The rapid development of mobile technologies has made mobile learning (m-learning) a new trend in education. This study explores whether Library and Information Science students, whose studies and future work focus on using up-to-date technologies, are familiar with new technological innovations. The study has two objectives: (1) whether personality and individual characteristics are related to perceptions about m-learning and (2) whether differences exist according to level of education, age and gender concerning perceptions about m-learning. The research was conducted in Israel during the first semester of the 2012 academic year. Researchers used six questionnaires to gather data. Findings suggest that individual differences such as resistance to change, learning strategies, and age may predict and influence m-learning adoption. Library and Information Science educators should be aware of these individual differences while teaching and training their students. They should understand that not all students wish to adopt current technologies, either while students or later as professionals. However, since using mobile technologies is an essential activity in these times, Library and Information Science educators should augment the curriculum to maximize exposing students to these platforms. Students will then be able to compare the advantages and disadvantages of various devices in their personal and professional lives.
AharonyN (2006) The use of ‘deep’ and ‘surface’ learning strategies among students learning English as a foreign language in an Internet environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology76(2): 851–866.
2.
AharonyN (2009a) Librarians’ attitudes towards marketing library services. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science41(1): 39–50.
3.
AharonyN (2009b) The influence of LIS students’ personality characteristics on their perceptions towards Web 2.0 use. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science41(4): 227–241.
4.
ArievitchIM (2007) An activity theory perspective on educational technology and learning. In: KrittDWWinegarLT (eds) Education and Technology, Critical Perspective, Possible Futures. Plymouth: Lexington Books, pp.49–72.
5.
AttewellJ (2005) From research and development to mobile learning: Tools for education and training providers and their learners. In: Proceedings from mLearn2005, 25–28October2005, Cape Town, South Africa. Available at: http://www.mlearn.org.za/CD/papers/Attewell.pdf (accessed 20 May 2012).
6.
AttewellJSavillC (2003) Mobile learning and social inclusion: Focusing on learners and learning. In AttewellJSavill-SmithC (eds) Learning with Mobile Devices: Research and development. A Book of Papers. London: Learning and Development Skills Agency, pp.3–13. Available at: http://portal.cetadl.bham.ac.uk/Lists/Publications/Attachments/30/1440.pdf (accessed 1 March 2012).
7.
BaldwinJLinZ (2002) Impediments to advanced technology adoption for Canadian manufacturers. Research Policy31(1): 1–18.
8.
BaldwinJRGrayTJohnsonJ (1996) Advanced technology use and training in Canadian manufacturing. Canadian Business Economics5(Fall): 51–70.
9.
BiggsJ (1993) What do inventories of students’ learning process really measure? A theoretical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology63(1): 3–19.
10.
BörnerDGlahnCStoyanovS. (2010) Expert concept mapping study on mobile learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems27(4): 240–253.
11.
CanoF (2005) Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology75(2): 203–221.
12.
ChanSNgaiE (2007) A qualitative study of information technology adoption: How ten organizations adopted web-based training. Information Systems Journal17(3): 289–315.
13.
ChenGDChangCKWangCY (2008) Ubiquitous learning website: Scaffold learners by mobile devices and with information aware techniques. Computers and Education50(1): 77–79.
14.
ChristophSPratimD (2006) Adoption of WLANS in the hotel industry: A theoretical cost-analytic framework. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management13(2): 189–198.
15.
CooperRZmudR (1990) Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science36(2): 123–139.
16.
CorbeilJRValdas-CorbeilME (2007) Are you ready for mobile learning?Educause Quarterly2: 51–58.
17.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–339.
18.
EllisRAGoodyearPBrillantM. (2008a) Student experiences in problem based learning in pharmacy: Conceptions of learning, approaches to learning and the integration of face to face and online activities. Advances in Health Science Education: Theory and Practice13(5): 675–692.
19.
EllisRAGoodyearPCalvoRA. (2008b) Engineering students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning through discussions in face-to-face and online contexts. Learning and Instruction18(3): 267–282.
20.
EntwistleNJ (1977) Strategies of learning and studying: Recent research findings. British Journal of Educational Psychology25(3): 225–237.
GrohmannGHoferAMartinG (2005) ARIS MOBILE: Helping to define the future of mobile learning. In: BrooksWLawrenceESteeleR. (eds) Proceedings of the fourth international conference on mobile business (ICMB 2005), Sydney, Australia, pp.213–219. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
HuangYMHuangTCHsiehMY (2008) Using annotation services in a ubiquitous jigsaw cooperative learning environment. Educational Technology and Society11(2): 3–15.
25.
