The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2399-1747.htm

Implications
Student perceptions on using cell for mobile
phones as learning tools technology
usage
Implications for mobile technology usage in
Caribbean higher education institutions 25
Tashfeen Ahmad
Received 4 March 2018
University Project Management Office, University of the West Indies, Revised 9 May 2019
Kingston, Jamaica 25 October 2019
Accepted 4 January 2020

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine students’ perception, views and opinions about the usage of mobile
phones in an educational setting in a higher education institution located in Jamaica. The results of these
findings were used to gain insights and to assist education policymakers in adopting most suitable
approaches to integrating mobile technology in learning.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey approach was used for this study. A total of 145 students
participated in the study using structured questionnaire design containing 14 questions.
Findings – The results indicated an overall positive student perception toward cell phones usage as a
learning tool and integrating cell phones into learning activities. Students were keen on its usage as a social
connectivity and collaborative tool, which they can use for flexible and personalized learning activities.
Originality/value – Less research has been done in Caribbean and developing countries in analyzing
student perception toward using cell phones for learning purposes. This research provides insights in
developing policies to assist with the integration of mobile phone technology in learning and how institutions
can respond to the advent of advancing mobile technology.
Keywords Jamaica, Learning, Mobile technology, Student perception, Cell phone, Pedagogies,
Caribbean, Developing countries
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Mobile devices connected to the internet such as smartphones and tablets have become the
choice platform for the millennial generation engaged in various internet activities. There
has been spectacular growth in the global mobile market with projection of increases in
ownership and penetration rates (GSMA Intelligence Report, 2016). The estimate is to be at
5.8 billion subscribers and 71 per cent penetration rate by the year 2025.
Advances in technologies and ICTs have led to greater use of mobile technology in the
education sector, and particularly at the university level. Many institutions worldwide have
started to experiment with various learning methods and integrating mobile phone use to
facilitate students’ learning. The higher education sector has become increasingly

© Tashfeen Ahmad. Published in PSU Research Review: An International Journal. Published

by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative PSU Research Review
Vol. 4 No. 1, 2020
works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full pp. 25-43
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at Emerald Publishing Limited
2399-1747
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode DOI 10.1108/PRR-03-2018-0007
PRR technology-driven. More developed countries are using modern advances in educational
4,1 technologies and instructional design. These range from e-learning, distance education,
Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD), use of online and social media, student response systems
in classrooms, to now game-based learning, Web 2.0, simulation technology, three-
dimensional apps and virtual classroom environments. These advances in conjunction with
newer pedagogies such as adaptive, collaborative and hybrid learning styles are being used
26 to enhance students’ learning experiences. This has created disruption in pedagogical
structure and framework of learning institutions resulting in noticeable shifts from
instructor led to more student-learner centered, self-lifelong modes of learning. Universities
in Jamaica and the Anglophone Caribbean have also embarked on initiatives to increase the
use of technologies in their institutions in response to the emergence of these educational
technologies.
For instance, University of the West Indies, the region’s premier higher education
institution in the English speaking Caribbean, with campuses located in Jamaica, Trinidad
and Barbados, through their Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning have
accelerated ongoing drive to sensitize and train lecturers in how to use mobile and other ICT
technologies in the class setting. Recent developments such as the “Inaugural Teaching with
Technology Showcase” (2014), e-book access for incoming graduate students allow for real
time, interactive online and group study, and support services provided by MITS, the
university’s information technology services leverage technology use to drive students’ IT
requirements during their course of study, via the UWI Triple A Strategy (2017-2022).
Mobile and ICTs, therefore, provide many opportunities to create, deliver and support
innovative methods of learning. Research points to the use of such technologies in
facilitating collaboration and communication, enhancing creative and interactive learning
styles and the development of tools, applications to aid in the delivery of educational
content. Institutions, therefore, have to carefully weigh investments made in technology
against the benefits realized by students and administration in adopting such technologies
in learning environment. Technology implementation can create its own set of challenges
and issues specific to each institution. This can represent substantial costs and resources
expended to acquire potential benefits.
Hence, a study of students’ perception, views and opinions about the use of cell phones as
a learning tool in class setting is an important consideration for university administration
decision-makers for mobile technology adoption. Students’ user acceptance of mobile
devices in the learning environment is even more critical for Caribbean and developing
world institutions in the context of significant infrastructural, institutional, socio-economic
and financial resource constraints.
The purpose of this paper is to examine students’ perception about the use of mobile
phones in an educational setting in a higher education institution located in Jamaica.
Research indicates that the study of various user acceptance models in developed countries
is a useful technique in predicting successful adoption of technology in learning. Given our
unique challenges and constraints, such studies on student receptiveness to mobile
technology use in classroom scenario may better inform institutions how to integrate mobile
phone usage into pedagogies and delivery modes to enhance student performance and
learning outcomes.
This research embarked on an empirical approach by collecting data on a sample of
undergraduate students and soliciting their perception about using cell phones in a class
setting via survey instrument. To elaborate and investigate our main objective, we explored
in further depth two areas:
 (1) How do students perceive/rate their own use of mobile phone technology use and Implications
impact on their learning and academic performance? for mobile
(2) How do students perceive/rate their lecturers’ use of mobile phone technology use technology
and impact on their learning and academic performance? usage
It is hoped that the results of this survey will provide useful insights of students’ views
about mobile phone use in learning and benefit lecturers, facilitators and university 27
administrators to craft suitable strategies for better implementation in the context of
Caribbean challenges, with the ultimate objective of enhancing academic performance and
ensuring region’s higher education standards are on par with developed countries. The
ensuing sections contain the research methodology, analysis and discussion of the results
along with recommendations for the future.

