Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 2, pp 1433–1468 | Cite as

Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use of mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters

  • Mohammed Amin AlmaiahEmail author
  • Ahmed Al Mulhem


Although mobile learning systems offer several benefits for students, academic staff and universities, from easily access and learning anywhere and anytime, the use and acceptance of this new technology in Jordan still very low. However, acceptance of mobile learning by students is crucial to the success of mobile learning. The factors that affect the use and user acceptance of mobile learning are still controversial. Thus, this study mainly proposes an integrated model, with the aim of identifying the most influential factors that may encourage or impede students and universities in Jordan in moving towards acceptance and adoption of mobile learning applications. The proposed model was evaluated empirically with 1200 students from both two groups of universities that already used the mobile learning technology and non-adopters universities in Jordan. The model aims to examine the impact of 11 factors on the adoption of mobile learning applications that were categorised based on four fundamental constructs are: (i) technological factors (security, privacy, compatibility, relative advantage and trust), (ii) organizational factors (resistance to change and technology readiness), (iii) cultural factors and (iv) quality factors (quality of system, quality of content and quality of service). The key findings include: (1) resistance to change, security and privacy concerns still limit mobile learning acceptance and adoption in Jordanian universities; (2) some factors like compatibility, technology readiness, and culture were found to have a negative effect on the intention to use of the mobile learning; (3) five factors (relative advantage, trust, quality of system, quality of content and quality of service) were found to have a positive effect on the intention to use of the mobile learning; and (4) our research also found that the effect of these factors differed in universities that already used the mobile learning and non-adopters. Finally, it is expected that the findings of this research can assist university decision makers, mobile learning application providers and the research community in introducing better strategies for encouraging adoption and acceptance of this technology.


Mobile learning systems Mobile learning acceptance Intention to use of mobile learning adopter and non-adopter universities Jordan 



