, Kiondo, & Lyimo-Macha, 2010).
3.44 3.30 3.57(.880)* 3.48 (.955) 3.40
Competitive
(0.892) (.888) (.816)
Table 3. Mean scores of technology experience of students by gender
*Significant at p<.05 , ** Significant at p<.01
and home location
Home location Gender
4.4 Attitudes toward tablet computer use
Urban Rural Boy Girl
Item M M
M (SD) M (SD) El-Gayar, Moran, & Hawkes (2011) found that attitude towards
(SD) (SD)
tablet computer use was a key factor to predict the usage pattern
Technology 4.93 3.90
4.51 (1.402) 4.21 (1.479) of tablet computer use in education settings. Thus, we are
Experience (1.186) (1.477)
interested to compare the attitude towards tablet computer use and
*Significant at p<.05 , ** Significant at p<.01 group variables (home location and gender). Table 5 shows the
majority of students in different home locations enjoyed using
tablet computers in the classroom (M=3.79). In addition, students
Independent t-tests (Table 3) showed that there was a
also had high positive attitudes towards tablet productivity
statistically significant difference between urban students and
(M=3.76) and tablet acceptance (M=3.12). Furthermore, the mean
rural students respectively (p<.001) in technology experience.
score of tablet anxiety was generally low (M=1.54).
Results indicated that urban students (M=4.93) had higher
Results of independent t-test analysis revealed that urban and
technology experience than rural students (M=3.90). This is
rural students were significantly different on tablet anxiety
similar to Rossing, Miller, Cecil, & Stamper (2012)’s result that
(p<.045) and acceptance (p<.031). As expected, rural students had
showed that poorer children have more than 50% less experience
higher anxiety (M=1.71) than urban students (M=1.33), and rural
with computers and mobile technology than rich children in the
students (M=2.96) had lower tablet acceptance than urban students
same age group. However, there was no significant difference
(M=3.32). However, as far as gender was concerned, there was no
between genders in students’ experience with technology. Our
significant difference between boys and girls in attitude towards
result is dissimilar to earlier research which reported that boys of
tablet computer use.
secondary school age had greater computer experience than girls
(Comber et al., 1997; Young, 2000).
Table 5. Mean scores of attitude towards tablet computer use by gender anxiety still existed within students who had different learning
and location styles.
Moreover, our study showed that tablet acceptance had positive
Overall Home location Gender
significant relationships with enjoyment (p<.001) and production
Means Urban Rural Boy Girl
of tablet computer use (p<.001). There was a negative significant
Item M M M M relationship between acceptance and anxiety of tablet computer
M (SD)
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) use (r= -.154, p<.025). In short, if students had less anxiety and
3.79 3.69 3.87 3.84 3.73 high productivity and enjoyment towards tablet use, they would
Enjoyment
(1.085) (1.097) (1.072) (1.130) (1.033) have high tablet acceptance. Similar results were found that using
1.54 1.33 1.71 1.70 1.35
technology as an educational tool such as a computer or tablet
Anxiety
(1.406) (1.398) (1.394)* (1.382) (1.417)
computer resulted in an increased anxiety towards technology use
in students (Anderson, 1996). However, further findings found
3.12 3.32 2.96 3.17 3.07
Acceptance that anxiety has a negative relationship with students’ acceptance
(1.219) (1.071) (1.314)* (1.179) (1.265) of tablet computers (Chua, Chen, & Wong, 1999). For example, if
Production
3.76 3.67 3.83 3.81 3.71 students have less anxiety about tablet use, they are more likely to
(1.083) (1.191) (.982) (1.109) (1.057) have high tablet acceptance.
*Significant at p<.05 , ** Significant at p<.01
4.6 Students’ Academic Performance
According to various research studies, the tablet computers
4.5 Relationship between technology experience, learning styles could enhance students’ academic performance and motivation
and attitude towards tablet computer use (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2007; Rossing et al., 2012). Therefore,
we would like to find out which group of students could most
Bivariate correlation analysis was performed in order to benefit from tablet computer use. A multinomial logistic
determine the relationships between a range of variables regression was performed to analyse the relationships between
(technology experience, learning styles and attitude towards tablet students’ academic performance and a range of predictor variables
use for students in urban and rural area). A number of empirical including technology experience, student learning styles and
research studies found significant connections between technology attitude towards tablet computer use, gender and home location.
experience, anxiety and user acceptance of computer technology Our results were presented as follows:
(El-Gayar & Moran, 2006; El-Gayar et al., 2011). Similar to these
studies, our results in Table 6 showed that technology experience 4.6.1 Students’ academic performance and technology
of students was negatively linked to tablet anxiety (r = -.417, experience
p<.001) and positively linked to user acceptance of tablet
computers (r = .328, p<.001). Taken together, these results Table 7 shows that the predictor, technology experience has a
suggested that students who had less technology experience were significant effect on weak learners relative to average learners
more likely to have high anxiety of tablet computer use. In (p<.045). In other words, if weak learners had more technology
contrast, if students had high technology experience, their tablet experience, they are likely to become average learners. For each
computer acceptance increased. unit increase of confidence in technology experience, the chances
of being in the group of average learners increases by 76.9%.
Where learning styles and attitudes were concerned, we found Moreover, we found that boys were more likely to be weak
students who preferred auditory and competitive learning style learners than girls (p<.001).
appreciated time for tablet computer use (p<.001). This indicates
that the tablet computer is an appropriate tool for auditory and
competitive learners. Surprisingly, high levels of anxiety about
tablet use were also found with auditory (p<.001), visual (p<.004)
and competitive learners (p<.006). It is interesting to note that

