Abstract—Whilst portable computers, such as laptops, notepads, personal assistants or smart phones, are now ubiquitous, their value as a tool in a learning environment is still an issue of considerable debate. This research studied the use of laptops as a learning tool in a traditional lecture for computer science students. A quantitative survey was conducted to analyse the readiness of the students and their perceptions of this form of mobile learning, as well as the effect of their demographics and readiness on the effectiveness of using laptops in lectures. The results show that students’ readiness level was high as majority of the respondents owned laptops and were willing to take it to lectures. The students’ perceptions of this form of learning were tested on six critical parameters derived from the literature, which include, increasing engagement, improving learning, encouraging collaboration, potential of distraction, ubiquity of laptops and using laptops for non-educational tasks. Overall, students felt that using laptops as a learning tool during lectures had positive benefits for increasing engagement, encouraging collaboration and improving learning potential, butt here was also the perception that laptops could distract students during lectures.

Keywords—mobile learning; laptops; lectures; computing.

I. INTRODUCTION The shift to mobile learning in all spheres of work has been

intensified through availability of increasingly agile mobile devices and expansion of wireless Internet access. The education sphere has also been infiltrated by ICT and the use of laptops in higher education classrooms appears to be increasing rapidly for many reasons. Today’s students have been raised on a steady diet of computers and technology; they are digital natives who expect to use computers on a regular basis for a wide range of educational tasks [1]. The price of mobile technology appears to have reached a tipping point where almost any higher education student can afford to purchase a laptop [2].

In universities, there has been expansion of ICT use with development of online student administration and course delivery using mobile devices. Mobile devices such as laptops have been integrated into course delivery and teaching as they allow instant feedback for questions and answers, provide animation and visualisation applications to help students better

understand learning materials, and create collaborative learning exercises for students to facilitate their ideas [3]. A laptop also allows students to research, collaborate, and collect information almost anywhere within the university environment including the classroom [4].

This paper reports results of the first research cycle from a bigger project [5]-[8]. This paper focuses on quantitative data illustrating the perceptions of students on six important aspects of laptop use during lectures. Given its limited scope, this paper only reports quantitative data about student perceptions on the use of mobile devices as learning aids. A qualitative analysis of the implications of mobile usage is available in other papers. An allied paper on this topic by Alsaggaf et al. [8] has conducted a qualitative analysis showing that mobile device usage in lectures could improve students' learning experience once technological and pedagogical issues are successfully addressed.

The level of readiness of laptop use among students was investigated by collecting data relating to laptop ownership and usage patterns of laptops. A survey examined the students’ perceptions of this form of learning on six critical parameters derived from the literature, which include, increasing engagement, improving learning, encouraging collaboration, potential for distraction, ubiquity of laptops and using laptops for non-educational tasks. Moreover, the correlations between students’ demographic characteristics and perceptions have also been outlined. This work reports on the perceptions of students towards their learning experience in conjunction with traditional lectures and factors that could affect the students’ opinions.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW Research into the connection between classroom technology

and student learning is ongoing [9], particularly on the implications of introducing the use of mobile devices in higher education institutions which currently do not support such innovative forms of learning [10]. As we are in a relatively early stage in the evolution of laptop computers as a learning tool, it is yet to be firmly established whether laptop use in a learning situation is advantageous or detrimental to the teaching and learning process [11], [12].

CS Students’ Readiness and Perceptions of Using Mobile TechnologyDuring Lectures

Wafaa Alsaggaf, Margaret Hamilton, James Harland School of Computer Science and Information Technology

RMIT University Melbourne, Australia

omafaf@hotmail.com, margaret.hamilton@rmit.edu.au, james.harland@rmit.edu.au

2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering

978-0-7695-4960-6/13 $26.00 © 2013 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.30

