Perceptions can influence the success of m-learning programs (Cain et al., 2008; Cutshall et al., 2006); therefore, eliciting the perceptions of those involved in m-learning programs can provide a valuable insight into the reasons for success or failure of such initiatives. Hence student and lecturer perceptions of m-learning have been the topic of a number of studies in higher education involving laptops (e.g. Barak et al., 2006; Changchit et al., 2006; Changchit, Cutshall & Elwood, 2008; Demb et al., 2004; Kuo, 2005; Percival & Percival, 2008), handheld devices such as PDAs (e.g. Litchfield et al., 2007), and mobile phones and smartphones (e.g. Attewell, 2005). Several such studies have focussed on students’ perceptions of m-learning; in particular, learning contexts or whilst implementing specific pedagogical strategies such as active and constructivist learning with wireless laptops (Barak et al., 2006; Litchfield et al., 2007).
Studies conducted by Demb et al. (2004), Kuo (2005) and Barak et al. (2006) examining students’ perceptions of the use of wireless laptops for learning found that students believed wireless laptops to be useful and efficient for their learning. Demb et al.’s (2004) study showed that two thirds of the respondents believed their laptop made a significant difference in study habits, academic performance, and in their formal and social lives. The study also found that the more students perceived the classroom use of laptops to be effective, the more likely they were to feel that the laptop was
essential to their learning and to their success as students.
Kuo’s (2005) study identified that an individual’s past experience in using the Internet and laptops influenced their perceptions of using wireless laptops for learning, and
indicated that the most important factor in predicting the perceptions of wireless laptops was the participants’ positive or negative attitude toward the Internet. Kuo’s (2005) study also examined faculty members’ perceptions of the use of wireless laptops for teaching and found that, though the faculty members had very positive attitudes towards using laptops and the Internet, they were less interested than students in trying wireless laptops and were concerned about laptops being a distraction in class. Barak et al.’s (2006) study, with a focus on the use of wireless laptops for promoting active learning, concluded that wireless laptops were of benefit in encouraging more interaction and collaboration, and in supporting problem-solving activities. However, the study found that students were initially reluctant to
participate in active learning as they were accustomed to more traditional teaching and the laptops were considered to be a distraction from learning if used for non- learning related tasks.
Though such studies provide accounts that support the use of laptops in the classroom or for teaching and learning purposes, not all reports of m-learning with laptops have been overwhelmingly positive. Similar to the findings of Kuo (2005) and Barak et al. (2006), other studies have also reported that laptops can be perceived to be a
distraction in class when used for non-learning purposes (Fried, 2008; Grace-Martin & Gay, 2001; Lohnes & Kinzer, 2007), and concerns have been noted about students using laptops to cheat in assessments (Lohnes & Kinzer, 2007; Smith, 2003). In a study to establish how students use technology in academic and non-academic spaces, Lohnes and Kinzer (2007) found that students were reluctant to use their laptops in class as laptops were perceived to be a distraction, keyboard noise was problem, and the laptop screen a physical barrier to forming a community. However, outside of the
classroom, students used their laptops intensively, completed assignments, worked with digital video and images, played games, listened to music, surfed the web, and used instant messaging and email for social purposes. They concluded that students’ personal learning preferences and the social context of the class can affect the success of m-learning in formal learning spaces.
Several studies on students’ perceptions of m-learning have focussed specifically on students’ acceptance of m-learning. Elwood et al. (2006), and Lu and Viehland (2008), for instance, utilised the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989) for their studies. The TAM (Davis, 1989) includes two main constructs:
1. perceived usefulness – the degree to which a person believes that using a particular technology would enhance his or her task performance; and
2. perceived ease of use – the degree to which a person believes that using a technology would be free of effort (p. 320).
Elwood et al. (2006) surveyed undergraduate and postgraduate students involved in a laptop initiative at the University of Texas to examine students’ perceptions and acceptance of the laptop program. In addition to the TAM factors of perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use, they identified another two acceptance factors: perceived change in teaching methods, and perceived resource requirements (e.g. power, wireless network). Similarly, Lu and Viehland (2008) conducted a study aimed at identifying the factors that influence the adoption of m-learning by students at six New Zealand universities. Their study focussed only on students who used mobile phones and PDAs and did not include laptops. The results of their study revealed that, in addition to the TAM factors of perceived usefulness and ease of use of m-learning, four other factors influenced the intention of users to adopt m-learning: students’
attitudes toward using m-learning, subjective norm, self-efficacy, and perceived financial resources required (e.g. cost of device).
As found in an earlier study by Demb et al. (2004), the results of Lu and Viehland’s study indicated that students were concerned that they may not be able to engage in m-learning because of limited access to mobile technologies (e.g. affordability of laptops). However, despite these concerns, more than three quarters of the respondents (76%) indicated that they intended to adopt m-learning.