The authors acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Faisal University for the financial support with number 186014.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: an investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5).Google Scholar
  2. Almaiah, M. A. (2018). Acceptance and usage of a mobile information system services in University of Jordan. Education and Information Technologies, 1–23.Google Scholar
  3. Almaiah, M.A., & Alamri, M.M (2018). Proposing a new technical quality requirements for mobile learning applications. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 96(19).Google Scholar
  4. Almaiah, M. A., & Alismaiel, O. A. (2018). Examination of factors influencing the use of mobile learning system: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 1–25.Google Scholar
  5. Almaiah, M. A., & Almulhem, A (2018). A conceptual framework for determining the success factors of e-learning system implementation using Delphi technique. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 96(17).Google Scholar
  6. Almaiah, M. A., & Jalil, M. A. (2014). Investigating students' perceptions on mobile learning services. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 8(4), 31–36.Google Scholar
  7. Almaiah, M. A., & Man, M. (2016). Empirical investigation to explore factors that achieve high quality of mobile learning system based on students’ perspectives. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 19(3), 1314–1320.Google Scholar
  8. Almaiah, M. A., Jalil, M. A., & Man, M. (2016a). Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(4), 453–485.Google Scholar
  9. Almaiah, M. A., Jalil, M. A., & Man, M. (2016b). Preliminary study for exploring the major problems and activities of mobile learning system: A case study of Jordan. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 93(2).Google Scholar
  10. Almaiah, M. A., Jalil, M. A., & Man, M. (2016). Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(4), 453–485.Google Scholar
  11. Almarashdeh, I. A., Sahari, N., Zin, N. A. M., & Alsmadi, M. (2010). The success of learning management system among distance learners in Malaysian Universities. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology, 21(2).Google Scholar
  12. Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71.Google Scholar
  13. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  14. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  15. Balakrishnan, V., & Gan, C. L. (2016). Students’ learning styles and their effects on the use of social media technology for learning. Telematics and Informatics, 33(3), 808–821.Google Scholar
  16. Behera, S. K. (2013). E-and M-learning: A comparative study. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 65–78.Google Scholar
  17. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588.Google Scholar
  18. Bere, A., & Rambe, P. (2016). An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile instant messaging appropriation in university learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(2), 172–198.Google Scholar
  19. Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. Chen, X., & Zhang, X. (2016). How environmental uncertainty moderates the effect of relative advantage and perceived credibility on the adoption of Mobile health services by Chinese organizations in the big data era. International Journal of Telemedicine and Applications, 2016, 111.Google Scholar
  21. Cheng, Y. M. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Research, 22(3), 361–390.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Chung, H. H., Chen, S. C., & Kuo, M. H. (2015). A study of EFL college students’ acceptance of mobile learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 333–339.Google Scholar
  24. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.Google Scholar
  25. Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. Scholar
  26. Dobre, I. (2015). Learning Management Systems for higher education-an overview of available options for Higher Education Organizations. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 313–320.Google Scholar
  27. Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., et al. (2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 143–157.Google Scholar
  28. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2), 130–132.Google Scholar
  29. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382–388.Google Scholar
  30. Gao, T., Sultan, F., & Rohm, A. J. (2010). Factors influencing Chinese youth consumers' acceptance of mobile marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(7), 574–583.Google Scholar
  31. Gu, J. C., Lee, S. C., & Suh, Y. H. (2009). Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11605–11616.Google Scholar
  32. Guo, X., Sun, Y., Wang, N., Peng, Z., & Yan, Z. (2013). The dark side of elderly acceptance of preventive mobile health services in China. Electronic Markets, 23(1), 49–61.Google Scholar
  33. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  34. Hao, S., Dennen, V. P., & Mei, L. (2017). Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 101–123.Google Scholar
  35. Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1988). Information systems and user resistance: theory and practice. The Computer Journal, 31(5), 398–408.Google Scholar
  36. Hsia, J. W. (2016). The effects of locus of control on university students’ mobile learning adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  37. Hsu, C. L., Lu, H. P., & Hsu, H. H. (2007). Adoption of the mobile internet: An empirical study of multimedia message service (MMS). Omega, 35(6), 715–726.Google Scholar
  38. Hyman, J. A., Moser, M. T., & Segala, L. N. (2014). Electronic reading and digital library technologies: Understanding learner expectation and usage intent for mobile learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(1), 35–52.Google Scholar
  39. Iqbal, S., & Qureshi, I. A. (2012). M-learning adoption: A perspective from a developing country. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed. Learning, 13(3), 147–164.Google Scholar
  40. Jaradat, M. I. R. M. (2014). Understanding individuals' perceptions, determinants and the moderating effects of age and gender on the adoption of mobile learning: developing country perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3-4), 253–275.Google Scholar
  41. Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (2014). Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM for mobile learning in Cyber University. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 143–158.Google Scholar
  42. Joo, Y. J., Kim, N., & Kim, N. H. (2016). Factors predicting online university students’ use of a mobile learning management system (m-LMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 611–630.Google Scholar
  43. Keengwe, J., & Bhargava, M. (2014). Mobile learning and integration of mobile technologies in education. Education and Information Technologies, 19(4), 737–746.Google Scholar
  44. Kline, R. B. (2005). Methodology in the social sciences.Google Scholar
  45. Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. na.Google Scholar
  46. Lai, C. L., Hwang, G. J., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). Differences between mobile learning environmental preferences of high school teachers and students in Taiwan: A structural equation model analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(3), 533–554.Google Scholar