Literature review
Technology’s disruptive force has forced higher education institutions to rethink current cell
phone policies and to spur innovative approaches to enhance student participation and
involvement in the learning process. While much of contemporary literature seem fixated
with the wide range of features and capabilities of these devices, others rightly focus on
identifying those key properties and attributes, which can be incorporated and employed to
learning delivery methods.
University students are especially heavy users of cell phones and this has implications
for learning outcomes at the tertiary level. Institutions will have to place greater importance
on using mobile technology resources efficiently to support learning. Research cites a
number of common recurring themes regarding students’ positive perception of their
devices’ capabilities in their educational pursuits. They offer more appeal to students with
respect to the ease of access to search for information.
Internet connection enables students to use mobile phones as modern tools to collect and
acquire knowledge, which creates further opportunities for learning while attending
lectures. Primary benefits are enhanced communication and collaboration, along with
greater interaction and increased learning irrespective of time or location.
Mobile devices belong to six categories such as smartwatches, mobile phones, PDAs,
web pads, tablets and laptops (Sharples and Beale, 2003). Others classify mobile phones as
one variant of portable digital assistants (PDAs), which is defined as any handheld device
equipped with computer capabilities, which can be used to support educational objectives
(Churchill and Churchill, 2008). These mobile devices facilitate students’ ability to
communicate, interact, engage in discussions, store and record material for later use, give
lecturers affordances to use mind mapping tools to better gauge how students think and
process information. More importantly, they also facilitate higher-level thinking and
computational skills.
In terms of pedagogical frameworks, there is the view that mobile phone features and
attributes can be of significant value in helping to create new learning styles and methods.
For instance, such devices can be used to design “collaborative, contextual and
constructionist” (Patten et al., 2006) forms of learning.
The increasing use of mobile phone technology within the higher education context
represents a paradigm shift in thinking about teaching and learning strategies. Existing
pedagogical frameworks tend to assume that learning occurs largely in the context of a
classroom setting. Many contend that mobile technology integration in learning upsets this
notion and is spawning new pedagogies integrating its use inside and outside the university
PRR environment (Martin and Ertzberger, 2013; Wong and Looi, 2011; Patten et al., 2006;
4,1 Attewell, 2005; Sharples, 2000).
Mobile phones are enabling the “here and now” of mobile learning, i.e. the ability to
practice authentic learning instantly irrespective of time or location. This type of ubiquitous
learning has been shown to produce significant improvements in student performance,
specifically with respect to higher enjoyment levels, greater “engagement, motivation, focus
28 and enthusiasm” (Martin and Ertzberger, 2013). Others conceive its use in assisting with
“seamless” learning styles, i.e. a type of smooth, unified integration of learning experiences
spanning across many dimensions of the education experience, such as students’ exposure
to formal/informal, social, physical and virtual learning context. Otherwise referred to as
mobile-assisted seamless learning (MSL), it can be considered to an “all-in-one” approach,
which produces benefits of context-based, personalized, socially engaged and
multidisciplinary approaches to learning. In addition, with continued advances in
technology, such methods are considered especially relevant for applications in virtual
learning environments with the growing use of digital tools.
The literature also indicates the use of mobile phone device features to support more
popular learning approaches in higher education, namely, lifelong learning and mobile
learning (m-learning). The pedagogy of lifelong learning focuses on providing students with
higher-order skills and competencies (i.e. critical thinking, adaptability, self-directed
reflection, meta-learning, creativity and problemsolving), which are required over a lifetime
to succeed in a dynamic changing world (Bolhuis, 2003; Fischer, 2001).
Supporting mobile technology tools ideally suited to the advancement of lifelong
learning strategies as enunciated by Sharples (2000) include students’ ability to engage in
collaborative and situated type learning as a response mechanism to adapting to changing
environment, immediate accessibility to information, portability and personalized features
to react instantaneously anytime, anywhere.
Directly emerging from mobile technology advancements, mobile learning (m-learning)
is viewed as perhaps offering potentially the most exciting, futuristic and technologically
advanced possibilities in revolutionizing the delivery of higher education in the immediate
future. This is because mobile phones are exceptional learning tools in various educational
settings (Ahmad, 2015, 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b). The ubiquitous nature of mobile
technology combined with advances in ICT and wireless internet technology is considered
to be the future of education technology and learning (Moreira et al., 2018; Peng et al., 2009).

Early development of mobile learning frameworks

Mobile tools have become important factors contributing to the “social, collaborative and
situated elements of human learning” (Roschelle and Pea, 2002). Mobile phone, in particular,
smartphones are particularly suited for collaborative and augmented learning styles
(Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2015). Such devices are regarded as vital technology support tools,
which facilitate rather than replace normal methods of communication and interaction
during the learning process, and hence, are essential in the creation of innovative learning
strategies for university students (Naismith et al., 2004).
Others view the return on investment, cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness
approaches as more important determining factors in developing strategies around
appropriate pedagogical approaches to mobile phone technology integration. It provides for
“flexible pedagogies” (Gordon, 2014) by supporting and enhancing personalized, and
blended learning methods. In terms of cost savings and long term benefits, it can also enable
real value for all education stakeholders via mechanism such as virtual learning
environments, peer and assessment tools without the requirement for additional amounts of
resource outlays. Mobile phone technology carries with it certain unique technical features, Implications
which present real cost savings for existing educational models. In evaluating the for mobile
pedagogical impacts, both “technical and non-technical factors” (Sarrab et al., 2016) needs to
be incorporated in measuring the quality impact. The entire gamut of quality performance
technology
(QUPER) factors including “flexibility, scalability, usability, maintainability, functionality, usage
reliability, connectivity, performance, user interface, security, flexibility, scalability,
usability and maintainability” (Svensson et al., 2008) will affect mobile phone adoption rates
and more importantly, the receptiveness of education stakeholders to integrate it into 29
learning. Mobile technology advances also increase students’ expectations about the
delivery and access to quality education. Given the level of technology with advances in
networking, internet and digitalization, students have higher expectations regarding access
to lower cost and just in time modes of learning. Mobile phone technology offers this extra
value from a pedagogical perspective in terms of organizing teaching and learning “on the
go”, providing instant communication, collaboration, knowledge and assessment support. It
is considered by some as a means of better satisfying the demands of learners while
balancing the needs of institutions to provide cost-efficient quality learning outcomes in
“supporting existing self-directed, interactive and constructivist pedagogical frameworks”
(Rajasingham, 2011).

