Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher education

Abstract

University students seem primed for mobile learning (m-learning) given their affinity with technology and the ubiquity of mobile computing devices on campuses. However such conditions do not necessarily guarantee their readiness for m-learning. For m-learning to thrive in higher education, it is crucial to understand the factors propelling its adoption. Accordingly this study uncovers factors that drive the adoption of m-learning among university students. Using a mobile learning readiness model based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, data was collected from 900 undergraduates in a local, public university in Malaysia. Partial least squares analysis revealed that all three constructs of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control significantly influenced students’ intention to adopt m-learning. These three constructs were significantly predetermined by their respective external beliefs components. In fostering m-learning adoption among students, more emphasis should be expended to capitalize on subjective norm and improve perceived behavioral control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abachi, H. R., & Muhammad, G. (2014). The impact of m-learning technology on students and educators. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(January), 491–496.

  2. Abas, Z.W., Chng, L.P., & Mansor, N. (2009). A study on learner readiness for mobile learning at Open University Malaysia. IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2009 (pp. 151–157).

  3. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80.

  4. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.

  5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

  6. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.

  7. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

  8. Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of Leisure Participation from Behavioral, Normative, and Control Beliefs: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 185–204.

  9. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

  10. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of Goal-Directed Behavior: Attitudes, Intentions, and Perceived Behavioral Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.

  11. Ally, M., & Samaka, M. (2013). Open Education Resources and Mobile Technology to Narrow the Learning Divide. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(2), 14–27.

  12. Alzaza, N. S., & Yaakub, A. R. (2010). Students’ awareness and requirements of mobile learning services among Malaysian students in the higher education environment. In Proceedings of the knowledge management 5th international conference. Malaysia: Universiti Utara.

  13. Andaleeb, A. A., Idrus, R. M., Ismail, I., & Mokaram, A. K. (2010). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) Among USM Distance Education Students According to age. International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5(3), 189–192.

  14. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(May), 411–423.

  15. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. In Englewood cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  16. Barbosa, D., & Geyer, C. (2005). Pervasive personal pedagogical agent: A mobile agent shall always be with a learner. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning 2005 (pp. 281–285).

  17. Baylor, A. L., & Ritchie, D. (2002). What Factors Facilitate Teacher Skill, Teacher Morale, and Perceived Student Learning in Technology-Using Classrooms? Computers & Education, 39(4), 395–414.

  18. Beckmann, E. (2010). Learners on the Move: Mobile Modalities in Development Studies. Distance Education, 31(2), 159–173.

  19. Brown, D. J., McHugh, D., Standen, P., Evett, L., Shopland, N., & Battersby, S. (2011). Designing Location-Based Learning Experiences for People with Intellectual Disabilities and Additional Sensory Impairments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 11–20.

  20. Burman, L. E., Reed, W. R., & Alm, J. (2010). A Call for Replication Studies. Public Finance Review, 38(6), 787–779.

  21. Chang, K. C., & Chang, C. C. (2009). Library Self-Service: Predicting User Intentions Related to Self-Issue and Return Systems. Electronic Library, 27(6), 938–949.

  22. Chen, H., & Huang, H. (2010). User Acceptance of Mobile Knowledge Management Learning System: Design and Analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 13(3), 70–77.

  23. Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An Investigation of Mobile Learning Readiness in Higher Education Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Computers & Education, 59(3), 1054–1064.

  24. Cheung, C. M. K., Chiu, P., & Lee, M. K. O. (2011). Online Social Networks: Why do Students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1337–1343.

  25. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–358). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  26. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  27. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.

  28. Corbeil, J. R., & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you Ready for Mobile Learning? Educause Quarterly, 30(2), 51–58.

  29. Corrin, L., Lockyer, L., & Bennett, S. (2010). Technological diversity: An investigation of students’ technology use in everyday life and academic study. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(4), 387–401.

  30. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

  31. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

  32. Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., & Tullis, T. (2010). Generation Y, web Design, and eye Tracking. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 307–323.

  33. Donnelly, K. (2009). Learning on the Move: How m-Learning Could Transform Training and Development. Development and Learning in Organisations, 23(4), 8–11.

  34. Easley, R. W., Madden, C. S., & Dunn, M. G. (2000). Conducting Marketing Science: The Role of Replication in the Research Process. Journal of Business Research, 48, 83–92.

  35. Ertmer, P. A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher Beliefs and Technology Integration Practices: A Critical Relationship. Computers & Education, 59(2), 423–435.

  36. Evans, C. (2008). The Effectiveness of m-Learning in the Form of Podcast Revision Lecturers in High Education. Computers & Education, 50(2), 491–498.

