Academics adopting mobile devices: the zone of free movement

Boris Handal*, Jean Macnish, Peter Petocz

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference proceeding contributionpeer-review

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This exploratory research characterised the degree of adoption of mobile learning (ML) devices among academic staff at an Australian university. It also sought to evaluate the impact of academics’ perceptions about possibilities and constraints in the adoption of these technologies. A zone of free movement (ZFM) scale was developed and validated to quantify the magnitude and direction of those perceptions. Results showed that academic staff are characteristically at the third of the Russell’s (1995) six developmental stages of technological adoption. Lack of time to integrate ML into courses, limited availability of mobile devices, little familiarity with the tools, as well as the perception that students cannot use them as a word-processor, act as inhibitors to the adoption of the technology. In turn, the perception that mobile tools enhance student-lecturer communication outside class was found to be a positive predictor of adoption.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationElectric Dreams
Subtitle of host publication30th Ascilite Conference 2013 Proceedings
EditorsH. Carter, M. Gosper, J. Hedberg
Place of PublicationNorth Ryde, NSW
PublisherMacquarie University
Pages350-361
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9781741384031
Publication statusPublished - 2013
Event30th Annual conference on Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, ASCILITE 2013 - Sydney, Australia
Duration: 1 Dec 20134 Dec 2013

Other

Other30th Annual conference on Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, ASCILITE 2013
Country/TerritoryAustralia
CitySydney
Period1/12/134/12/13

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Academics adopting mobile devices: the zone of free movement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this