Alternative pedagogical frameworks

Given the ubiquitous nature of mobile phones and continued advances in technology, we
have witnessed a gradual shift in thinking about the creation of new approaches to teaching
and learning. Much of the discussion centers on the role of mobile phones in developing
personalized, collaborative and authentic forms of learning to generate rather than enhance
student learning experiences and raise higher education outcomes. The literature indicates a
revolutionized approach to m-learning methodologies. There is increased recognition that
mobile technology’s ubiquitous nature has led to learning inside and outside the class
context, which has led to new learning opportunities. Some assert that both students and
lecturers need to be receptive, aware and ready to adapt to this new dispensation to
successfully implement new pedagogies surrounding mobile phone technology (Moreira
et al., 2018).
Earlier applications of m-learning, drawn from a sample of research studies during the
2010-2015 period in US and developing world institutions, examined frameworks using cell
phone integration in creating innovative learning styles, which facilitate individualized
learning, anytime, anywhere, but which also allow for “unstructured” and “customizable”
styles suitable to the learner’s need in any “situated and context aware” learning atmosphere
(Gikas and Grant, 2013; Compton, 2013).
More recent developments have seen the creation of alternative pedagogical frameworks
such as technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK), technology acceptance
model (TAM) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) models
of mobile technology integration (Scherer et al., 2019).
The TPACK framework uses supporting mobile features together with three important
knowledge domains, namely, technology (supporting tools), content (educational subject
matter or materials) and knowledge pedagogies (best fit education methods) to deliver the
desired learning outcomes. It is referred to as the three important knowledge domains,
which requires teachers to be competent in all three areas in conjunction with the supporting
tools to produce the best learning outcomes.
TAM attempt to explain factors, which account for acceptance and adoption of digital
and mobile technologies in education. It examines such factors as perceived usefulness, ease
PRR of use and attitudes as powerful influences for comparison with other models of technology
4,1 integration.
One study conducted in a South African higher education institution applied this
framework with the use of the popular mobile instant messenger (MIM) app, Whatsapp, in a
learning context. This application affirmed a positive relationship between these factors and
perceived usefulness of mobile learning. More importantly, the use of MIM enabled
30 efficiencies with respect to accessibility, timeliness, quality and relevance of data, which are
regarded as key factors in perceived usefulness and enhancement of flexible, collaborative
learning environments (Bere and Rambe, 2016).
The UTAT framework are essentially theoretical models, which try to explain the
mechanism behind determining the factors contributing to technology adoption, i.e. users
intentions. These factors are heavily influenced by social, psychological and behavioral
factors such as performance and effort expectations, social influence and facilitating factors,
which, in turn, can also be affecting age, gender and experience levels (Taherdoost, 2018;
Williams et al., 2015).
The literature points to the wide differences among institutions within regions and
countries with respect to these acceptance factors. These may be impacted by technology
factors (e.g. security, privacy, compatibility, etc.), institutional and organizational issues (e.g.
readiness, resistance to change) and quality issues in institutions located in the Middle East,
Asia and Latin America (Almaiah and Al Mulhem, 2019), to developing countries in the
Caribbean (English speaking Guyana, Trinidad, Jamaica, Barbados), which identify specific
cultural, social and country-level differences “moderating UTAT effects” (Thomas et al.,
2014, 2013).
Use of Smart Mobile Pedagogies in response to latest technology advances
Rapid and dynamic evolution of technology, particularly in the mobile space will continue to
generate new theoretical frameworks and experimentation about integrating mobile
technology in higher education. Latest literature attempts to predict how higher education
institutions will respond in the near future with the advent of higher-level: “smart
technologies” such as the pending implementation of 5 G wireless mobile internet services,
edge computing, the internet of things, mobile cloud computing services, and the use of
mobile support tools, such as wearables for application in augmented and virtual reality
learning environments (Khan et al., 2019; Sergio For tes et al., 2019).
The result is a paradigm shift in thinking and approach to learning from prior
traditional, lower technology integrated, teacher led models to use of more “highly adaptive,
customizable ubiquitous, mobile learning technology supported tools and devices,” which
empowers and affords learners to adapt their learning experiences to suit inside and outside
the classroom environment.
This would need teachers to keep current with emerging mobile and digital technologies,
but also to have the needed institutional and infrastructural support to enable adequate
preparation and adjustment of pedagogical approach to support learner-centered styles.
From a practical perspective, educational researchers are beginning to see glimpses of
hands-on application of these smart pedagogical approaches with the development of
“smart campuses” (Fortes et al., 2019) and “smart teaching platforms” (Xu et al., 2019) based
on 5 G Mobile technology and other tech advances in Chinese and Spanish education
systems.
Experimentation with 5 G in the Chinese university and college system has seen an
explosion of mobile and online teaching network models heavily supported by government
and university administration. Such testing in Chinese higher education are producing
benefits in terms of students’ ability to access to materials and instructions via mobile
distance teaching, real-time impact monitoring and adjustment of teaching approaches, Implications
emergency communications and real-time access and navigation of learning databases (Xu for mobile
et al., 2019).
technology
Caribbean and developing world response to technology advances
usage
The big question is how will Caribbean and developing world HE systems respond to this
new wave of tech advances? How will they adjust or revamp pedagogical approaches to
teaching and learning with continuous tech disruptions in a dynamic twenty-first-century
31
learning environment? Much has already been written about the constraints to technology
adoption in higher education and the factors contributing the digital divide between
developed and developed countries (Nye, 2015; West, 2015; Thomas et al., 2013).
Latest research work conducted by International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and
the GSMA Digital Inclusion in Latin America and The Caribbean Report, 2016, speaks to the
concerns about “digital inclusion” for developing country institutions with the incorporation
of 5 G, IOT, cloud and edge computing in learning and other spheres of life (ITU Report,
2019; GSMA Intelligence Report, 2016).
Digital inclusion is especially important for developing economies to meet vital
sustainable development goals (SDGs) pertaining to the attainment of basic health,
educational, social and economic objectives of lesser developed states. Concerns about
access, affordability, pricing of more sophisticated and higher quality technology brings
into sharper focus the challenges faced by developing states (Noll et al., 2018).
Over the past five years, a number of innovative initiatives have been implemented by
regional institutions to integrate mobile technologies at tertiary level. Many of these
spearheaded by the UWI’s Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, which
have deployed deliberate strategies to continually sensitize teachers to new “innovative
pedagogical strategies incorporating twenty-first-century technology.” Recent focus has
been on the use of collaborative and cooperative learning approaches to achieve higher
learning outcomes.
Examples of specific approaches to introducing technology tools include workshops,
presentations, and round table discussions on the use of Skype and Google apps in teaching
and group work monitoring, using Web 2.0 technologies (e.g. blogs, wikis, podcasts, social
networking) and mobile learning techniques in classroom setting. In addition, there has been
much sensitization by the university’s information technology services department (MITS)
about the impact of new media technologies in higher education (UWI, Centre for Excellence
T&L, 2014).