  37. Ferreira, F., Dias, F., Braz, J., Santos, R., Nascimento, R., Ferreira, C., & Martinho, R. (2013). Protege: a mobile health application for the elder-caregiver monitoring paradigm. Procedia Technology, 9, 1361–1371.

  38. Flaherty, C. (2015). Why replication matters. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggests -most-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results

  39. Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced methods in marketing research (pp. 52–78). Cambridge: Blackwell.

  40. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

  41. Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademirci, A., Kursun, E., & Cagiltay, K. (2012). Key Instructional Design Issues in a Cellular Phone-Based Mobile Learning Project. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1149–1159.

  42. Gholami, R., Sulaiman, A. B., Ramayah, T., & Molla, A. (2013). Senior Managers’ Perception on Green Information Systems (IS) Adoption and Environmental Performance: Results from a Field Survey. Information Management, 50(7), 431–438.

  43. Gikas, J. G., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile Computing Devices in Higher Education: Student Perspectives on Learning with Cellphones, Smartphones & Social Media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19(October), 18–26.

  44. Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of Alternative Training Methods on Self-Efficacy and Performance in Computer Software Training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 884–891.

  45. Goh, T., Seet, B., & Chen, N. (2011). The Impact of Persuasive SMS on Students’ Self-Regulated Learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 624–640.

  46. Grönlund, Ǻ., & Islam, Y. M. (2010). A Mobile e-Learning Environment for Developing Countries: The Bangladesh Virtual Interactive Classroom. Information Technology for Development, 16(4), 244–259.

  47. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage Publication.

  48. Hamat, A., Embi, M. A., & Hassan, H. A. (2012). Mobile Learning Readiness Among UKM Lecturers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 59, 406–410.

  49. Hayati, A., Jalilifar, A., & Mashhadi, A. (2012). Using short message service (SMS) to teach English idioms to EFL students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 66–81.

  50. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–320.

  51. Herrington, A., & Herrington, J. (2007). Authentic mobile learning in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2007/her07131.pdf

  52. Hrubes, D., Ajzen, I., & Daigle, J. (2001). Predicting Hunting Intentions and Behavior: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Leisure Sciences, 23(3), 165–178.

  53. Hsu, C.,& Lu, H. (2004). Why do People Play on-Line Games? An Extended TAM with Social Influences and Flow Experience. Information Management, 41, 853–868.

  54. Ibrahim, N. A., Salisu, M., Popoola, A. A., & Ibrahim, T. I. (2014). Use of Smartphones Among Medical Students in the Clinical Years at a Medical School in Sub-Sahara Africa: A Pilot Study. Journal of Mobile Technology in Medicine, 3(2), 28–34.

  55. Izwan, M. (2014). Gender Imbalance in Universities and Colleges Worrying, Says Pak Lah. Malaysian Insider. Retrieved from http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/gender-imbalance-in-universities-and-colleges-worrying-says-pak-lah

  56. Jairak, K., Praneetpolgrang, P., & Mekhabunchakij, K. (2009, December). An acceptance of mobile learning for higher education students in Thailand. In Sixth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, Thailand, 17,(18), 361–368.

  57. Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S., & Healing, G. (2010). Net Generation or Digital Natives: Is There a Distinct new Generation Entering University? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722–732.

  58. Junco, R., & Mastrodicasa, J. M. (2007). Connecting to the Net generation: What higher education professionals need to know about today’s students. Washington, DC: NASPA.

  59. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (1999). The Psychological Origins of Perceived Usefulness and Ease-of-use. Information Management, 35, 237–250.

  60. Keegan, D. (2003). The future of learning: From e-learning to m-learning. Institute for research into distance education. Hagen, Germany: Fern Universitat Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472435.pdf.

  61. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sanchez, I., & Vavoula, G. (2011). The genesis and development of mobile learning in Europe. In D. Parsons (Ed.), Combining e-learning and m-learning: New applications of blended educational resources (pp. 151–177). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

  62. Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What Factors Predict Undergraduate Students’ use of Technology for Learning? Computers & Education, 59(2), 569–579.

  63. Lascu, D., & Zinkhan, G. (1999). Consumer Conformity: Review and Applications for Marketing Theory and Practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7, 1–12.

  64. Lee, Y., & Kozar, K. A. (2005). Investigating Factors Affecting the Adoption of Anti-Spyware Systems. Communications of the ACM, 48(8), 72–77.

  65. Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007). Surveying Instructor and Learner Attitudes Toward e-Learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066–1080.

  66. Liker, J., & Sindi, A. (1997). User Acceptance of Expert Systems: A Test of the Theory of Reasoned Action. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 147–173.

  67. Lim, C. K. (2001). Computer Self-Efficacy, Academic Self-Concept, and Other Predictors of Satisfaction and Future Participation of Adult Distance Learners. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 41–51.