1

2013 Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering

978-0-7695-4960-6/13 $26.00 © 2013 IEEE

DOI 10.1109/LaTiCE.2013.30

1

There is a diversity of opinion over the advantages and disadvantages of the use of laptops or other portable ICT equipment in a learning environment. It has been argued that the use of laptops during lectures improves students’ grasp and comprehension of the subject by providing a flexible mode of learning and interaction [13], [14]. Barak et al. [15] found that students expressed a highly positive view of this method of learning as wireless-enabled laptops gave a “student-centred, hands-on, and exploratory learning, as well as meaningful student-to-student and student-to-instructor interactions” (ibid.p.245). Apart from facilitating a more student-centred and less didactic approach of teaching, the use of laptops is also proven to improve group communication across the class and with the instructor. A study on laptop use in classes at Wake Forest University, North Carolina indicated that 87% of faculty members and students reported a high level of communication and collaboration [16]. Moreover, it has been found that using mobile devices during programming lectures improves active learning and motivation among students [7].

On the other hand, some researchers have found that laptop use during lectures adds no significant advantage to learning. Wurst et al. [12] conducted a comparative study of the benefits of laptop-use with a cohort of business honours students and found no significant difference in academic achievement of those with a laptop over those without. Indeed, many scholars report that laptop use can lead to many unforeseen negative results to the learning outcome. It has been found that the use of laptops not only adds complexity to the learning process, students who use laptops focus less on their instructors and gain less from their lessons [17]-[19]. Most researchers also agree that laptops can distract students during lectures, as they can access non-academic material and their attention can wander from the topic at hand [20], [17], [12]. A study by Brubaker [21] on faculty perceptions about using wireless laptops found that three-quarters (77%) of the instructors agreed that laptops distracted students in class. Even Barak et al. [21], who find the use of laptops during lectures to be a positive development in education, acknowledged that some 15% of students in their study were distracted from the lecture due to laptop-use. There is also possibility of cheating as answers can be swiftly circulated between students by email etc. [22].However, a qualitative study by Alsaggaf et al. [5] on computer science instructors about using mobile devices during programming lectures found that the majority of the interviewed lecturers had positive opinions, however, their positive attitudes towards change were not reflected in their classroom practices. Therefore, instructors’ acceptance of mobile devices underpins their successful adoption as a learning aid during programming lectures.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This study used a quantitative survey to collect data on

students’ readiness and students’ perceptions of the use of laptops in traditional lectures at an Australian university, which

does not support the use of mobile devices as a learning tool during lectures.

The survey was distributed by paper during lectures to three cohorts of postgraduate and undergraduate students enrolled in Software Engineering, Software Engineering Process and Tools and Web Programming. These three courses are core to the Computer Science curriculum, and so students enrolled in these courses may be considered as typical representatives of the body of computer science students.

The survey was designed with a set of multiple-choice questions regarding laptop ownership and use to reflect the students’ e-readiness, which then cascaded into questions asking students about their responses to the six aspects of laptop use during traditional lectures. These responses were to be given in a table measured on a Likert-scale, with five categories of ‘Strongly Agree’, ‘Agree’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’.

A total of 370 questionnaires were distributed, of which 175 were returned. The response rate was 47%, which means that the sample is significant and representative of the population [23]. Participation was voluntary and participants were assured of anonymity, as they were not asked to supply any personal information about their identity with the questionnaire.

IV. RESULTS The demographic profile of the students relate to study load,

gender, age, and program. Results show that male participants outnumber female participants, 86 to 14%, whilst attendance, records that of all respondents, 91% were full-time students. The majority of students, i.e.75% of the respondents were under 25 years of age and 70% were enrolled in an undergraduate course.

A. Laptop ownership/use In this section students were asked three questions. First, they

were asked if they had access to laptop by answering ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Willing to buy one’, and if they did not have one they were asked why. Second, students were asked if they were willing to take their laptops to university, and their answers were scaled from ‘Always’ to ‘Not at all’, and if answers were ‘Not at all’ or ‘Rarely’, they were asked to select an answer from a given set of choices to answer why. Third, they were asked their perceptions on university support of purchasing a laptop.

1) Access to laptop Access to a laptop computer is a critical criterion of the

students’ readiness. The data shows that the majority of the students (85%) owned a laptop. Of the rest, 10% did not have a laptop, and 5% were willing to purchase the machine. Of those who answered ‘do not own’, 5% preferred using a desktop computer and 3% said that this was due to money and affordability of laptops, while the remainder said that they did not use laptops as they had other means of access.

