Preservice teachers' perceptions about using mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools

The purpose of this research was to investigate preservice teachers’ perceptions about using m-phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. A total of 1087 preservice teachers participated in the study. The results indicated that preservice teachers perceived laptops potentially stronger than m-phones as m-learning tools. In terms of limitations the situation was balanced for laptops and m-phones. Generally, the attitudes towards using laptops in education were not exceedingly positive but significantly more positive than m-phones. It was also found that such variables as program/department, grade, gender and possessing a laptop are neutral in causing a practically significant difference in preservice teachers’ views. The results imply an urgent need to grow awareness among participating student teachers towards the concept of m-learning, especially m-learning through m-phones.  The world is becoming a mobigital virtual space where people can learn and teach digitally anywhere and anytime. Today, when timely access to information is vital, mobile devices such as cellular phones, smartphones, mp3 and mp4 players, iPods, digital cameras, data-travelers, personal digital assistance devices (PDAs), netbooks, laptops, tablets, iPads, e-readers such as the Kindle, Nook, etc have spread very rapidly and become common (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010; Franklin, 2011; Kalinic, Arsovski, Stefanovic, Arsovski & Rankovic, 2011). Mobile devices are especially very popular among young population (Kalinic et al, 2011), particularly among university students (Cheon, Lee, Crooks & Song, 2012; Park, Nam & Cha, 2012). Thus, the idea of learning through mobile devices has gradually become a trend in the field of digital learning (Jeng, Wu, Huang, Tan & Yang, 2010). This is because learning with mobile devices promises “new opportunities and could improve the learning process” (Kalinic et al, 2011, p. 1345) and learning with mobile devices can help achieving educational goals if used through appropriate learning strategies (Jeng et al, 2010). As a matter of fact, from a technological point of view, mobile devices are getting more capable of performing all of the functions necessary in learning design (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). This and similar ideas have brought about the concept of mobile learning or m-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 4 2014 606–618 doi:10.1111/bjet.12064  Although mobile learning applications are at their early days, there inevitably emerges a natural pressure by students on educators to integrate m-learning (Franklin, 2011) and so a great deal of attention has been drawn in these applications in the USA, Europe and Asia (Wang & Shen, 2012). Several universities including University of Glasgow, University of Sussex and University of Regensburg have been trying to explore and include the concept of m-learning in their learning systems (Kalinic et al, 2011). Yet, the success of m-learning integration requires some degree of awareness and positive attitudes by students towards m-learning. In this respect, in-service or preservice teachers’ perceptions about m-learning become more of an issue, since their attitudes are decisive in successful integration of m-learning (Cheon et al, 2012). Then it becomes critical whether the teachers, in-service or preservice, have favorable perceptions and attitudinal representations regarding m-learning. Theoretical framework M-learning M-learning has a recent history. When developed as the next phase of e-learning in early 2000s (Peng, Su, Chou & Tsai, 2009), its potential for education could not be envisaged (Attewell, 2005). However, recent developments in mobile and wireless technologies facilitated the departure from traditional learning models with time and space constraints, replacing them with Practitioner Notes What is already known about this topic • Mobile devices are very popular among young population, especially among university students. • Though it has a recent history, m-learning (ie, learning through mobile devices) has gradually become a trend. • M-learning brings new opportunities and can improve the learning process. Previous research on m-learning mostly presents positive outcomes in general besides some drawbacks. • The success of integrating m-learning in teaching practice requires some degree of awareness and positive attitudes by students towards m-learning. What this paper adds • Since teachers’ attitudes are decisive in successful integration of m-learning in teaching, the present paper attempts to understand whether preservice teachers have favorable perceptions and attitudes regarding m-learning. • Unlike much of the previous research on m-learning that handle perceptions about m-learning in a general sense, the present paper takes a more specific approach to distinguish and compare the