  47. Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2016a). Work routines as an object of resistance during information systems implementations: Theoretical foundation and empirical evidence. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(4), 317–343.Google Scholar
  48. Laumer, S., Maier, C., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2016b). User personality and resistance to mandatory information systems in organizations: A theoretical model and empirical test of dispositional resistance to change. Journal of Information Technology, 31(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
  49. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of international business studies, 36(4), 357–378.Google Scholar
  50. Lian, J. W., Yen, D. C., & Wang, Y. T. (2014). An exploratory study to understand the critical factors affecting the decision to adopt cloud computing in Taiwan hospital. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 28–36.Google Scholar
  51. Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in human behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. Liew, T. W., Tan, S. M., & Ismail, H. (2017). Exploring the effects of a non-interactive talking avatar on social presence, credibility, trust, and patronage intention in an e-commerce website. Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 7(1), 42.Google Scholar
  53. Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.Google Scholar
  54. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual review of psychology, 51(1), 201–226.Google Scholar
  55. Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76–85.Google Scholar
  56. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359–374.Google Scholar
  57. Nov, O., & Ye, C. (2009). Resistance to change and the adoption of digital libraries: An integrative model. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1702–1708.Google Scholar
  58. Obiria, P. B., & Kimwele, M. W. (2017). A location-based privacy-preserving m-learning model to enhance distance education in Kenya. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(2), 147–169.Google Scholar
  59. Ozdamli, F., & Cavus, N. (2011). Basic elements and characteristics of mobile learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 937–942.Google Scholar
  60. Ozkan, S., & Koseler, R. (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1285–1296.Google Scholar
  61. Ozturk, T., & Guven, B. (2016). Evaluating Students' Beliefs in Problem Solving Process: A Case Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(3), 411–429.Google Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. Park, E., & Kim, K. J. (2014). An integrated adoption model of mobile cloud services: exploration of key determinants and extension of technology acceptance model. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3), 376–385.Google Scholar
  64. Park, S. Y., Lee, H. D., & Kim, S. Y. (2016). South Korean university students’ mobile learning acceptance and experience based on the perceived attributes, system quality and resistance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 1–9.Google Scholar
  65. Park, E., Kim, S., Kim, Y., & Kwon, S. J. (2017). Smart home services as the next mainstream of the ICT industry: Determinants of the adoption of smart home services. Universal Access in the Information Society, 1–16.Google Scholar
  66. Ramzan, K., Taibah, K., Tahir, A. I., Al-Tassan, N., Berhan, A., Khater, A. M., et al. (2014). ILDR1: Novel mutation and a rare cause of congenital deafness in the Saudi Arabian population. European Journal of Medical Genetics, 57(6), 253–258.Google Scholar
  67. Rehman, M., Esichaikul, V., & Kamal, M. (2012). Factors influencing e-government adoption in Pakistan. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(3), 258–282.Google Scholar
  68. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Lessons for guidelines from the diffusion of innovations. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 21(7), 324–328.Google Scholar
  69. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Safa, N. S., Von Solms, R., & Furnell, S. (2016). Information security policy compliance model in organizations. Computers & Security, 56, 70–82.Google Scholar
  71. Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Informal tools in formal contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies among teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 519–528.Google Scholar
  72. Sarrab, M., Al-Shih, H., & Rehman, O. M. H. (2013). Exploring major challenges and benefits of mlearning adoption. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 3(4), 826.Google Scholar
  73. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  74. Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2010). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In Medienbildung in neuen Kulturräumen (pp. 87–99). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  75. Shin, C., Hong, J. H., & Dey, A. K. (2012). Understanding and prediction of mobile application usage for smart phones. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 173-182). ACM.Google Scholar
  76. Shin, W. S., & Kang, M. (2015). The use of a mobile learning management system at an online university and its effect on learning satisfaction and achievement. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3).Google Scholar
  77. Siponen, M., Mahmood, M. A., & Pahnila, S. (2014). Employees’ adherence to information security policies: An exploratory field study. Information & management, 51(2), 217–224.Google Scholar
  78. Song, Y., & Kong, S. C. (2017). Affordances and constraints of BYOD (bring your own device) for learning in higher education: Teachers’ perspectives. In Emerging practices in scholarship of learning and teaching in a digital era (pp. 105–122). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  79. Su, C. H., & Cheng, C. H. (2015). A mobile gamification learning system for improving the learning motivation and achievements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(3), 268–286.Google Scholar
  80. Thomas, T. D., Singh, L., & 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 Information and Communication Technology, 9(3), 71.Google Scholar
  81. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.Google Scholar
  82. Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., & Wang, H. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.Google Scholar
  83. Widaman, K. F., & Thompson, J. S. (2003). On specifying the null model for incremental fit indices in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 8(1), 16.Google Scholar
  84. Yamakawa, P., Delgado, C., Díaz, E., Garayar, E., & Laguna, H. (2013). Factors influencing the use of mobile technologies in a university environment: A case from Latin America. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 9(2), 24–38.Google Scholar
  85. Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2012). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile services. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 225–248.Google Scholar
  86. Zhou, T. (2014). Examining continuance usage of mobile internet services from the perspective of resistance to change. Information Development, 30(1), 22–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.King Faisal UniversityAl AhsaSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations