Investigating Educators' Intention to Adopt M-Learning: A Comparative Study Between Arab Business Schools

Investigating Educators' Intention to Adopt M-Learning: A Comparative Study Between Arab Business Schools

Anissa Negra, Wafa M'sallem, Mohamed Nabil Mzoughi
Copyright: © 2021 |Pages: 15
DOI: 10.4018/IJTHI.2021070105
OnDemand:
(Individual Articles)
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

The technological spread has brought business schools in Arab countries into the m-learning age. Teachers represent one of the most important pillars of the ubiquitous learning implementation. This research aims to examine educators' intention of m-learning adoption based on the TAM, dispositional resistance to change (RTC), and perceived playfulness. One hundred seventy-nine educators from business schools in Tunisia and Saudi Arabia answered the survey. Results revealed that playfulness is the most predictor of the educators' intention adoption of m-learning in both cultures. Cluster analysis has revealed three different profiles of educators in business schools: opposing, averse, and pioneers.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

Innovation in learning requires following the drastic evolution of technology (Lucas, 2018; Jabeen & Ahmed, 2018; Moreira & Ferreira, 2017). Mobile learning (m-learning) is an innovative tool that has been recognized to reform the future of education by releasing teaching and learning from time–space constraints (Ooi, Hew, and Lee, 2018; Briz-Ponce et al., 2017; Traxler, 2007). It allows both teachers and learners to benefit of materials using wide range of wireless mobile technologies such as laptops, notebooks, mobile phones, iPods, tablet PCs, and iPad anywhere and anytime (Jabeen & Ahmed, 2018; Moreira & Ferreira, 2017; Mang, Brown & Piper, 2017; Miloševic´ et al., 2015; Traxler, 2007).

M-learning has become a valuable pedagogical tool in higher education (i.e. Jabeen & Ahmad, 2018; Moreira & Ferreira, 2017; Gao, Yan, Wei, Liang, & Mo, 2017). Universities in developed countries like European Union, US and Canada are among the first to embrace this new paradigm and to recognize the importance of implementing teaching-learning methods based on mobile technology (Moreira, Santos Pereira, Durão, & Ferreira, 2018). However, m-learning is still in an early phase of its implementation in developing countries (Alioon & Dililuga, 2015; Asharul et al., 2015), especially, in the MENA region (Alhunaiyyan, Alhajri & Al-Sharhan, 2018; Al-Emran et al., 2016; Ishtaiwa et al., 2015; Alfarani, 2015). Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (eg. Alalwan et al., 2018; Al-Emran et al., 2016; Nassuora, 2013), Jordan (Althunibat, 2015), Oman (Sarrab, Al-shihi, Al-kahanjar & Bourdoucen, 2018; Sarrab, Elbasir, & Alnaeli, 2016; Sarrab, 2015), United Arab Emirates (eg. Al-Emran et al., 2016; Ishtaiwa et al., 2015; Hargis, Cavanaugh, Kamali & Soto; 2015), Bahrain (Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2014), Kuwait (Alhunaiyyan et al., 2018; Alhunaiyyan, Alhajri & Al-Sharhan, 2017), Jordan (Almaiah, 2018) and Libya (Rhema & Sztendur, 2013) have encouraged mobile learning adoption in many educational fields, like engineering, English, business, computer science and information technology (Sarrab et al., 2016; Sarrab et al., 2013; Al-Fahad, 2009). Other Arab countries, like Tunisia, still work on a small scale, and almost do not work with mobile devices in learning.

Past researches have shown that it is critical to understand whether users (students and educators) are receptive to this new education method before adopting m-learning initiatives (Al-Emran, Mezhuyev & Kamaludin, 2018; Al-Emran et al., 2016; Sharples et al., 2005). Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been widely used in providing better understanding of users’ beliefs and intentions to use wireless mobile learning devices (i.e. Alalwan et al., 2018; Almaiah; 2018; Al-Emran et al., 2018; Çakıroğlu, Öztürk & Gökoğlu, 2017; Mohammadi, 2015; Cheng, 2015; Wang, Wu, & Wang, 2009). Perceptions of future users as Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Playfulness (PP) are among the most frequent factors contributing to mobile learning adoption (Gao et al., 2017; Momani & Abualkishik, 2014; Cheon, Lee, Crooks & Song, 2012).

Most studies in m-learning have focused on student’s readiness to use mobile learning (e.g. Almaiah, 2018; Mang et al., 2017; Briz-Ponce et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Al-Emran et al., 2016; Alhassan, 2016), but researches investigating the academic population are not numerous (Yusri, Goodwin & Mooney, 2015), especially within Arab countries universities (Alhunaiyyan et al., 2018; Alfarani, 2015; Alwraikat & Al Tokhaim, 2014; Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2014). M-learning adoption by Tunisian teachers in higher education has not been explored yet. Scholars noticed that m-learning community is still fragmented (Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2014) and a number of them focused on users’ resistance towards innovative learning tools (Kim et al., 2017; Alfarani, 2015). Some professors have difficulties in being familiarized with mobile devices to support students’ learning and content delivery (Moreira et al., 2018; Pirkkalainen, Pawlowski & Pappa, 2017; Marinakou & Giousmpasoglou, 2014). This group of non-adopters has been disregarded by most researches. Therefore, in order to deepen the comprehension of teachers’ adoption of m-learning in Arab countries universities, this paper aims: 1) to investigate their perceptions of m-learning in leading business schools in Tunisia and Saudi Arabia and 2) to identify different educators’ profiles on the basis of these perceptions.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Volume 20: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 19: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 18: 7 Issues (2022): 4 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 17: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 16: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 15: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 14: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2010)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2009)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2008)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2007)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2006)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2005)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing