# data[].attributes.headline
80% of people in the UK use emojis to communicate. Are they the future of communication?  

# data[].attributes.subject
80% of people in the UK use emojis to communicate. Are they the future of communication?  

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Linguistics Research: Are emojis the future of communication?

# data[].attributes.headline
Technology of the past that we thought would be the future 

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology of the past that we thought would be the future 

# data[].attributes.headline
As opposed to adults, young people have shifted towards using different platforms to communicate, such as snapchat, discord,etc. Why do you think that is? 

# data[].attributes.subject
As opposed to adults, young people have shifted towards using different platforms to communicate, such as snapchat, discord,etc. Why do you think that is? 

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.question
Do you think in the future we will be able to communicate by our minds?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd9F2uNkLPU

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The '90s Pager is a Millennial's #TBT Nightmare | Mashable

# data[].attributes.body
The CREST Awards scheme is the British Science Association’s flagship programme for young people. CREST is a scheme that inspires young people to think and behave like scientists and engineers.

STEM into Innovation: Pioneers of Progress can be put towards achieving a CREST Discovery Award. Find out more about how you could use these activities to gain a CREST Award at bsa.sc/accredited-resource

# data[].attributes.body
Check out this video Edward Pollock did for us a few years back on what the world may look like 2040. What else can you imagine it may look it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The World in 2040 by RGU Innovation Team

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.question
Do you think instant messaging increases the chances of miscommunication? Comment below your thoughts. 

# data[].attributes.headline
Effects of using mobile instant messaging on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement: a quasi-experimental study

# data[].attributes.subject
Effects of using mobile instant messaging on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement: a quasi-experimental study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Mobile instant messaging (MIM) has become the most popular means for young people to communicate. MIM apps typically come with a myriad of features that educators may leverage to increase student learning. However, it remains poorly understood to what extent and in what aspect MIM can facilitate student engagement. We address the gap by comparing the effects of using MIM and asynchronous online discussion (AOD) on student online engagement, using a quasi-experimental study involving a historical cohort control group. Understanding which communication mode can better promote student online engagement is particularly important during the current widespread use of online learning. Specifically, we examined engagement from the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions. The results showed that the MIM group was more behaviorally engaged in discussion activities, producing more messages, more words, and higher rates of participation, task completion, and interaction. Emotionally, no statistically significant difference was found in students' affective evaluation of course interaction and satisfaction between the two groups. However, MIM appeared to help students with improved intimacy and interpersonal relationships. Cognitively, the MIM group was more engaged than the AOD group. In particular, MIM seemed to facilitate interactive idea exchange and thus contributing to more "creating" activities. We conclude by providing suggestions for future instructional practice and research directions.

Keywords: Mobile instant messaging, Asynchronous online discussion, Engagement, Higher education, Quasi-experimental

Introduction

With the wide penetration of smartphones and mobile broadband access, mobile instant messaging (MIM) is becoming an essential means of communication worldwide (Dhir et al., 2020). As of July 2020, WhatsApp was the most popular MIM app with 2 billion monthly active users, followed by Facebook Messenger (1.3 billion) and WeChat (1.2 billion) (Statista, 2021). A recent study showed that MIM has surpassed voice calls, emails, face-to-face communication, and social network sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) and become the most popular means of daily communication (Pew Research Center, 2019). Typical MIM apps offer various functions including group chats, audio/video chats, file sharing, real-time location sharing, and exchange of nonverbal graphics such as emoji and stickers.

MIM presents a unique "quasi-synchronous" communication because although posted messages are available synchronously to participants, the message production process (typing) is available only to the sender; the recipient does not have direct access to real-time message production by the sender (Garcia & Jacobs, 1999). When a new message arrives, a push notification will pop up and prompts users to engage in communication either instantaneously or with a short time lag. In other words, whether and when to participate in the communication is up to the message receiver after they get notified about message arrival. This is different from synchronous communication (e.g., phone calls, video chats), which requires the transmitter and receiver to be present at the same time and/or space at a mutually agreed schedule. There is no response time delay in synchronous communication because it happens in real time, unlike MIM quasi-synchronous communication where there is often some short delay. MIM is different from asynchronous communication (e.g., emails, forum discussions) because most MIM messages are answered promptly (Andujar, 2019) within 60 s (as in the case of WhatsApp) (Rosenfeld et al., 2018), whereas the average response time of asynchronous communication is markedly longer-24 h for email (Chang et al., 2016) and 24 to 48 h for online discussion forums (Jeong & Frazier, 2008). Figure 1 illustrates the differences between asynchronous, synchronous, and quasi-synchronous communication with examples.

MIM is both a mobile and quasi-synchronous communication tool. MIM is developed specifically for mobile devices and not for computers, which means users can carry WhatsApp or WeChat easily in their pocket (Unuth, 2020). The mobility of MIM tools and the quasi-synchronicity of MIM communication are two interwoven features and are not separable from each other. The quasi-synchronous communication of MIM is attributed to the portability and mobility of mobile devices. Thus, the word "quasi-synchronicity" has the connotation that easy accessibility of a mobile device is available in the communicative process. To explain, the message notification of a mobile phone alerts a receiver whenever a new WhatsApp or WeChat message arrives. The receiver can then choose to join the conversation anytime and anywhere he or she prefers.

In addition to its unprecedented popular social use, MIM demonstrates the potential to support teaching and learning. Like other computer-mediated communicative (CMC) channels, MIM shatters the temporal and spatial restrictions of traditional face-to-face meetings and allows people to stay connected (Kiesler et al., 1984). Besides, its multi-functionality and flexibility enable learning by facilitating resource sharing and distant collaboration (Tang & Hew, 2019; Xue & Churchill, 2019). For example, teachers have used MIM to support language practice (e.g., Andujar, 2016), after-class tutorial services (e.g., Butgereit, 2007), class-related information delivery (e.g., Chai & Fan, 2016), and assignment submission (e.g., Dambal et al., 2015). According to a recent literature review, MIM seemed to be particularly beneficial for developing a social presence in computer-mediated learning environments, mainly due to the friendly environment created with multiple integrated lively elements (e.g., visuals, audio, videos, and other graphical icons), as well as the increased interactivity of the quasi-synchronous communication (Tang & Hew, 2017). As for its impact on improving student learning outcomes, most experimental studies reported positive effect, especially when MIM was used to supplement course content in interactive class activities (e.g., Andujar, 2016; Chai & Fan, 2016). However, researchers also found that messaging can be obstructive to student learning, such as taking a longer time to complete the task or having lower assignments scores (Bowman et al., 2010; Chen & Yan, 2016; Fox et al., 2009). Unstructured messaging can also negatively influence one's overall productivity due to the increase of communicative workload, engagement in multitasking, and frequency of message notification interruptions (Rennecker & Godwin, 2003).