Table 6. Correlations among variables (r)

Technology Learning styles Attitude towards tablet computer use
Items
Experience Kinesthetic Auditory Visual Collaborative Competitive Enjoyment Anxiety Acceptant Production
Technology Experience 1.00
Kinesthetic Learning Style -.120
Auditory Learning Style -.291** .218**
**
Visual Learning Style -.192 .136* .484**
** **
Collaborative Learning Style -.262 .211 .277** .184**
** *
Competitive Learning Style -.183 -.046 .149 .091 .208**
Tablet Enjoyment .065 -.06 .245** .13 .117 .165*
Tablet Anxiety -.417** .094 .221** .138* .13 .187** -.123
Tablet Acceptance .328** -.001 -.027 -.051 -.024 .007 .269** -.154*
** ** ** ** **
Tablet Production .066 .185 .302 .188 .186 .061 .262 .081 .347** 1.00
*Significant at p<.05, ** Significant at p<.01
Table 7. Multinomial logistic regression of students’ academic Table 9: Multinomial logistic regression of students’ academic
performance and technology experience performance and attitude towards tablet computer use
Excellent learner Weak learner Excellent learner Weak learner

Exp Exp Exp Exp

B SE p (B) B SE p (B) B SE (B) B SE (B)
Technology -.047 .128 .717 .955 -.263 .131 .045* .769
Enjoyment -.056 .176 .946 -.186 .169 .830
Experience
Anxiety -.131 .141 .878 .346 .130 1.413**
[Gender=Boy] .335 .349 .336 1.399 1.199 .362 .001** 3.316
[Location=Urban] -.550 .379 .147 .577 .428 .373 .251 1.534 Acceptance -.259 .161 .772 -.217 .165 .805
The reference category is: Average learner. Production -.185 .179 .831 -.071 .182 .932
*Significant at p<.05, ** Significant at p<.01 [Gender=Boy] .404 .356 1.498 1.116 .374 3.052**
[Location=Urban] -.598 .377 .550 .306 .365 1.358

