Category Archives: Digital Learning Resources

The pros and cons of remote learning

This is an excerpt from one of my latest articles that was accepted for publication by the 6th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business & E-Technology (ICEBT2022).

Suggested Citation: Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2022). A cost-benefit analysis on remote learning: A systematic review and implications for the future. 6th International Conference on e-Education, e-Business and e-Technology (Beijing, China: 26th June 2022).

(image source: CrushPixel)

After the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, educational institutions were expected to adapt to an unexpected crisis situation. In many cases, they had to follow their policy makers’ preventative measures to mitigate the contagion of the pandemic [1, 2]. As a result, they introduced contingency plans, and disseminated information on the virus, among students and employees. In many cases, educators were coerced to shift from the provision of traditional, face-to-face teaching and blended learning approaches, to a fully virtual remote course delivery [3, 4]. This transition resulted in a number of challenges to students and instructors [5]. Educators were pressurized to utilize digital technologies including learning management systems (LMS) as well as video conferencing programs [6]. Very often, they relied on their institutions’ Moodle or virtual learning environment (VLE) software to share digital resources including videos, power point presentations and links to online notes [7]. During the pandemic educators also acquainted themselves with video-conferencing platforms [8].

Subsequently, when COVID-19 restrictions were eased, a number of educational institutions reopened their doors to students and employees [9]. They introduced social distancing policies and hygienic procedures in their premises [4, 10]. At the time of writing, a number of academic members of staff, in various contexts, are still utilizing learning technologies including LMS and video conferencing programs [6]. Currently, student-centered educators are adopting hybrid/blended learning approaches, as they deliver face-to-face lectures in addition to online learning methodologies. Very often, they do so to support students who are not in a position to attend their lectures on campus.

A synthesis of the literature on the costs and benefits of remote learning

The costs

Many researchers noted that Covid-19 disrupted the provision of education. In the main, they reported that there were various challenges for the successful implementation of remote learning [17, 23-25]. For example, one of the contributions implied that the prolonged use of virtual platforms might negatively impact the efficacy of synchronous learning [27].

Various studies indicated that the research participants were not always pleased with the quality of education that was provided by their educators, during the pandemic [28]. Academic commentators indicated that faculty members were not experts in the delivery of remote/online instruction. They implied that instructors could require periodic developmental training to improve the service quality of their courses [4, 10].

While a few researchers noted that students appreciated the availability of recorded lectures [29], others reported that educators were not always recording their lectures and/or did not share learning resources with them [21]. This issue could have affected the students’ learning outcomes [30, 31]. In fact, some students were worried about their academic progress during COVID-19 [32]. In many cases, they encountered a number of difficulties during remote course delivery. For instance, online group work involved additional planning as well as institutional support [33]. Previous literature suggests that students necessitate counseling, tutoring and mentoring as well as ongoing assurances to succeed [34, 35].

In many cases, the researchers discovered that course participants required adequate training and support to complete their assessments [23, 24, 36]. A few of them also hinted that was a digital divide among students could have been evidenced among those who experienced connectivity and equipment problems, among other issues [5, 37]. Other authors argued about the individuals’ challenges to focus on their screens for long periods of time [6]. Notwithstanding, educators and students may develop bad postures and other physical problems due to staying hunched in front of a screen. Therefore, students ought to be given regular breaks from the screen to refresh their minds and their bodies.

The benefits

Generally, a number of contributions shed light on the benefits of using remote learning technologies, including learning management systems [1, 21, 29, 32] and interactive conferencing programs (1, 6, 17, 33]. Such educational technologies can help in creating rich social interactions [38-40] as well as positive learning environments – that foster learning and retention [41, 42]. Previous research indicated that digital learning resources can enhance the students’ knowledge and skills [43]. Remote instruction approaches can also provide supportive environments to students [39] and could even increase their chances of learning [30, 31]. Virtual lectures may be recorded or archived for future reference [29]. Hence, students or educators could access their learning materials at their convenience [44-46].

Several researchers underlined the importance of maintaining ongoing, two-way communications with students, and of providing them with appropriate facilitating conditions, to continue improving their learning journeys [6, 47-48]. Video conferencing technologies allow educators to follow up on their students’ progress. They facilitate online interactions, in real time, and enable them to obtain immediate feedback from their students [1, 49]. Notwithstanding, there are fewer chances of students’ absenteeism and on missing out on their lessons, as they can join online meetings from home or from other locations of their choice.