Although the use of MIM has significantly increased, MIM has received much less attention in education, compared with other popular social tools such as Facebook and Twitter (Pimmer & Rambe, 2018). Questions remain concerning whether MIM is superior to other CMC mode (such as asynchronous online discussion [AOD]) in engaging students. In this study, we referred to the media synchronicity theory and examined the influence of MIM on learning through the lens of engagement, which is linked to desired learning behaviors and outcomes (Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Xu et al., 2020). We adopted a quasi-experimental research design to compare the influences of using MIM and AOD on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. The central research question is: How effective is the impact of MIM-supported educational activities on student online engagement as compared to AOD?

This study offers the following original contributions. First, we empirically compare the extent to which MIM influences student online engagement with the commonly used AOD mode. Understanding which communication mode can better promote student online engagement is particularly important during the current health crisis. Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, many institutions have little choice but to use online education for remote teaching and learning. Yet despite the widespread use of online education, the lack of student online engagement remains a problem (Farrell & Brunton, 2020). This study offers timely empirical evidence to help teachers choose the appropriate communication mode to foster student online engagement. Second, we investigate student engagement as a multi-dimensional construct, uncovering the nuances in how different communication modes influence student engagement behaviorally, emotionally, and cognitively. Third, we provide pedagogical suggestions to promote student engagement and learning in MIM-supported educational activities in CMC contexts.

In the following sections, we first review related literature on media synchronicity theory, the multidimensional nature of engagement, as well as empirical studies of the educational use of MIM. We proceed to describe the research design and present the comparative results of the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement of participants from the two groups. We discuss the results in relation to media synchronicity and student motivation and conclude with a set of instructional design suggestions and directions for future research.

Literature review

In this section, we review related literature on the media synchronicity theory, the multiple dimensions of engagement, as well as previous studies on the educational use of MIM to support student learning.

Media synchronicity theory

Media Synchronicity Theory (MST) discusses the capability of media to support synchronicity, which is defined as "a state in which individuals are working together at the same time with a common focus" (Dennis et al., 2008, p. 581). According to MST, one medium is no better than another; communication performance can be improved when the synchronicity of media can match the synchronicity required to complete the task. Dennis et al. ( 2008) defined two fundamental processes of all communication: conveyance and convergence. Conveyance refers to the transmission of new information to create new mental models. Convergence is the process of reaching mutual understanding based on sharing "known" knowledge (Dennis et al., 2008). Since conveyance involves more cognitive processing of new information, it typically requires longer periods of time characterized by a medium with low synchronicity. In contrast, because convergence typically requires rapid transmission of small amounts of known information, it benefits from a medium that supports high synchronicity (Dennis et al., 2008). In real-life scenarios, to improve the performance of a communicative task, we need to consider the task nature, the media features, and the maturity of grouping, in order to make strategic choices of selecting and combining multiple media types (Dennis et al., 2008).

Engagement as a multi-dimensional construct

Students engagement happens when they are motivated to devote time and efforts to the learning process (Wigfield et al., 2006). Engagement is the visible manifestation of motivation (Skinner et al., 2009). "Engagement is defined by an observable, action-oriented subtype (behavioral) and two internal ones (cognitive and emotional) but then is differentiated from motivation as engagement being action (observable behavior), motivation as intent (internal)" (Reschly & Christenson, 2012, p. 14). Engagement is multi-dimensional (Appleton et al., 2008; Finn & Zimmer, 2012). Fredricks et al. ( 2004) proposed a three-construct typology consisting of behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement (see Fig. 2 , with two examples of indicative behaviors for each dimension).

This typology is well grounded in the literature and has been widely cited across diverse disciplines (e.g., Balfanz et al., 2007; Brodie et al., 2011; Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Behavioral engagement refers to participation in academic, social, or extracurricular activities (Fredricks et al., 2004). Student participation in an online discussion can be evaluated by various factors, such as the number and type of discussion posts (Hew & Cheung, 2003). Emotional engagement refers to students' affective reactions toward interactions with teachers, peers, and the learning environment (Fredricks et al., 2004). Emotional engagement is typically measured by self-reported data, such as questionnaire surveys and interviews. Cognitive engagement comprises thinking and understanding of the topic, as reflected by students' task investment in terms of being strategic or self-regulating (Fredricks et al., 2004). There is a qualitative distinction between low-level and high-level cognitive engagement, observable from surface-level to deep-level strategy use (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Cognitive engagement can be assessed either subjectively with self-reported questionnaire surveys or objectively with test scores and choices of task difficulty levels (Hew et al., 2016; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). It is also common to perform content analysis to examine cognitive engagement in online interactions (e.g., Wang et al., 2014; Xie & Ke, 2011; Zhu, 2006).

Education use of MIM

Previous studies have exploited the communicative functions of MIM and used it in dialogic activities. For example, Allagui ( 2014) asked students to accomplish structured conversation tasks (e.g., a role play) in WhatsApp groups to learn English. Over 80% of the students liked MIM and expressed willingness to continue using it. Similarly, Lai ( 2016) asked 45 seventh graders to use WhatsApp groups to practice English for three months and found a significant correlation between students' chat frequency and vocabulary gain. Instructors also used MIM to deliver multi-modal messages or to provide out-of-class assistance in a timely manner. For example, Chai and Fan ( 2016) used WeChat to deliver texts, images, and videos about course content to support pre-class content delivery in a flipped classroom. Zhang and Xue ( 2015) allowed students to use WeChat and ask for help about their assignments or exam preparation. Aside from these two "transmission" and "helpline" functions, previous studies also used MIM to support other educational activities, such as to collaboratively complete a writing piece, to post a solution to an assignment, or to record students' learning reflections (Tang & Hew, 2017). More recently, Xu et al. ( 2020) examined the effects of the teacher role on learner engagement in WeChat-based discussion.

MIM promotes a sense of collaboration among students (Robinson et al., 2015). Its quasi-synchronicity allows students to respond quickly, leading to an increased level of interactivity and the development of a social presence (Tu & McIsaac, 2002). Social presence refers to the ability of students "to project themselves socially and emotionally as real people" in mediated environment (Garrison et al., 1999, p. 94). It can influence student learning in the aspects of motivation, activity participation, course satisfaction, perceived learning, and critical thinking (Richardson et al., 2017). Furthermore, the availability of non-verbal cues, such as emoticons, emojis, and stickers, can convey emotions in student interactions (Tang & Hew, 2019) and make online conversations livelier and friendlier (Wang et al., 2016). Recently, Tang and Hew ( 2020) compared the levels of social presence between students using MIM and those using AOD and found that MIM is particularly suited to promoting expressions of emotions (affective social presence), agreement (interactive social presence), as well as phatics and support (cohesive social presence). However, this study focused solely on the social aspect of MIM use but did not examine its influence on other dimensions of students' learning.

