M-Learning Adoption: C O M P a R I N G a D O P T E R S a N D Non-Adopters Instructors

Home , Education in Brazil

M-LEARNING ADOPTION: C O M P A R I N G A D O P T E R S A N D NON-ADOPTERS INSTRUCTORS

A ADOÇÃO DO M-LEARNING: COMPARANDO PROFESSORES ADOTANTES E NÃO ADOTANTES

Fernanda Pina [email protected]

Renata Kurtz [email protected]

Jorge Brantes Ferreira [email protected]

Angilberto Sabino de Freitas [email protected]

Fernanda Leão Ramos [email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates higher education instructors’ attitude towards mobile learning (m-learning), focusing on the motives behind their decision to adopt m-learning in their daily activities. Supported by the diffusion of innovations theory, the researchers interviewed both instructors who had already adopted m-learning and instructors who had not. Data from the interviews were subjected to content analysis and results suggest that, no matters the difference in perception between adopters and non-adopters, there are three fundamental pillars that allow for innovation in teaching practices: (1) the instructor’s personal interest in innovating and changing those practices, (2) institutional support, and (3) government support.

Keywords: M-learning. Mobile Learning. Higher Education. Instructors. Innovation.

RESUMO

Este estudo investiga a atitude dos professores do ensino superior a respeito do mobile learning (m-learning), em especial, os motivos atribuídos pelos professores que podem impactar na decisão de adoção desta inovação como método de trabalho. Com base nos construtos da teoria de difusão de inovações, a pesquisa de campo se deu por meio de entrevistas a professores não adotantes e adotantes do m-learning. Os dados coletados foram submetidos à análise de conteúdo e apesar de divergências de percepção entre adotantes e não adotan- PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma Licença 6 Creative Commons Attribution 3.0. their minds,Kurtz tructors should planto include m-learningamong their teaching activities.With that concept in REIRA VAVOULA, 2007; TRAXLER, 2007; WINTERS, 2007; KUKULSKA-HULM devices (SHARPLES; medias presentinmobile ble bythemultitudeofconverging TAYLOR; zation of content processes;and(6) authenticity andcollaboration,madepossi and learning contexts; for autonomyandpersonali (4) conveniencefor learning students; (5)opportunities different between continuity and connectivity (3) learning; contextual (2) anywhere; anytime, technologies. ways withthesupportofmobile in ubiquitous knowledge acquire practice thatcanhelppeople in highereducation(FERREIRA itself asaninnovation which haspresented (or m-learning), learning new practicesismobile One ofthese ISMAIL, 2015). SHUIB; SHAMSHIRBAND; (MERHI, 2015; propositions teaching Moreover,new by developing practices Institutions seektoupdateacademic Education Higher 2011). Youenvironment. in theiracademic technology cannowobservestudentsusingmobile trend, and the Education sector follows the same path(MARTIN-DORTA; SAORIN; CONTERO, (IBGE, 2015). por and Internetusage questions aboutcellphone nowinclude Amostra deDomicílios/PNAD) life that the survey for (Pesquisa Nacional the Brazilian NationalResearchonHouseholds andinternetaccessthroughmobiledevicesbecamesoimportant for use of daily cellphones 118%increased comparedwiththesameperiodinpreviousyear(NIELSEN,2014). The increase intabletsalesandyouwillstart see thebiggerpicture.In August, 2014,tabletsales in theInternet. 20% ofthemuseittosearchforinformation Add ontothisfacttheexponential people’s and daily activities shows.Nineinten Brazilian youngstershavetheirowncellphone and tabletsin devices suchassmartphones of mobile presence societies, astheincreased INTRODUCTION 1 is, it is not perceived as an innovation, which may work as a barrier to its adoption as a tea to itsadoption may workasabarrier which as aninnovation, is, itisnotperceived what m-learning know instructors when that, even show Results m-learning. not adopted have the instructor’s rolein introducinginnovativepracticesintheclassroom. the instructor’s ted it but alsoconsider of can’t be mobile deviceapplications, limited onlytothedevelopment ching practice.Capretzand to beaccep defend thatinorderform-learning (2013) Alrasheedi Palavras-chaves: Palavras-chaves: governamental.institucional e(3) apoio do apoio do importância a (2) práticassuasdocentes, adequar inovare de professor do interesse o (1) inovadoras: docentes práticassustentação de para necessários como fundamentais pilares três sugerem resultados os tes, Information andCommunication Technologies(ICT) are a common realityinmodern Considering the advances in mobile technologies, UNESCO supports the idea that ins UNESCO supportstheidea technologies, inmobile the advances Considering learning (1) find: can we them among and countless, are possibilities learning Mobile Taking allthisinaccount,manysectorshavebeenattemptingtoadaptthemselves et al. et , 2013;KEARNEY; BURDEN;RAI,2015). M-Learning. Móvel. Superior. Ensino Inovação Aprendizagem Professores. et et al. (2014) investigated the perceptions of higher education instructorswho education the perceptionsofhigher (2014)investigated et al. et , 2013). is a learning According totheauthors,mobile Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters . et al. et M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning , 2011; FER