22

2) Willing to take laptop to lectures Students’ willingness to take a laptop t

another important criterion of students’ reaaffect the success of implementation of laptool in class. The result shows that 77% of reor occasionally brought or would be prepalaptops to lectures. Those respondents who had a laptop but would not take it to lefollowing reasons, (n = 78 who answered thi

• Too heavy to carry (20% of total sampl• I do not see a benefit in using a laptop

(14% of total sample) • Computer labs are enough for me (14%• I have concerns about the loss, theft o

laptop (9% of total sample) • I do not know how to connect to the un

network (4% of total sample) • My smart or mobile phone does the

sample).

3) Assistance in Purchasing a Laptop The survey shows that 65%, agreed tha

discount, the university can assist in their puMoreover, of those willing to purchase thmajority preferred the university’s offer. Hosample did not agree with university suppormentioned concerns regarding the brand and university-supplied laptop.

B. Students’ perceptions of laptop use durinThe questionnaire then proceeded to inv

perceptions of the learning experience durlaptops in contrast to traditional lectures. questionnaire contained questions based on taspects identified from previous literature. Tto reflect a balanced view of the pros and laptops as a learning tool in lectures. Studenquestions will be described in the followinorder of their significance.

1) Aspect 1: Improving learning Survey question: “Using laptop in lecture

learn the material in a better way”. Students were asked here if the use of l

could improve their learning potential. Fig. 1 the students either agreed or strongly agreeassist them with various learning tasks in tAbout 17% students did not fully agree wbenefit in this area and 23% were undecided.

to lectures is also adiness which can

ptops as a learning espondents usually ared to bring their indicated that they ctures offered the s question): e) p in lecture theatre

% of total sample) or breakage of the

niversity's wireless

job (2% of total

at, by providing a urchase of a laptop. he equipment, the

owever, 35% of the rt, and of these 3%

specifications of a

ng lectures vestigate students’ ring lectures using

This part of the the six pedagogical

They were designed cons of the use of nt responses to the ng sub-sections in

assists students to

laptops in lectures shows that 63% of

ed that laptops can the lecture theatre. ith any significant .

Figure 1. Improving

2) Aspect 2: Encouraging cSurvey question: “Using lapt

work together to learn the materCommunication and collab

lecture topics is a significant isThe respondents had somewhatof laptops in this regard. Fig. respondents(58%) preferredcommunications on course mstudents were divided over enhancing group communicatiofelt that laptops did not assist in(21%) felt that they were uncert

Figure 2. Encoura

3) Aspect 3: Increasing studSurvey question: “Using lapto

more interesting materials”. This item in the questionn

usefulness of laptops in incdelivering course material in amanner during lectures. As sh(68%) agreed or strongly agrecourse delivery. Of the oth14%disagreed with the statemabout any impact.

63%

%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70

Agree or strongly agree

Disagrd

58%

%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70

Agree or strongly agree

Dstron

g Students Learning

collaboration between students top in lecture assists students to rials in a better way”.

boration between students on ssue in a learning environment. t mixed views on the usefulness 2 illustrates that over half the

d laptops for in-lecture material, whilst the remaining

the usefulness of laptop in on and collaboration. While 21% n communications, the remainder tain about any impact.

aging Collaboration

dent engagement op in lecture assists in delivering

naire asked students about the creasing their engagement by a more effective and interesting hown in Fig. 3, over two-thirds eed that laptops enabled better her one-third of respondents,

ment while 18% were uncertain

20% 17%

ree or strongly disagree

Don't know

21% 21%

isagree or ngly disagree

Don't know

33

Figure 3.Increasing Students Engagem

4) Aspect 4: Distracting students Survey question: “Using laptop in lecture

from the topic being discussed”. This aspect tackled the issue that has been

significant disadvantage of laptop use in the It asked students if they considered laptops toa lecture theatre. As shown in Fig. 4, 60% acould distract them during lectures while 21rejected this notion and19% were undecided