4.6.2 Students’ academic performance and learning styles The reference category is: Average learner.
*Significant at p<.05 , ** Significant at p<.01
With regard to student’s self-assessed learning styles (Table 8),
we found that interestingly, collaborative learning style had a
significant effect on excellent learners relative to average learners 5. Discussion
(p<.015). It shows that if excellent learners had high scores on
collaborative learning style, they were likely to be an average In the following sections, we discuss our findings within the
learner. The chance of being an excellent learner decreased by context of the existing body of literature in this area. Wherever
67.4% for each unit increase of confidence in collaborative appropriate, we draw possible considerations for mobile learning
learning style. Apart from collaborative learning style, no technology design based on the results.
statistically significant differences were found in other predictors.
However, it is worth noting that students with increased scores for 5.1 Gender Differences
auditory, visual and collaborative learning style reduce the
likelihood of their being weak learners. Gender differences in technology experience among students
have been studied extensively. It is generally agreed that there is a
Table 8. Multinomial logistic regression of students’ academic technology gap between boys and girls. For instance, Comber et
al. (1997) and Young (2000)’s study found that secondary school
performance and learning styles
boys had greater computer experience than girls. Our study,
Excellent learner Weak learner however, found no significant difference between boys’ and girls’
technology experience. Most of the students we studied had a
Exp Exp
relative high level of experience in not only general computers but
B SE (B) B SE (B) specifically tablet computers. This is perhaps unsurprising because
Kinesthetic -.299 .174 .741 .057 .171 1.059 the students have been using tablet computers in the classroom
Auditory .340 .220 1.404 -.103 .205 .902 since first grade. Moreover, the majority of students of both
Visual -.214 .218 .807 -.010 .211 .990 genders had computers and mobile phones at home. When
Collaborative -.394 .161 .674* -.093 .161 .911
analysing students’ technology attitudes, again we found no
significant differences between genders. Both genders enjoyed
Competitive -.121 .208 .886 .111 .201 1.117
using the tablet computer and had a high acceptance level of tablet
[Gender=Boy] .322 .364 1.380 1.044 .364 2.841**
computers and a positive attitude towards tablet productivity.
[Location=Urban] -.799 .378 .450 .137 .349 1.147 Our results are in contrast to several key studies in gender
The reference category is: Average learner. differences and technology. For instance, related investigation of
*Significant at p<.05 , ** Significant at p<.01 gender and attitudes towards computers in the USA using 1,750
secondary school students found a significant difference between
genders where girls had fear of, and felt helpless in, computer use
4.6.3 Students’ academic performance and attitude towards (Shashaani, 1997). We should, however, emphasise that some of
tablet computer use these studies in this area were carried out more than a decade ago
(Comber et al., 1997; Young, 2000) when computers were less
Table 9 shows the relationships between students’ academic pervasive in the everyday life of younger users. Furthermore, our
performance and attitude towards tablet computer use. We found study focused on younger students with a mean age of 8.96 years.
students’ academic performance was predicted by anxiety about Previous studies have shown that the gap in computer use between
tablet use, b=-.131, Wald x2(1) = 6.46, p <.008. The odds ratio tells boys and girls increases as they are get older. For example,
us that as this variable increased by a unit, the change in the odds Wehrwein, Lujan and DiCarlo (2007) found that boys and girls in
of weak learners (rather than average learners) is 1.41. In short, as primary school up to grade four have little difference in computer
anxiety increases, students are more likely to increase the chance attitudes. As they grow older, boys develop a stronger interest in
of being in the group of weak learners than average learners. computer use beyond the classroom.
Turning to the link between genders and learning styles, we
found that apart from visual learning style, both genders seem to
have relatively similar learning styles. These results have
similarity with Shaw and Marlow (1999) who found no significant
difference in learning styles between male and female
undergraduate students towards the use of information and
communication technology assisted learning. Consequently,
results were found by Demirbas and Demirkan (2007) which
showed learning style preferences did not significantly differ by
gender. On the other hand, several researchers found gender
differences in learning styles (Philbin, Meier, Huffman, &
Boverie, 1995; Severiens & Dam, 1997). For example, female
students prefer learning from physical experience such as tactile
and performing activities (Wehrwein et al., 2007). Nevertheless,
this data must be interpreted with caution in the context of the
current study because most of the previous studies were conducted
on high school and undergraduate students. This points to an
interesting research direction on how to maintain girls’ interest in
computers beyond the formal education setting, in order to close
the gender gap, thus allowing girls to benefit further from
technology in learning.
5.2 Urban vs. Rural
The wider gap between urban and rural areas results in
increasing educational inequality. For instance Mutula (2005)
found that students who have low computer competency would
lose 70% of higher paying jobs which require high computer skills.
Unsurprisingly, our study found that rural students had lower
technology experience than urban students. Our results are
consistent with the study in the USA, where researchers found
evidence of “app gap” wherein poor children have more than 50%
less experience with mobile technology than rich children in the
same group and only 2% of poor children have access to a mobile
tablet in the house, compared to 17% of rich children (Rossing et
al., 2012). This is expected because urban families can afford to
provide technology for their child such as internet, tablet
computer, computer and mobile phone due to the fact they have
higher incomes than rural families. This can be confirmed by The
World Bank report that the majority of poverty in Thailand is
located in rural areas particularly in the North and Northeast of
Thailand and in some ethnic groups (The World Bank, 2014b).
When the links between learning styles and home locations were
taken into account, there was a significant difference in
competitive learning style where rural students were more
competitive than urban students. A possible explanation for this
might be due to the students in rural areas having realised that they