------7

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 8 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda ral mobility (SHARPLES, 2000; KUKULSKA-HULME (SHARPLES, 2000; ral mobility physical mobility, into technological mobility, conceptual unfolds mobility, social or interactional mobility and mobility tempo This learning. to mobility because adding mainly is concept distinct, core m-learning’s quite are e-learning and m-learning similarities, their besides ver, space. can engage into potentially rich exchanges, sharing information and resources across time and students groups, and individuals other with networking Through sharing. data and versation con of concepts involves collaboration last, At example. for capture, data and geolocation by supported be can spaces, virtual or physical in taken tasks, of contextualization Deep devices. mobile their through or with contexts, own their create may Students tasks. rich in students engaging in concepts situationareand important Context situatedlearningopportunities. and contextualized collaborative, promotes Authenticity property. of sense stronger a to leads ties activi and tools adapting and personalizing of possibility the m-learning page, same a the On throughout experience. subject certain a over control of degrees higher enjoy to students allow customization of levels Higher property. and customization of concepts by supported is collaboration.and Personalization authenticity personalization, are perspective educational an and sharing andconsultation of aplethora of material andanywhere. anytime tofacilitate information instructor-studentsmartphones, exchange, interaction, content access and tablets cellphones, as such devices, mobile uses networks, digital wireless through that, M-learning 2.1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW of newtechnologiesininstructors’ classroommethods. on theuse discussion the ongoing Because ofitsexploratorybasis,thisworkseekstobroaden offer a contribution regarding motivational factors and inherent barriers to m-learning adoption. to in theirteachingactivities,aiming m-learning both whohaveandnotadopted education instructors, the objective of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of instructors, adoption amonghigher the existinggapinliteraturereferringto So, m-learning considering instructors. among adoption m-learning regarding there are fewstudies as barriers.Besides, which factorsand tance of lead instructorstoadoptm-learning act understanding institutions. However, those areisolatedattemptsand,ultimately, serve toshowtheimpor Some m-learning initiatives canbedetectedinBrazilianandforeignerhighereducation initiatives Some m-learning Traxler (2007) states that m-learning is often seen as an extension of e-learning. Howe e-learning. of extension an as seen often is m-learning that states (2007) Traxler Kearney, Burden and Rai (2015) suggest that the attributes that sustain the m-learning from Ferreira to According et al. et

(2013), m-learning can be described as a teaching modality modality teaching a as described be can m-learning (2013), et al. et , 2011). - - - - - is perceived is asperceived difficult to use (4)or understand; trialability - the degree to which an innovation experiences and needs of potential adopters; (3) complexity - the degree to which past an values, innovation existing the with consistent being as perceived is innovation an which to degree the – compatibility (2) replaces; it idea the than better as perceived is innovation an which to degree the – advantage relative (1) attributes: 5 consideration into take people that suggests implementation; and(5) reinforcement of orreversion decision. (4)attitudeawareness; (2) (1) formation;stages: it; five in (3) reject occurs or toadopt decision and what attributes of that innovation are relevant to 2003). that (ROGERS, decision innovation an of rejection) (or acceptance individual the in involved process decision the ding innovations of Diffusion 2.3 requires the of as instructor’s point view well aseducation processes the student’s. higher in m-learning introducing of challenge the Thus, it. of center the being of instead cess and the instructor’sthe role process in the supporting pro a promoter capacities, of deductive as emotions, and intuition imagination, to stimulant a as curiosity, of provocateur a as cesses, to stimulatetions start the exploration of learning new opportunities. institu once targets, planning modernization only being ofinstead actions teachinghumanize tructor.Teaching and learning needs such asm-learning modalities specific in mayto fill come student’s learning attitude theby teaching seems to the by methods applied be influenced ins m-learningter employ inteaching. incipient. The authors’ conclusion indicates that there is a need for more studies on how to bet is activities classroom in instructors by devices mobile of use theYet, activities. learning their during instructors their from engagement of levels high expect to students drive culture ment UNESCO, 2014). 2013; ALRASHEEDI, (CAPRETZ; role new a assume to instructors for need the investigationis more deserve that education higher in processes implementation m-learning in involved tors fac the Among instructors. and students managers, as such involved, groups distinct the ring conside while factors success critical experiences these hierarchize and classify that studies al. (LEFOE processes teaching-learning in innovations technological adopt to instructors late M-learning2.2 use in teaching processes and the role of the instructor , 2009; WONG; LOOI, WONG; 2011;, 2009; FREITAS; BANDEIRA-DE-MELLO, KOC, 2013). 2012; art ad lahei 21) niae ht -erig rcie i uieste require universities in practices m-learning that indicate (2013) Alrasheedi and Capretz Several studies describe the challenge higher education institutions face in order to stimu Regarding the innovation attributes that may affect the decision process, Rogers (2003) Rogers process, decision the affect may that attributes innovation the Regarding individual an by innovation an of acceptance of process the (2003), Rogers to According regar innovation in researches for basis the is (IDT) theory diffusion innovation Rogers’ pro educational in tool a as role technology’s for alerts (2014) Wengrowicz addition, In a that propose (2010) Glasgow e Margaryan Littlejohn, thought, of line this Following Martin and (2013) Ertzberger suggest that nowadays videogame and interactive entertain Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning et et ------9

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 10 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda ning; and(4)ning; institutional support. trai educational and technological for need (3) m-learning); use to motivation student of lack instructor,the for workload increased (i.e. m-learning to barriers other (2) sizes); small phones mobile interaction,instructor-student less (i.e. disadvantages m-learning (1) as: such it, adopt fundamental to understanding m-learning adoption among process instructors that have yet to being as attributes relevant other identified study the attributes, IDT three these Besides tive. nega as perceived was use) mobile for content of adaptation (i.e. complexity while -adopters previous experience with mobile technologies and e-learning) are perceived as positive by non indicate that relative advantage (i.e. portability, and mobility and connectivity) compatibility (i.e. results Their m-learning. adopt to not decided whoBrazilian instructorsof perceptions the ate WILLIAMS, 2014). DWIVEDI; (KAPOOR; resistance to leads only adoptions forced while rates adoption better to leads innovations of introduction voluntary that seems It adoption. innovation on impacts tive nega and positive both presents voluntariness Finally, innovation. an adopt to intention the and high risks may represent barriers to adoption in such way that their decrease can enhance costs high hand, other the On innovations. of adoption the to related positively constructs are attributes related to Rogers’s IDT: relevant eight pointed and period 15-year a in studies processes acceptance and adoption ted adoption. The studymeta-analytic of Kapoor, Dwivedi e Williams (2014), in particular, investiga banking acceptance, and Nickerson, Austreich e Eng (2014) examined smartphone applications mobile investigated (2010) Hernandez e Mazzon PÜschel,IDT. employed technologies digital the use of aninnovation are visible. of results the which to degree the - observability (5) and needs; their fulfill can it if and works it how out find to adopters potential allowing it, adopt to decision the before on tried be may • • • • • • • • nology is free of effort. It is the of is Rogers’s opposite freenology of effort. complexity; Ease of operation – the degree to which an individual thatbelieves using a particular tech Several studies focused on attitude and intention to adopt innovations associated to mobile The study of Kurtz Kurtz of study The In one hand, ease of operation, visibility, image, result demonstrability, and approvalsocial an approved behavior one’s by reference group. as perceived is innovation an of adoption the which to degree the – approval Social as related It observability; tangible is andcommunicable. perceived directly to Rogers’ are innovation an of use the of results the which to degree the – demonstrability Result choice; conscious free a being as perceived is innovation an of use the which to degree the Voluntariness– –the to degree whichVisibility the use of aninnovation is apparent; andtime loss; risk, psychological risk, physical risk, social risk, financial risk, performance components: six ofconsisting constructmultidimensional a – Riskiness investments as are highorlow; perceived –the toCost degree which necessary or image personal status;social boost to as perceived is innovation an which to degree the – Image et al. et (2014) uses Rogers’s five innovation attributes as basis to evalu to basis as attributes innovation five Rogers’s uses (2014)