The effect of using MIM on cognitive engagement is not conclusive, due to the limited number of comparative studies and insufficient methodological rigor in experimental studies. For instance, Andujar ( 2016) and Chai and Fan ( 2016) reported positive effects of MIM use compared with the use of other tools or no treatment, while Kim et al. ( 2014) and Lai ( 2016) reported either no effect or adverse effects. A recent study by Sun et al. ( 2018) compared interaction types, social network patterns, and participants' attitudes between using an online discussion forum and an MIM app. The results show students were more involved in social interactions on MIM but were more involved in knowledge construction on the online forum (Sun et al., 2018). While MIM led to more interactions, students preferred using the online forum for collaborative learning (Sun et al., 2018). This study adopted a broad categorization of interaction types (social interaction vs. knowledge construction) and did not evaluate specific levels of thinking or knowledge construction. Moreover, it only reported descriptive statistical results but no measurable learning outcomes.

The educational use of MIM also has challenges. Pimmer and Rambe ( 2018) identified three interdependent pairs of affordances and constraints in temporal, relationship, and intellectual dimensions. To explain, its immediacy may increase interactivity but may pressure users to respond quickly. Ubiquitous interaction may increase perceived intimacy but may decrease the sense of privacy. Informal language use may be considered friendly but may not be always appropriate in formal educational contexts. The casual environment may increase the level of playfulness and participation but may distract students from task-oriented conversations (Pimmer & Rambe, 2018). Other challenges include technical problems such as insufficient smartphone ownership, unstable Internet connectivity, and small cellphone keyboards and screens (e.g., Allagui, 2014; Dambal et al., 2015).

We identified three major gaps regarding student engagement and the educational use of MIM. First, there is a lack of empirical study that examined the influence of MIM-supported activities on student engagement. Second, some engagement indicators, such as student participation and affective responses, have been sporadically presented by previous studies. However, without a comprehensive examination of engagement as a multi-dimensional construct, our understanding of the educational potential of MIM remains limited. Third, very few studies have compared the effectiveness of using MIM with other communication mode in influencing student learning. This study addresses these gaps by comparing the impacts of using MIM and using AOD in educational activities on student engagement. In the next section, we present more details of the research design.

Method

We conducted a quasi-experimental research involving a historical cohort control group. When random assignment of participants is not possible for practical and ethical reasons in educational research, a quasi-experimental study allows researchers to conduct comparative study in its natural setting (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). In addition, use of a historical cohort control group design provides a viable option for conducting quasi-experiments in outcome evaluation, with minimal resource requirements and disruption to school routines (Walser, 2014). To manage the comparability of treatment and control conditions, in this study, we chose two classes taught by the same instructor with identical syllabi, course materials, and class activities in two consecutive semesters. Students in the experimental group (hereinafter: MIM group) used WeChat for course-related discussion, while those in the control group (hereinafter: AOD group) used the asynchronous Moodle forum for the same activities. Moodle is the learning management system used on the university campus.

This study was conducted in an ecologically valid real classroom setting where WeChat and Moodle were adopted in natural educational practices, instead of a laboratory setting where strict controls of experiment conditions to investigate the different influences of mobile versus non-mobile, and synchronous versus asynchronous communication were imposed. In this study, we did not impose any restrictions on how participants should use MIM or AOD services. All students in the MIM group naturally used the MIM service via the mobile app on their mobile phones while all students from the AOD group naturally used Moodle forum via their personal computers. This allowed us to better understand what was going on in real classrooms and derive insights from authentic use cases. Moreover, although we chose these two tools for this study, our focus was not to merely compare these tools, but to evaluate the impacts of different modes (quasi-synchronous communication and mobility presented by MIM versus asynchronous communication and non-mobility represented by Moodle forum) on student engagement. MIM and AOD forum are both widely adopted to support student learning activities. Understanding which communication mode can better promote student online engagement is particularly important during the current widespread use of online learning. Our goal was to empirically investigate which one of the communicative modes can better support student engagement in real classroom settings.

To further improve the validity of comparison, since students with a better understanding of the content knowledge typically participate more actively (Tinto, 1987), we controlled the influence of students' initial content knowledge by administering a pre-class assessment on the main knowledge unit covered in this course. 26 students from the MIM group and 28 from the AOD group completed the quiz. Since the data significantly deviated from a normal distribution, we compared the difference with a Mann-Whitney U-test. The results showed no significant difference ( U = 337.5, p = 0.63) in student prior knowledge between the two groups (MIM group: M = 1.19, SD = 1.44; AOD group: M = 1.21, SD = 1.13) (See Table ​Table1 1 ).

Table 1

Group

Number of participants

M (SD)

Mann-Whitney U

Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

MIM

26

1.19 (1.44)

337.5

688.5

− 0.48

0.63

AOD

28

1.21 (1.13)

Research context

Participants were enrolled in an educational course at a large university in Hong Kong in the 2016-2017 school year. The class met once a week, three hours each week, and for eight weeks in total. The instructor taught the course in a flipped approach, by disseminating instructional videos before each class and guiding students to apply what they had learned in class (see Fig. 3 for a visual illustration of the learning process). The first four weeks covered content knowledge, and the last four weeks were for student-led group presentations. In the first four weeks, students completed six online discussion tasks (see Table ​Table2) 2 ) on the designated platforms. The MIM group was enrolled in 2016 Fall, involving 26 students (23 females and three males). All the students were from mainland China or Hong Kong. The AOD group was enrolled in 2017 Spring, involving 29 students (21 females and eight males). One student was from Thailand, and the others were from mainland China or Hong Kong.

Table 2

Week

Session topic

Discussion task

1

Adult learners

Post-class: Introduce one adult class you taught before or wish to teach

2

Andragogy

Pre-class: Watch a video and propose two solutions to address the situation

Post-class: Discuss one topic from last class with which you feel most connected

3

Motivation

Pre-class: Talk about possible methods of positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, and punishment

Post-class: Read the article and post one concept you find most interesting

4

Online learning

Pre-class: What are three most important questions to consider about designing an online course for adults? Why?

Students understood that their participation in the discussion was completely voluntary and would not be counted toward their grades. Students were encouraged to provide feedback to others' comments, and they were allowed to use the discussion platform in any way that might help them learn with no prescribed regulations. For example, they could ask assignment-related questions or share internship information. The instructor did not participate unless students specifically sought his help.

Data collection and analysis

Figure 4 summarizes the ways in which we measured how behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement happened in the learning process, and how we collected the data.

To measure behavioral engagement, we collected students' online interaction records after the course ended, and analyzed the data using a content analysis method (Holsti, 1969). Specifically, we counted the number of participants and their posts, as well as calculated the number of posts per individual and discussion task. We categorized postings as on-task and off-task messages. On-task messages were posts that directly contributed to the discussion topics, while off-task messages were not directly related to the topics. On-task messages were further grouped into two types: task completion (messages intended to complete the task) and interaction (messages as responses). One message could contain components of both task completion and interaction.