This review implies that online technologies have opened a window of opportunity for educators. Indeed, learning management systems as well as conferencing programs are useful tools for educators to continue delivering education in a post covid-19 context. However, it is imperative that educational institutions invest in online learning infrastructures, resources and facilitating conditions, for the benefit of their students and faculty employees. They should determine whether their instructors are (or are not) delivering high levels of service quality through the utilization of remote learning technologies to continue delivering student-centered education.

This paper can be downloaded from:

References (these are all the references that were featured in the full paper)

  1. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2021. The acceptance of learning management systems and video conferencing technologies: Lessons learned from COVID-19. Tech, Know and Learning,
  2. OECD 2020. OECD Policy Response to CoronaVirus: Education responses to COVID-19: Embracing digital learning and online collaboration”, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.
  3. Sir John Daniel. 2020. Education and the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospects, 49(1), 91-96.
  4. Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2021. Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post COVID-19 outlook. Int J. of Qual & Serv Sciences 13, 2, 268-281.
  5. Tewathia, Nidhi, Anant Kamath, and P. Vigneswara Ilavarasan. 2020. Social inequalities, fundamental inequities, and recurring of the digital divide: Insights from India. Tech in Soc, 61, 101251.
  6. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Camilleri. 2022. Remote learning via video conferencing technologies: Implications for research and practice. Tech in Society,
  7. Fathema, Nafsaniath, David Shannon, and Margaret Ross. 2015. Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. J of Online Learning & Teach, 11(2), 210-232.
  8. Worldbank 2020 The COVID-19 Crisis Response: Supporting tertiary education for continuity, adaptation, and innovation. Worldbank Group Education, Washington, USA.
  9. Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2021. Shifting from traditional and blended learning approaches to a fully virtual and remote course delivery: Implications from COVID-19. Acad Letters, Article, 481.
  10. Ronald W. Welch, Robert J. Rabb, and Alyson Grace Eggleston. 2021. Using the SWIVL for Effective HyFlex Instruction: Best Practices, Challenges, and Opportunities. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings
  11. Rabab Ali Abumalloh, Shahla Asadi, Mehrbakhsh Nilashi, Behrouz Minaei-Bidgoli, Fatima Khan Nayer, Sarminah Samad, Saidatulakmal Mohd, and Othman Ibrahim. 2021. The impact of coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) on education: The role of virtual and remote laboratories in education. Tech in Soc, 67, 101728.
  12. Stephen J. Aguilar, 2020. Guidelines and tools for promoting digital equity. Inf and Lear Sci, 121(5/6), 285-299.
  13. Amy B. Smoyer, Kyle O’Brien, and Elizabeth Rodriguez-Keyes. 2020. Lessons learned from COVID-19: Being known in online social work classrooms. Int Social Work, 63(5), 651-654.
  14. Anthony F. Tasso, Nesrin Hisli Sahin, and Gabrielle J. San Roman.2021. COVID-19 disruption on college students: Academic and socioemotional implications. Psych Trauma: Theory, Res, Practice, and Pol, 13(1), 9-15.
  15. Jingrong Xie, and Mary F. Rice. 2021. Instructional designers’ roles in emergency remote teaching during COVID-19. Dist Ed, 42(1), 70-87.
  16. Lata Kanyal Butola, 2021. E-learning-a new trend of learning in 21st century during COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J of Foren Med and Toxicology, 15(1), 422-426.
  17. William Hurst, Adam Withington, and Hoshang Kolivand. 2022. Virtual conference design: features and obstacles. Multimedia Tools and Applic.
  18. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2019. The students’ readiness to engage with mobile learning apps. Interactive Tech and Smart Educ 17,1, 28-38.
  19. Andrzej Szymkowiak, Boban Melović, Marina Dabić, Kishokanth Jeganathan, and Gagandeep Singh Kundi. 2021. Information technology and Gen Z: The role of teachers, the internet, and technology in the education of young people. Tech in Soc, 65, 101565.
  20. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2017. Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education. Tech, Know and Learning 22,1, 65-82.
  21. Patricia R. Backer, Maria Chierichetti, Laura E. Sullivan-Green, and Liat Rosenfeld. 2021. Learning from the Student Experience: Impact of Shelter-in-Place on the Learning Experiences of Engineering Students at SJSU. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