------lies. Content was analysis lies. using carried the out Atlas.ti software. fami into grouped were categories these then and analysis, the to support empirical give that speech arefragmentswhichof citations, on werebased formed categories commonality.First, and analogy to according regrouping differentiation, by by then, and first set, a of components According to Bardin (2011), the categorization in process a content analysis is the of sorting the concepts. and words those between relationships the and interviews, of set whole the within Rio de Janeiro were via Skype. conducted in live didn’t who professors with afterwardsInterviews transcribed. and recorded were views inter All length. in hours two reaching cases some in theme, the about talk to motivated felt oftics each interviewee. Portugal.Tablecharacterismainin theBrazil or summarizes 1in institutions education higher different in work professors These Portugal.Coimbra, in Meeting Learning Mobile and Games 2014 the during selected and identified professors of consisted group adopters The segments. market other from companies in jobs have also but institution same the at teach six other the whereasinstitution,the for exclusively work them of Janeiro. Six de Rio in institution education were12 non-adopters. and m-learning, of adopters were interviewees the of Six interviews. semi-structured in-depth m-learning adoption by higher education instructors, 18 university professors were submitted to METHOD 3 teaching education higher instructors. by practices in adoption m-learning to barriers as act or enable that factors critical about understanding tions of instructors who have adopted m-learning. By doing so, this to study increase seeks the Kurtz In order to address the objective of identifying attributes that enable or act as barriers to barriers as act or enable that attributes identifying of objective the address to order In this by theoretical background,Thus, supported our study aims to advance on the work of Wethe of presence words concepts and/or content orderin to analysis identify employed who adopters, among longer took Interviews minutes. 60 ofaverage an lasted Interviews higher private same the in work who professors 12 of consisted group non-adopters The et al. et (2014), broadening the investigation with new analyses and including the percep the including and analyses new with investigation the broadening (2014), Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning - - - - 11

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 12 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda Groups Group 3: Adopters who work in Group 2: Non-adopters who work in other Group 1: Non-adopters who work exclusively in higher higher education institutions in professional education institutions Brazil or Portugal Interviewee 10 16 18 15 13 14 12 17 11 8 3 6 5 9 4 2 7 1 Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and institution Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and Brazilian private institution and graduate ina Lato Sensu courses Professor of undergraduate, extension Brazilian private institution and graduate ina Lato Sensu courses Professor of undergraduate, extension in aBrazilian private institution Professor of undergraduate courses Brazilian private institution and graduate ina Lato Sensu courses Professor of undergraduate, extension Brazilian private institution graduate ina Lato Sensu courses Professor of undergraduate and institution Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and institution Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and institution Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and institution Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and institution Stricto Sensu, inaBrazilian private graduate Lato Sensu and courses, Professor of undergraduate and institution in aBrazilian private institution Professor of undergraduate courses in aPortuguese private institution Professor of undergraduate courses in aPortuguese private institution Professor of undergraduate courses in aPortuguese private institution Professor of undergraduate courses in aBrazilian private institution Professor of undergraduate courses public school in aBrazilian anda federal university Professor of undergraduate courses

Table 1 Academic position : Source: Research data Research Source: Interviewees’ profile Interviewees’

Head of department head of department. and courses and extension Lato Sensu post-graduation Academic coordinator of department. andhead ofcourse Lato Sensu post-graduation Academic coordinator of a vice-chancellor. andex-Head of department course. Lato Sensu post-graduation Academic coordinator of a department. andhead ofcourse Lato Sensu post-graduation Academic coordinator of a Head of department None None None with focus ininnovations Consultant inEducation None sector finance inthe corporate servant Civil management inprocess experience management with Consultant inbusiness resources inhumanexperience management with Consultant inbusiness inIT experience within the education sector Private company employee inbrandingexperience communications with Consultant in in finances gas with experience sector inthe and oil servant Civil Management position

