Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 172–198 | Cite as

An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile instant messaging appropriation in university learning

  • Aaron Bere
  • Patient Rambe
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Research on technology adoption often profiles device usability (such as perceived usefulness) and user dispositions (such as perceived ease of use) as the prime determinants of effective technology adoption. Since any process of technology adoption cannot be conceived out of its situated contexts, this paper argues that any pre-occupation with technology acceptance from the perspective of device usability and user dispositions potentially negates enabling contexts that make successful adoption a reality. Contributing to contemporary debates on technology adoption, this study presents flexible mobile learning contexts comprising cost (device cost and communication cost), device capabilities (portability, collaborative capabilities), and learner traits (learner control) as antecedents that enable the sustainable uptake of emerging technologies. To explore the acceptance and capacity of mobile instant messaging systems to improve student performance, the study draws on these antecedents, develops a factor model and empirically tests it on tertiary students at a South African University of Technology. The study involved 223 national diploma and bachelor’s degree students and employed partial least squares for statistical analysis. Overall, the proposed model displayed a good fit with the data and rendered satisfactory explanatory power for students’ acceptance of mobile learning. Findings suggest that device portability, communication cost, collaborative capabilities of device and learner control are the main drivers of flexible learning in mobile environments. Flexible learning context facilitated by learner control was found to have a positive influence on attitude towards mobile learning and exhibited the highest path coefficient of the overall model. The study implication is that educators need to create varied learning opportunities that leverage learner control of learning in mobile learning systems to enhance flexible mobile learning. The study also confirmed the statistical significance of the original Technology Acceptance Model constructs.