Research method and design

A survey approach was used for this study. A 12-item survey covering three constructs was
used. Four survey questions comprised each of the following constructs: perception of
fairness of university cell phone policy, perception of lecturer initiated educational cell
phone applications and perception of student initiated cell phone educational applications.
Responses were based on a six-point Likert-type scale with the neutral response omitted.
Respondents selected one of the following responses for each question: strongly disagree: 1;
disagree: 2; slightly disagree: 3; slightly agree: 4; agree: 5; strongly agree: 6.
The data was collected from a group of students attending The University of the West
Indies in Jamaica. A total of 145 surveys were distributed of which 144 participants
responded. This comprised of 71 males and 73 females ranging in ages 19-22 years. All were
enrolled in an undergraduate degree program with 63 (44 per cent) being 1st-year students,
13 (9 per cent) 2nd year and 68 (47 per cent) 3rd year students.
PRR All the information gathered was at the convenience of the researcher. Participation was
4,1 voluntary and no personal or identifying information was gathered to ensure confidentiality
and high participation rate. The demographic statistics of the respondents are summarized
in Figures 1-3 below.

Procedure
32 The survey questionnaire was used to gather participants’ perception of cellphone use as a
learning tool in the classroom setting. The survey instrument was divided into two main
sections.

Section I
The first section was used to obtain information relating to cellphone use and access,
ownership and demographic facts.

Gender Composion of Students

51% Male
49%
Figure 1. Female
Gender composition
of students

Academic Standing
80 47%
44%
No. of Students

60

40

20 9%

0
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Figure 2. Total 63 13 68
Academic standing
Academic Year

Student Age Group 66%

100

80
No. of Students

60 34%

40

20

0
19 -20 21 - 22
Figure 3.
No. of Students 49 95
Student age group
Age Group
Section II Implications
The second section sought to enlist specific student perceptions and views on cellphone use for mobile
in education by posing 12 questions. These questions were divided into three subsections of
four questions each which focused on themes regarding students’ perception of the
technology
usefulness of cellphones in learning and educational activities. usage
The three subsections questions centered on the following topics:
(1) Satisfaction with School Policy. 33
(2) Perception as Teacher Initiated Learning Tool.
(3) Perception as Student Initiated Learning Tool.

The results were then presented in a number of tables along with important calculated
indicators. The analysis was used to gain important insights into response trends and
patterns within the data.
Specifically we looked at the following indicators:
 The highest average/percentage form of agreement (all categories).
 The highest average/percentage form of agreement (within category).
 The highest average/percentage form of disagreement (all categories).
 The highest average/percentage form of agreement (within category).
 The ratio of unfavorable vs favorable (of 12 questions).

The results were then used to discuss the findings in a number of ways:
 Firstly and most importantly we used it to find out the possible factors, which
influence student perceptions about cellphone use as an educational learning
tool.
 How these perceptions differed from the researchers “anticipated” perceptions.
 How these findings could be incorporated into policy and implemented for mobile
usage in the classroom.
 Finally, we compared to what extent our results concurred or diverged from other
research findings in other countries.

Results
The findings for the first section of the survey instrument are presented in the following
Figures 4 and 5.

Section I
The overwhelming majority of students (97 per cent), own a cellphone and indicates the high
mobile penetration rates in Jamaica and other developing countries in Latin America,
Caribbean, (West, 2015). The results show that cellphone usage, access and ownership
patterns are generally consistent with those in other countries.
Figure 4, shows that the largest numbers (132 and 128), use cellphones for calling and
texting and reinforces its importance as a vital connectivity and socialization tool. What is
interesting is the large numbers (101, 93 and 52) who utilize it as a clock, an important time
management and emergency back- up tool.
PRR Cell Phone Usage by Students
4,1 Other 6
Light 52
Games 83
Planner 34
Alarm Clock 93
Clock 101
34
USE

Calendar 78
Calculang 80
Internet access 76
Videos 59
Photos 78
Texng 128
Figure 4. Calling 132
Cell phone usage by
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
students
NO. OF RESPONDENTS

3% % of Students who own a cellphone

Figure 5.
Percentage of 97%
students who own a
cellphone Have a Cellphone Do Not Have a Cellphone

Section II
The results are summarized in the following figures and tables. It shows the results per
category with responses to each of the four questions posed.
For the first category pertaining to school policy with cellphone, we found a strong
awareness of the rules and guidelines, which stood at 90 per cent. With regards to the
fairness of the policy and fairness of the sanctions for breach of policy, a majority of 58 per
cent in both cases indicating a favorable response.
However, the greatest negative response was for the freedom to use cellphones anytime,
which recorded a 76 per cent unfavorable response. It is interesting to note that
notwithstanding a strong awareness of the policy (55 per cent), a high 32 per cent registered
strong disapproval with not being allowed to use it at any time (Figures 6 and 7, Table I).
With regards to using the cellphone as student-initiated tool of learning, three out of the
four questions posed in this section received higher positive response than negative. The
highest favorable response of 84 per cent thought it is an excellent idea to use it as a
collaborative tool with other students, followed by a 79 per cent positive rating for its use in
seeking teacher assistance.
However, students were not enthusiastic about using cellphones to submit assignments
to teachers, which registered a 55 per cent combined unfavorable response.
We should note the very strong agreement ratings of 24 per cent and 23 per cent
respectively for its use in seeking teacher assistance and collaborating with others on
projects, which points to its perception as an important interaction and engagement tool
(Figures 8 and 9, Table II).
The final category was the only one, which returned more favorable than unfavorable
responses to the questions posed. In fact, all questions retuned in the range of 64-75 per cent
 Sasfacon with School Policy Implications
for mobile
Fair cell phone
breach policy 25% 17% 24% 13% 8% 12% technology
usage
Freedom to use
5% 33% 13% 12% 6% 32%
cellphone anyme 35

Fair cellphone
policy 22% 18% 24% 15% 12% 9%

Awareness of Figure 6.
Cellphone Policy 28% 1% 8% 3% 55% 5% Response to
Satisfaction with
Agree Disagree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree
School Policy

Sasfacon with School Policy

Fair cell phone
breach policy 58% 42%

Freedom to use
cellphone 24% 76%
anyme

Fair cellphone
policy 58% 42%

Awareness of
Cellphone Policy 90% 10% Figure 7.
Favorable vs
Form of agreement Form of disagreement unfavorable response

Response Awareness of policy Fair cell phone policy Freedom to use cellphone Fair breach policy
Table I.
Total respondents 144 144 144 144 Mean and
Mean 5.2 3.7 2.4 3.6 SD–satisfaction with
SD 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 school policy

positive rating relating to the perception of use of cellphone as a teacher-initiated learning

tool. Students strongly agreed that it could be used by instructors to provide feedback (18
per cent), followed by its use as an educational tool (15 per cent) and encourage students’
participation in educational activity (13 per cent).
PRR Student Iniated Learning Tool

4,1 Used by students to seek

teacher assistance on 35% 6% 20% 10% 24% 5%
assignments.

Used to collaborate with

other students on class
36 projects.
36% 7% 25% 6% 23% 3%

Used to submit
18% 22% 15% 18% 12% 15%
assignments to teachers

Used by students
Figure 8. obtain peer tutoring
31% 11% 26% 11% 12% 9%
Perception as student
initiated learning tool
Agree Disagree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree

Student Iniated Learning Tool

Used by students
to seek
teacher
79% 21%
assistance on…

Used to
collaborate with
other students
84% 16%
on class projects.

Used to submit
assignments to 45% 55%
teachers

Figure 9. Used by students

Favorable vs obtain peer 69% 31%
unfavorable tutoring
response–student
initiated learning tool
Form of agreement Form of disagreement

Used by students Used to submit Used to collaborate with Used by students to seek
obtain peer assignments to other students on class teacher assistance on
Table II. Response tutoring teachers projects assignments
Mean and Total 144 144 144 144
SD–perception as respondents
student initiated Mean 3.9 3.4 4.5 4.5
learning tool SD 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.4
The highest mean of 4.2, percentage favorable (75 per cent) and lowest unfavorable response Implications
of (25 per cent) was mobile phone use to provide feedback, which again indicates its for mobile
perceived importance by students as a vital interaction and engagement tool. technology
In summary the question, which received the highest percentage favorable response was
the student awareness of cellphone policy, which stood at 90 per cent. On the other hand, the usage
question, which garnered the highest percentage unfavorable response is the freedom to use
cellphone at any time. It is interesting to note that these fall in the first category relating to 37
policy (Figures 10 and 11, Table III).
In addition, out of the 12 questions posed, 10 received generally more favorable than
unfavorable responses, while two received more unfavorable than favorable responses as
summarized in Figure 12 below.