Teaching Years 30 30 36 35 35 26 32 32 25 10 16 16 18 15 14 9 4 2 represented attributes from the works of Rogers (2003) – Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Advantage, Relative – (2003) Rogers of works the from attributes represented 5.1 Main attributes speech. factors involved within the inm-learning interviewees’ adoption processes adopters and non-adopters, and compared both groups, thus allowing the identification of new the research on m-learning use among higher education instructors. Our analysis included both factors that affect the decision to accept or m-learning, reject while this study sought to further understanding on focused investigation, preliminary a was (2014) al. et Kurtz of work the that tohighlight important Itseems thatcontribute practices could to teaching-learning processes. whereas attitudes adopters’ showed to not only m-learning, tohigh receptiveness but any new (2014). Non-adopters’ attitudes appear to be divided between positive, negative and ambivalent, inBrazil.role inthe identification of factors these education inhigher contexts relevant a had (2014), Williams e Dwivedi Kapoor, by extended theory,innovations of diffusion (2003) Rogers instructors, by processes adoption m-learning in formation attitude to tribute involved. with both students’ and instructors’ interests in mind in order to improve the performance of all 5 RESULTS lent andneutral 2011). (BARDIN, – favorable, the of direction load each analyzing of assertion unfavorable, by each unit ambiva each attitude and also of their verbal connectors and object predicates, in order the to the identify evaluative for looking units, into interviewee each of speech the decomposed We groups. (BOWEN, 2008). interviewees the of patterns speech the into adoption m-learning of inhibitors and regarding enablers data from emerging information new perceive longer no could we when reached and thenonly moved to analyze the groupsecond (adopters). We assumed that saturation was saturation reached had we until (non-adopters) group first the analyzed We 1967). STRAUSS, instructors. by adoption learning mobile the in relevant attributes developed and identified we pretations, inter possible their and categories between relationships analyzing Then, Dwivedi (2014). Kapoor, Williams e and (2003) Rogers by used constructs the consideration into taking while message the in meaning their by concepts and words grouping thus criteria, categorization As a strategy to hold the search for new data we employed data saturation (GLASER; (GLASER; saturation data employed we data new for search the hold to strategy a As semantic the adopted we families, and categories our organize and identify to order In At first, there was an intentional attempt to find within the professors’ speech clues that clues speech professors’ the within find to attempt intentional an was there first, At The attitude analysis for non-adopters showed results similar to those found et by al.Kurtz con that factors identifying involves which investigation, this of objective the Following suggestResults that mobile learning, just as any other teaching practice, must be planned both compared and m-learning towards attitude interviewees’ the evaluated we Finally, Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning - - - 13

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 14 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda learning of m-learning came through intentional search for literature and tutorials, followed by by followedtutorials,literature forand intentionalsearch through came m-learning of learning their professors, these to According world. digital a in immersed highly students of demands concern. the to classes adapt toa need the to response wasa practices m-learning introducing be them For to seem doesn’t complexity adopters, Among skills. new develop to need the by affected be may complexity its regarding perceptions their group, this for practice new a is are as viewed difficult andunnecessary. adoption processes and introduction m-learning whole the group, non-adopters the for case, this In hindered. be may processes adoption m-learning perceived, be can’t with experimenting and observing to thatsuggestingattributeswhen non-adopters, of related speech the within wereidentified not the two groups. between category common third the forming thus non-adopters), for 69 and adopters for issuecitations (68 fundamental a as adoption m-learning for requirements highlighted also have groups Both non-adopters. the for 132 and adopters the for 114 citations, of number greatest the had category advantage relative The non-adopters. and adopters both for factors important be to gories, two factors that according to Rogers (2003) facilitate the diffusion of innovations, appear cate compatibility and advantagerelative groups, two the of perceptions the compare we As ting shared perceptions related to m-learning adoption education inhigher teaching practices. favorable andunfavorable factors m-learning adoption as wellrequirements. as its 2 Table group. whichrepresent each families, in illustrates grouped isone eachhow groupand each for categories for categories different of presence the show professors the the of in speech present m-learning for uses and understanding conceptions, different were The (2014), identified. Williams e Dwivedi Kapoor, and (2003) Rogers in both absent categories, new Then, definitions. attributes these to according grouped and coded were Citations Approval. Social and Demonstrability, Result Voluntariness,Visibility, Riskiness, Cost, Image, Operation, of Ease – (2014) Williams e Dwivedi Kapoor, and – Complexity Trialability,and Observability, requirements to-adopt In-order- Factors Hindering Factors Enabling Category Category Families Categories in bold are the commonality between the two groups of interviewees, indica interviewees, of groups two the between commonality the are bold in Categories Complexity was pointed out as an inhibitor factor by non-adopters. Because m-learning Because non-adopters. by factor inhibitor an as out pointed was Complexity According to the data, the diffusion of innovations attributes of and observability trialability • codes citations in17 grouped –46 • Riskiness of citations in2codes • Result demonstrability grouped –12 • Voluntariness citations in2codes –12 grouped • Facilidade citations in3codes grouped de uso –22 • Trialability –11 citations in3codes grouped citations in2codes –12 grouped • Observability • • In-order-to-adopt requirements Compatibility Relative Advantage in 6codes –11 citations in3codes grouped

–114 codes citations in20 grouped Table 2 Adopters : Source: Research data Research Source: Interviewees’ profile Interviewees’ – 68 citations –68 grouped • • • M-learning disadvantages –21 citations –20 • Complexity barriers• Other to m-learning –51 • • In-order-to-adopt requirements Compatibility Relative Advantage – 69 citations in9 codes grouped citations in7codes grouped in5codes grouped citations in9 codes grouped in4 codes grouped citations codes in14 grouped Non-Adopters – 22 citations –22 –132 - -