  22. Timothy Boye, and Tania Machet. 2021. Emerging from COVID-19 to future practice. Proceedings – SEFI 49th Annual Conference: Blended Learning in Engineering Education: Challenging, Enlightening – and Lasting, 697-704.
  23. Andrea N. Giordano, and Casey R. Christopher. 2020. Repurposing best teaching practices for remote learning environments: Chemistry in the news and oral examinations during covid-19. J of Chemical Educ, 97(9), 2815-2818.
  24. Mohamed Shaik Honnurvali, Ayman A. El-Saleh, Abdul Manan Sheikh, Keng Goh, Naren Gupta, and Tariq Umar. 2022. Sustainable Engineering higher education in Oman-lessons learned from the pandemic (COVID-19), improvements, and suggestions in the teaching, learning and administrative framework. J of Eng Education Trans, 35(3), 52-69.
  25. Rizwana Wahid, Oveesa Farooq, and Ahtisham Aziz. 2021. The New Normal: Online Classes and Assessments during the COVID-19 Outbreak. J of E-Learning and Know Society, 17(2), 85-96.
  26. Brenda Van Wyk, Gillian Mooney, Martin Duma, and Samuel Faloye, 2020. Emergency remote learning in the times of covid: A higher education innovation strategy. Proceedings of the European Conference on e-Learning, ECEL2020, 499-507.
  27. Andrew Darr, Jenna Regan, and Yerko Berrocal. 2021. Effect of Video Conferencing on Student Academic Performance: Evidence from Preclinical Summative Assessment Scores. Medical Science Educator, 31(6), 1747-1750.
  28. Ji-Hee Jung, and Jae-Ik Shin 2021. Assessment of university students on online remote learning during COVID-19 pandemic in Korea: An empirical study, Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(19), 10821.       
  29. John Michael Cotter, and Rasim Guldiken. 2021. Remote Versus In-Class Active Learning Exercises for an Undergraduate Course in Fluid Mechanics, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings                 
  30. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2017. Digital learning resources and ubiquitous technologies in education. Tech, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 65-82.
  31. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2017. The students’ perceptions of digital game-based learning. In European Conference on Games Based Learning (pp. 56-62). Academic Conferences International Limited.
  32. Marilyn Barger, and Lakshmi Jayaram. 2021. Students Talk: The Experience of Advanced Technology Students at Two-Year Colleges during COVID-19, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.  
  33. Kennedy Saldanha, Jennifer Currin-McCulloch, Barbara Muskat, Shirley R. Simon, Ann M. Bergart, Ellen Sue Mesbur, Donna Guy, Namoonga B. Chilwalo, Mamadou M. Seck, Greg Tully, Kristina Lind, Cheryl D. Lee, Neil Hall,and Diana Kelly, 2021. Turning boxes into supportive circles: Enhancing online group work teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Work with Groups, 44(4), 310-327.
  34. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2017. The technology acceptance of mobile applications in education. In 13th International Conference on Mobile Learning (Budapest, April 10th). Proceedings, pp., International Association for Development of the Information Society.
  35. Adriana Caterina Camilleri, and Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2019. Mobile learning via educational apps: an interpretative study. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (pp. 88-92).
  36. Galina Ilieva, and Tania Yankova. 2020. IoT in Distance Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic.TEM Journal, 9(4), 1669-1674.
  37. Emily S. Kinsky, Patrick F. Merle, and Karen Freberg. 2021. Zooming through a Pandemic: An Examination of Marketable Skills Gained by University Students during the COVID-19 Crisis. Howard J of Comm, 32(5), 507-529
  38. Anne E. Drake, Jonathan Hy, Gordon A. MacDougall, Brendan Holmes, Lauren Icken, Jon W. Schrock, and Robert A. Jones.. 2021. Innovations with tele-ultrasound in education sonography: the use of tele-ultrasound to train novice scanners. Ultrasound J, 13(1), Article 6,
  39. Ming Lei, Ian M. Clemente, Haixia Liu, and John Bell. 2022. The Acceptance of Telepresence Robots in Higher Education. Int J of Social Robotics,                                                           
  40. Yuan Li, David Hicks, Wallace S. Lages, Sang Won Lee, Akshay Sharma, and Doug A. Bowman   2021. ARCritique: Supporting remote design critique of physical artifacts through collaborative augmented reality. Proceedings – 2021 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops, VRW 2021, 9419257, 585-586