Findings
The results of our study revealed a number of interesting findings. Students’ perception
regarding cellphone use as a learning tool was generally positive. In 10 of the 12 (83 per cent)
questions posed returned a more favorable than unfavorable rating regarding its adoption.
A number of important patterns or trends emerged, which contributed to students’ views.
We see from Figure 12 that students place the greatest premium on mobile phone use for
collaborating (84 per cent), communicating (75 per cent) and seeking teacher assistance (79
per cent).
This finding confirms previous research studies, which attest that students view the
adoption of cellphone in classroom environment as an important collaboration,
communication, accessing and information sharing. Students place a high priority on its use
as a source of greater interaction and encouraging higher levels of engagement. In addition,
they leveraging cellphone technology features as a means to a complement and enrich the
learning experience and collaborate outside the classroom (Biddix et al., 2015; Andrews
et al., 2015).

Teacher Iniated Learning Tool

Used by students
compete ed.acvity 27% 11% 30% 14% 13% 6%

Used by teachers to
provide feedback 31% 15% 26% 7% 18% 3%

Used by students in
surveys 25% 15% 33% 12% 6% 8%

Figure 10.
Used as educaonal tool 29% 15% 20% 11% 15% 10%
Perception as a
teacher initiated
learning tool
Agree Disagree Slightly agree Slightly disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree
PRR Teacher Iniated Learning Tool
4,1 Used by students
compete 69% 31%
ed.acvity

Used by teachers
to provide 75% 25%
38 feedback

Used by students
in surveys 65% 35%

Figure 11.
Favorable vs Used as
unfavorable educaonal tool 64% 36%
response–teacher
initiated learning tool
Form of agreement Form of disagreement

Used by students to
Used as Used by students Used by teachers to compete in educational
Response educational tool in surveys provide feedback activity
Table III.
Mean and Total Respondents 144 144 144 144
SD–perception as a Mean 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.0
teacher initiated tool SD 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4

Summary of Favorable and Unfavorable Response Rating

Form of Form of
Response agreement disagreement More favorable More Unfavorable
Awareness of Cellphone Policy 90% 10% Favorable
F air cellphone policy 58% 42% Favorable
F reedom to use cellphone any time 24% 76% Unfavorable
F air cell phone breach policy 58% 42% Favorable
Used by students obtain peer tutoring 69% 31% Favorable
Used to submit assignments to teachers 45% 55% Unfavorable
Used to collaborate with other students on class projects. 84% 16% Favorable
Used by students to seek teacher assistance on assignments. 79% 21% Favorable
Figure 12.
Summary of Used as Educational tool 64% 36% Favorable
favorable and Used by students in surveys 65% 35% Favorable
unfavorable response Used by Teachers to provide feedback 75% 25% Favorable
rating Used by students to compete in educational activity 69% 31% Favorable
Although less research has been conducted in developing countries, we find that the study Implications
confirms that students in this region are no different in displaying their worldwide affinity for mobile
and comfort with the use of mobile technology. Also similar to findings in developed
countries, we find that a strong awareness of the rules regarding restrictions on use of
technology
cellphones in class at 90 per cent with lesser support agreeing to the fairness of the policies usage
and sanctions imposed for breaching the guidelines. The author is not surprised about
students’ knowledge of the guidelines and policies while registering strong opposition with
restrictions placed on the use of cellphones at any time. 39
This researcher was somewhat surprised to find more students returning unfavorable
(55 per cent) response to the use of cellphone for submitting assignments to teachers. This
author would have expected that as a student-initiated tool, it would have been perceived as
a means of fostering greater levels of student-teacher engagement.
However, this affirms earlier studies in developed countries that students in this part of
the world also place greater priority on its use as a social connectivity, social networking
and communication tool, which can be used in any context at any time, often “blurring the
lines between formal and informal learning” (Pedro et al., 2018).
For Caribbean students and the majority of mobile phone users in the developing world,
portability and affordability are especially unique advantages, and is vital for maintaining
important business, customer and personal “linkups” (Horst, 2006; Horst et al., 2005).

Implications and recommendations

Advances in technology will continue to unravel higher education systems. Education
policymakers will have to continuously rethink their pedagogies and models in the age of
technology and the digital revolution. We see from the survey results that students are more
responsive to using cell phones along with learning methods, which enhance
communication, collaboration and sharing of learning experiences.
More importantly, mobile technology is making demands on the system for learning
styles, which are more highly personalized and customized to the learners needs. Learning is
increasingly taking place outside formal learning environments, and hence, institutions will
have to adjust to this new shift in delivery methods.
Currently, what also seems to be evolving are rapid shifts in the nature of the global
economy with the emergence of “on demand, collaborative, sharing economies” along with
advances in digital and mobile technologies (5 G wireless, mobile cloud computing, etc.),
which is creating an intersection between learning, technology and economic systems.
There is the view that higher learning institutions will have to build strong educational
ecosystems driven by technology to meet the needs of this “on demand economy” and
specifically to cater to young millennial and Generation Z students’ demand for educational
services, which are personalized and customizable. At one extreme end, is a vision of future
learning pedagogies based on “platform learning” (Means, 2018) using mobile tech and other
advances to integrate “on demand learning” and “on demand work” for this new economic
system.
Others view the integrating newer advances in technology (smart technologies) with
existing pedagogical frameworks but developed in a more seamless fashion (smart
pedagogies) as the solution to deliver more student centric, socially collaborative, self-
directed learning styles. For our purposes, regional higher institutions must have the ability
to access and leverage advances in mobile technology irrespective of our economic, social or
institutional strictures to reap the benefits of high-quality learning systems.
Integrating mobile technology with learning methods, which emphasize self- directed,
lifelong and flexible learning while augmenting these with some degree of instructor led
PRR activities can lead to significant savings and value without compromising on quality
4,1 educational outcomes if the following strategies are integrated (Cuesta Medina, 2018):
 Ensure that teachers acquire new teaching skills, which emphasize interaction and
assessment of students.
 Teachers should adopt more the role of facilitator, and maintain effective
“facilitator-student” metrics.
40  Institutions must have monitoring and assessment mechanisms to measure learning
outcomes over time.