To compare emotional engagement, we interviewed 20 students, 10 from each group, to understand their affective responses toward the course content, participation, resources, and interaction. These interviews were semi-structured, wherein we asked elaboration and clarification questions as needed to gain more insight. Each interview lasted about 30 min. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and double-checked for accuracy. We also administered a Likert-style survey anonymously via Google Forms upon the course completion. The 15-item survey was adapted from Bailey ( 2002) to measure student attitude towards peer interaction, student-instructor interaction, and course satisfaction. We compared students' responses with the Mann-Whitney U-test, as the data significantly deviated from a normal distribution. Significance was accepted at the level of 0.05.

The aforementioned interviews also helped identify students' learning strategies and perceived learning outcomes, as indicators of cognitive engagement. We analyzed the interview data with a grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to allow categories to emerge from the data. This involved generating a series of codes and successively refining them through an iterative process, until no more new codes could be identified.

In addition to the interview data, we adopted Wang et al. ( 2014) framework of cognitive engagement in connected learning contexts and analyzed on-task messages as an externalization of learning-related thought. The unit of analysis was the thematic unit because our focus was the "communication of meaning" (Merriam, 1998). One message might contain several units of analysis. The framework includes four levels (from low to high) of cognitive engagement:

1. Operation. Learners operate technologies to help with their personal learning and mainly interact with the interface to facilitate idea expression. This stage does not involve interaction with other participants.

2. Wayfinding. Learners identify resources and opportunities contributed by others in the network. Learners interact with the content and other learners to aggregate more information to enhance their understanding.

3. Sense-making. Learners bring together different information and critically evaluate and negotiate a viewpoint.

4. Innovation. Learners construct new understanding and artifacts, such as changes to one's personal opinions or behaviors and new suggestions or resources to extend the existing discussion.

Guided by this framework, we adopted the constant comparison method (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to identify specific indicators of cognitive engagement. Ten codes emerged inductively from the data corpus. The operationalization of each code was reviewed and refined iteratively. To increase the consistency of the analysis, we identified exemplary posts to illustrate each code. The final codebook is shown in Table ​Table3. 3 . Twenty percent of the qualitative data were randomly selected and analyzed by two independent researchers to ascertain coding reliability, which yielded an agreement rate of 92%. All disagreement was resolved through discussion.

Table 3

Code

Definition

Example

Operation

Wayfinding

Sense-making

Innovation

Results

Behavioral engagement

Table ​Table4 4 summarizes the differences in behavioral engagement of the two groups.

The MIM group produced more messages than the AOD group, including more on-task and interactive messages, while the AOD group wrote longer messages than MIM students. All MIM students participated in the out-of-class discussions, producing 473 messages with 22,489 words. A total of 321 messages were on-task, among which 186 (57.9%) were interactive. Each student produced 865 words, and each message contained an average of 47.5 words. On the other hand, 28 of the 29 students from the AOD group participated in the tasks, producing 169 messages with 17,289 words. All the messages were on-task, and 47 (27.8%) were interactive. The average number of words per student was 617.5 and per message was 102. We further analyzed the following aspects of participation and interaction.

Emotional engagement

According to the interviews, both MIM and AOD helped students create a sense of group and connectivity. Both technologies improved an awareness of peer presence. However, while most MIM interviewees explicitly acknowledged the positive impact of using WeChat on their feelings, hardly any AOD interviewees recognized the effect of the forum on their emotional engagement. Students mentioned the following reasons why they felt WeChat enhanced their emotional engagement.

Social interaction

The social nature of WeChat increased a sense of intimacy. Students would use social phatics, such as greetings or holiday wishes, to improve the level of positivity and friendliness. Students were also connected with the social sharing function, which allowed them to know their classmates as unique individuals outside of the classroom. One student commented, "You get to know them better through what they share and how they describe their posts."

However, some students still preferred limiting the use of MIM to social conversations. They felt awkward to intentionally use MIM for academic posts. Further, students sometimes thought the notifications pushed by MIM were distracting, even annoying. Messages could also be obstructive to one's private life. Students also disliked the pressure to participate only because their classmates were active, even though the discussions were voluntary. One student said, "Sometimes I forced myself to comment, because others would have a better impression of me, including the teacher."

On the other hand, most AOD interviewees showed a neutral attitude toward the impact of using forum on their affective involvement. Their responses were comparatively succinct, such as "I could not say it had a strong influence," or "It was not obvious." Two main uninviting features of Moodle forum were (1) the lack of interaction, and (2) the pressure of being formal. Most students would just post their own answers but did not bother to comment on others' postings. When they wrote their own responses, students felt the pressure to provide in-depth responses. One student said, "I always wrote an essay in a Word document, double-checked the grammar, and read it several times before posting it. I had to make sure that everything was up to academic expectations."

Regarding the survey results, 20 MIM students and 27 AOD students responded on their attitudes towards the course interaction and satisfaction. The score of each construct was obtained by summing the scores of each item in that construct, and the overall score was obtained by adding the scores of all constructs. The results showed no significant difference in any surveyed aspects (see Table ​Table5 5 ).

Table 5

Group

M (SD)

Mdn

Mean rank

Min

Max

Statistical test results

Mann-Whitney U

Wilcoxon W

Z

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

Students' peer interaction

Student-teacher interaction

Course satisfaction

Overall evaluation

Cognitive engagement

We measured cognitive engagement based on students' online interaction records and interviews about their learning strategies and perceived learning outcomes. Table ​Table6 6 summarizes the coding results of students' interaction records.

Both technologies supported student cognitive engagement in a variety of ways. A stark difference was in the wayfinding dimension. MIM students were most involved in wayfinding interaction, while the AOD students showed the least involvement in this category. This indicates MIM was more facilitative to interaction, as wayfinding indicates bidirectional communication. Regarding specific indicators, both groups were more frequently engaged in sharing information, although the AOD group demonstrated a higher percentage. Between groups, MIM students demonstrated higher frequencies of all individual indicators, indicating that more cognitively engaging communication was present in the MIM group. Particularly, MIM students demonstrated more instances of the highest level of cognitive engagement indicator "creating" than their AOD peers (32 vs. 8).

According to the interviews, students in the MIM group attributed their improved cognitive engagement to increased interactivity, class preparation, just-in-time learning opportunities, connected learning resources, and succinct language use.

Connected learning resources

The MIM group established an easy conversation channel, whereby they could navigate learning resources and have direct contact with their classmates to ask for clarification and elaboration. "If I am interested in a particular idea and would love to have more discussions, I could just @ the sender and ask them directly. It is convenient and efficient."