  41. Vivekananth Subbiramaniyan, Chandrashekhar Apte, and Ciraj Ali Mohammed. 2021. A meme-based approach for enhancing student engagement and learning in renal physiology, Adv in Physio Educ, 46(1), 27-29.                 
  42. Joshua Zavitz, Aarti Sarwal, Jacob Schoeneck, Casey Glass, Brandon Hays, E. Shen, Casey Bryant, and Karisma Gupta. 2021. Virtual multispecialty point-of-care ultrasound rotation for fourth-year medical students during COVID-19: Innovative teaching techniques improve ultrasound knowledge and image interpretation. AEM Education and Training, 5(4), e10632.                         
  43. Vikash Gayah, Sarah E. Zappe, and Stephanie Cutler. 2021.Impact of Remote Instructional Format on Student Perception of a Supportive Learning Environment for Expertise Development. ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.
  44. Butler, A., Camilleri, M. A., Creed, A., & Zutshi, A. 2021. The use of mobile learning technologies for corporate training and development: A contextual framework. In Strategic corporate communication in the digital age. Emerald Publishing Limited.
  45. Adriana Caterina Camilleri, and Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2019. The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games. In Shun-Wing N.G., Fun, T.S. & Shi, Y. (Eds.) 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019). Seoul, South Korea. International Economics Development and Research Center (IEDRC). ACM Digital Library.
  46. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2019. The Acceptance and Use of Mobile Learning Applications in Higher Education. In Pfennig, A. & Chen, K.C. (Eds.) 3rd International Conference on Education and eLearning (ICEEL2019), Barcelona, Spain. ACM Digital Library.
  47. Adriana Caterina Camilleri, and Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2019. Mobile Learning via Educational Apps: An Interpretative Study. In Shun-Wing N.G., Fun, T.S. & Shi, Y. (Eds.) 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019). Seoul, South Korea. International Economics Development and Research Center (IEDRC). ACM Digital Library.
  48. Mark Anthony Camilleri, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2020. The students’ acceptance and use of their university’s virtual learning environment. In Chen, K.C., Ma, Y., & Kawamura, M., The 11th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management, and E-Learning (IC4E 2020). Ritsumeikan University, Osaka, Japan. ACM Digital Library.
  49. Paul Capriotti, Iliana Zeler, and Mark Anthony Camilleri. 2021. Corporate communication through social networks: The identification of the key dimensions for dialogic communication. In M.A. Camilleri (Ed.) Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.
  50. Valeria Aloizou, Tania Chasiotou, Symeon Retalis, Theodoros Daviotis, and Panagiotis Koulouvaris. 2021. Remote learning for children with Special Education Needs in the era of COVID-19: Beyond tele-conferencing sessions. Educ Media Int, 58 (2), 181-201.
  51. Yelena Chaiko, Nadezhda Kunicina, Antons Patlins, and Anastasia Zhiravetska. 2020. Advanced practices: Web technologies in the educational process and science. 2020 IEEE 61st Annual International Scientific Conference on Power and Electrical Engineering of Riga Technical University, RTUCON 2020 – Proceedings, 9316567.
  52. Courtney J. Chatha, and Stacey Lowery Bretz. 2020. Adapting Interactive Interview Tasks to Remote Data Collection: Human Subjects Research That Requires Annotations and Manipulations of Chemical Structures during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Chemical Educ, 97(11), 4196-4201.
  53. Phil Legg, Thomas Higgs, Pennie Spruhan, Jonathan White, and Ian Johnson. 2021. ‘Hacking an IoT Home’: New opportunities for cyber security education combining remote learning with cyber-physical systems. 2021 International Conference on Cyber Situational Awareness, Data Analytics and Assessment, CyberSA 2021, 9478251.
  54. Jenifer M. Ross, Lauri Wright, and Andrea Y. Arikawa, 2021. Adapting a classroom simulation experience to an online escape room in nutrition education. Online Learning J, 25(1), 238-244.
  55. Jintawat Sangpratoom, Atima Tharatipyakul, Natnaree Ua-Arak, Kejkaew Thanasuan, and Suporn Pongnumkul. 2021.Comparing Remote Learning between Live Lectures and Self-paced Interactive Tutorials for Learning an Introduction to Blockchain Proceedings – 2021 International Conference on Information Systems and Advanced Technologies, ICISAT 2021
  56. Sharon Wallace, Monika S. Schuler, Michelle Kaulback, Karen Hunt, and Manisa Baker. 2021. Nursing student experiences of remote learning during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In Nursing Forum, 56(3), 612-618.