Figure 4. Distracting Students

5) Aspect 5 : Ubiquitous Technology Survey question: “Using laptop in lecture

modern-lifestyle and does not really help”. This statement relates to a perception t

everyday life is not so much a matter of their their ubiquity. Laptops are no longer a noveordinary work tool. In this sense, the use technology with a role in improving learnieffectiveness may be exaggerated, as they work tools with no significant advantage toenvironment. However, around one quart(23%) agreed with the statement while arespondents (57%) felt that they did not mduring lectures because of its ubiquity but bethat helped them with specific tasks. The resure of the issue. Fig. 5 demonstrates these re

68%

14%%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80

Agree or strongly agree

Disagree or strongly disagree

60%

21%%0

%10%20%30%40%50%60%70

Agree or strongly agree

Disagree or strongly disagree

ment

e distracts students

n cited as the most existing literature.

o be a distraction in agreed that laptops 1% of respondents on the issue.

e is just part of the

that laptop use in targeted utility but

elty but used as an of laptops as new ing efficiency and are just mundane

o add to a learning er of respondents about half of the

merely use laptops ecause it was a tool est (20%) were not esults as follows.

Figure 5. Ubiqui

6) Aspect 6 : Non-educationSurvey question: “Using lapt

only organize non-educational tRespondents were asked w

educational or non-educational patterns of laptops by students. to determine if the educational tool is validated or if it is mertool which is just sometimes usstudents. As shown in Fig. 6, ovdisagreed or strongly disagreedthat they perceived their academof their laptop use over other tastated that non-educational matheir online usage.

Fig. 6. Non-edu

C. Correlation between two crireadiness and demographic

The differences in demographaffect students’ readiness preparedness. A Pearson Chi-identify how demographic chagender, age, program, purchacriteria of ownership and pstudents.

1) Ownership

Ownership was only related to preparedness. Students who hprepared to bring their laptopresults of the test which were asp = .006, rs = .03. Other than

18%

Don't know

19%

Don't know

23%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Agree or strongly agree

Disagr

34%

%0%10%20%30%40%50%60

Agree or strongly agree

Disagr

itous Technology

nal Usage top in lecture assists students to tasks”.

whether they used laptops for purposes in order to identify use But more importantly, it helped impact of laptops as a learning

rely an ordinary communication sed for educational purposes by

ver half of the respondents (55%) d with this statement, indicating mic work to be the main purpose asks. However, one-third (34%)

atters comprised the majority of

ucational Usage

itical criteria of students’ characteristics of respondents

hic profiles of the students could criteria of ownership and

squared test was conducted to aracteristics such as attendance, ase could affect the readiness preparedness among different

the other readiness criterion of had a laptop were more highly s to lectures, as shown by the s follows: x2 (6, n=175) = 17.90, n that there was no significant

57%

20%

ree or strongly disagree

Don't know

55%

11%

ree or strongly disagree

Don't know

44

relationship between ownership of laptop and any demographic characteristics.

2) Preparedness The students’ preparedness to bring laptop to lectures was also related to the demographic characteristics of age and willingness to purchase. Students who were younger were more prepared to bring their laptop to lectures, as shown by the results: x2 (9, n=175) = 18.83, p = .027,rs = .08. There was also a significant correlation between preparedness and willingness to purchase laptop through university discount: x2 (3, n=175) = 14.76, p = .002, rs = .27. The following table presents a summary of the correlation of the two criteria of ownership and preparedness with the students’ demographic characteries discussed above.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDENTS’ READINESS CRITERIA AND THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Students’ Readiness Criteria

Demographic Characteristics

Atte

ndan

ce

Gen

der

Age

Prog

ram

Purc

hase

Prep

ared

ness

Ow

ners

hip

Ownership � � � � � � - Preparedness � � � � � - �

D. The correlation between students’ perceptions of laptop use during lectures and their demographic information

Pearson Chi-squared and Multiple Regression tests were used to identify any link between students’ perceptions on laptop use and their demographic profile.