  68. Lim, H., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2005). The Theory of Planned Behavior in e-Commerce: Making a Case for Interdependencies Between Salient Beliefs. Psychology and Marketing, 22(10), 833–855.

  69. Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors Driving the Adoption of m-Learning: An Empirical Study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.

  70. Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3–9.

  71. Mahat, J., Ayub, A. F. M., & Wong, S. L. (2012). An assessment of students’ mobile self-efficacy, readiness and personal innovativeness towards mobile learning in higher education in Malaysia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 284–290.

  72. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (2015a). Communications and Multimedia: Pocket Book of Statistics Q2 2015. Retrieved from http://www.skmm.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/C-M-Q2-2015.pdf

  73. Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (2015b). Internet Users Survey 2014. Retrieved from http://www.skmm.gov.my/skmmgovmy/media/General/pdf/Internet-Users-Survey-2014.pdf

  74. Malikhao, P., & Servaes, J. (2010). The Media use of American Youngsters in the age of Narcissism: Surviving in a 24/7 Media Shock and awe - Distracted by Everything. Telematics and Informatics, 28(2), 66–76.

  75. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are Digital Natives a Myth or Reality? University Students’ use of Digital Technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440.

  76. Marler, J. H., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2005). A model of employee self-service technology acceptance. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management, volume 24 (pp. 137–180). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

  77. Miesen, H. W. J. M. (2003). Predicting and Explaining Literary Reading: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Poetics, 31(3–4), 189–212.

  78. Milošević, I., Živković, D., Manasijević, D., & Nikolić, D. (2015). The effects of the intended behaviour of students in the use of m-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Part A), 207–215.

  79. Mohammad, N. M. N., Mamat, M. N., & Isa, P. M. (2012). M-learning in Malaysia: Challenges and strategies. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 393–401.

  80. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Social and Individual Antecedents of m-Learning Adoption in Iran. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 191–207.

  81. Motiwalla, L. (2007). Mobile Learning: A Framework and Evaluation. Computers & Education, 49(3), 581–596.

  82. Ng, W., Howard, N., Loke, S., & Torabi, T. (2010). Designing effective pedagogical systems for teaching and learning with mobile and ubiquitous devices. Multiplatform e-learning systems and technologies: Mobile devices for uniquitous ICT-based education (pp. 42–56), Hershey: PA: IGI Global Publishing.

  83. Nordin, N., Embi, M. A., & Yunus, M. M. (2010). Mobile Learning Framework for Lifelong Learning. Procedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 130–138.

  84. Park, S. Y., Nam, M.-W., & Cha, S.-B. (2012). University Students’ Behavioral Intention to use Mobile Learning: Evaluating the Technology Acceptance Model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.

  85. Palacios-Marqués, D., Merigó, J. M., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2015a). Online social networks as an enabler of innovation in organizations. Management Decision, 53(9), 1906–1920.

  86. Palacios-Marqués, D., Soto-Acosta, P., & Merigó, J. M. (2015b). Analyzing the effects of technological, organizational and competition factors on Web knowledge exchange in SMEs. Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 23–32.

  87. Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student Preparedness for University e-Learning Environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25(April), 1–10.

  88. Patten, B., Sanchez, I. A., & Tangney, B. (2006). Designing Collaborative, Constructionist and Contextual Applications for Handheld Devices. Computers in Education, 46, 294–308.

  89. Pozzi, A. (2007). The Impact of m-Learning in School Contexts: An “Inclusive” Perspective. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4556, 748–755.

  90. Ramayah, T., Lee, J. W. C., & Boey, J. C. I. (2011). Network Collaboration and Performance in the Tourism Sector. Service Business, 5(4), 411–428.

  91. Ramayah, T., Yeap, J. A. L., & Ignatius, J. (2013). An Empirical Inquiry on Knowledge Sharing Among Academicians in Higher Learning Institutions. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 51(2), 131–154.

  92. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.com.

  93. Riquelme, H. E., & Rios, R. E. (2010). The Moderating Effect of Gender in the Adoption of Mobile Banking. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 28(5), 328–341.

  94. Rodriguez, J.E. (2011). Social media use in higher education: Key areas to consider for educators. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(4). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no4/rodriguez_ 1211.htm

  95. Saccol, A., Barbosa, J., Schlemmer, E., & Reinhard, N. (2011). Mobile Learning in Organizations: Lessons Learned from two Case Studies. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 7, 11–24.

  96. Sharma, S. K., & Kitchens, F. L. (2004). Web Services Architecture for m-Learning. Journal of e-Learning, 2(1), 203–216.