Keywords

Adoption Technology acceptance model Mobile learning Mobile instant messaging WhatsApp 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ally, M. (2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. Edmonton: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bere, A. (2012). A comparative study of student experiences of ubiquitous learning via mobile devices and learner management systems at a South African university. In Paper presented at the 14th annual conference on world wide web applications, Mangosuthu University of Technology, Durban, 7–9 November 2012.Google Scholar
  3. Bouhnik, D., & Deshen, M. (2014). WhatsApp goes to school: Mobile instant messaging between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 217–231.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 25(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, C.-C., Yan, C.-F., & Tseng, J.-S. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended technology acceptance model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 809–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). A knowledge engineering approach to developing mindtools for context-aware ubiquitors learning. Computers & Education, 54(1), 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins, B., Vingerhoest, J., & Moonen, J. (1997). Flexiblility as a key construct in European training: Experiances from the tele scopia project. British Journal of educational Technology, 38(3), 475–478.Google Scholar
  9. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–212.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Vos, A. (2011). Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.Google Scholar
  13. Desai, C., & Graves, S. (2006). Instruction via instant messaging reference: What’s happening? The Electronic Library, 24(2), 174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillon, W. R., & Goldstein, M. (1984). Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Dlodlo, N. (2015). Salient indicators of mobile instant messaging addiction with selected socio-demographic attributes among tertiary students in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1177/0081246314566022.Google Scholar
  16. Donkor, F. (2011). Assessment of learner acceptance and satisfaction with video-based instructional materials for teaching practical skills at a distance. The International Review of research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 74–92.Google Scholar
  17. Echeverría, A., Nussbaum, M., Calderón, J., Claudio Bravo, C., Infante, C., & Vásquez, A. (2011). Face-to-face collaborative learning supported by mobile phones. Interactive Learning Environments, 19(4), 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. El-Gayar, O. F., Moran, M., & Hawkes, M. (2011). Students’ acceptance of tablet PCs and implications for educational institutions. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 58–70.Google Scholar
  19. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gan, C. L., & Balakrishnan, V. (2014). Determinants of mobile wireless technology for promoting interactivity in lecture sessions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 26(2), 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Hung, J.-L., & Zhang, K. (2012). Examining mobile learning trends 2003–2008: A categorical meta-trend analysis using text mining techniques. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hwang, W.-Y., Hsu, J.-L., Shadiev, R., Chang, C.-L., & Huang, Y.-M. (2015). Employing self-assessment, journaling, and peer sharing to enhance learning from an online course. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 27(2), 114–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. International Telecommunication Union. (2014). ICT facts and numbers. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2014-e.pdf.
  26. Iqbal, M. J., Kousar, N., & Ajmal, M. (2011). Collaborative learning: Myth for distance learning? International Journal of Academic Research, 3(4), 605–608.Google Scholar
  27. Isaacs, S. (2012). Turning on mobile learning in Africa and Middle East. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://tostan.org/sites/default/files/resources/unesco_turning_on_mobile_learning_in_africa_and_the_middle_east.pdf.
  28. Kalloo, V., & Mohan, P. (2012). MobileMath: An innovative solution to the problem of poor Mathematics performance in the Caribbean. The Caribbean Teaching Scholar, 2(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  29. Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim, J. Y. (2006). A survey on mobile-assisted language learning. Modern English Education, 7(2), 57–69.Google Scholar
  31. Lee, N. (2008). The subjective study effectiveness of u-learning. Doctoral of Philosophy Dissertation. South Korea: Mokwon University.Google Scholar
  32. Leung, L. (2007). Unwillingness-to-communicate and college students’ motives in SMS mobile messaging. Telematics and Informatics, 24(2), 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2013). Use of instant messaging predicts self-report but not performance measures of inattention, impulsiveness, and distractibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(12), 898–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lin, T. T., & Li, L. (2014). Perceived characteristics, perceived popularity, and playfulness: Youth adoption of mobile instant messaging in China. China Media Research, 10(2), 60–71.Google Scholar
  35. Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mandeep, S. (2010). M-Learning: A new approach to learn better. International Journal of Education and Allied Sciences, 2(2), 65–72.Google Scholar
  37. McLean, M., & Gibbs, T. (2010). Twelve tips to designing and implementing a learner-centred curriculum: Prevention is better than cure. Medical Teacher, 32(3), 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ng’ambi, D. (2006). Collaborative questioning: A case of short message services (SMS) for knowledge sharing. In Paper presented at the 6th international conference on advanced learning technologies. Kerkrade, 5–7 July 2006.Google Scholar
  39. Nikou, S., & Bouwman, H. (2014). Ubiquitous use of mobile social network services. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3), 422–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Park, E., & Ohm, J. (2014). Factors influencing users’ employment of mobile map services. Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(9), 999–1007.Google Scholar
  43. Quan‐Haase, A., Cothrel, J., & Wellman, B. (2005). Instant messaging for collaboration: A case study of a high‐tech firm. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 10(4), 102–121.Google Scholar
  44. Rambe, P., & Bere, A. (2013). Using mobile instant messaging to leverage learner participation and transform pedagogy at a South African University of Technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 544–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts, N., & Vänskä, R. (2011). Challenging assumptions: Mobile learning for mathematics project in South Africa. Distance Education, 32(2), 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shih, Y.-C., & Fan, S.-T. (2013). Adoption of instant messaging by travel agency workers in Taiwan: Integrating technology readiness with the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Business and Information, 8(1), 120–136.Google Scholar
  47. Shurville, S., O’Grady, T. B., & Mayall, P. (2008). Educational and instituational flexibility of Australian educational software. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(2), 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sim, J.-J., Tan, G. W.-H., Wong, J. C. J., Ooi, K.-B., & Hew, T.-S. (2014). Understanding and predicting the motivators of mobile music acceptance—A multi-stage MRA-artificial neural network approach. Telematics and Informatics, 31(4), 569–584. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sotillo, S. M. (2006). Using instant messaging for collaborative learning: A case study. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 2(3), 2–14.Google Scholar
  50. Statista. (2014). The statistics portal: Number of monthly active WhatsApp users worldwide from April 2013 to April 2014. Retrieved September 12, 2015, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly-active-whatsapp-users/.
  51. Statista. (2016). Number of monthly active WhatsApp users worldwide from April 2013 to February 2016. Retrieved March 9, 2016, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/260819/number-of-monthly-active-whatsapp-users/.
  52. Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2011). Users’ behavior towards ubiquitous M-Learning. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 118–129.Google Scholar
  53. Tan, S. C., Hung, D., & Scardamalia, M. (2006). Education in the knowledge age—Engaging learners through knowledge building. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged Learning with Emerging Technologies (pp. 91–106). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., Sim, J. J., & Phusavat, K. (2012). Determinants of mobile learning adoption: An empirical analysis. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 52(3), 82–91.Google Scholar
  55. Techcrunch. (2015). Smartphone users globally by 2020, overtaking basic fixed phone subscriptions. Retrieved March 8, 2016, from http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/6-1b-smartphone-users-globally-by-2020-overtaking-basic-fixed-phone-subscriptions/.
  56. Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Computing in Higher education, 26(2), 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomas, A. B. (2004). Research skills for management studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Traxler, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Innovative and sustainable mobile learning in Africa. In Paper presented at the 4th IEEE international workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education, Athens, 16–17 November 2006.Google Scholar
  59. Tselios, N. K., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 224–235.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(2010), 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Venkatesh, V., Chan, F. K., & Thong, J. Y. (2012). Designing e-government services: Key service attributes and citizens’ preference structures. Journal of Operations Management, 30(1), 116–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.Google Scholar
  63. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Students perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. WhatsApp. (2016). WhatsApp: how it works-simple, personal, real time messaging. Retrieved March 7, 2016, from https://www.whatsapp.com/.
  66. Xiong, Y., So, H.-J., & Toh, Y. (2015). Assessing learners’ perceived readiness for computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL): A study on initial development and validation. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yang, H.-D., Kang, S., Oh, W., & Kim, M. S. (2011). Are all fits created equal? A nonlinear perspective on task-technology fit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(12), 694–721.Google Scholar
  68. Yoon, C., Jeong, C., & Rolland, E. (2014). Understanding individual adoption of mobile instant messaging: A multiple perspectives approach. Information Technology and Management, 16(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business Information Systems DepartmentRoyal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Business SupportCentral University of Technology, Free State (CUT)BloemfonteinSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options