Mobile Technology and Interactive Lectures: The Key Adoption Factors

Part of the Lecture Notes in Educational Technology book series (LNET)


Lecture classes are fundamental and essential for teaching and learning in higher education. The objective of this study is to investigate adoption factors for promoting interactive lectures in higher education from reviews of technology acceptance models, motivational factors, and cultural dimension theory. The study aims to elicit key factors influencing mobile technology adoption in the classrooms as an interaction tool, focusing on the notion of communication barriers caused by classes with large number of students. Survey involving higher education students enrolled in academic courses in Malaysia was conducted with a sample size of 396. Factor analysis produced three key factors: User system perception (USP), system and information quality (SIQ) and user uncertainty avoidance (UUA). Results of regression analysis revealed UUA as the strongest significant predictor of adoption (beta = −0.225, p < 0.001), and a high proportion of UUA was strongly explained by USP (r = −0.513) and SIQ (r = −0.537). This study underscores the need for researchers to further explore blended learning pedagogies using mobile technology.


Behavioural Intention Information Quality Mobile Technology Technology Acceptance Model Uncertainty Avoidance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors extend their gratitude to University of Malaya (RP028A-14AET) and Multimedia University for supporting the study.


  1. Adams, D., Nelson, R., & Todd, P. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2005). Infusing active learning into the large-enrollment biology class: Seven strategies, from the simple to complex. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alzaza, N. S., & Yaakub, A. R. (2011). Students’ awareness and requirements of mobile learning services in the higher education environment. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashraf, A. R., Thongpapanl, N., & Auh, S. (2014). The application of the technology acceptance model under different cultural contexts: The case of online shopping adoption. Journal of International Marketing, 22(3), 68–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayoun, Baker M., & Moreo, Patrick J. (2008). The influence of the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance on business strategy development: A cross-national study of hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(1), 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balakrishnan, V., & Gan, C. L. (2013). Mobile wireless technology and its use in lecture room environment: An observation in Malaysian Institutes of higher learning. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(6), 635–637.Google Scholar
  7. Bandura, Albert. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bandura, Albert. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beekes, W. (2006). The ‘Millionaire’ method for encouraging participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calisir, F., Altin Gumussoy, C., Bayraktaroglu, A. E., & Karaali, D. (2014). Predicting the intention to use a web-based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the technology acceptance model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, 24(5), 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, T. L., & Lan, Y. L. (2013). Using a personal response system as an in-class assessment tool in the teaching of basic college chemistry. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).Google Scholar
  12. Chickering, Arthur W., & Gamson, Zelda F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 47, 1–7.Google Scholar
  13. Chong, J. L., Chong, A. Y. L., Ooi, K. B., & Lin, B. (2011). An empirical analysis of the adoption of m-learning in Malaysia. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 9(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Detlor, B., Hupfer, M. E., Ruhi, U., & Zhao, L. (2013). Information quality and community municipal portal use. Government Information Quarterly, 30(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dobson-Mitchell, S. (2011). Are big classes really a problem? Retrieved November 10, 2014, from
  20. Donovan, D., & Loch, B. (2013). Closing the feedback loop: Engaging students in large first-year mathematics test revision sessions using pen-enabled screens. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 44(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gan, C. L., & Balakrishnan, V. (2014). Determinants of mobile wireless technology for promoting interactivity in lecture sessions: An empirical analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geske, J. (1992). Overcoming the drawbacks of the large lecture class. College Teaching, 40(4), 151–154.Google Scholar
  23. Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D., & Cronan, T. P. (1993). On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scale. MIS Quarterly, 17(2), 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.): McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Huang, Y. M., Liu, C. H., Huang, Y. M., & Yeh, Y. H. (2014). Adopt technology acceptance model to analyze factors influencing students’ intention on using a disaster prevention education system. In Advanced technologies, embedded and multimedia for human-centric computing (pp. 197–202). Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  26. Jang, H. Y., & Noh, M. J. (2011). Customer acceptance of IPTV service quality. International Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krause, K. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university learning communities. Paper presented at the Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students, James Cook University, Townsville/Cairns, Queensland.