With respect to newer technologies, 5 G mobile wireless technology presents an especially

pressing concern for developing countries. Some innovative initiatives to ensure greater
digital inclusion and sustainable development goals with respect to education should be
considered.
For instance, the “internet light” concept (Noll et al., 2018) introduced via a partnership
between more developed western European counties and some African countries, uses
network slicing of distributed network systems to share certain content (e.g. educational
material). Caribbean institutions could also consider increasing using such partnership
initiatives as cost-effective ways to ensure mobile digital inclusion with the advent of new
technologies.
The future of higher education is changing where new methods are being used to engage
Millennials in business (e.g. CSR) and in education (e.g. artificial intelligence and other
technologies) (Ahmad, 2019c; 2020; forthcoming-a, b). I close with the thought that the future
of “classrooms” would have students sitting from different departments trying to solve
problems using their interdisciplinary and entrepreneurial approach.

Limitations and future research direction

Only one university has been used in this research, which is one of the major limitations of
this study. The author’s future research direction is to replicate this study in other
universities and also include student interviews in future research.

References
Ahmad, T. (2015), “Preparing for the future of higher education”, On the Horizon, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 323-330.
Ahmad, T. (2018a), “Teaching evaluation and student response rate”, PSU Research Review, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 206-211.
Ahmad, T. (2018b), “Mobile phones as a learning tool: a lecturer’s viewpoint”, Society and Business
Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 132-139.
Ahmad, T. (2019a), “Undergraduate mobile phone use in the Caribbean: Implications for teaching and
learning in an academic setting”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning.
Ahmad, T. (2019b), “Mobile phone messaging to increase communication and collaboration within the
university community”, Library Hi Tech News, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 7-11.
Ahmad, T. (2019c), “Corporate social responsibility: a value-creation strategy to engage Millennials”,
Strategic Direction, Vol. 35 No. 7, pp. 5-8.
Ahmad, T. (2020), “Scenario based approach to re-imagining future of higher education which prepares
students for the future of work”, Higher Education, Skills and Work-based Learning, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 217-238.
Ahmad, T. (forthcoming-a), “Undergraduate mobile phone use in the Caribbean: implications for teaching Implications
and learning in an academic setting”, Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning.
for mobile
Ahmad, T. (forthcoming-b), “Improving political science degree programs in the 21st century”, Review
of Economics and Political Science.
technology
Almaiah, M.A. and Al Mulhem, A. (2019), “Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use
usage
of mobile learning applications: a comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters”,
Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 1433-1468.
Andrews, T., Dyson, L.E. and Wishart, J. (2015), “Advancing ethics frameworks and scenario-based
41
learning to support educational research into mobile learning”, International Journal of Research
and Method in Education, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 320-334.
Attewell, J. (2005), “Mobile technologies and learning”, London: Learning and Skills Development
Agency, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 44-75.
Bere, A. and Rambe, P. (2016), “An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile instant messaging
appropriation in university learning”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 172-198.
Biddix, J.P., Chung, C.J. and Park, H.W. (2015), “The hybrid shift: evidencing a student-driven
restructuring of the college classroom”, Computers and Education, Vol. 80, pp. 162-175.
Bolhuis, S. (2003), “Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: a
multidimensional perspective”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 327-347.
Churchill, D. and Churchill, N. (2008), “Educational affordances of PDAs: a study of a teacher’s
exploration of this technology”, Computers and Education, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 1439-1450.
Cuesta Medina, L. (2018), “Blended learning: deficits and prospects in higher education”, Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 34 No. 1.
Fischer, G. (2001), “Lifelong learning and its support with new media”, International Encyclopedia of
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 13, pp. 8836-8840.
Fortes, S., Santoyo-Ramon, J.A., Palacios, D., Baena, E., Mora-García, R., Medina, M. and Barco, R.
(2019), “The campus as a smart city: University of Málaga environmental, learning, and research
approaches”, Sensors, Vol. 19 No. 6, p. 1349.
Gikas, J. and Grant, M.M. (2013), “Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives
on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media”, The Internet and Higher Education,
Vol. 19, pp. 18-26.
Gordon, N. (2014), Flexible Pedagogies: Technology-Enhanced Learning, Higher Education Academy, York.
GSMA Intelligence Report (2016), available at: www.gsma.com/latinamerica/resources/digital-
inclusion-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean
Horst, H.A. (2006), “The blessings and burdens of communication: cell phones in Jamaican
transnational social fields”, Global Networks, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 143-159.
Horst, H., Miller, D., AustinBroos, D., Bauer, E., Carrier, J., Chevannes, B., Hinrichs, L., Khan, A., Olwig,
K., Slater, D. and Slocum, K. (2005), “From kinship to link-up: cell phones and social networking
in Jamaica”, Current Anthropology, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 755-778.
ITU Report (2019), available at: www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/digital-inclusion-of-
all.aspx
Khan, W.Z., Ahmed, E., Hakak, S., Yaqoob, I. and Ahmed, A. (2019), “Edge computing: a survey”,
Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 97, pp. 219-235.
Martin, F. and Ertzberger, J. (2013), “Here and now mobile learning: an experimental study on the use of