Leave a comment

Filed under Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, Education Leadership, education technology, Higher Education, internet technologies, internet technologies and society, online

The students’ perceptions of remote learning through video conferencing!

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

This is an excerpt from a recent article that was published by Springer’s Technology, Knowledge and Learning Journal.

Source: Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2021). The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge & Learning.

The unexpected Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted the provision of education in various contexts around the globe. Education service providers, including higher education institutions (HEIs) were required to follow their respective governments’ preventative social distancing measures and to increase their hygienic practices, to mitigate the spread of the pandemic. They articulated contingency plans, disseminated information about the virus, trained their employees to work remotely, and organised virtual sessions with students or course participants.

These latest developments have resulted in both challenges and opportunities to students and educators. Course instructors were expected to develop a new modus operandi to deliver their education services, in real time. During the first wave of COVID-19, HEIs were suddenly expected to shift from traditional and blended learning approaches to a fully virtual course delivery.

The shift to online, synchronous classes did not come naturally. COVID-19 has resulted in different problems for course instructors and their students. In many cases, educators were compelled to utilise online learning technologies to continue delivering their courses. In the main, educators have embraced the dynamics of remote learning technologies to continue delivering educational services to students, amid the peaks and troughs of COVID-19 cases.

Subsequently, policy makers have eased their restrictions when they noticed that there were lower contagion rates in their communities. After a few months of lockdown (or partial lock down) conditions, there were a number of HEIs that were allowed to open their doors. They instructed their visitors to wear masks, and to keep socially distant from each other. Most HEIs screened individuals for symptoms as they checked their temperatures and introduced strict hygienic practices like sanitisation facilities in different parts of their campuses.

However, after a year and a half, since the outbreak of COVID-19, some academic members of staff were still relying on the use of remote learning technologies to deliver education services, as they utilised learning management systems (LMS) and video conferencing software to teach their courses. During the pandemic, they became acquainted with online technologies that facilitated asynchronous as well as synchronous learning.

Whilst their asynchronous approaches included text and/or recorded video that were made available through LMS (like Moodle), in many cases, they also utilised video conferencing platforms including Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, D2L, Webex, Adobe Connect, Skype for Business, Big Blue Button and EduMeet, among others, to interact with students in real time.

In this light, our research investigated the facilitating conditions that can foster the students’ acceptance and usage of remote learning technologies including LMS and video conferencing programs. We examined the participants’ motivations to use them to continue pursuing their educational programs from home, during COVID-19. Specifically, our study investigated students’ perceptions about the usefulness of remote learning, their interactive capabilities, their attitudes toward their utilisation, the facilitating conditions as well as their intentions to continue using them.

Our targeted respondents were registered students who followed full-time and part-time courses at the University of Malta in Malta. We used a structural equation modeling partial least squares (SEM-PLS) analytical approach to examine the responses of 501 students who voluntarily participated in our research.

The findings clearly indicated that the higher education students perceived the usefulness of remote learning technologies during COVID-19 and valued their interactive attributes. They confirmed that the respondents held positive perceptions toward their universities’ facilitating conditions (like ongoing support, as well as training and development opportunities).

The empirical results reported that the HEI’s facilitating conditions had a significant effect on the students’ interactive engagement with online learning resources and on their attitudes towards these technologies.

The confirmatory composite analysis reported that there were positive and highly significant effects that predicted the students’ intentions to continue using remote learning technologies. Evidently, educators have provided them with the necessary resources, knowledge and technical support to avail themselves of remote learning technologies.

The respondents indicated that they accessed their course instructors’ online resources and regularly interacted with them through live conferencing facilities. The findings from SEM-PLS confirmed that the perceived usefulness and perceived interactivity with online technologies had a positive effect on their attitudes toward remote learning.

In sum, this contribution has differentiated itself from other studies as it investigated the students’ perceptions and attitudes on the use of asynchronous as well as synchronous learning technologies in higher education. It implies that the integration of these technologies ought to be accelerated in the foreseeable future as they may become the norm, in a post COVID-19 era. Therefore, HEIs ought to continue investing in online learning infrastructures, resources and facilitating conditions, for the benefit of their students and faculty employees.

