Lighting activo Activado, desactivado

The way educational stakeholders accept, adopt and respond to mobile technology is idiosyncratic – characterised by personal and constantly evolving attributes.

Acceptance

Institutional role players may or may not perceive the introduction of mobile technology into educational settings as advantageous, demonstrating differential uptake of mobile technology-enhanced learning. Perceived usefulness of the institutional learning-management system determines technology acceptance (Schoonenboom, 2014). In addition, acceptance may be influenced by a combination of task, context and interface. Alrasheedi and Capretz (2015) link success of m-learning to perceived benefits.

Wong et al. (2015) highlight three role-playing features of technology-enhanced learning acceptance: roles of leadership and academics, institutional norms and values, and effectiveness of institutional policies. Venkatesh et al. (2016) offer different perspectives indicating acceptance is influenced by motivation, price (value for money), personal digital habits, and actual use of technology. All features are purported to be moderated by age, gender and experience. In addition, Venkatesh et al. associate acceptance with charismatic leadership.

Adoption

technology requires a common-sense platform supporting new types of learning experiences where context incorporates mobile social media (Cochrane et al., 2015).

Adoption of emerging technologies may be driven by both institutional adoption and personal usage patterns (Farley & Murphy, 2013). Institutional uptake is slow and lagging, highlighting a gap in the adoption of social networking technologies in particular (Lytras et al., 2014). Levels of uptake of Web 2.0 are influencing technology-enhanced learning (Wild et al., 2013). Sometimes institutions support faculty-based rather than institution-based adoption, causing loss of credibility and indicating a need for strategic support (Graham et al., 2013). Enthusiastic lecturer adoption may enhance likelihood of success and drive student enthusiasm (Wild et al., 2013). Differences in cultures and attitudes have the propensity to influence adoption of educational technology (Tedre et al., 2011).

Critical success factors are changing as rates of adoption change (Alrasheedi & Capretz, 2015), implying frameworks would need to evolve dynamically. As mobile technology evolves, affordances of devices are altering with the emergence of new challenges and issues (Brown & Mbati, 2015). The adoption of social media is pervasive; external sources are thus pressuring higher education institutions to adapt and to implement change mechanisms (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012). Mang and Wardley (2012) suggest institutional adoption and experimentation has led to the piloting of tablet devices. These devices are now in use by many lecturers and students and some institutions have progressed experimentation beyond pilot phases to strategic rollouts. Mang and Wardley emphasise tablet usage should go beyond note taking.

Decisions regarding adoption and subsequent integration of Web 2.0 should be driven by pedagogical and contextual effectiveness (Oh & Reeves, 2014), incorporating attributes of formality and informality (Vavoula & Sharples, 2009). Factors that influence adoption include: lecturer criteria for use of learning-management systems (Fetaji & Fetaji, 2011; Schoonenboom, 2014; Ng, 2015); phase of adoption (Venkatesh et al., 2016); faculty engagement processes (Kukulska-Hulme, 2012); and informal, on-campus use of smartphones and tablets for anywhere, anytime m-learning purposes (Hwang & Wu, 2014; Lytras et al., 2014).

Support mechanisms are required. McGill et al. (2014) mention a need for ongoing delivery of resources and development programmes where skills evolve to suit shifts in innovation. Institutional policies designed for blended-learning models should support adoption (Graham et al., 2013).

Personal learning environments

The emergence of personal learning environments emphasises the responsibilities of all educational stakeholders to incorporate technologies into teaching and learning contexts. Personal digital contexts are

diverse and may be defined in many ways, inter alia, as inclusive of pedagogical perspectives (Mileva et al., 2008), distance and informal social learning environments where students are active in their own spaces (Lai et al., 2013; Park, 2014), problem-based learning opportunities (Wild et al., 2013), formal and informal m- learning contexts (Khaddage et al., 2016) and innovative stakeholder environments (Bozalek et al., 2013). García-Peñalvo and Conde (2015) caution that technological environments, for example, learning-management systems such as Moodle, are university-centric and not designed to suit all students. However, m-learning may provide flexible customisable contexts (Nguyen et al., 2015) and offer benefits associated with on- and off- campus access (Pérez-Sanagustín et al., 2012). The tablet context is personalisable, focused on the domain of study and the delivery of digital books (Fischer et al., 2013).

Responsibility for creating personal learning environments vests with lecturers who then empower students with facilitating contexts to do it their own way (Khaddage et al., 2016). Yet lecturer training is required. Students need to build confidence with m-learning and with the capabilities of their devices.

The addition of social networking and cloud technologies makes learning not only social but personal. Thus, learning platforms should effectively incorporate mobile technology and cloud computing with personalisation capabilities (Lytras et al., 2014). The integration of Web 2.0 technologies has implications for the design of and support for tasks and should accommodate practices of teaching and learning (Bennett et al., 2012). Many institutions designate mobile technologies as personal tools with the problem of restricted use in educational settings and a resultant call for change (Bozalek et al., 2013).

Stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder involvement is critical to the adoption of mobile educational technology, requiring design and development considerations, concomitant skills upliftment and a stable workforce. A broad spectrum of roles constitutes the stakeholder group likely to access the institutional virtual learning environment (Mileva et al., 2008). This observation has implications for design and development decisions that could aid effective access by smartphone or tablets. Wang et al. (2015) promote institutional involvement in blended learning where solutions can be sought across the organisation – with many stakeholders involved in the Vision to resolve cost factors and to address challenges (Harpur & De Villiers, 2015a). Staff stability contributes to stability of initiatives (McGill et al., 2014). The leveraging of lecturer expertise and teamwork seen as dynamic partnerships helps processes succeed (Cober et al., 2015).

consideration: student involvement, lecturer expertise, and the assurance of management support (Webb, 2014). Mang and Wardley (2012) note lecturers should be experienced, fill role of the expert and communicate confidence in the use of tablet technology.