However, some students from the MIM group complained about the size of keyboard and screen, which limited them to fully elaborate on ideas. Another negative factor was the chronological display of messages, which made group conversations difficult to follow. Students found it hard to engage in in-depth discussions if they were always catching up on the most recent messages. "If you are not following the interactions all the time, there is no easy way to read all the messages."

As for AOD, students appreciated using it for academic discussions, mainly due to the following factors.

Organized threaded format

The threaded format of forum posts allowed students to organize relevant posts and easily search for content. Students considered this feature helpful for information retrieval and idea development.

What students disliked about AOD are its low interactivity and long formal responses. Like many other learning management systems, Moodle forum was not mobile-friendly, as it required students to take multiple steps to login, navigate to the right course, find the discussion board and the right topic, and then write their responses. One student said, "It is hard to use. That's why I did not interact much. It was a headache to find the right place." Additionally, students did not enjoy reading long posts or providing responses to such posts. The low interactivity and difficulty of use prevented students from actively participating in discussion tasks and thus limited the development of high-level cognitive engagement.

Discussion and implications

Revisiting the major findings

In this study, we compared the engagement levels of two groups of students using MIM and AOD to conduct same course-related discussions in a flipped learning setting. Behaviorally, MIM seems to have contributed to a higher level of engagement than AOD in terms of the total number of posts, the total number of words and of each student, the participation rate, the task completion rate, and the interaction rate. However, the messages tended to be longer on the forum than those in the MIM group, as shown by the number of words per message.

Emotionally, although the survey results showed no significant differences in student peer interaction, teacher-student interaction, or course satisfaction between the two groups, the interview results revealed more nuance. MIM established a friendly and interactive environment, which helped develop positive interpersonal relationships among participants. In contrast, students found little impact of AOD communication on their affective feelings toward the course and other students. On the negative side, some students disliked using WeChat for academic purposes, and some from the AOD group did not like the lack of interaction and lengthy essay-like responses on Moodle forum.

Cognitively, both technologies supported student cognitive engagement. AOD seemed more facilitative of individual sharing, while MIM contributed to a higher level of interactive idea exchange. The MIM group was also involved in more "creating" activities. Based on the interview results, students identified multiple facilitative and inhibitive features of both technologies. The MIM students enjoyed the increased interactivity, better class preparation, just-in-time learning opportunities, connected learning resources, and succinct language use, but they were also bothered by the device limitations and information disorganization. In the AOD group, students liked the structured discussion, extended processing time, and the ease of multi-tasking and editing, but they did not enjoy reading or responding to lengthy posts, which limited their desire for interaction.

The mobility, quasi-synchronicity, and casualness of MIM reduced students' anxiety about being perfect and promote spontaneous discussion (Rambe & Bere, 2013). Studies have suggested that the increased interactivity would lead to a higher level of intimacy (Tu & McIsaac, 2002), which is a key factor of student affective feelings toward and satisfaction with completely online learning (Gunawardena & Zittle, 1997). However, our survey results revealed no significant difference in the emotional engagement between the two groups, although the MIM group demonstrated a higher level of interactivity. This might be due to the course nature, which in this study operated in a blended format. Therefore, the results may be different from completely online courses examined in previous studies. This course prioritized face-to-face meetings and included online discussions as supplementary and voluntary activities. As a result, online interaction might have less impact on student affective engagement than face-to-face meetings. Because both groups took the course with the same instructor and the same activities, their evaluation of the course might be very similar.

The differences in cognitive engagement presented a complex picture. Previous studies found that threaded AODs might better support higher-order thinking compared with chronologically organized discussions in instant messages (Kim et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2018). Our results suggested otherwise. One explanation of this incongruity may be that in both Kim et al. ( 2014) and Sun et al. ( 2018), the instructors assigned discussion activities as mandatory tasks. These activities were designed purposefully as collaborative projects, in which students had to either collaboratively find solutions to an ill-structured problem or co-develop a lesson plan based on peer feedback. According to the media synchronicity theory, when a large amount of information is to be exchanged in the communication, media that afford low synchronicity (AOD in this case) may facilitate better communication performance, as it allows more time to read, understand, and process information transmitted (Dennis et al., 2008). However, in our study, participating in the discussions was voluntary, and collaboration was not necessary. When students were given the choice to participate, MIM seemed to have afforded higher levels of interaction and more opportunities to share ideas. Such frequent "give and take" is favorably supported by a medium that supports high synchronicity (in this case, MIM) (Dennis et al., 2008). The increased level of interaction may have contributed to higher cognitive engagement, especially more "creating" indicators. The creation of new ideas or artifacts does not occur in an individual but through interaction between the individual and the social-cultural context (Csikszentmihályi, 1990). Pi et al. ( 2019) also found if students were exposed to a high rate of peers' original ideas and paid more attention to those ideas, they would be more creative. Therefore, using MIM to boost students' interaction might be a useful strategy for improving creative thinking.

Instructional design suggestions

According to the media synchronicity theory, no medium is better than the other. Communicators should choose appropriate media based on the task requirements, the media features, and the maturity of grouping (Dennis et al., 2008). Based on our observation and analysis, we provide the following suggestions for instructors who wish to incorporate MIM or AOD to improve student engagement and learning. These suggestions aim to utilize the affordances of MIM or AOD and to address their challenges.

Develop schedules for discussion

Instructor can develop a schedule with students to address student concerns about messaging being distractions and invasion of privacy, but still maintain flexibility and connectivity (Tu et al., 2014). For example, a discussion schedule can be set between 9 am and 5 pm each weekday. The schedule should be a collective decision of all participants. In addition, instructors can remind students to mute their MIM notifications when they do not want to be disturbed (Tang & Hew, 2019). AOD, on the other hand, due to its asynchronous nature, does not create any distraction or obtrusive feelings.

Limitations and future work

There are some limitations of this study which point to an array of possibilities for future research. First, the study was conducted in a graduate-level education course. These contextual factors might limit the generalizability of our results to other contexts such as undergraduate and K-12 settings. Future studies could investigate other disciplinary and geographical areas and in non-higher educational contexts. Second, the study examined student use of one technology over one semester (eight weeks). There might be a novelty effect on the results-the tendency of an initial improvement in student performance when a new technology is introduced to the learning environment (Clark, 1983). Researchers might wish to examine the long-term adoption of MIM and its influence on student learning and engagement. Third, this study suggests that discussion tasks with shorter answers could cater to the strengths of mobile devices. However, it is beyond our scope to investigate what types of activities are most suited to an MIM-based discussion. Future research could explore the influence of different discussion activities. Fourth, this study does not demonstrate that how different levels of engagement eventually lead to qualities of learning outcomes. Further studies should examine the relationship between student engagement and learning outcomes. Finally, we were unable to isolate the possible individual influences of mobility and synchronicity on the reported results. To determine the possible individual influences of mobility and synchronicity, future research may consider having different experiment conditions while controlling for the confounding variable. For instance, one group may use quasi-synchronous communication (MIM) via mobile phones versus another group using asynchronous online discussion also via mobile phones.