mobile technology”, Computers and Education, Vol. 68, pp. 76-85.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Fabiani, P., Benesova, W., Meneses, M.D. and Mora, C.E. (2015), “Augmented
reality to promote collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 752-761.
PRR Means, A.J. (2018), “Platform learning and on-demand labor: sociotechnical projections on the future of
education and work”, Learning, Media and Technology, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 326-338.
4,1
Moreira, F., Pereira, C.S., Durão, N. and Ferreira, M.J. (2018), “A comparative study about mobile
learning in Iberian peninsula universities: are professors ready?”, Telematics and Informatics,
Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 979-992.
Naismith, L., Lonsdale, P., Vavoula, G.N. and Sharples, M. (2004), Mobile Technologies and Learning.
42 Noll, J., Dixit, S., Radovanovic, D., Morshedi, M., Holst, C. and Winkler, A.S. (2018), “5G network slicing
for digital inclusion”, 2018 10th International Conference on Communication Systems and
Networks (COMSNETS), IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 191-197.
Nye, B.D. (2015), “Intelligent tutoring systems by and for the developing world: a review of trends and
approaches for educational technology in a global context”, International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence in Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 177-203.
Patten, B., Sánchez, I.A. and Tangney, B. (2006), “Designing collaborative, constructionist and
contextual applications for handheld devices”, Computers and Education, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 294-308.
Pedro, L.F.M.G., de Oliveira Barbosa, C.M.M. and das Neves Santos, C.M. (2018), “A critical review of
mobile learning integration in formal educational contexts”, International Journal of Educational
Technology in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, p. 10.
Peng, H., Su, Y.J., Chou, C. and Tsai, C.C. (2009), “Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning
re-defined and a conceptual framework”, Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 171-183.
Rajasingham, L. (2011), “Will mobile learning bring a paradigm shift in higher education?”, Education
Research International, Vol. 2011, p. 1.
Roschelle, J. and Pea, R. (2002), “A walk on the WILD side: How wireless handhelds may change
computer-supported collaborative learning”, International Journal of Cognition and Technology,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 145-168.
Sarrab, M., Elbasir, M. and Alnaeli, S. (2016), “Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile
learning services: an empirical investigation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55,
pp. 100-112.
Scherer, R., Siddiq, F. and Tondeur, J. (2019), “The technology acceptance model (TAM): a Meta-
analytic structural equation modeling approach to explaining teachers’ adoption of digital
technology in education”, Computers and Education, Vol. 128, pp. 13-35.
Sharples, M. (2000), “The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning”, Computers and
Education, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 177-193.
Sharples, M. and Beale, R. (2003), “A technical review of mobile computational devices”, Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 392-395.
Svensson, R.B., Olsson, T. and Regnell, B. (2008), “Introducing support for release planning of
quality requirements—an industrial evaluation of the QUPER model”, 2008 Second
International Workshop on Software Product Management, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
pp. 18-26.
Taherdoost, H. (2018), “A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories”, Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 22, pp. 960-967.
Thomas, T., Singh, L. and Gaffar, K. (2013), “The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile
learning adoption in higher education in Guyana”, International Journal of Education and
Development Using ICT, Vol. 9 No. 3.
Thomas, T., Singh, L., Gaffar, K., Thakur, D., Jackman, G.A., Thomas, M., Gajraj, R., Allen, C.
and Tooma, K. (2014), “Measurement invariance of the UTAUT constructs in the
Caribbean”, International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, Vol. 10
No. 4.
West, D.M. (2015), Digital Divide: Improving Internet Access in the Developing World through Implications
Affordable Services and Diverse Content, Center for Technology Innovation at
Brookings. for mobile
Williams, M.D., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015), “The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
technology (UTAUT): a literature review”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, usage
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 443-488.
Wong, L.H. and Looi, C.K. (2011), “What seams do we remove in mobile-assisted seamless
learning? A critical review of the literature”, Computers and Education, Vol. 57 No. 4, 43
pp. 2364-2381.
Xu, X., Li, D., Sun, M., Yang, S., Yu, S., Manogaran, G., Mastorakis, G. and Mavromoustakis, C.X. (2019),
“Research on key technologies of smart campus teaching platform based on 5G network”, IEEE
Access, Vol. 7, pp. 20664-20675.

Further reading
Arpaci, I. (2019), “A hybrid modeling approach for predicting the educational use of mobile cloud
computing services in higher education”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 90, pp. 181-187.
Chan, G. (2018), Performance Information Use in the Canadian Higher Education Sector.
Creswell, J.W. (2013), Steps in Conducting a Scholarly Mixed Methods Study.
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2017), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Sage publications.
Dahlman, E., Parkvall, S. and Skold, J. (2018), 5G NR: The Next Generation Wireless Access Technology,
Academic Press.
Kearney, M., Burden, K. and Schuck, S. (2019), “Disrupting education using smart mobile pedagogies”,
Didactics of Smart Pedagogy, Springer, Cham, pp. 139-157.
Li, S., Da Xu, L. and Zhao, S. (2018), “5G internet of things: a survey”, Journal of Industrial Information
Integration, Vol. 10, pp. 1-9.
Suárez, Á., Specht, M., Prinsen, F., Kalz, M. and Ternier, S. (2018), “A review of the types of mobile
activities in mobile inquiry-based learning”, Computers and Education, Vol. 118, pp. 38-55.

Corresponding author
Tashfeen Ahmad can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]