  97. Sheppard, B. H., Hatrwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.

  98. Sledgianowski, D., & Kulviwat, S. (2009). Using Social Network Sites: The Effects of Playfulness, Critical Mass and Trust in a Hedonic Context. Journal of Computer Information Systems, Summer, 74-83.

  99. Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2015). E-business, organizational innovation and firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: an empirical study in Spain. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, doi:10.3846/20294913.2015.1074126.

  100. Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using Effect Size - or why the p Value is not Enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282.

  101. Taleb, Z., & Sohrabi, A. (2012). Learning on the move: The use of mobile technology to support learning for university students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1102–1109.

  102. Tan, G. W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., Leong, L.-Y., & Lin, B. (2014). Predicting the Drivers of Behavioural Intention to use Mobile Learning: A Hybrid SEM-Neural Networks Approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 36(July), 198–213.

  103. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  104. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and Crossover Effects in the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Study of Consumer Adoption Intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137–155.

  105. Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS Path Modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 159–205.

  106. Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2001). Development and Validation of an Internet Self-Efficacy Scale. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(4), 275–280.

  107. Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of Training on Internet Self-Efficacy and Computer User Attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479–494.

  108. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

  109. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in Individual Technology Adoption Decision-Making Processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33–60.

  110. Viberg, O., & Gronlung, A. (2013). Cross-Cultural Analysis of Users’ Attitude Toward the use of Mobile Devices in Second and Foreign Language Learning in Higher Education: A Case from Sweden and China. Computers & Education, 69, 169–180.

  111. Völckner, F., Sattler, H., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Ringle, C. M. (2010). The Role of Parent Brand Quality for Service Brand Extension Success. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 379–396.

  112. Winters, N. (2006). What is mobile learning? In M. Sharples (Ed.), Big issues in mobile learning. Retrieved from http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/tt/docs/Sharples-20062.pdf

  113. Yang, H. C., Liu, H., & Zhou, L. (2012). Predicting Young Chinese Consumers’ Mobile Viral Attitudes, Intents and Behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(1), 59–77.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Pedro Soto-Acosta.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Ricardo Colomo-Palacios

Appendix

Appendix

Attitude towards M-Learning.

I would like my coursework more if I used m-learning (ATT1).

Using m-learning in my coursework would be a pleasant experience (ATT2).

Using m-learning in my coursework would be a wise idea (ATT3).

Intention to Adopt M-Learning.

I predict I would use a mobile device for my courses (INT1).

I plan to use a mobile device if a course has mobile learning functions (INT2).

I intend to adopt a mobile device for university courses (INT3).

Instructor Readiness.

I think instructors (i.e. lecturers, tutors) would approve of utilizing m-learning for their courses (IR1).

I think instructors (i.e. lecturers, tutors) would believe that a mobile device could be a useful educational tool in their courses (IR2).

I think instructors (i.e. lecturers, tutors) would have adequate technical skills to use a mobile device in their teaching (IR3).

Learning Autonomy.

I would be able to actively access coursework material with a mobile device (LA1).

I would have more opportunities to create knowledge in my coursework with a mobile device (LA2).

I would be able to control the pace (speed) of learning in my classes with a mobile device (LA3).

Perceived Behavioral Control.

I have sufficient extent of knowledge to use m-learning (PBC1).

I have sufficient extent of control to make a decision to adopt m-learning (PBC2).

I have sufficient extent of self-confidence to make a decision to adopt m-learning (PBC3).

Perceived Ease of Use.

I believe that mobile devices would be easy to use (PEU1).

I believe it would be easy to access course material with my mobile device (PEU2).

I believe that mobile devices would be easy to operate (PEU3).

Perceived Self-Efficacy.

I am confident about using a mobile device for my courses (PSE1).

Using a mobile device for my courses would not be a challenge for me (PSE2).

I would feel comfortable using a mobile device in my courses (PSE3).

Perceived Usefulness.

I believe that using mobile devices would improve my ability to learn (PU1).

I believe that mobile devices would allow me to get my work done more quickly (PU2).

I believe that mobile devices would be useful for my learning (PU3).

Subjective Norm.

Most people who are important to me think that it would be fine to use a mobile device for university courses (SN1).

I think other students in my classes would be willing to adopt a mobile device for learning (SN2).

Most people who are important to me would approve of using a mobile device for university courses (SN3).

Student Readiness.

I think other students would approve of utilizing m-learning in their coursework (SR1).

I think other students would believe that a mobile device could be a useful educational tool in their coursework (SR2).

I think other students would have adequate technical skills to use a mobile device in their coursework (SR3).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeap, J.A.L., Ramayah, T. & Soto-Acosta, P. Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher education. Electron Markets 26, 323–338 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0214-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mobile learning readiness
  • Mobile learning acceptance
  • Mobile devices
  • Theory of planned behavior
  • Universities
  • Undergraduates