Conclusion

Our main motivation for this study is to understand the extent to which MIM, as a social tool, can facilitate student engagement. We compared the use and effects of MIM and AOD on students' behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Our findings showed that using MIM could better facilitate interaction and the development of interpersonal relationships. A learning environment with higher levels of intimacy and interactivity can help meet the psychological need for motivation. We also found that when MIM was used in optional tasks, in which the students could choose whether and how they want to participate in the discussion, MIM seemed to afford a higher level of cognitive engagement, as shown by more indicators of idea exchange and creativity. MIM emerges as a promising tool for engaging students in social learning activities and fostering higher-level thinking through interaction. Our findings provide evidence to improve the instructional design of MIM-supported learning experiences and promote our theoretical understanding of student engagement.

Acknowledgements

We thank teachers and students who have made valuable contributions to this study.

Authors' contributions

YT conceived and designed the study, collected the data, performed the data analysis, drafted the manuscript, and critically revised the paper. KFH conceived and designed the study and critically revised the paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available under the university IRB guidelines. Other materials are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Ying Tang, Email: nc.ude.uws@gnatgniy.

Khe Foon Hew, Email: kh.ukh@wehfk.

References

Andujar, A. (2019). Evaluating mobile instant messaging for L2 development: A longitudinal investigation. In M. Kruk (Eds.), Assessing the effectiveness of virtual technologies in foreign and second language instruction (pp. 191-215). IGI Global. 10.4018/978-1-5225-7286-2.ch008

Bailey, K. D. (2002). The effects of learning strategies on student interaction and student satisfaction [doctoral dissertation]. The Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/5922

Butgereit, L. (2007). Math on MXit: Using MXit as a medium for mathematics education. Paper presented at Meraka INNOVATE Conference for Educators, CSIR, Pretoria. Retrieved from https://researchspace.csir.co.za/dspace/handle/10204/1614.

Chang C, Hurst B, McLean A. How fast is fast enough? Education students' perceptions of email response time in online courses. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange. 2016;9(1):1-11. [Google Scholar]

Fox AB, Rosen J, Crawford M. Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? CyberPsychology & Behavior. 2009;12(1):51-53. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0107. [[PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2003). Models to evaluate online learning communities of asynchronous discussion forums. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 19(2). Retrieved from https://ajet.org.au/index.php/AJET/article/view/1714

Kim H, Lee M, Kim M. Effects of mobile instant messaging on collaborative learning processes and outcomes: The case of South Korea. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. 2014;17(2):31-42. [Google Scholar]

Pew Research Center. (2019, December). Social media and young adults. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2010/02/03/social-media-and-young-adults-3/

Pimmer, C., & Rambe, P. (2018). The inherent tensions of "instant education": A critical review of mobile instant messaging. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(5). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3765

Rennecker J, Godwin L. Theorizing the unintended consequences of instant messaging for worker productivity. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, Systems and Organizations. 2003;3(3):137-168. [Google Scholar]

Robinson L, Behi O, Corcoran A, Cowley V, Cullinane J, Martin I, Tomkinson D. Evaluation of WhatsApp for promoting social presence in a first-year undergraduate radiography problem-based learning group. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences. 2015;46(3):280-286. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2015.06.007. [[PubMed] [CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Statista. (2021). Retrieved Dec 8, 2021 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/258749/most-popular-global-mobile-messenger-apps/. Accessed 8 Dec 2021.

Tang Y, Hew KF. Examining the utility and usability of mobile instant messaging in a graduate-level course: A usefulness theoretical perspective. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2019 doi: 10.14742/ajet.4571. [[CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Unuth, N. (2020). Why whatsapp is so popular? LifeWire. Retrieved Dec 8, 2021 from https://www.lifewire.com/reasons-why-whatsapp-is-popular-3426372.

Wang Y, Fang W-C, Han J, Chen N-S. Exploring the affordances of WeChat for facilitating teaching, social and cognitive presence in semi-synchronous language exchange. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2016 doi: 10.14742/ajet.2640. [[CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Xu B, Chen N-S, Chen G. Effects of teacher role on student engagement in WeChat-based online discussion learning. Computers & Education. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103956. [[CrossRef] Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effects of using mobile instant messaging on student behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement: a quasi-experimental study

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mobile instant messaging (MIM) has become the most popular means for young people to communicate. MIM apps typically come with a myriad of features that educators may leverage to increase student learning. However, it remains poorly understood to what ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History Of Cellphones And How Drastically They've Changed

# data[].attributes.body
In the coming years, artificial intelligence is probably going to change your life— and likely the entire world. But people have a hard time agreeing on exactly how AI will affect our society. Can we build AI systems that help us fix the world? Or are we doomed to a robotic takeover? Explore the limitations of artificial intelligence and the possibility of creating human-compatible technology.

# data[].attributes.headline
What will phones look like in the future?

# data[].attributes.subject
What will phones look like in the future?

# data[].attributes.body
Do some research and maybe you'll find some inspo? 🧐

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
My first mobile phone was the Ericsson A1018s. I bought it at a gas station in 1999 when I was 11 years old. Some of its biggest features were changing the ringtone (there were 12 options) and caller ID - impressive, I know. You could also customize the device by getting a keyboard plate with a different color.

If you told me back in 1999 what these devices would be capable of in around 20+ years, I'd call you crazy - and I wouldn't be alone. Back then, no one could have predicted the impact phones would have on our lives. It would have sounded like science fiction.

This got me thinking: what will smartphones of the future look like? What features will these devices have in 20, 30, or even 50 years that seem like science fiction today? Here's what I've come up with.

Mind control

Back in the day, the main way of using a phone was a physical keypad. This was eventually replaced by the touchscreens we use today. With services like Google Assistant, we can now also interact with our devices just by using our voices.

I think the next step in this evolution is mind control. The technology would allow you to perform every task you can do via touch or voice with your mind. You could open an app of choice, play a specific video on some futuristic version of YouTube, and even edit images with your thoughts. You could also send a text, control the screen brightness, or create a movie from the videos you've captured - you get the picture.

Using smartphones would be a lot faster with mind control. You'd no longer have to search for an app to open it or stretch your finger all the way to the top of the screen to tap it. You could perform any task in a heartbeat.
Scientists are already making progress in this field.
Scientists at MIT are also working on something similar with a device called AlterEgo, which lets users converse with machines with only their thoughts. The project has been in development for a while now and it will take time before it hits the market, if that ever happens.

Even though the idea of using a smartphone with your thoughts seems crazy now, it just may become a thing decades down the line. Fingers crossed!