1) Pearson Chi-Square Test The Chi-Squared test of independence tests the association between two categorical variables. The test has been conducted to examine if there were any relationships between attendance type, age, program type, gender, laptop ownership, preparation to take laptop to lectures and willingness to purchase a laptop through the University at a discount with the different six key themes pertaining to their perceptions of laptop use.

a) Attendance type: A Chi-squared test of independence revealed that there was a statistically significant positive association between student’s attendance type and their perception of first aspect of improving learning, x2 (4, n=175) = 13.84, p = .008 with strength of rs = .21, p = .006 based on Spearman correlation. Moreover, a significant negative relationship was found with aspect 5,

ubiquity of technology, x2 (4, n=175) = 9.96, p = 0.041, rs= -.22, p = .003. However, no statistically significant relationships were found with the four other aspects.

b) Age: The Chi-squared test on the age variable showed that the relationship with all the six aspects were p > .05, meaning that age had no bearing on their perceptions.

c) Gender: There was no gender difference in students’ level of agreement on all of the six issues.

d) Program type: The program type, whether undergraduate or postgraduate, had no bearing on students’ perceptions on all six aspects.

e) Preparedness to take laptop to lectures: There was a significant relationship between students’ level of preparedness to take laptop to lectures and level of agreement on aspect 1 i.e. improving learning, x2 (12, n=175) = 82.54, p = .000. Spearman correlation identified strong and positive relationship, rs= .48, p = .000. Likewise, aspect 2of encouraging collaboration was significant at, x2 (12, n=175) = 52.33, p = .000, rs= .35, p = .000. Moreover, a statistically significant correlation was found with respect to aspect 5 at 90% of confidence interval, x2 (12, n=175) = 29.24, p = .083. Students who were highly prepared to bring laptop to lectures had disagreed to aspect 5 on ubiquity of technology, rs= -.21, p = .005, however, students’ perceptions on aspects3, 4 and 6 did not differ by their level of preparation.

f) Willingness to purchase a laptop through the University at a discount: There was a significant relationship between students’ willingness to purchase a laptop through the University at a discount and their level of agreement on aspect 1 of improving learning, x2 (4, n=175) = 20.13, p = .000. The two variables were positively correlated, rs= .29, p = .000. Moreover, statistically negative correlation were found with aspects 4 and 5, x2 (4, n=175) = 10.97, p = .027, rs= -.23, p = .002 and x2 (4, n=175) = 18.80, p = .001, rs= -.19, p = .011 respectively.

g) Laptop ownership: Statistically significant relationship was reported on only aspect 2, x2 (8, n=175) = 19.23, p = .014, however, the two variables were weakly correlated, rs=.06, p = .40. Table 2 summarizes the correlation between students’ perceptions of laptop use during lectures and their demographic information in relation to all the six parameters used in this study:

55

TABLE2: SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF LAPTOP USE DURING LECTURES AND THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Aspects Significance (Sig.) and Pearson Correlation (rs)

Attendance Gender Age Program Purchase Preparedness Ownership Sig. rs Sig. rs Sig. rs Sig. rs Sig. rs Sig. rs Sig. rs

1. IL � .21 � - � - � - � .29 � .48 � - 2. EC � - � - � - � - � - � .35 � .06 3. IE � - � - � - � - � - � - � -4. D � - � - � - � - � -.23 � - � -5. U � -.22 � - � - � - � -.19 � .21 � -6. NEU � - � - � - � - � - � - � -

* IL: Improving Learning, EC: Encouraging Collaboration, IE: Increasing Engagement, D: Distraction, U: Ubiquity, NEU: Non-Educational Usage.

Cross tabulations using Chi-squared and Spearman correlation tests were used to choose the independent variables needed for running a multiple regression test. They are attendance type, preparation to take laptop to lectures and willingness to purchase a laptop through the University at a discount.

2) Standard Multiple Regressions

The multiple regressions test helps to analyse relationships between metric or dichotomous independent variables and a metric dependent variable. Standard multiple regression was used here to evaluate relationships between a set of independent variables (attendance type, preparedness to take laptop to lectures, and willingness to purchase a laptop through the University at a discount), and the dependent variables of student perceptions of laptop use in lectures (Aspects 1 to 6). If a relationship exists between the two, using the information in the independent variables will improve the accuracy in predicting values for the dependent variable.

The following table presents a summary of all the relationships between the independent variables and the six aspects.

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDEPENDENT VARIBLES AND THE SIX ASPECTS

Aspects*

Significance (Sig.) and Beta Coefficients (β) Attendance Purchase Preparatio

n Sig. β Sig. β Sig. β

1. IL �� .14 �� .14 �� .45 2. EC � .14 � - � .36 3. IE � - � - � .20 4. D � -.15 � -.20 � - 5. U � -.20 � -.13 � -.13 6. NEU � - � - � -

* IL: Improving Learning, EC: Encouraging Collaboration, IE: Increasing Engagement, D: Distraction, U: Ubiquity, NEU: Non-Educational Usage. The following sections describe the results for each aspect.

a) Aspect 1 (improving learning): The independent variables of attendance, preparedness and purchase accounted for R2 = 29.1% of the variance in students’ perceptions on aspect 1. The overall model was

significant, F (3,171) = 23.38, P = .000. The standard multiple regression analysis indicated that attendance (β= .139, p< .05), purchase (β = .143, p< .05) and preparedness (β= .446, p = .000) predict students’ perceptions on aspect 1.

b) Aspect 2 (encouraging collaboration): A significant model emerged at F (3,171) = 10.64, p = .000. Adjusted R2 = .16 where attendance (β = .140, p = .050) and preparedness (β = .360, p = .000) were identified as significant variables for aspect 2, but purchase was not a significant predictor.

c) Aspect 3 (incrasing egagemnet): Only preparedness was found to be a significant predictor of students’ perceptions on aspect 3, β = .201, p = .01and also explained a significant proportion of variance in this aspect, R2 = .063, F (3,171) = 3.80, p = .01.

d) Aspect 4 (distrsction): Attendance and purchase significantly predicted students’ perceptions on aspect 4, with β = -.152, p < .05 for attendance and β = -.197, p < .05 for purchase. The two variables also explained a significant proportion of variance in this aspect, R2 = .074, F (3,171) = 4.53, p = .004.

e) Aspect 5 (ubiquity): A significant model emerged at F (3,171) = 6.27, p = .000. Adjusted R2 = .099, where all independent variables were significant for aspect 3, with attendance (β = -.200, p< .01), purchase β = -.133 and preparednessβ = -.134 at 90% confidence level.

f) Aspect 6 (non-educational usage): None of the independent variables was found to be a significant predictor on this aspect.

V. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to examine students’ perceptions of laptop use in traditional lecture environment and gauge students’ readiness by investigating students’ ownership and use of laptops. These aspects were then correlated with their demographic characteristics. The findings of the survey will be discussed by considering the

66

two main aims of this research in this section. First, the high percentage of students who own laptops

shows a high level of students’ readiness. It shows that laptops have reached a price point where they are affordable for most higher education students [2]. Moreover, the majority of respondents were willing to take their laptops to lectures showing that today’s students are digital natives who expect to use technology everywhere [1]. All these factors validate the focus of this study on the possibility of capitalising on the widespread use of laptops by students to implement them as a learning tool.

However, student response to university-assisted purchase of laptops indicated that while most were appreciative of the financial help, some were also apprehensive that university-supplied laptops may be of a version or make that they disliked. Therefore, it is suggested that the university survey the stakeholders i.e. the faculty and students, to not only carefully consider wireless laptops suitable for lecture theatres and other learning situations, but also keep a track of student demands for the type of computer to purchase.

Examining the correlations between ownership and preparation with the rest of students’ demographics may help identify factors that could affect students’ readiness. Age and willingness to purchase university-assisted laptops were found to affect students’ preparedness to bring laptops to lectures. Younger students and students who were willing to receive university support for purchasing a laptop were also more prepared to bring their laptops to lectures [1].

Second, the students’ views on using a laptop in lectures are generally positive, with more than half of the respondents indicating a positive attitude to the trend. The results of the survey echo most of the findings identified by previous studies. Roughly 60% of the students testified to the advantages of laptop use in assisting them in learning tasks, better delivery of course material and enhancing group collaboration.