had less opportunity in education and opportunity in life, therefore
they need be more competitive than urban students. This finding
supports prior research which reported that rural students in India
had higher concentration and engagement in the educational
process than urban students (Cox et al., 1988) and 174 students in
the fifth, ninth and twelfth grades in the rural working class
community in the USA had higher achievement orientation than
suburban students (Butensky, Faralli, Heebner, & Waldron, 1976).
In the case of students’ attitudes, students in both areas had
positive attitudes towards tablet computer use in enjoyment and
production and had high scores on acceptance of tablet computers.
They thought using tablet computers is fun, exciting and useful for
learning in the classroom. This finding is in line with an earlier
study, which suggested that if students have high positive attitudes
and confidence about tablet usage, technology perception will be
increased as a result (El-Gayar & Moran, 2006). However, when
each component of students’ attitudes in both areas were
compared, rural students had higher anxiety and less tablet
acceptance than urban students. These cases can be explained by
the fact that in our results rural area students had less experience
of computer use than students in urban areas. This is similar with
empirical research studies that anxiety is negatively related with
technology experience (Bozionelos, 2001; Fagan et al., 2003;
Maurer, 1994); people who have high technology experience will
have low level of anxiety. The experience of technology use such
as computer, internet and mobile phone seems to be advantageous
in eliminating anxiety but the question of how to improve the
technological familiarity and experience of rural students towards
tablet computer use will need further investigation.
5.3 Relationship between learning styles and attitudes towards
tablet computer use
In reviewing the literature, limited data was found on the
association between learning styles and attitude towards tablet
computer use. Our study indicated that students who preferred
auditory, visual and high competitive learning style were more
likely to have high anxiety on tablet computer use. It is not clear
to us why students who preferred to study learning contents using
audio and picture or video study methods were more likely to
develop anxiety rather than those who liked activity and group
based learning (Kinaesthetic & Collaborative). This result may be
caused by inappropriate learning content/activity being provided
for students who have a variety of learning styles and context. This
idea may be supported by prior research which found that students
will experience more anxiety when they are taught with a
mismatched learning style (Garcia-Otero & Teddlie, 1992). Thai
teachers also pointed out that the learning contents on provided
tablet computers is insufficient to deliver appropriate learning to
learners, because of a lack of interactive content design or
provision of poor user interface both of which are inappropriate
for primary school students (Viriyapong & Harfield, 2013). This
will place the challenges for researchers to redesign learning
contents and propose new applications to support students who
have a variety of learning styles or preferences.
5.4 Students’ academic performance on tablet computer use
An interesting finding in view of student’s academic
performance and tablet computer use was that technology
experience seemed to have significant benefits for weak learners
relative to average learners. We found that increased technology
experience of tablet computer use in weak learners will result in
enhancing their learning outcomes. One possible explanation is
that when students become more familiar with technologies such
as computer, internet, mobile phone and tablet computer, they will
have more confidence or less frustration (Ezziane, 2007) and
acquire knowledge more effectively (Shih, Muñoz, & Sánchez,
2006) than students who have lower technology experience.
Various studies highlighted collaboration as one of the main
advantages of mobile learning and that collaboration improves
learning performance (Dhir, Gahwaji, & Nyman, 2013; Kearney,
Schuck, Burden, & Aubusson, 2012). However, surprisingly,
based on the results of this study, it appeared that the performance
of excellent learners was significantly negatively affected by a
collaborative learning style. Our results revealed that generally
excellent learners were likely to be average learners when they had
high scores for collaborative learning style. In other words,
excellent learners preferred to study as individuals in isolation. It
may be that excellent learners were unlikely to work effectively as
a group compared to other types of learners. This may also be
caused by excellent learners being socially ignored by their
friends. This idea is supported by Johnson, Johnson, and Taylor
(1993)’s research study in the USA which stated that the
achievement of high ability students was affected by academic
self-esteem and peer rejection. Additionally, their research study
confirmed that cooperative learning conditions can improve self-
esteem, achievement and peer acceptance.
Turning to the relationships between students’ academic
performance and attitude towards tablet computer use, our findings
showed that weak learners have higher anxiety when they use a
tablet computer rather than average learners. This finding was
consistent with Chua et al. (1999), who found a strong correlation
between learning performance and computer anxiety where
technology anxiety negatively related to students’ performance.
Moreover, cited by Fagan et al. (2003), “high levels of anxiety can
affect behaviour leading to lowered performance”.
Taken together, it is difficult to conclude which type of students
had the most benefit from the use of the tablet computer. As such,
we believe that learning performance of all types of learners can
be enhanced through our clear understanding of students’ profiles,
learning styles and attitudes. Provision of particular learning
experiences related to the students’ needs will result in the
maximisation of their learning speed, effectiveness and
satisfaction (Gómez, Zervas, Sampson, & Fabregat, 2013).
6. Limitations of the research
Furthermore, apart from the technical and technological point of
view, future research study needs to be concerned with
pedagogical development: providing appropriate curriculum and
learning activities which can support the use of tablet computers
more efficiently. Therefore, the wider use of the tablet computer is
generated and develops over time. We hope that our findings will
offer some useful guidelines in designing and developing mobile
learning applications on the tablet computer in emerging countries.
Acknowledgement
The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the research
staff in the School Information Technology, Mae Fah Luang
University.

A possible limitation of this preliminary study may be the

confined geography of the samples. The sample was generally
representative of students in Chiang Rai. To expand the variety of
participants and gain more beneficial results, surveys should be
widely conducted in other parts of Thailand. As we conducted this
research with children, the questions to answers were scaled as two
values. This will limit the levels to measure the respondents’
opinion across the population. To produce more defined feedback,
simplified five ordered response levels need to be provided in any
future study. Lastly, with the time limitation of data collection, the
current research has only examined the students’ academic
performance as evaluated by the class teachers. It is, therefore,
recommended to allow more time to track the progression of
students’ learning performance and evaluate it with the same
measurement.

7. Conclusion

It is crucial to take into account where students have

encountered unequal educational standards and less opportunity to
engage with learning technologies. Variation in literacy levels and
learning style preferences should also be considered. Our
systematic preliminary study results indicated that both students in
urban and rural areas were enjoying using, and had positive
attitudes towards, tablet computer use. However, beyond the wow
factor, tablet computers will be useless and unaccepted if we fail
to understand the students’ needs more effectively. Our in-depth
analysis suggested that:

 Reduce gender difference: providing appropriate

teaching and learning contents for students who have
different learning styles could maintain girls’ interest in
technology when they get older
 Decreasing gap between urban and rural students:
increasing technology experience and accessibility to
sufficient learning resources of students in
underprivileged areas could decrease anxiety of tablet
computer use and result in increased students’ enjoyment
and technology acceptance
 Increase students’ learning ability and achievements:
individual students’ learning needs have to be tackled.
Therefore, learning contents need to be redesigned to
meet local contexts and support students who have
different literacy levels. Introducing context awareness
through ubiquitous learning environment on tablet
computers will be appropriated with the aim to facilitate
individual student needs, narrow the gap between
genders and students who live in rural and urban areas in
developing countries
Appendix A. Questionnaire for students

Class name…………………………………….
Your age……………………… You are a: □ Boy □ Girl
Do you have the internet at home? □ Yes □ No
Do you have a tablet at home? □ Yes □ No
Do you have a computer at home? □ Yes □ No
Do you have a mobile phone at home? □ Yes □ No
Have you used tablet PC before? □ Yes □ No
Have you used a computer before? □ Yes □ No

Please answer the following questions:

How I like to learn?

1. I like sitting still in classroom

2. I like to use my hands to describe things
3. I like to walk around when I’m working
4. I like note taking while I’m studying
5. I like to act and do drama

1. I remember when listening to teacher

2. I remember better when listening
3. I like listening to music or songs
4. I can remember my friends from their voice
5. I love telling stories or jokes

1. I like looking at maps and pictures

2. I remember something better if I write it down
3. I like to doodle and make notes when I learn something new
4. I can remember people’s faces
5. I can do it if my teacher shows me how to do it

1. I like group study

2. I like to share my ideas with my friends
3. I like to work alone
4. I know more when I talk to my friends
5. My friends’ ideas are useful

1. If I practise more, I will have a good grade

2. I want to win when I compete with my friends
3. I like competitive class activity
4. My current grade is OK!
5. I also practise lessons after class
What do I think about tablet computers?