Leave a comment

Filed under Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, education technology, Marketing, mobile learning, Remote Learning

Key Terms in Education Technology Literature

This is an excerpt from one of my latest contributions, entitled: “The Use of Mobile Learning Technologies in Primary Education”.

edtech(The Image has been adapted from


  • The ‘Constructivist-Based learning’ is a learning theory claiming that individuals construct their knowledge and understandings through experiencing things.
  • The ‘Digital Learning Resources’ include digitally formatted, educational materials like; graphics, images or photos, audio and video, simulations and animation technologies, that are used to support students to achieve their learning outcomes.
  • The ‘Digital Games-Based Learning’ (DGBL) involves the use of educational video games that can be accessed through computer-based applications. DGBL are usually aimed to improve the students’ learning outcomes by balancing educational content and gameplay.
  • The ‘Discovery-Based Learning’ is a constructivist-based approach to education as students seek to learn through continuous inquiry and experience.
  • The ‘Learning Outcomes’ are assessment tools that measure the students’ achievement at the end of a course or program.
  • ‘Mobile Learning’ (M-Learning) is a term that describes how individuals learn through mobile, portable devices, including smart phones, laptops and/or tablets.
  • The ‘Serious Games’ refer to games that are used in industries like; education, health care, engineering, urban planning, politics and defence, among other areas. Such games are usually designed for training purpose other than pure entertainment.
  • The ‘Ubiquitous Technology’ involves the use of wireless sensor networks that disseminate information in real time, from virtually everywhere.



  1. Bakker, M., van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Robitzsch, A. (2015). Effects of playing mathematics computer games on primary school students’ multiplicative reasoning ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology40, 55-71.
  2. Blatchford, P., Baines, E., & Pellegrini, A. (2003). The social context of school playground games: Sex and ethnic differences, and changes over time after entry to junior school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology21(4), 481-505.
  3. Bottino, R. M., Ferlino, L., Ott, M., & Tavella, M. (2007). Developing strategic and reasoning abilities with computer games at primary school level. Computers & Education49(4), 1272-1286.
  4. Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A. (2017). The Students’ Perceptions of Digital Game-Based Learning. In Pivec, M. & Grundler, J. (Ed.)11th European Conference on Games Based Learning (October). Proceedings, pp. 52-62, H JOANNEUM University of Applied Science, Graz, Austria, pp 56-62.
  5. Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games. In Shun-Wing N.G., Fun, T.S. & Shi, Y. (Eds.) 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019). Seoul, South Korea (May, 2019). International Economics Development and Research Center (IEDRC).
  6. Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students’ Perceived Use, Ease of Use and Enjoyment of Educational Games at Home and at School. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain (March 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED).
  7. Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2019). Student-Centred Learning through Serious Games. 13th Annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference. Valencia, Spain (March 2019). International Academy of Technology, Education and Development (IATED).
  8. De Aguilera, M., & Mendiz, A. (2003). Video games and education:(Education in the Face of a “Parallel School”). Computers in Entertainment (CIE)1(1), 1-14.
  9. Hainey, T., Connolly, T. M., Boyle, E. A., Wilson, A., & Razak, A. (2016). A systematic literature review of games-based learning empirical evidence in primary education. Computers & Education102, 202-223.
  10. Hromek, R., & Roffey, S. (2009). Promoting Social and Emotional Learning With Games: “It’s Fun and We Learn Things”. Simulation & Gaming40(5), 626-644.
  11. Lim, C. P. (2008). Global citizenship education, school curriculum and games: Learning Mathematics, English and Science as a global citizen. Computers & Education51(3), 1073-1093.
  12. McFarlane, A., Sparrowhawk, A., & Heald, Y. (2002). Report on the educational use of games. TEEM (Teachers evaluating educational multimedia), Teem, Cambridge, UK. pp.1-26.
  13. Miller, D. J., & Robertson, D. P. (2010). Using a games console in the primary classroom: Effects of ‘Brain Training’programme on computation and self‐British Journal of Educational Technology41(2), 242-255.
  14. Pellegrini, A. D., Blatchford, P., Kato, K., & Baines, E. (2004). A short‐term longitudinal study of children’s playground games in primary school: Implications for adjustment to school and social adjustment in the USA and the UK. Social Development13(1), 107-123.
  15. Tüzün, H., Yılmaz-Soylu, M., Karakuş, T., İnal, Y., & Kızılkaya, G. (2009). The effects of computer games on primary school students’ achievement and motivation in geography learning. Computers & Education52(1), 68-77.