The most significant aspect reported was the positive feedback on increasing students’ engagement as the students responded that laptops could help deliver the course materials and lessons in an interesting way. The majority of students also seem to agree that using laptops may provide them with additional assistance in their learning tasks during the lecture. This confirms the findings of [3] who argue that a main advantage of laptop use during lectures is that they can assist students to better conduct their tasks. Moreover, the majority of the sample agreed with the usefulness of laptop as a tool for facilitating group communication and collaboration as it has been acknowledged in previous research [16].

Interestingly, higher beta values were reported on the correlation between the three positive aspects and students’ preparedness to bring their laptops to lectures. As the beta value is a measure of how strongly each independent variable influences the dependent variable, preparedness was found to have the highest impact. Therefore, students’ level of agreement on the positive trends of such environment could be predicted by their level of

preparedness. Thus, students who were highly prepared to bring their laptops to lectures highly agreed to the positive benefits of laptop use in lectures. Moreover, there was a negative beta value between the aspect of ubiquity of laptops and students’ preparedness which means that students who were highly prepared to bring their laptop were disagreed with this idea.

The major exception to these positive aspects of laptop-use is the perception that laptops could be a possible distraction in the lecture theatre environment where students are expected to focus on the instructor and the lesson. The majority of students reported that laptops could be a potential distraction and this result resonates with other studies that have identified distraction as the major disincentive to using laptops. Studies have found that students could be easily distracted by non-academic material in their laptops during lectures [20], [17], [12]. It was also found that contrary to the perception that laptops were now just mundane work tools in everyday life, about half of the students said that they may use laptops not because of its ubiquity but its utility for targeted tasks.

Attendance and purchase had an effect on students’ perceptions. Students who were enrolled as part time students tended to agree that laptops in lectures were a potential distraction to students. On the other hand, full time students reported agreement on the more positive aspects of advantages of using laptops in lectures for improving learning and encouraging collaboration as opposed to part time students who disagreed to these aspects. Furthermore, students who wanted to get a university-assisted purchase of laptop were disagreed on those two aspects. A Chi-squared test showed that there was a correlation between attendance and age. Part time students were older than full time students, X2 (3, n=175) = 40.18, p = .000 with strength of rs = .40, p = .000. This could mean that millennial generation of students born in or after 1982 prefer group-based approaches to study and are generally more positive about the use of information technology mindset [24][25].

VI. CONCULUSION The two main areas explored in this study (student

perception &student readiness)help us understand the potential of mobile devices like laptops as a learning tool to enhance traditional lectures. Unlike most other researches that focus on student perceptions of laptop use in educational institutes that have already implemented such interventions, this research investigated the use of laptops at a university which had no policy or program that used mobile devices as a learning tool. Thus, this study presents a significant contribution to the literature presenting the view of novice students who have never been introduced to such a learning paradigm. It also derived interesting correlations between students’ perceptions of such learning environment and their demographics.

Given the overall positive results about the learning benefits of this intervention, the study also leads us to consider some practical implications. Attractive learning materials and interactive teaching methods are vital for a

77

mobile learning environment. These can amplify the positive aspects of this form of learning which can also go some way in ameliorating its negative aspects. Greater student engagement, better delivery of course material in an interactive learning environment can reduce the possibility of distraction posed by the use of laptops in classes. Also, in order to encourage this form of learning, ICT policy in universities must be continually updated.

As this study was only limited to an investigation of students’ perceptions, a future study may be conducted to examine the perceptions of faculty members and administrators. It is also recommended that a comprehensive analysis be conducted to understand the factors improving students learning in greater detail. More in-depth questions could also be asked to understand why some aspects could be predicted by some variables but not others.

REFERENCES [1] D. Tapscott, Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing

your world, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008. [2] T. Wilen-Daugenti.(2008). Higher Education Trends & Statistics,

Issue 1 [online] Available:http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac79/edu/trends/issue01.html

[3] A. Campbell, and R. Pargas, “Laptops in the classroom,”in34th Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE), Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Reno, NV, February 19-23,2003.

