The basic aim of this paper is to outline the process of designing and validating an instrument for measuring teachers’ perceptions regarding the importance of using mobile technologies in the teaching-learning of information competencies (MOBILE-APP). Validation was carried out by administering the instrument to a pilot group of teachers, all of whom were experts in new technologies selected from the Information and Communication, Business and Education degrees, together with a rubric to analyse the quality and relevance of the content, as well as the wording of the items. Quantitative and qualitative methodologies were combined (statistical and descriptive analyses). The results from the quantitative-qualitative analysis of the evaluation rubric and the psychometric analysis of the items show the strengths of the questionnaire and the possible improvements that could be made to optimise it, which were focused on small adjustments to some of the categories and the reordering of several items. The quantitative analysis shows a high degree of internal consistency, thus ensuring the usefulness and applicability of the instrument for evaluating teachers’ perceptions regarding the use of mobile technologies in the teaching-learning of information competencies. The validity and reliability of the instrument mean that it can be transferred to other academic settings as a platform for future diagnostic studies that allow advances to be made in teaching innovation using mobile technologies, while at the same time permitting it to be reviewed and updated. The innovative element of the MOBILE-APP questionnaire lies in the interrelation between the mode of learning (mobile learning) and the information literacy competencies.
ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) (2000) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education. Chicago, IL: ACRL.
2.
ACRL (Association of College and Research Libraries) (2015) Framework for Information Literacy for Higher Education. Available at: http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/ilframework (accessed 22 December 2017).
3.
BrownJ D (2002) The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter6(1): 17–18.
4.
BrusoniM, et al. (2014) The Concept of Excellence in Higher Education. Occasional Papers, 20. Brussels: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education AISBL.
ClarkVLP, et al. (2008) Mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. In: Hesse-BiberSNLeavyP (eds) Handbook of Emergent Methods. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 363–387.
7.
CochraneTBatemanR (2010) Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology26(1): 1–14.
8.
CochraneTD (2014) Critical success factors for transforming pedagogy with mobile Web 2.0. British Journal of Educational Technology45(1): 65–82.
9.
CohenLManionLMorrisonK (2013) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
10.
DaltonKM (2012) Bridging the digital divide and guiding the millennial generation’s research and analysis. Barry Law Review18: 167–190.
11.
El-HusseinMOsmanMCronjeJC (2010) Defining mobile learning in the higher education landscape. Journal of Educational Technology & Society13(3): 12–21.
12.
Escobar-PérezJCuervo-MartínezA (2008) Validez de contenido y juicio de expertos: una aproximación a su utilización. Avances en Medición6: 27–36.
13.
Fundación Telefónica (2017) Sociedad digital en España 2017. Madrid/Barcelona: Fundación Telefónica. Editorial Ariel.
GikasJGrantMM (2013) Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. The Internet and Higher Education19: 18–26.
16.
GliemJAGliemRR (2003) Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In: 2003 Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult continuing and community education, Columbus, OH, USA, 8–10 October 2003. Available at: https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/bitstream/handle/1805/344/gliem+&+gliem.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 27 January 2018).
17.
HusseinA (2015) The use of triangulation in social sciences research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined?Journal of Comparative Social Work4(1): 1–12.
18.
IsmailIAzizanSNAzmanN (2013) Mobile phone as pedagogical tools: Are teachers ready?International Education Studies6(3): 36–47.
19.
KallayaJPrasongPKittimaM (2009) An acceptance of mobile learning for higher education students in Thailand. In: Sixth international conference on elearning for knowledge-based society, Thailand, 17–18 December 2009. Available at: www.cmruir.cmru.ac.th/bitstream/…/Full_Kallaya%20Jairak.pdf (accessed 24 March 2018).
KeengweJBhargavaM (2014) Mobile learning and integration of mobile technologies in education. Education and Information Technologies19(4): 737–746.
22.
KeengweJPearsonDSmartK (2009) Technology integration: Mobile devices (iPods). constructivist pedagogy and student learning. AACE Journal17(4): 333–346.
23.
KhwailehFMAlJarrahAA (2010) Graduate students’ perceptions toward mobile-learning (m-Learning) at the University of Jordan. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning7(10): 15–23.
24.
KimberlinCLWintersteinAG (2008) Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy65(23): 2276–2284.
25.
KiviluotoJ (2015) Information literacy and diginatives: Expanding the role of academic libraries. IFLA Journal41(4): 308–316.
26.
LooR (2001) Motivational orientations toward work: An evaluation of the work preference inventory (student form). Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development33(4): 222–233.
MorganDL (1998) Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Applications to health research. Qualitative Health Research8(3): 362–376.
29.
NormanG (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education15(5): 625–632.
30.
O’RourkeNHatcherL (2013) A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
31.
ParkSYNamMWChaSB (2012) University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology43(4): 592–605.
32.
PintoM (2009) Design of the IL-HUMASS survey on information literacy in higher education: A self-assessment approach. Journal of Information Science36(1): 86–103.
33.
PintoMFernández-PascualR (2014) Information literacy competencies among social sciences undergraduates: A case study using structural equation model. In: KurbanogluS, et al. (eds) Information Literacy: Lifelong Learning and Digital Citizenship in the 21st Century. New York: Springer, pp. 370–378.
34.
PintoMSalesD (2008) INFOLITRANS: A model for the development of information competence for translators. Journal of Documentation64(3): 413–437.
35.
PintoMFernández-PascualRPuertasS (2016) Undergraduates’ information literacy competency: A pilot study of assessment tools based on a latent trait model. Library & Information Science Research38(2): 180–189.
36.
PintoMGarcía-MarcoJSalesD, et al. (2010) Interactive self-assessment test for improving and evaluating information competence. Journal of Academic Librarianship36(6): 526–538.
37.
RossingJPMillerWMCecilAK, et al. (2012) iLearning: The future of higher education? Student perceptions on learning with mobile tablets. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning12(2): 1–26.
38.
SijtsmaK (2009) On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika74(1): 107–120.
39.
SuCHChengCH (2015) A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning31(3): 268–286.
40.
TavakolMDennickR (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education2: 53–55.
41.
TessPA (2013) The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual): A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior29(5): 60–68.
42.
UzunboyluHOzdamliF (2011) Teacher perception for m-learning: Scale development and teachers’ perceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning27(6): 544–556.
43.
Van DeursenAJVan DijkJA (2014) The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society16(3): 507–526.
44.
Vázquez-CanoE (2014) Mobile distance learning with smartphones and apps in higher education. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice14(4): 1505–1520.
45.
WangYSWuMCWangHY (2009) Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology40(1): 92–118.
46.
WeirCJ (2005) Language Testing and Validation. An Evidence-Based Approach. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
47.
WilliamsBOnsmanABrownT (2010) Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine8(3): 1–13.
48.
WongCH, et al. (2015) Adoption of mobile social networking sites for learning?Online Information Review39(6): 762–778.
49.
YangS (2013) Understanding undergraduate students’ adoption of mobile learning model: A perspective of the extended UTAUT2. Journal of Convergence Information Technology8(10): 969–979.