Over-the-air charging

Let's face it: the battery life of the average smartphone sucks. Even if you have a high-end phone like the Galaxy S22 Ultra with its massive 5,000mAh battery, you're still only looking at around two days of average use at best. Once the device runs out of juice, you either have to plug it in or place it on a wireless charging pad, if your phone supports it.
With over-the-air charging, you'd never have to worry about running out of juice again.
Imagine a future where these transmitters are a lot more powerful and can charge devices over-the-air at great distances. They could be placed across countries, just like cell phone towers today, and would constantly charge your smartphone from afar, making sure it never runs out of juice. These charging transmitters would be so powerful, they'd keep your smartphone's battery at 100 percent all the time. You'd never have to worry about battery life again and would get rid of all those pesky charging cables for good.

The technology wouldn't be exclusive to smartphones either. It would constantly charge all your gadgets, from Chromebooks to smartwatches. It could even charge your electric car, which is what we'll probably all be driving in the future.

Stretchable phones

The next big thing in display technology in the near future seems to be flexible displays. We've already seen several foldable phones including the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 3, Z Flip 3, Moto Razr, and others.

When I think about the next technological breakthrough in this area - decades away - I envision stretchable phones. Instead of unfolding a phone for more screen real estate like with the Z Fold 3, for example, you'd stretch it out to increase its size, sort of like a rubber band. All you'd have to do is pull the phone from two of its corners diagonally.
Read more: The best foldable phones to get
This type of design would let you quickly increase the size of the device when watching videos and make it smaller to fit in your pocket. For it to work, the vast majority of components would have to be stretchable, not just the display.

Obviously, there would be a limit to how far you can stretch a device. If that limit was 50 percent of the size of a phone, for example, it would mean you could transform a 6-inch display into a 9-inch one.

Work is already being done in the field of stretchable displays, but we're a long way off from fully stretchable phones becoming a reality. Samsung announced a prototype of a stretchable display back in 2017 which can be dented up to 12mm without causing damage - shown in the image above. That display just bounces back to its original flat shape - similar to a trampoline - so it's not really what I have in mind for the future.

The company also showed off a new version of this display last year, which can stretch and morph to provide more immersive content on display - see video below.

"Our work could soon lead to printed displays that can easily be stretched to larger sizes, as well as wearable electronics and soft robotics applications," said Chuan Wang, assistant professor at Michigan State University in a releases from the school.

In addition to making phones larger or smaller, stretchable displays would also add a new dimension to things like gaming and watching videos. Imagine playing a first-person shooter game and the display flexing out while someone is shooting at you - the experience could be a lot more immersive.

Changing colors

Phones come in a variety of colors, and choosing the best one can often be a struggle. Black, silver, and white give off a more classic vibe, but they're also boring. Red, green, or purple colorways stand out more, but can give devices a toyish, less professional look. With smartphones of the future, you may not have to choose anymore.
You would be able to change the color of your smartphone as often as you'd like.
Imagine a phone with a completely transparent back made from a glass-like material that fully absorbs light. The device would have one or more LED lights inside, the color of which you could change in the settings of the phone (or maybe with your mind!). When you choose orange, the entire back cover would completely absorb the color of the light and look exactly the same, almost as if it were painted on.

This technology would allow you to switch between different colors as frequently as you'd like. The feature could also have a mode to change the color automatically on a daily basis. With a few LED lights inside properly positioned, you could also create gradient colors.

This new glass-like material (as well as the display) would also be virtually unbreakable, so you wouldn't have to worry about it cracking if you drop your phone. Unlike glass phones today, it would also be resistant to fingerprints.

Work is already being done in this area, although we're still far away from it becoming a reality. In 2020, OnePlus announced the 8T Concept phone that features a color-changing back panel. It uses what OnePlus calls "Electronic Color, Material, and Finish," or ECMF for short, which allows the back of the phone to change depending on certain circumstances. You can see it in action below.

OLED and E-ink in one

OLED displays are great for watching videos and playing games, but they aren't the best for reading. E-ink displays, like those in Amazon's Kindle e-readers, are a much better option. I've been using a Kindle Paperwhite for years now and love the fact my eyes don't get strained after reading for a few hours. It also lets me read outside, under direct sunlight.
This technology would make dedicated e-readerds obsulete.
This is more or less impossible with OLED displays. Sure, features like night mode filter out blue light and can even turn the screen to monochrome, but even when enabled OLED displays still don't come close to matching e-ink technology in terms of reading comfort.

The smartphones of the future I envision would combine OLED and e-ink technology into one, likely killing dedicated e-readers. With a simple tap in the settings, you could transform an OLED display into an e-ink screen for reading books, articles, and various documents without all that light shining into your face. An e-ink display is also a lot less power-hungry, which could mean longer battery life.

Unfortunately, something like this is impossible at this point. Apple had a similar idea back in 2011 when it applied for a patent regarding a hybrid e-ink/OLED display, but we haven't seen this technology hit the market yet. There are phones available today featuring both display technologies, but they don't combine them into one.

While combining an OLED and an e-ink display in one seems impossible now, it could become a reality in the distant future - crazier things have happened before.

Will there even be smartphones in the future?

Smartphones of the future may not be smartphones at all. These devices may take on a whole new form factor, which will enable us to perform the same tasks as smartphones do today - and more.
My version of futuristic glasses would let you make calls, watch videos, listen to music...
I see a future where smartphones in their current form get replaced by what look like regular glasses. Yes, I know we've already seen devices like Google Glass, which failed miserably. But the product I have in mind goes beyond Google's pet project. It's sort of like Google Glass on steroids.

My version of futuristic glasses would let you make and receive calls. When someone rings you, you'd see their name/image in front of your eyes. When you answer the call, you'd immediately hear the caller without having to use an earphone. The glasses would use bone conduction technology or something even more high-tech. They'd also be able to play music, offer turn-by-turn navigation, and read the emails and texts you've received. All these things could also be displayed in front of your eyes using AR technology.

Of course, the glasses would feature a camera on board. When you'd want to take a picture, a frame would show up in front of your eyes, showing exactly what the camera will capture. Say the word "Snap" in your head and the image will be taken.

Thanks to AR technology, the glasses would project a screen/image in front of you, allowing you to watch your favorite shows, play games, see the images you've captured with the camera, and browse the web. That means you wouldn't have to buy a dedicated TV, which would save you money as well as space in your home.

These glasses would combine smartphone capabilities with holograms.
A lot of companies are already working in the field of smart and connected glasses. In addition to Google, Intel showed off a pair of smart glasses a few years back, which project a stream of information in front of you (directions, notifications...). But unfortunately, the company has already given up on the technology. An Amazon-backed company called North was working on a similar idea with their glasses called Focals. However, Google later bought the company and shut down the entire project. Then there are mixed reality headsets like the Microsoft HoloLens, which brings holograms in front of your eyes - although it's currently targeted at business users.