ongoing teaching practices; (2) institutional support; and(3) (2) institutional government teachingongoing support. practices; support; adapting and innovating in interest instructor’s the (1) practices: teaching innovative support M-learning5.3 use in Higher Educatio wed theirenthusiasm with the use adopting of (Table it m-learning effectively before even 3). m-learning. Although recognizing an inherent risk in adopting m-learning, these professors sho use to intention and attitudes positive showed have adopters ones, unfavorable openly seven Attitude Instructors’ 5.2 basedpractices ontheirstudents’ interests. teaching their pathsfor new opening interestin personal professors’ the to connected directly is voluntariness as processes, adoption non-mandatory in voluntariness of effect positive the awareness and disseminate results of m-learning practices among instructors. Results reinforce gave to the diffusion support of ideas new these within theirorganizations. involves a risk certain (ROGERS, 2003),and uncertainty which could be minimized if managers practices current replacing and ideas, new Adopting settings. education higher in m-learning the of diffusion the to contribute can that managers, as such actors, essential other pointed even have Adopters practices. teaching in m-learning use to order in overcome to obstacles withassociated the ease of adaptation of new, compatible educational practices. strongly be to seems operationof ease adopters, of speech frequently.the more ars Analyzing appear to be in they Kapoor, as Dwivedi e significant Williams as (2014). be Ease of to operation seem is not the attributedid which and appe speech, adopters’ in only present were (2003), teaching practices. pointed the existence of advantages and compatibilities between m-learning and their previous interviewees several Besides, realities. classroom and personal by balanced experimentation Riskiness is an attribute which came to represent the awareness that there will be some be will there that awareness the represent to came which attribute an is Riskiness Rogers for complements as work which attributes, (2014) Williams e Dwivedi Kapoor, Broadly speaking, data analysis has identified three fundamental pillars as necessary to necessary as pillars fundamental three identified has analysis data speaking, Broadly and attitudes ambivalent showed professors nine group non-adopters the in Whereas Voluntarinessattributesdemonstrability ofresultbuild to showedand that need therea is Interviewee 16 18 15 13 14 17 “M-learning is the practice.” result accepted of awidely “M-learning makes things easy, easy!” so “M-learning is fantastic, full of action.” makes full of classes life, “M-learning has nospace andtime freedom.” you barriers, gives “If interest notm-learning, w0ith me.” it’s doesn’t it “So, m-learning for me was agift!” “M-learning is andengaging.” impressive Table 3 : Citations qualifying m-learning Citations qualifying Source: Research data Research Source: Citations Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning - - 15

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 16 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda and commitment to adopt new technologies thatand commitment to technologies adopt new content enable amore transfer: assertive encouragement freedom, instructorsnecessary thethattheir give conditions provideto power the has support institutional that indicated interviewees All practices. innovative encouraging and processes teaching-learning effective more in part its recognizing classroom, the in tions Higher Educationinterviewed, Institutions (HEIs)to need understand the actual role of innova professors theto innovativeAccording environment.an setting in role important havetionsan ring m-learning adoption education. inhigher hinde or facilitating motivations, instructors’ represent to pillar interest’ ‘instructor the expect we practices, innovative these of one it being m-learning, of case the In contexts. education higher in practices teaching innovative of deployment the for pillars, the of one thus and step, (2013),bergerconclusionsstrengthen whose thatthenotion instructor important interestan is Ertz and Martin and (2012), Johnson e Michael Christensen, (2010), Glasgow and Margaryan to adaptneed to classes theirstudents’ values is the basis to adopt m-learning: the them, category. For requirements’ ‘in-order-to-adopt their in represented and adopters, by learning: teaching beyond the boundaries of the classroom, and that m-learning may help further content deployment. instructor engagement may enhance m-learning use: developing a personal interest in investing in these improvements. The following illustrates how pedagogical trainingand are sought when competence instructors perceive what can technological be gained from them, thatthus indicated interviewees All met. be to order in premise a as interest instructor’s the assume needs Such category. requirements’ ‘in-order-to-adopt the to related citations 68 the of 48 representedtraining’, role’ gical instructor new a for ‘need and competence’,pedago fortechnological ‘needfor ‘need codes The practices. new adopting in interest instructor’s the of importance illustratethe requirements m-learning’sperceived profes sors, these For competences. and students content, regarding is, methods teaching their of some and the disinterest of others revealed howthe important instructors’ engagement with enthusiasmtheindirectly. both and non-adopters, Among directly both interviewees the by up Regarding the Regarding In addition to these citations from adopters and non-adopters are the studies of Littlejohn, As well as with non-adopters, the ‘instructor interest’ pillar was perceived as a requirement Data indicate forthat, adopters, there is an awareness of the need for new ways to expand m-learningmake opinions that clear ofsuccessful instructorAdopter’s interest theisstart institutional support institutional instructor’s interest in innovating viewee 17:17) natural. relatively is m-learning the using begin to that so tools the use Anyway,already I Facebook. through studentsinteraction with already is There was place to the content phones. into their mobile had,I way only The class. the forty-minute wantI have themto beyond contact, viewee 18:18) downtime. my of advantagetake can I that so me to appeals M-learning ties. activi educational develop instructors to by tapped be should smartphone The (Interviewee 7:15) (Interviewee

, interviewees highlighted that higher education institu education higher that highlighted interviewees , , we noticed that this subject was brought (Interviewee 13:12) (Interviewee (Inter (Inter ------ted by category families identified by this study, stand out. These categories suggest contribusuggest categories study,this These by out. identified stand families category by ted represenWilliams(2014),e Kapoor,Dwivedi and (2003) Rogers by attributesthedescribed to the due background aidto ensure of m-learning the success usage. provide should HEIs the Thus, risks. perceived these minimize to order in support institutional financial, (performance, physical and social), leading instructors to believe in theof importance aspects many in negatively adoption innovation affect may (2014) Williams e to Dwivedi Kapoor, according which risk, any of perception the them, For adoption. and diffusion m-learning and planning for the andimplementation development of m-learning activities: non-adopters, by out pointed also support, institutional for needs expressed the to attention devoting m-learning, for aid provide and deployment support should and can institutions tion educa that indicate Adopters students. of habits and interests to linked is it as m-learning, of case the in especially innovations, classroom from gained be can what signalizing instructors, already established ones. their on have will practices new the consequences what about fear professors’ the expresses time same the at but process, adoption the in supporter a as institution the of role the shows increase’. ‘workload code This code the by and requirements’ ‘in-order-to-adopt category the highlight representedthe for by need institutionalspecifically these professors needs, support, ces and the intense use of mobile by their devices students. However, amidst so many exposed adequate and practiteaching new developing of importance the training, recognize professors compensation.These resources, providing deployment, technology innovative any in sive ning these but practice, divergences toseem complement each other. For them, HEIs are deci Non-adopters diverge in their opinions about the institutional support needed for m-lear for needed support institutionalthe about opinions their in divergeNon-adopters In both discourses (non-adopters and adopters) some factors that are not directly related directly not arethat factors some adopters) (non-adoptersand discourses both In inhibits which professors, the by perceived risk of degree the is needs these to Added training and innovations disseminating of responsibility the take must HEIs adopters, For (Interviewee 17:39) (Interviewee that from year, to year theirnoticed attention hasdwindling. in span class, been stu my motivationdents, of then, was attention to make the students attractedfeel capture to classes. I to have try to idea good very a that’s think I time. real in student responses of results instructorthethe with knowing on-line, respond they and students the to asked are questions that so much so devices, mobile with directly classes have example, for States United the in universities Some it. with up Icannot keep but phone, interact could throughtheduring week the meeting. They aget weekly We only theis major once problem awe week. have? credits I teachtwo worth a subject What week. the throughout done be could classroom the in done be can What prepare it. to infrastructure this have to group whatever,the or institution, the be might culty to know all these tools in addition to knowing the content. So I think the first diffi infrastructure.larger instructormustmuch haveThe a has Now, process a such of rules from the rules institution.of couple know,semester,a was there you per forums discussion threeleast at be has via Blackboard.be to student For interaction there delivery must Essay like: students, the with interactions make to there thing Blackboard this use to had you example, for mandatory, were things Some (...) support. enough lot, gave a they quite was there structure, support, the all gave they US] the [in Abroad (Interviewee 4:37) (Interviewee (Interviewee 14:18) (Interviewee (Interviewee 6:25) (Interviewee Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning ------17