Leave a comment

Filed under digital games, Digital Learning Resources, digital media, education technology, Higher Education, Mobile, mobile learning, online

The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games

An Excerpt from one of my latest papers, entitled; “The Students’ Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games”.

How to Cite: Camilleri, A.C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2019). The Students Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations to Engage with Digital Learning Games. In Shun-Wing N.G., Fun, T.S. & Shi, Y. (Eds.) 5th International Conference on Education and Training Technologies (ICETT 2019). Seoul, South Korea (May, 2019).

This contribution has explored the primary school’s grade three  students’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivations toward the use of educational games. It relied on the technology acceptance model to investigate the students’ perceived usefulness and ease of use of the  schools’ games ([7], [8], [15]). Moreover, the researchers have also  included the measuring items that explored the students’ perceived  enjoyment ([12], [13], [20]) as they investigated whether they  experienced normative pressures to play the educational games ([14], [22], [23]). The findings from the Wilcoxon test reported that the students played the school games at home, more than they did at school. They indicated that the school’s games were easy to play.

This study reported that the students recognized that the school’s games were useful and relevant as they were learning from them. Moreover, they indicated that the school’s educational games held their attention since they found them enjoyable and fun. The vast majority of the children played the educational games, both at home and at school. The findings in this study are consistent with the argument that digital natives are increasingly immersing
themselves in digital technologies ([2]), including educational games ([1], [4], [10], [11], [28]). However, the results have shown that there was no significant relationship between the perceived ease of the gameplay and the children’s enjoyment in them.

Furthermore, the stepwise regression analysis revealed that there was no significant relationship between the normative expectations and the children’s engagement with the educational games; although it was evident (from the descriptive statistics) that the parents were encouraging their children to play the games at home and at school.

This research relied on previously tried and tested measures that were drawn from the educational technology literature in order to explore the hypothesized relationships. There is common tendency  in academic literature to treat the validity and reliability of quantitative measures from highly cited empirical papers as given. In this case, the survey items in this study were designed and adapted for the primary school children who were in grade 3, in a
small European state. Future studies may use different sampling frames, research designs and methodologies to explore this topic. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other empirical study that has validated the technology acceptance model within a primary school setting. Further work is needed to replicate the findings of  this research in a similar context.

We thank the department of education, the school’s principal and her members of staff who have provided their invaluable support during the data gathering process.

[1] Ge, X., and Ifenthaler, D. 2018. Designing engaging
educational games and assessing engagement in game-based
learning” In Gamification in Education: Breakthroughs in
Research and Practice, IGI Global, Hershey, USA, 1-19,

[2] Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., and Schellens, T.
2010, Students’ perceptions about the use of educational
games in the classroom. Comp. & Educ. 54, 4, 1145-1156.

[3] Hwang, G.J., and Wu, P.H. 2012. Advancements and trends
in digital game‐based learning research: a review of
publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. Brit. J.
of Educ. Tech. 43, 1, E6-E10.

[4] Carvalho, M.B., Bellotti, F., Berta, R., De Gloria, A.,
Sedano, C.I., Hauge, H.B., Hu, J., and Rauterberg, M. 2015.
An activity theory-based model for serious games analysis
and conceptual design. Comp. & Educ. 87, 166-181.

[5] Connolly, T.M., Boyle, E.A., MacArthur, E. Hainey, T., and
Boyle, J.M. 2012. A systematic literature review of empirical
evidence on computer games and serious games. Comp. &
Educ. 59, 2, 661-686.

[6] Burguillo, J.C. 2010. Using game theory and competitionbased
learning to stimulate student motivation and
performance. Comp. & Educ. 55, 2, 566-575.

[7] Dickey, M.D. 2011. Murder on Grimm Isle: The impact of
game narrative design in an educational game‐based learning
environment. Brit. J. of Educ. Tech, 42, 3, 456-469.

[8] Huang, W.H., Huang, W.Y., and Tschopp, J. 2010.
Sustaining iterative game playing processes in DGBL: The
relationship between motivational processing and outcome
processing. Comp. & Educ. 55, 2, 789-97.

[9] Harris, J. Mishra, P., and Koehler, M. 2009. Teachers’
technological pedagogical content knowledge and learning
activity types: Curriculum-based technology integration
reframed. J. of Res. on Tech. in Educ. 41, 4, 393-416.

[10] Wouters, P., Van Nimwegen, C., Van Oostendorp, H., and
Van Der Spek, E.D. 2013. A meta-analysis of the cognitive
and motivational effects of serious games. J. of Educ. Psych.
105, 2, 249-266.