[4] B. McCrea.(2010, Oct. 10). 5 higher education trends to watch,Campus Technology [online].Available: http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2010/12/09/5-Higher-Ed-Tech-Trends-To-Watch-in-2011.aspx?Page=1

[5] W. Alsaggaf, M. Hamilton, and J. Harland, (2012, July). “Mobile devices in computer programming lectures: Are CS lecturers prepared for mobile learning?”. 7th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), Melbourne, 2012, pp. 1369-1374, IEEE.

[6] W. Alsaggaf, “Enhancement of learning programming experience by novices using mobile learning: mobile learning in introductory programming lectures”. Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on International computing education research, Auckland, 2012, pp. 151-152, ACM.

[7] W. Alsaggaf, M. Hamilton, J. Harland, D. D'Souza, and M. Laakso, “The use of laptop computers in programming lectures”. Proceedings of the 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Geelong, 2012, pp. 1-11, ACIS.

[8] W. Alsaggaf, M. Hamilton, and J. Harland, “Mobile Learning in Computer Science Lectures”. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, vol. 2, no. 6, pp. 493-497, 2012.

[9] D. McCabe, and M. Meuter, “A Student View of Technology in the Classroom: Does It Enhance the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education?,” Journal of Marketing Education, vol.33, no.2,pp.149 –159, 2011.

[10] K. Robin, and S. Lauricella, “Exploring the Benefits and Challenges of Using Laptop Computers in Higher Education Classrooms: A Formative Analysis,” Canadian Journal of learning and technology, vol.37, no.1, pp.1-18, 2011.

[11] C. Liu,“Teaching in a wireless learning environment: A case study,” Educational Technology & Society, vol.10, no.1, pp.107-123, 2007.

[12] C. Wurst, C. Smarkola, and M. Gaffney, “Ubiquitous laptop usage in higher education: Effects on student achievement, student satisfaction, and constructivist measures in honors and traditional classrooms,” Computers & Education, vol.51, no.4, pp.1766-1783, 2008.

[13] L. Dexter, E. Anderson, and J. Becker, “Teachers’ views of computers as catalysts for changes in their teaching practice,” Journal of Research on Computing in Education, vol.31, no.3, pp. 221-239,1999.

[14] L. Nilson, and E. Weaver, “Enhancing learning with laptops in the classroom,” New directions for teaching and learning, no. 101, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, (eds.) 2005.

[15] M.Barak, A .Lipson, and S. Lerman, “Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls,”Research on Technology in Education, vol.38, no.3, pp. 245-63,2006.

[16] F. Olsen, “Colleges differ on costs and benefits of ubiquitous computing,”Chronicle of Higher Education, vol.47, no.20, p.A45, 2001.

[17] H. Hembrooke, andG. Gay, “The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol.15, no.3, pp. 46-64, 2003.

[18] X. Ni, and M. Branch. “Experience of using laptop in higher education institutions: effects with and of ubiquitous computing under natural conditions,” in the International Conference of Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Chicago, IL, October 19-23, 2004.

[19] S. Akbaba-Altun, “Complexity of integrating computer technologies into education in Turkey,” Educational Technology & Society, vol.9, no. 1, pp.176-187,2006.

[20] C. Fried, “In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning,” Computers & Education, vol.50, no.3, pp.906-914, 2008.

[21] A. Brubaker, “Faculty perceptions of the impact of student laptop use in a wireless internet environment on the classroom learning environment and teaching,” Unpublished M.S.thesis, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 2006.

[22] S. Claude, “Wireless devices create classroom distraction,” Long Island Business News, vol. 53, no. 17, pp. 4B,2006,

[23] A. Bryman, and E. Bell, Business research methods, Oxford University Press Oxford UK, 2nd ed., 2007.

[24] N. Howe. andB. Strauss, “The next great generation,” in Millennials rising,New York: Vintage Books, 2000.

[25] D. G. OblingerandJ. L. Oblinger.(2005, May 10).Educating the net generation, EDUCAUSE [online]Available: http://www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen/

88