perceptions about two most common m-learning tools: m-phones and laptops. • It also attempts to find out the variables that cause differences in preservice teachers’ perceptions about using these m-learning devices. Implications for practice and/or policy • Results imply an urgent need to grow awareness and further positive attitudes among participating student teachers towards m-learning, especially through m-phones. • Some action should be taken by the faculty and administration to pedagogically inform and raise awareness about m-learning among preservice teachers. Preservice teachers’ perceptions of M-learning tools 607  2005). Today it spreads rapidly and promises to be one of the efficient ways of education (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). Partly because it is a new concept, there is no common definition of m-learning in the literature yet (Peng et al, 2009). A good deal of literature defines m-learning as a derivation or extension of e-learning, which is performed using mobile devices such as PDA, mobile phones, laptops, etc (Jeng et al, 2010; Kalinic et al, 2011; Motiwalla, 2007; Riad & El-Ghareeb, 2008). Other definitions highlight certain characteristics of m-learning including portability through mobile devices, wireless Internet connection and ubiquity. For example, a common definition of m-learning in scholarly literature is “the use of portable devices with Internet connection capability in education contexts” (Kinash, Brand & Mathew, 2012, p. 639). In a similar vein, Park et al (2012, p. 592) defines m-learning as “any educational provision where the sole or dominant technologies are handheld or palmtop devices.” On the other hand, m-learning is likely to be simply defined stressing its property of ubiquity, referring to its ability to happen whenever and wherever needed (Peng et al, 2009). For example, Franklin (2011, p. 261) defines mobile learning as “learning that happens anywhere, anytime.” Though it is rather a new research topic and the effectiveness of m-learning in terms of learning achievements has not been fully investigated (Park et al, 2012), there is already an agreement that m-learning brings new opportunities and can improve the learning process (Kalinic et al, 2011). Moreover, the literature review by Wu et al (2012) notes that 86% of the 164 mobile learning studies present positive outcomes in general. Several perspectives of m-learning are attributed in the literature in association with these positive outcomes. The most outstanding among them is the feature of mobility. M-learning makes sense as an educational activity because the technology and its users are mobile (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). Hence, learning outside the classroom walls is possible (Nordin, Embi & Yunus, 2010; Şad, 2008; Saran, Seferoğlu & Çağıltay, 2009), enabling students to become an active participant, rather than a passive receiver of knowledge (Looi et al, 2010). This unique feature of m-learning brings about not only the possibility of learning anywhere without limits of classroom or library but also anytime (Çavuş & İbrahim, 2009; Hwang & Chang, 2011; Jeng et al, 2010; Kalinic et al, 2011; Motiwalla, 2007; Sha, Looi, Chen & Zhang, 2012; Sølvberg & Rismark, 2012). This especially offers learners a certain amount of “freedom and independence” (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010, p. 19), as well as motivation and ability to “self-regulate their own learning” (Sha et al, 2012, p. 366). This idea of learning coincides with the principles of and meet the requirements of other popular paradigms in education including lifelong learning (Nordin et al, 2010), student-centeredness (Sha et al, 2012) and constructivism (Motiwalla, 2007). Beside the favorable properties referred in the m-learning literature, some drawbacks of m-learning are frequently criticized. The most pronounced one is the small screen sizes of the m-learning tools that makes learning activity difficult (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010; Kalinic et al, 2011; Riad & El-Ghareeb, 2008; Suki & Suki, 2011). Another problem is the weight and limited battery lives of m-tools, particularly the laptops (Riad & El-Ghareeb, 2008). Lack of understanding or expertise with the technology also hinders nontechnical students’ active use of m-learning (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007; Franklin, 2011). Using mobile devices in classroom can cause distractions and interruptions (Cheon et al, 2012; Fried, 2008; Suki & Suki, 2011). Another concern seems to be about the challenged role of the teacher as the most learning activities take place outside the classroom (Sølvberg & Rismark, 2012). M-learning in higher education Mobile learning is becoming an increasingly promising way of delivering instruction in higher education (El-Hussein & Cronje, 2010). This is justified by the current statistics about the 608 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 45 No 4 2014