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 18 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda ching-learningtea process: the to offer can technologies these that potential great the limiting thereby m-learning, thatsomething abroader by project: is accompanied as rather but been, has inclusion digital on discourse the as fad, technological a of result a as occur cannot support government surveyed, professors the to according However, practices. the students a greater involvement with learning and in the instructors a desire to innovate their can create mechanisms that make this type of teaching friendlier and more relevant, arousing in Therefore, it is believed that in addition to the goals it sets for higher education, the government students. and instructors of needs the to imple it adapting m-learningand theories educational backing with mentation devices, mobile to access facilitate and practices best the mote pro and recognize can institutions Governmental institutions. educational to only restricted arouse the interest of instructors inadopting m-learning: can incentives, government and institutional by accompanied practices, good of semination dis professors, these For settings. education higher in technologies new of adoption of cess Although restricted, this group’s statements illustrate the government’s participation in the pro be should that m-learningconsidered employing whenever as anaidto teaching pillar practices. a as emerges support institutional professors, interviewed the of tions percep the and theories existing of face the In innovations.disruptive potentially regulate not and practices, innovative implement to institution the prepares and fosters that environment organizationalan establish interests, studentactual with content subject combining meetings, introduce changes. to tools right the use should institutions educational that suggest (2012) Johnson and Michael providing the best educational environment and tools for students and instructors. Christensen, universities must align its strategic (2009), objectives with its Akoureducational and financial thusobjectives, to According interviews. during emerged that accounts the endorse may port it has not been investigated in the theoretical background, literature regarding institutional sup Although processes. adoption m-learning to necessary efforts institutional the to related tions According According to the authors, it to is promotenecessary online courses as complement to face Moreover, there is a fear among instructors that institutionalization could stifle the use of use the stifle could institutionalization that instructors among fear a is Moreover,there Itis general consensus withm-learning obtained of that results be shouldn’t the reporting opinion. any manifested have adopters only support, government regarding Finally, The former minister [of Education, in Brazil] has distributed tablets in schools. schools. in tablets distributed has Brazil] in Education, [of minister former The customize (...) could their own devices. and nology techthe owned thenstudents The bought. parents 15,00]. U$ All about – rency cur [Brazilian reais fifty around today us costing tablet a students to sold India The government has to make the cheap. technology it As just in happened India. You take advantage of something that they have to reach them in some non- some in them reach to have they that something of advantage take You students. among novelty a not is it Because well? work mobile the does Why good. be will it extent what to know not do I institutionalized once and lizing, institutiona implies it think I responsibility, government’s the is it that say I If 18:48) Because there areguidelines also for UNESCO instructor training. recommendations. UNESCO the following we’re Now up. catch to trying we’re now but with, agree cannot we This sake. technology’s for just technology not is It first. project pedagogical a made have should He mistake? his was What

(Interviewee 13:39) (Interviewee (Interviewee ------

Rogers (2003), and “Degree of Risk”,of“Degree (2003), and Rogers Operation”,of“Ease “Volun and Demonstrability” “Result “Trialability”,after and Advantage”, “Relative “Compatibility”,“Observability” categories the of Kurtz of terms. these The theformation definition mentioned in of had categories these alreadybeen respecting while codes complementary grouping Requirements”, by “In-Order-to-Adopt and Barriers” M-learning”,M-learning of “Other “Disadvantages as such categories to addition in Advantage”,“Relative (2003), Rogers “Complexity”, by and defended are which “Compatibility” this adoption process. allow the association of attributes from Rogers (2003) and Kapoor, Dwivedi e Williams (2014) to that opinions show non-adopters and adopters both that discovered have we adoption, ning 6 FINAL REMARKS and not just tools introducing inuniversities. technological new explored, taking advantage of proximity and mobile technology’s incorporation in people’s lives, educate academics about the educational and methodological aspects of mobile learning to be and More towe alert than need that, important. less institutions become by publicand sectors taken actions m-learning, using obtained results the in performance students’ their in vement education. If instructors cannot see a solid path to a better teaching performance and an impro higher in methodology teaching a m-learningas diffusionof and acceptance theencourage to process a in articulated be must that pillars three the of merit the recognize to legitimate also is It about support. government due the professors given HEIs, within innovation interviewed about hence, and them-learning, of perception the influenced Williams that e attributes Dwivedi those Kapoor, (2014), by mentioned studies related from gathered those and (2003) tance as of government apillar for m-learning support adoption. impor thestrengthen to serve (2012) Johnson and MichaelChristensen, considerationsof the and adopters of speech the both Thus, objectives. proposed their achieve to order in manner coordinateda in act can involved governancethattools promotetheparties all cooperation so establishing in efforts its focus should government the that suggest we Therefore, standards. interface new and rules new seeking involvementthe instructors ofcurriculum with designers, kindle they that so institutions supporting and schools within schools incubating frameworks, school new test and inspire must government the authors, the For technologies. new of ment deploy the facilitate that initiatives with effectively cooperate to practices educational new of adoption of process the in involved all convince to order in influence political gather to ways According According to Christensen, Michael and Johnson (2012), government support should explore mn nnaotr, t a psil t fr ctgre rpeetn te trbts of attributes the representing categories form to possible was it non-adopters, Among Inattemptan thatfactors tofind contribute tothe attitude regarding m-lear ofprofessors Considering all above, it was possible to identify among the attributes suggested by Rogers et al. et (2014). On the other hand, adopters have indicated in their accounts the formationthe accounts their in indicated have adopters hand, other the On (2014). instructor from the training government. comes also I methodologies, think it be should takeneffectively by the government, because instructors who choose not to use the CD. It is a matter of choice, it is a matter of are there CD, the and book the manuals, are there Portugal In (...) way invasive (Interviewee 17:67) (Interviewee Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning - - - - - 19