JengYLWuTTHuangYM. (2010) The add-on impact of mobile applications in learning strategies: A review study. Educational Technology and Society13(3): 3–11.
KeefeRGriffinJPGrahmmJD (2008) The benefits and costs of new fuels and engines for light-duty vehicles in the United States. Risk Analysis28(5): 1141–1154.
28.
KemberDCharlesworthMDabiesS. (1997) Evaluating the effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the SPQ to show that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation23(2): 141–157.
29.
LanYSieY (2010) Using RSS to support learning based on media richness theory. Computers and Education55(2): 723–732.
30.
LeungNYPKemberD (2003) The relationship between approaches to learning and reflection upon practice. Educational Psychology23(1): 61–71.
31.
LiawSSHatalaMHuangHM (2010) Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist individual knowledge management: Based on activity theory approach. Computers & Education54(2): 446–454.
32.
LowenthalJ (2010) Using mobile learning: Determinates impacting behavioural intention. American Journal of Distance Education24(4):195–206.
33.
McConathaDPraulM (2008) Mobile learning in higher education: An empirical assessment of a new educational tool. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology7(3): Article 2. Available at: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v7i3/732.pdf (accessed 10 March 2012).
34.
MarkusM (1983) Power, politics, and MIS implementation. Communications of the ACM26(6): 430–444.
35.
MartonFSäljöR (1976a) On qualitative differences in learning: 1 − outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology46(1):4–11.
36.
MartonFSäljöR (1976b) On qualitative differences in learning: 2 − outcome as a function of the learner’s conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology46(2): 115–127.
37.
MischellW (2004) Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology55:1–22. Palo Alto, CA.
38.
MoldovanSGoldenbergJ (2004) Cellular automata modeling of resistance to innovations: Effects and solutions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change71(5): 425–442.
39.
MotiwallaLF (2007) Mobile learning: A framework and evaluation. Computers & Education49(3): 581–596.
40.
MurphyA (2006) Mobile learning in a global context: A training analysis. In: CeballosS (ed.) International conference on networking, international conference on systems and international conference on mobile communications and learning technologies (ICN/ICONS/MCL 2006), 23–29 April 2006, Morne, Mauritius p. 219. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
OregS (2003) Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology88(4): 680–693.
45.
OregS (2006) Personality, context and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology15(1): 73–101.
46.
OregSGoldenbergJFrenkelR (2005) Dis-positional resistance to the adoptions of innovations. In: Annual meeting of the European Association of Work and Organizational Psychology, May2005, Istanbu, Turkey.
47.
ParkY (2011) A Pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning12(2). Available at :http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/791/1699 (accessed 12 March 2012).
48.
PetersK (2007) M-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. International Journal of Research in Open and Distance Learning8(2): 1–17.
49.
PhanH (2011) Interrelations between self-efficacy and learning approaches: A developmental approach. Educational Psychology31(2): 225–246.
50.
PinskerRLiS (2008) Costs and benefits of EBRL adoption: Early evidence. Communications of the ACM51(3): 47–50.
51.
Prat-SalaMRedfordP (2010) The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology80(2): 283–305.
52.
PulfordBSohalH (2006) The influence of personality on HE students’ confidence in their academic abilities. Personality and Individual Differences41(8): 1409–1419.
53.
SenkoCMilesKM (2008) Pursing their own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology33(4): 561–583.
54.
SharmaSKKitchensFL (2004) Web services architecture for M-Learning. Electronic Journal on e-Learning2(1): 203–216.
55.
SharplesMTaylorLVavolaG (2007) A theory of learning for the mobile age. In: AndrewsRHaythornthwaiteC (eds) Sage Handbook for E-Learning Research. London: SAGE, pp.221–247.
56.
ShenYHuangCChuC. (2010) A benefit-cost perspective of the consumer adoption of mobile banking system. Behaviour and Information Technology29(5): 497–511.
57.
SukiNMSukiNM (2011) Using mobile device for learning: From students’ perspective. US-China Education Review1: 44–53.
58.
TrigwellKProsserM (1991) Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. British Journal of Educational Psychology61(3): 265–275.
59.
VenkateshVMorrisMGAckermanPL (2000) A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes83(1): 33–60.
60.
VogelDKennedyDMKuanK. (2007) Do mobile device applications affect learning? In: Proceedings of the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS-40), Waikoloa, Big Island, Hawai’i: Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
61.
WalkerK (2006) Introduction: Mapping the landscape of mobile learning. In: SharplesM (ed.) Big Issues in Mobile Learning: Report of a Workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of Excellence Mobile Learning Initiative, pp.3–4. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
62.
WangWWuMWangH (2009) Investigating the determinates and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology40(1): 90–118.