1. Studying on a tablet computer is fun

2. Tablet computers are exciting
3. Learning about tablet computers is boring to me.
4. I want to use a tablet computer at my home
5. Tablet computers can do many things

1. The tablet computer is difficult to understand

2. I don’t want to touch a tablet computer, it scares me
3. I feel confident when using a tablet computer
4. A tablet computer would make me nervous
5. In the classroom, I feel uncomfortable when using a tablet computer

1. I like to learn with a tablet computer

2. I like to read books and write down on paper rather than using a tablet computer
3. Someday I will have my own tablet computer
4. Everyone can use a tablet computer
5. I want to carry a tablet computer everywhere

1. A tablet computer is useful in the classroom

2. A tablet computer is useful outside classroom
3. I like to learn with a tablet computer
4. I can do many things with a tablet computer
5. I can show my works by using a tablet computer

References
Abidin, M. J. Z., Rezaee, A. A., Abdullah, H. N., & Singh, K. K. B. (2011). Learning
styles and overall academic achievement in a specific educational system.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 143-152.
Anderson, A. A. (1996). Predictors of computer anxiety and performance in information
systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(1), 61-77.
Atagi, R. (2011). Secondary teacher policy research in asia: Secondary teachers in
thailand. (). Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok.
Bahamondez, Elba del Carmen Valderrama, Winkler, C., & Schmidt, A. (2011).
Utilizing multimedia capabilities of mobile phones to support teaching in schools
in rural panama. CHI, 935-944.
Balanskat, A., Bannister, D., Hertz, B., Sigillò, E., Vuorikari, R., Kampylis, P. Punie, Y.
(2013). Overview and analysis of 1: 1 learning initiatives in europe Publications
Office.
Balasubramanian, K., Thamizoli, P., Umar, A., & Kanwar, A. (2010). Using mobile
phones to promote lifelong learning among rural women in southern india.
Distance Education, 31(2), 193-209.
Bozionelos, N. (2001). Computer anxiety: Relationship with computer experience and
prevalence. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(2), 213-224.
Butensky, A., Faralli, V., Heebner, D., & Waldron, I. (1976). Elements of the coronary
prone behavior pattern in children and teen-agers. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 20(5), 439-444.
Christensen, R. W., & Knezek, G. A. (2009). Construct validity for the teachers’
attitudes toward computers questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Teacher
Education, 25(4), 143-155.
Chua, S. L., Chen, D., & Wong, A. F. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: A
meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 609-623.
Clarke, B., Svanaes, S., & Zimmermann, S. (2013). One-to-one tablets in secondary
schools: An evaluation study. Tablets for Schools,[Online] Available at:
Http://Tabletsforschools.Org.Uk/Wp-Content/Uploads/2012/12/FKY-Tablets-
for-Schools-Stage-2-Full-Report-July-2013.Pdf,
Cohen, A. D., & Oxford, R. (2006). Learning style survey for young learners.
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Advanced Research on Language Acquisition,
University of Minnesota., (Cohen & Weaver), 29-31.
Comber, C., Colley, A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Dorn, L. (1997). The effects of age, gender
and computer experience upon computer attitudes. Educational Research, 39(2),
123-133.
Cooper, J. (2006). The digital divide: The special case of gender. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 22(5), 320-334.
Cox, D. E., Sproles, E. K., & Sproles, G. B. (1988). Learning style variations between
rural and urban students. Research in Rural Education, 5(1), 27-31.
Cristia, J., Ibarrarán, P., Cueto, S., Santiago, A., & Severín, E. (2012). Technology and
child development: Evidence from the one laptop per child program.
Demirbas, O. O., & Demirkan, H. (2007). Learning styles of design students and the
relationship of academic performance and gender in design education. Learning
and Instruction, 17(3), 345-359.
Dhir, A., Gahwaji, N. M., & Nyman, G. (2013). The role of the iPad in the hands of the
learner. J.UCS, 19(5), 706-727.
Donner, J. (2008). Research approaches to mobile use in the developing world: A review
of the literature. The Information Society, 24(3), 140-159.
Dujanuthat, K. (2012). Review: OTPC tablet for students. Retrieved from
http://news.siamphone.com/news-08017.html
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J. S., & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of research on learning styles.
California Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 75-98.
El-Gayar, O. F., & Moran, M. (2006). College students’ acceptance of tablet PCs: An
application of the UTAUT model. Dakota State University, 820
El-Gayar, O. F., Moran, M., & Hawkes, M. (2011). Students' acceptance of tablet PCs
and implications for educational institutions. Educational Technology & Society,
14(2), 58-70.
ESDC. (2013). The results of a pilot study of using tablet PC in the classroom. Retrieved
from https://sites.google.com/site/esdcwebsite/khorngkar-wicay-tidtam-phl-kar-
chi-thaeblet-ni-kar-reiyn-ru-khxng-nakreiyn-chan-prathm-suksa-pi-thi-1
Ezziane, Z. (2007). Information technology literacy: Implications on teaching and
learning. Educational Technology & Society, 10(3), 175-191.
Fagan, M. H., Neill, S., & Wooldridge, B. R. (2003). An empirical investigation into the
relationship between computer self-efficacy, anxiety, experience, support and
usage. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(2), 95.
Ferrer, F., Belvís, E., & Pàmies, J. (2011). Tablet PCs, academic results and educational
inequalities. Computers & Education, 56(1), 280-288.
Fry, G. W., & Bi, H. (2013). The evolution of educational reform in Thailand: The thai
educational paradox. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 290-319.
Garcia-Otero, M., & Teddlie, C. (1992). The effect of knowledge of learning styles on
anxiety and clinical performance of nurse anesthesiology students. AANA
Journal, 60(3), 257-260.
Gartner, I. (2014). Gartner says worldwide PC shipments declined 6.9 percent in fourth
quarter of 2013. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2692318
Gómez, S., Zervas, P., Sampson, D. G., & Fabregat, R. (2013). Context-aware adaptive
and personalized mobile learning delivery supported by UoLmP. Journal of King
Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences,
Gulati, S. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning in developing nations: A review. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1)
Hansen, N., Koudenburg, N., Hiersemann, R., Tellegen, P. J., Kocsev, M., & Postmes, T.
(2012). Laptop usage affects abstract reasoning of children in the developing
world. Computers & Education, 59(3), 989-1000.
Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The next phase of applying ICT for international
development. Computer, 41(6), 26-33.
IDC. (2013). Tablet shipments forecast to top total PC shipments in the fourth quarter of
2013 and annually by 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24314413
International Telecommunication Union. (2014). ITU releases 2014 ICT figures.
Retrieved from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Taylor, B. (1993). Impact of cooperative and
individualistic learning on high-ability students' achievement, self-esteem, and
social acceptance. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(6), 839-844.
Kantabutra, S., & Tang, J. C. (2006). Urban-rural and size effects on school efficiency:
The case of northern thailand. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(4), 355-377.
Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Burden, K., & Aubusson, P. (2012). Viewing mobile learning
from a pedagogical perspective. Research in Learning Technology, 20
Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs.
reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66-73.
Leighton, S. (2012). Outcome document: Asia pacific ministerial forum on ICT in
education (AMFIE) 2012. (). Thailand: UNESCO Bangkok.
Lounkaew, K. (2013). Explaining urban–rural differences in educational achievement in
thailand: Evidence from PISA literacy data. Economics of Education Review, 37,
213-225.
MacCallum, K. (2009). Student characteristics and variables that determine mobile
learning adoption: An initial study. Proceedings of the Universal College of
Learning: Teaching and Learning Conference, 1-8.
Maurer, M. M. (1994). Computer anxiety correlates and what they tell us: A literature
review. Computers in Human Behavior, 10(3), 369-376.
Mock, K. (2004). Teaching with tablet PC's. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges,
20(2), 17-27.
Mutula, S. M. (2005). Peculiarities of the digital divide in sub-saharan africa. Program:
Electronic Library and Information Systems, 39(2), 122-138.
Nichols, S. J. V. (2007). New interfaces at the touch of a fingertip. Computer, 40(8), 12-
15.
OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 results in focus what 15-year-olds know and what they can do
with what they know. ().OECD.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and
evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
Philbin, M., Meier, E., Huffman, S., & Boverie, P. (1995). A survey of gender and
learning styles. Sex Roles, 32(7-8), 485-494.
Porntipsatien, K., Kanthamanon, P., & Funilkul, S. (2013). A conceptual framework for
effectively addressing the digital divide in thai primary schools: A case study of
thailand. The International Conference on E-Technologies and Business on the
Web (EBW2013), 33-39.
Rawat, K. S., Elahi, M., & Massiha, G. H. (2008). A pilot project in evaluating the use of
tablet PCs and supporting technologies in sophomore electronic technology
courses. IAJC-IJME International Conference on Engineering & Technology,
Nashville, TN, USA,
Reynolds-Keefer, L., & Johnson, R. (2011). Is a picture is worth a thousand words?
creating effective questionnaires with pictures. Practical Assessment, Research
& Evaluation, 16(8), 2.
Riechmann, S. W., & Grasha, A. F. (1974). A rational approach to developing and
assessing the construct validity of a student learning style scales instrument. The
Journal of Psychology, 87(2), 213-223.
Rossing, J. P., Miller, W. M., Cecil, A. K., & Stamper, S. E. (2012). iLearning: The
future of higher education? student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1-26.
Severiens, S., & Dam, G. T. (1997). Gender and gender identity differences in learning
styles. Educational Psychology, 17(1-2), 79-93.
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human-computer
interaction. 2002,
Shashaani, L. (1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college
students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37-52.
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.
Shih, P., Muñoz, D., & Sánchez, F. (2006). The effect of previous experience with
information and communication technologies on performance in a web-based
learning program. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(6), 962-970.
Sife, A. S., Kiondo, E., & Lyimo-Macha, J. G. (2010). Contribution of mobile phones to
rural livelihoods and poverty reduction in morogoro region, tanzania. The
Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 42
SIPA. (2013). OTPC system online. Retrieved from http://www.dekthai.net/main.html
Sneller, J. (2007). The tablet PC classroom: Erasing borders, stimulating activity,
enhancing communication. Frontiers in Education Conference-Global
Engineering: Knowledge without Borders, Opportunities without Passports,
2007. FIE'07. 37th Annual, S3J-5-S3J-10.
Stickel, M., & Hum, S. V. (2008). Lessons learned from the first-time use of tablet PCs
in the classroom. Frontiers in Education Conference, 2008. FIE 2008. 38th
Annual, S1A-7-S1A-12.
The World Bank. (2014a). Ratio of female to male primary enrollment (%) thailand.
Retrieved from
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ENR.PRIM.FM.ZS/countries/TH-4E-
XT?display=graph
The World Bank. (2014b). Thailand overview. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/overview
Valk, J., Rashid, A. T., & Elder, L. (2010). Using mobile phones to improve educational
outcomes: An analysis of evidence from asia. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11(1), 117-140.
videolearning.com. (2014). Using ebook applications. Retrieved from
http://www.vdolearning.com/vdotutor/setup-from-tablet-otpc-p2/36-use-
application-books-on-tablet-otpc
Viriyapong, R., & Harfield, A. (2013). Facing the challenges of the one-tablet-per-child
policy in thai primary school education. Education, 4(9)
W. Van De Bogart. (2012). Child development issues related to thailand'sTablet
computer policy within the ASEAN community. Proceedings of ASEAN
Scenario Analysis 2015-2020 Conference, Bangkok University.
Warschauer, M., & Ames, M. (2010). Can one laptop per child save the world's poor?
Journal of International Affairs, 64(1)
Warschauer, M., Knobel, M., & Stone, L. (2004). Technology and equity in schooling:
Deconstructing the digital divide. Educational Policy, 18(4), 562-588.
Wehrwein, E. A., Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2007). Gender differences in learning
style preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Advances in
Physiology Education, 31(2), 153-157. doi:31/2/153 [pii]
World Economic Forum. (2013). The global competitiveness report 2013–2014: Full
data edition. (). Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Yeh, K. M., Gregory, J. P., & Ritter, F. E. (2010). One laptop per child: Polishing up the
XO laptop user experience. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human
Factors Applications, 18(3), 8-13.
Young, B. J. (2000). Gender differences in student attitudes toward computers. Journal
of Research on Computing in Education, 33(2), 204-216.