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 20 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda the World ed.New York: 1st. Learns. McGraw-Hill, 2012. C. JOHNSON, B.; MICHAEL, C.; CHRISTENSEN, Publications,SAGE 2013. J. CRESWELL, Anais INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON TEACHING, ASSESSMENT AND LEARNING FOR ENGINEERING (TALE), Bali. Meta-AnalysisA M. ALRASHEEDI, Factors of Critical Affecting Success Mobile learning. L.; CAPRETZ, v. 8, n. 1, p.137-152, 2008. note. research a saturationconcept: the and Naturalisticinquiry G. BOWEN, L. BARDIN, inIndustrialDissertation Oklahoma Engineering &Management, State University, Oklahoma. p. 1-363, 2009. H. AKOUR, REFERENCES m-learning adoption andcapture the different perceptions of different over time. respondents this topic. We believe that future studies can foster greater insight into the of factors that understanding influence the broaden to analysis longitudinal and approaches research mixed apply and m-learning, of implementation and deployment the for methodologies new suggest tions, the of effects the understand to thein use ofm-learning, investigatee-learning the role ofresistancethe in adoptionofinnova attempt contexts, other in learning mobile of adoption for to thecontribute attitude positively formation for this innovation are provided. that attributes the as long as grow can education higher in m-learning of adoption of rate the gation in toparticular, assess, and faculty administrative staff. Thereby, our results indicate that investi warrantsfurther and professors, and managers students, the ofattitude the to related directly is environment this in practices new of introduction the discussed, As context. cation edu higher the and instructors the both understanding requires professors university among andestablish aclear relationship speech respondents with the existing literature. the from arise they because important particularly pillars proposed three these consider we information,(indirect -depth interviews lack of 2013), articulation of respondents) (CRESWELL, in of constraints typical the and respondents of number the as such limitations Despite port. sup government (3) and support; institutional (2) practices; teaching ongoing their adapting innovativethesuchinstructors’interestasinnovatingm-learning:teaching(1) practices in and of introduction the support to required as interviews, the from emerged havewhich pillars, tal an Therefore, additional contributionmon axis. of this study is the of proposal three fundamen com a around adoption m-learning of issue the addressed groups both from professors that detect to waspossible it times, at differences showed groups two the Although attitudes. ters’ named“In-Order-to-Adoptthe category Requirements”. teering”,of afterWilliams eimportance while thehaving(2014),indicated Kapoor, also Dwivedi [...]. Bali, 2013. p. [...].Bali, 2013. 262. The main contribution of this study was the comparison between adopters’ and non-adop Finally, the authors suggest that further investigations should pursue new research models adoption m-learning regarding formation attitude influence that attributes the Exploring Determinants of mobile learning acceptance: an empirical investigation in higher education higher in investigation empirical an acceptance: learning mobile of Determinants Análise deConteúdo Análise Research Design Research . 1. ed. Lisboa: Edições 70, Edições . 1. São Paulo, ed.Lisboa: 2011. : Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th Edition. London: London: Edition. 4th Approaches. Methods Mixed and Quantitative, Qualitative, :