So the glasses I have in mind would combine smartphone capabilities with holograms and other features offered by today's smart glasses. It's an interesting idea, but let's go crazy and take it a step further. Imagine these futuristic glasses being replaced by a small computer placed in your brain. You'd be able to receive calls by hearing the voice of the caller in your head, just like your thoughts. You'd listen to music the same way, hear GPS direction, and more.

Additionally, you'd be able to take pictures, watch videos, play games, and see holograms. But instead of the images being projected in front of you by the glasses, the computer in your head would project them through your eyes. Essentially, this computer would be capable of doing the exact same things as the smart glasses of the future, but it would be less intrusive. Well, kind of. It would have to be placed in your brain, but at least you wouldn't have to put it on and off every five minutes. It would also be impossible to lose it or for someone to steal it.

It all sounds like science fiction. Something you'd expect to see in a cartoon like The Jetsons. But hey, perhaps it will become a real thing in the future. After all, work is already being done in this area.

I see a future where everything is connected and our smartphones - or whatever replaces them - can communicate seamlessly with virtually every device. As long as you have it with you, your front door will open once you get near it, you'll be able to unlock your car and start the engine, and even go through the mechanical gate at the subway and airport if the ticket is saved on your phone. It'd be fantastic - at least until your phone gets stolen.

So that's it for my thoughts on what I'd like to see from mobile devices in the future. Now it's your turn. Think about what features smartphones of the future could bring to the table and share them with us in the comments below!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What will smartphones of the future look like? Here are 6 (crazy) predictions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These six features may seem like science fiction now, but they could be a real thing on future phones somewhere down the line. Fingers crossed!

# data[].attributes.headline
Experiment with Google - what is happening now! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Experiment with Google - what is happening now! 

# data[].attributes.body
https://experiments.withgoogle.com/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 2009, coders have created thousands of amazing experiments using Chrome, Android, AI, AR and more. We're showcasing projects here, along with helpful tools and resources, to inspire others to create new experiments. Here are collections of experiments to explore, with new ones added every week. Have fun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since 2009, coders have created thousands of amazing experiments using Chrome, Android, AI, WebVR, AR and more. We're showcasing projects here, along with helpful tools and resources, to inspire others to create new experiments.

# data[].attributes.body
Check out these design frameworks. Will you use any when designing your product? 🧐

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. User-centered design

2. The five elements of UX design

3. Design thinking

4. Lean UX

5. Double Diamond

User-centered design process

The key steps in the user-centered design process:

Understand how the user experiences the product or similar products. You want to know how users will engage with your design, as well as the environment or context in which they'll experience the product.

Understanding this requires a lot of research, like observing users in action and conducting interviews, which we'll explore more later.

Specify the user's needs. Based on your research, figure out which user problems are the most important to solve.

Design solutions to those user problems. Come up with lots of ideas for designs that can address the user problems you've identified. Then, start to actually design those ideas!

Evaluate the solutions you designed against the user's needs. Ask yourself, "Does the design I created solve the user's problem?" To answer this question, you should test the product you designed with real people and collect feedback.

The five elements of UX design

The five elements are, from bottom to top: strategy, scope, structure, skeleton, and surface. Think of these as a set of five layers, where each layer is dependent on the one below it.

1. Strategy: The bottom layer is strategy, where you lay a foundation of your design goals. These goals are based on user needs and the business objectives for the product.

2. Scope: The next layer is scope, where you determine the type of product you're building. At this point, you will consider the kind of features and content you want to include in the product.

3. Structure: The middle layer is structure. Here, you'll figure out how to organize your design and how you want users to interact with the product.

4. Skeleton: The skeleton is the layout of the product. the skeleton layer details how your design works - and like a skeleton, users won't directly see its inner-workings.

5. Surface: The top layer, surface, represents how the product looks to the user. The surface represents the interface that users view and interact with. Think of the surface like the clothes or makeup you wear that are visible to the outside world.

Design thinking

Design thinking is a user-centered approach to problem-solving. It helps designers create solutions that address a real user problem and are functional and affordable. There are five phases in the design process: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test.

1. During the empathize phase, the goal is to understand users' needs and how users think and feel. This involves a lot of user research, such as conducting surveys, interviews, and observation sessions, so you can get a clear picture of who your users are and the challenges they are facing.

2. In the define phase, you'll create a clear problem statement a description of the user's need that your designs will address, based on your research findings. This will drive your team toward a clear goal for the design of the product.

3. Once you land on a user problem and establish why it's an important one to solve, it's time for the ideate phase. The goal of ideation is to come up with as many design solutions as possible.

4. Once you have an idea of how to solve the problem, you're ready to enter the prototype phase. A prototype is an early model of a product that demonstrates its functionality.

5. During the test phase, users provide feedback about your designs, before the product is built by engineers and launched to the public. You can use this feedback to make changes and improvements to your designs, as many times as you need.

Depending on the feedback from your testing phase, you might need to go back to the beginning of the design process, come up with new ideas for solutions, or develop new prototypes. Eventually, the goal of the design thinking process, like any design framework, is to implement your design, which means building it and sharing it with the world.

Lean UX

The Lean UX process focuses on reducing wasted time and resources, and producing a workable product as soon as possible. The process is iterative, meaning the team continues to update and make revisions to the product as they gather user research and stakeholder feedback.

The Lean UX process is broken into three steps:

1. Think. Explore the problems that users are experiencing and consider how you could solve them with your design. This step is all about gathering research, so you can form a clear idea of who the product is for and how it will help them.

2. Make. Start designing the product by creating sketches, wireframes, and prototypes. You'll also create a minimum viable product, or MVP for short, which is a simple prototype of your designs that you can test with the target audience. Be prepared to go back and update your prototype as you gather feedback!

3. Check. Find out how users respond to your design and gather feedback from project stakeholders. Make adjustments to your designs accordingly, and repeat the three steps again, if necessary.

There are six principles you should keep in mind when using the Lean UX process:

1. Move forward.

2. Stay curious.

3. Test ideas in the real world.

4. Externalize your ideas.

5. Reframe deliverables as outcomes.

6. Embrace radical transparency.

Double Diamond

Double Diamond is a more traditional UX process, which breaks down UX design into two main phases (or "diamonds"): research and design.

Each phase has two steps. When combined, these are the four steps:

Discover the problem. Gather information about potential issues users are facing.

Define the problem. Filter through the data, and focus on the main issue your product aims to solve.

Develop solutions for the problem. Begin designing your product as a work in progress. This is where wireframes and prototypes come into play.

Deliver the product. Review and test your product to prepare it for release.

Thanks,
linkedin.com/in/imohab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
User-centered design The five elements of UX design Design thinking Lean UX Double Diamond User-centered design process The key steps in the user-centered design process: Understand how the user experiences the product or similar products. You want to know how users will engage with your design, as

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMcChLsGKWc

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1976: Introducing the incredible, cordless 'MOBILE' phone | Blue Peter | Retro Tech | BBC Archive