Type of Article:  Original Research

Volume 5; Issue 3.1 (July 2017)

Page No.: 4114-4120

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2017.263


Dinesh Kumar. V *1, Rajprasath. R 1, Shaik Hussain Saheb 2.

*1 Department of Anatomy, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India.

2 Department of Anatomy, JJM Medical College, Davangere, Karnataka, India.

Address for Correspondence:  Dr. Dinesh Kumar. V, Department of Anatomy, Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, India. E-Mail: dinesh.88560@gmail.com


Introduction: Mobile based learning offer a wide spectrum of learning opportunities to improve the learning of millennial generation learners. The paradigm shift of technology-supported learning helps us to provide personalized learning environment and also promote collaborative learning. The aim of this paper is to validate the effectiveness of using WhatsApp based learning and analyse the principles of learning underlying it.

Methodology: A pilot study involving 122 first year students was done to assess the effectiveness of mobile learning as curricular assistance. Their perception was then recorded and analysed statistically.

Results: 50 (41%) graded 3/5 and 26 (21.3%) students graded 4/5 when asked about the usefulness of online learning in anatomy. 95 (78%) students opted WhatsApp based m-Learning as the best method for sharing the learning resources, compared to 17 (14%) students opting for E-learning.

Conclusion: We suggest that mobile based learning if administered meticulously can aid learner engagement and promote collaborative learning. Future studies should validate its potentials and limitations.

Key words: Mobile learning, m-learning theories, teaching anatomy, blended learning.


  1. Drake RL. A retrospective and prospective look at medical education in the United States: trends shaping anatomical sciences education. J. Anat. 2014;224:256-260.
  2. Cooke M, Irby DM, O’Brien BC. Educating Physicians: A Call for Reform of Medical School and Residency. 2010. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  3. Biggs JB, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th 2011. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp 480.
  4. Bergman EM, de Bruin AB, Herrler A, Verheijen IW, Scherpbier AJ, van der Vleuten CP. Students’ perceptions of anatomy across the undergraduate problem-based learning medical curriculum: a phenomenographical study. BMC medical education. 2013;13:152.
  5. Crede M, Kuncel NR. Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci 2008;3:425–453.
  6. Ward PJ, Walker JJ. The influences of study methods and knowledge processing on academic success and long term recall of anatomy learning by first year vertinary students. Anat Sci Educ 2008;1:68-74.
  7. Robinson, C. C., and H. Hullinger. New Benchmarks in Higher Education: Student Engagement in Online Learning. Journal of Education for Business 2008;84:101–109.
  8. Draper S. W. Catalytic Assessment: Understanding how MCQs and EVS can Foster Deep Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2009;40:285–293.
  9. Lancaster LC, Stillman D. When Generations Collide: Who They Are, Why They Clash, How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. New York, NY: Harper Business 2003.
  10. Borges NJ, Manuel RS, Elam CL & Jones BJ. Differences in motives between Millennial and Generation X medical students. Medical Education 2010;44:570–576.
  11. Oblinger D. & Oblinger J. Is it age or IT: first steps towards understanding the Net generation? In D. Oblinger & J. Oblinger (Eds), educating the Net generation 2005; 2.1–2.20. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE.
  12. Prenksy M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 2001a;9(5):1–6.
  13. Prince KJ, Boshuizen HP, van der Vleuten CPM, Scherpbier A. Students’ opinions about their preparation for clinical practice. Med Educ 2005; 39:704-712.
  14. Teunissen P, Westerman M. Opportunity or threat: the ambiguity of the consequences of transitions in medical education. Med Educ 2011;45:51-59.
  15. Kolb A, Kolb D. Learning styles and learning spaces: A review of the multidisciplinary application of Experiential Learning Theory in higher education. In Sims R, Sims S. (Eds), Learning styles and learning: A key to meeting the accountability demands in education. New York: Nova, 2006. 10.
  16. Chen B, Bryer T. Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2012;13(1):88-104.
  17. Selwyn, N. Faceworking: Exploring students’ education-related use of “Facebook.”Learning, Media and Technology, 2009;34(2):157-174.
  18. Kirkwood A., & Price L.Learners and learning in the 21st century: What do we know about students’ attitudes and experiences of ICT that will help us design courses? Studies in Higher Education, 2005;30(3):257–274.
  19. Ellaway R., & Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment. Medical Teacher, 2008;30(5):455–473.
  20. Alegria DA, Boscardin C, Poncelet A, Mayfield C, Wamsley M. Using tablets to support self-regulated learning in a longitudinal integrated clerkship. Medical education online. 2014;19(0):23638.
  21. Wexler, S., Brown, J., Metcalf, D., Rogers, D., & Wagner, E. e Learning guild research 360˚: report: Mobile learning. 2008; Santa Rosa, CA: eLearning Guild.
  22. Prober CG, Heath C. Lecture halls without lectures: a proposal for medical education. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1657-9.
  23. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 2010 (http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/ eval /tech/evidence-based-practices/final report .pdf).
  24. Bergmann J, Sams A. Flip your classroom: reach every student in every class every day. Washington, DC: International Society for Technology in Education; 2012.
  25. Liu Q, Peng W, Zhang F, Hu R, Li Y, Yan W. The effectiveness of blended learning in health professions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18:e2.
  26. Morton CE, Saleh SN, Smith SF, Hemani A, Ameen A, Bennie TD, et al. Blended learning: how can we optimise undergraduate student engagement? BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:195.
  27. Shepard LA. The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educ Res 2000;29(7):4–14.
  28. Hafferty FW, Franks R. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Acad Med 1994;69(11):861–71.
  29. Bansal, T., & Joshi, D. A study of students’ experiences of mobile learning. Journal of Information Technology, 2014;14(4):27-33.
  31. David A Cook. Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies. Clin Med 2007;7:37–42.
  32. Stanfield, R. B. The Art of Focused Conversation: 100 Ways to Access Group Wisdom in the Workplace. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 2000.
  33. Mayer RE. Applying the science of learning to medical education. Med Educ 2010; 44:543–549.
  34. Wittrock MC. Generative processes in comprehension. Educ Psychol 1989;24:345–76.

Cite this article: Dinesh Kumar. V, Rajprasath. R, Shaik Hussain Saheb. IS M-LEARNING THE IDEAL PLATFORM FOR THE MILLENNIAL GENERATION LEARNERS? Int J Anat Res 2017;5(3.1):4114-4120. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2017.263