Disrupting Class Disrupting : How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Waythe Change Will InnovationDisruptive How : Qualitative Research Qualitative , Thousand Oaks, Oaks, Thousand , In . 2009. Ph.D. 2009. . : 2013 IEEE IEEE 2013 : ------GLASER, B.; STRAUSS, A. A. STRAUSS, B.; GLASER, schools. business Brazilian in implementation e- in sensemaking and action Managerial R. BANDEIRA-DE-MELLO, S.; A. FREITAS, v.2013. 6, p. 47-82. TextingTechnologies (Cutting-edge Technologies EmeraldHigher in Education). Group Publishing Bingley: Limited, (eds.). Patrick B. J. FERREIRA, SHARPLES, M. The Design ofTheSHARPLES, M. Personal Design Mobile Technologies Learning. for Lifelong E. ROGERS, fra intention adoption mework. integrated an of proposition banking: Mobile J. HERNANDEZ, J.; MAZZON, J.; PÜSCHEL, HOLDINGN. (BRASIL). NIELSEN 2014. Innovations of Diffusion Analysis. A Apps: Smartphone and Technology Mobile J. ENG, M.; AUSTREICH, R.; NICKERSON, tion MERHI, M. Factors influencing higher education students to adopt An podcast: empirical study. TechnologyEducational &Society MARTIN-DORTA, N.; SAORIN, J.; CONTERO, M. Web-based Spatial Training Using Handheld Touch Screen Devices. &Education Computers MARTIN, F.; J. ERTZBERGER. Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. learning of expectations and ICT of methods. use students’ Exploring G. GLASGOW, A.; MARGARYAN, A.; LITTLEJOHN, Education-Papers of Faculty G. LEFOE, ANPAD barreiras. possíveis ráveise R. KURTZ, p.151-177. M-learning and E-learning bining KUKULSKA-HULME, A. v. 68, p.1-8, 2013. Oct. analysis. metaphor A KOC,StudentM. technology: of instructors’conceptions Education KEARNEY, T.RAI, M.; BURDEN, K.; Investigating instructors’ adoption of signature mobile pedagogies. European Innovation of Journal Management KAPOOR, DWIVEDI, K.; Y.; WILLIAMS, M. Innovation adoption attributes: a review and synthesis of research findings. 15th, 2015. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/pesquisas/pesquisa in IBGE. Aldine Transaction,and London: 1967. ters inHumanters Behavior SHAMSHIRBAND, M. SHUIB, L.; S.; A ISMAIL, review of mobile pervasive learning: Applications and issues. (eds.). C. SHARPLES, M.; TAYLOR, J.; VAVOULA, G. A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age. In: Andrews, R.; Haythornthwaite, dam, v. n. p. 34, 3-4, 177-193, 2000. , Amsterdam, v. 83, p.32-43, Apr. 2015. Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domincílios de Amostra por Nacional Pesquisa , 2014. International Journal of Bank MarketingInternational Bank of Journal The Sage Handbook of Elearning Research Elearning of Handbook The Sage In Electronic Journal of e-learning of Journal Electronic , Amsterdam, v. 80, Issue p. C, 48-57, 2015. et al. et et al. et : 20TH AMERICAS CONFERENCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS, 2014, Savannah.INFORMATION 2014, SYSTEMS,ON CONFERENCE AMERICAS 20TH : Diffusion of innovations of Diffusion Increasing Student Engagement and Retention Using Mobile Applications Mobile Using Retention and Engagement Student Increasing Adoção de m-learning por professores no ensino superior: uma investigação sobre aspectos favo aspectos sobreinvestigação uma superior: ensino no professores por m-learning de Adoção Faculty development for new technologies: Putting mobile learning in the hands of the instructors. the of hands the in learning mobilePutting technologies: new for development Faculty t al. et Computers &Education Computers Mobile Learning: Definition, Uses and Challenges. In: WANKEL, Laura A.; BLESSINGER, BLESSINGER, A.; Laura WANKEL, In: Challenges. and Uses Definition, Learning: Mobile , Amsterdam, v. p. 239-244, ed.c, 46, 2015. , Amsterdam, v. 2013. Oct. 68, p.76-85, et al. et The discovery of Grounded Theory Grounded of discovery The , Wollongong, 77, 2009. In The genesis and development of mobile learning in Europe.D.learningIn:in mobileParsons of development and (Ed.). Thegenesis : XXXVIII ENCONTRO DA ANPAD, 2014, Rio de Janeiro.ANPAD,DAde Rio ENCONTRO 2014, XXXVIII : : New Applications of Blended Educational Resources. Hershey: IGI Global, 2011. Global, IGI Hershey: Resources. Educational Blended of Applications New : , Doulin City, v. n. 14, 3, p.163–177, 2011. Release –contato deimprensa assessoria . 5th ed. New York: The Free 2003. Press, , Reading, v., Reading, 8, n. 1, p. 13-20, 2010. , Amsterdam, v. 59, n. 4,p. 1286-1299, 2012. , Bingley, v. 17, n. 3, p.327-348, 2014. , Bingley, v. 28, n. 5, p. 389-409, 2010. . London: Sage, 2007. Sage, . London: p. 221-47. . Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2015. Available 2015. Estatística, e Geografia de BrasileiroInstituto . : Strategies For qualitative research. New Brunswick New research. qualitative For Strategies : _ resultados.php?id . São Paulo. Agosto, 2014. Computers & Education & Computers Computers & Education& Computers _ Anais do XXXVIII Encontro da Encontro XXXVIII do Anais pesquisa=40. Retrieved Oct Oct Retrieved pesquisa=40. : Smartphones, Skype and Skype Smartphones, : Adopters and Non-Adopters Instructors Non-Adopters and Adopters Anais Computers & Computers Educa M-Learning Adoption: Comparing Adoption: M-Learning [...]. Savannah,[...]. , Amsterdam,, Computers & Computers , Amster Compu Com ------21

PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 22 PRETEXTO • v.22 • n.1 • p. 6-22 • Jan./Mar. 2021 Ramos Leão eFernanda Freitas de Sabino Angilberto Ferreira, Brantes Jorge Kurtz, Renata Pina, Fernanda ture. LOOI, What C. L.; seams do we learning?WONG, of A critical remove the review seamless litera in mobile-assisted pdf. July Retrieved 27, 2010. gham, 2007. Available in http://www.lsri.nottingham.ac.uk/Publications WINTERS, N. What is mobile learning. ronments. envi teaching different in (TTD) distance transactional of perceptions instructors’ and characteristics pedagogical instructors’ between relationsstructuralPattern of – mechanism changeTeachers N. pedagogical WENGROWICZ, p. 64 2014. UNESCO. Distance Learning learning. Mobile Evaluating and Discussing, Defining, J. TRAXLER, Computers & Education, Amsterdam &Education, Computers O O Futuro da aprendizagem móvel Computers &Education Computers , Athabasca, v. 2007. 8, n. 2, , Amsterdam, v. 76, p. 190-198, July 2014.

In : Sharples, M. (ed.). , v. 57, n. 4,p. 2364-2381, 2011. : implicações para planejadores e gestores de políticas. Brasília: UNESCO, Big Big issues in mobile learning International Review of Research in Open and and Open in Research of Review International _ PDFs/BIG _ ISSUES . Report. . University Report. of Nottin _ REPORT _ PUBLISHED. - - -