Theoretical Framework

• 

There are several theoretical frameworks that could guide my research; however,  I have narrowed my choices down to two; Mobile Learning Theory (MLT) and Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). 

Mobile learning connects to my project topic of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC), as I am focusing on high-tech options which encompass many of the technologies used to support mobile learning theory. Thus far, I understand  Moblie learning as a delivery method of learning (Franklin, 2011). Koole (2009) goes further to identify several key aspects that are key in the delivery of Mobile Learning. Learner, device, and social aspects are used to determine and describe how learners interact with the technology to learn. Furthermore, Koole (2009) focuses on the mediation of the three aspects and states, “The nature of the interaction itself changes as learners interact with each other, their environments, tools, and information” (p. 39). Lastly, she emphasizes that mobile learning theory is “​​ defined and continuously reshaped by the interaction between the device (D), learner (L), and social (S) aspects” (p.39).  

Simply stated, TAM identifies how users will engage with the technology,  based on the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of the technology (Davis, 1989). Proctor and Marks (2013) findings highlight how the perception of learning technologies affects their acceptance and usage levels in the classroom. They stated, “perception of “Useful in Job” appears to help overcome access barriers too” (Proctor and Marks, 2013, p. 177). When referring to the technology acceptance model,  Davis (1989) stated, “ the characteristics of the system effect how motivated users are to use the system, which in turn effects their own actual system use or non-use (p. 11). Understanding why people engage with technology is critical to understanding how and if teachers will use technology in the classroom to support language. 

I am leaning toward the TAM as I feel I can more closely define the framework in relation to my research or possibly use both. 

References 

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 261-275.

Koole, M. L. (2009). Chapter 2: A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, (pp. 25–47). Edmonton, AB: AU Press. Proctor, M. D., & Marks, Y. (2013). A survey of exemplar teachers’ perceptions, use, and access of computer-based games and technology for classroom instruction. Computers & Education, 62, 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.022