  28. Laver, K., George, S., Ratcliffe, J., & Crotty, M. (2012). Measuring technology self efficacy: Reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(3), 220–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education, 61, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lee, J. A., Garbarino, E., & Lerman, D. (2007). How cultural differences in uncertainty avoidance affect product perceptions. International Marketing Review, 24(3), 330–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lin, H. C. (2014). An investigation of the effects of cultural differences on physicians’ perceptions of information technology acceptance as they relate to knowledge management systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 368–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin, W. S., & Wang, C. H. (2012). Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: A contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Computers and Education, 58(1), 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mahat, J., Ayub, A. F. M., & Luan, S. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matusitz, J., & Musambira, G. (2013). Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and technology: Analyzing Hofstede’s dimensions and human development indicators. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 31(1), 42–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mohamed, A. H. H., Tawfik, H., Al-Jumeily, D., & Norton, L. (2011, December). MoHTAM: A technology acceptance model for mobile health applications. In Developments in E-systems Engineering (DeSE), 2011 (pp. 13–18). IEEE.Google Scholar
  36. Oigara, J., & Keengwe, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning. Education and Information Technologies, 18(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Padilla-Meléndez, A., del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers and Education, 63, 306–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pai, F. Y., & Huang, K. I. (2011). Applying the technology acceptance model to the introduction of healthcare information systems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(4), 650–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Park, E., Baek, S., Ohm, J., & Chang, H. J. (2014). Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: An application of extended technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the satisfaction with life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 149–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reeves, T. C. (2006). How do you know they are learning? The importance of alignment in higher education. International Journal of Learning Technology, 2(4), 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scornavacca, E., Huff, S., & Marshall, S. (2009). Mobile phones in the classroom: If you can’t beat them, join them. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 142–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott, W. E., Farh, J., & Podaskoff, P. M. (1988). The effects of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” reinforcement contingencies on task behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(3), 405–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shroff, R. H., Deneen, C. D., & Ng, E. M. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stowell, J. R., Oldham, T., & Bennett, D. (2010). Using student response systems (“Clickers”) to combat conformity and shyness. Teaching of Psychology, 37(2), 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Subramanian, G. H. (1994). A replication of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use measurement. Decision Sciences, 25(5/6), 863–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Šumak, B., HeričKo, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067–2077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tan, C. W., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. T. (2013). IT-mediated customer service content and delivery in electronic governments: An empirical investigation of the antecedents of service quality. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 77–109.Google Scholar
  50. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on e-learning acceptance in England: A structural equation modeling approach for an extended technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 163–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tesch, F., Coelho, D., & Drozdenko, R. (2011). The relative potency of classroom distracters on student concentration: We have met the enemy and he is us*. Paper presented at the ASBBS Annual Conference, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  52. Van Dijk, L. A., Van Der Berg, G. C., & Keulan, V. (2001). Interactivies lectures in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 26(1), 15–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Venema, S., & Lodge, J. M. (2013). Capturing dynamic presentation: Using technology to enhance the chalk and the talk. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).Google Scholar
  54. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wang, W. T., & Wang, C. C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers and Education, 53(3), 761–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang, Y. S., Yeh, C. H., & Liao, Y. W. (2013). What drives purchase intention in the context of online content services? The moderating role of ethical self-efficacy for online piracy. International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.Google Scholar
  60. Yoo, S. J., & Huang, W. H. D. (2011). Comparison of Web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural differences. Educational Technology and Society, 14(4), 241–252.Google Scholar
  61. Zheng, Y., Zhao, K., & Stylianou, A. (2013). The impacts of information quality and system quality on users’ continuance intention in information-exchange virtual communities: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 56, 513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia
  2. 2.Multimedia UniversityCyberjayaMalaysia

Personalised recommendations