[11] Camilleri, M.A., and Camilleri, A. 2017. The Students’
Perceptions of Digital Game-Based Learning, In Pivec, M.
and Grundler, J. 11th European Conference on Games Based
Learning Proceedings (London, UK, October 04-05, 2017),
University of Applied Sciences, Graz, Austria, 56-62.

[12] Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of
use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quart. 319-340.

[13] Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. 1989. User
acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two
theoretical models. Mgt. Science, 35, 8, 982-1003.

[14] Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav.
and Human Dec. Proc. 50, 2, 179-211.

[15] Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., and Chen, Z. 2005. Acceptance
of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and
intrinsic motivation. Inf. & Mgt. 42, 8, 1095-1104.

[16] Chen, K. C. and Jang, S. J. 2010. Motivation in online
learning: Testing a model of self-determination theory.
Comp. in Human Behav. 26, 4, 741-752.

[17] Dunne, Á., Lawlor, M. A., and Rowley, J. 2010. Young
people’s use of online social networking sites–a uses and
gratifications perspective. Journal of Res. in Int. Mktg. 4, 1,

[18] Li, H., Liu, Y., Xu, X., Heikkilä, J., and Van Der Heijden, H.
2015. Modeling hedonic is continuance through the uses and
gratifications theory: An empirical study in online games.
Comp. in Human Behav. 48, 261-272.

[19] Teo, T., Beng Lee, C., Sing Chai, C., and Wong, S.L. 2009.
Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service
teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance
analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
Comp. & Educ. 53, 3, 1000-1009.

[20] Camilleri, M.A., and Camilleri, A.C. 2017. Digital learning
resources and ubiquitous technologies in education, Tech.,
Knowl. and Learng. 22, 1, 65-82.

[21] Park, S.Y. 2009. An analysis of the technology acceptance
model in understanding university students’ behavioral
intention to use e-learning, Educ. Tech. & Soc. 12, 3, 150-

[22] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D.
2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Quart. 425-478.

[23] Venkatesh, V., Thong, Y.T.L., and Xu, X. 2012.Consumer
acceptance and use of information technology: extending the
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS
Quart. 157-178.

[24] Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemp. Educ. Psych. 25, 1, 54-67.

[25] Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M. and Song, J. 2012. An
investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher
education based on the theory of planned behavior. Comp. &
Educ. 59, 3, 1054-1064.

[26] Chang, C.T., Hajiyev, J., and Su, C.R. 2017. Examining the
students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in
Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance
model for e-learning approach. Comp. & Educ. 111, 128-

[27] Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., and Cha, S. B. 2012. University
students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning:
Evaluating the technology acceptance model. Brit. Journal of
Educ. Tech. 43, 4, 592-605.

[28] Camilleri, M.A. and Camilleri, A.C. 2017. The Technology
Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Education. In
Sánchez, I.A. and Isaias, P. (Eds) 13th
International Conference on Mobile Learning (London, UK,
10-11 April 2018). International Association for
Development of the Information Society Budapest, Hungary,

Presentation is available at:



Leave a comment

Filed under digital games, Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, internet technologies, internet technologies and society

The Technology Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Education

Dr Mark A. Camilleri from the University of Malta’s Department of Corporate Communication and Ms Adriana C. Camilleri, a PhD Candidate at the University of Bath (U.K.) have recently delivered a presentation of their latest empirical paper, entitled; The Technology Acceptance of Mobile Applications in Education during the 13th Mobile Learning Conference in Budapest, Hungary. More details on this highly indexed conference are available in this site: An abstract of this paper is enclosed hereunder:

This paper explores the educators’ attitudes and behavioural intention toward mobile applications. Its research methodology has integrated previously tried and tested measures from ‘the pace of technological innovativeness’ and the ‘technology acceptance model’ to better understand the rationale for further investment in mobile learning technologies (m-learning). A quantitative study was carried out amongst two hundred forty-one educators to reveal their perceptions on their ‘use’ and ‘ease of use’ of mobile devices in their schools. A principal component analysis has indicated that these educators were committed to using mobile technologies. In addition, a stepwise regression analysis has shown that the younger teachers were increasingly engaging in m-learning resources. In conclusion, this contribution puts forward key implications for both academia and practitioners.

1 Comment

Filed under Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, Higher Education, Marketing