An investigation of the influence of intrinsic motivation on students’ intention to use mobile devices in language learning

Abstract

This study examines the relationships among intrinsic motivation, critical variables related to technology adoption, and students’ behavioral intention in mobile-assisted language learning (MALL). To test the hypothesized model through a path analysis, 169 survey responses were collected from undergraduate students who were foreign language learners of English in a Chinese research university. The results indicated that although intrinsic motivation did not have a direct influence on students’ behavioral intention in MALL, it had a positive influence on students’ behavioral intention through the two intervening variables, perceived usefulness and task technology fit. Perceived ease of use, however, was not associated with students’ behavioral intention directly, nor was it predicted by intrinsic motivation. The findings suggested proper instructional design that is aligned with and supports the language learning task was important to increase students’ behavioral intention to adopt mobile devices for language learning.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abdous, M., Camarena, M., & Facer, B. (2009). MALL technology: Use of academic podcasting in the foreign language classroom. ReCALL,21(1), 76–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdous, M., Facer, B., & Yen, C.-J. (2012). Academic effectiveness of podcasting: A comparative study of integrated versus supplemental use of podcasting in second language classes. Computers & Education,58(1), 43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning (GETAMEL) by analyzing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior,56, 238–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly,16(2), 227–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Aulamie, A., Mansour, A., Daly, H., & Adjei, O. (2012). The effect of intrinsic motivation on learners’ behavioral intention to use e-learning systems. In International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) IEEE (pp. 1–4). Retrieved from https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

  8. Baker, S. R. (2004). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational orientations: Their role in university adjustment, stress, well-being, and subsequent academic performance. Current Psychology,23(3), 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. Harvard Mental Health Letter,13(9), 4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Biggs, J. (2014). Enhancing learning: A matter of style or approach? In R. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 73–102). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chang, H. H. (2008). Intelligent agent’s technology characteristics applied to online auctions’ task: A combined model of TTF and TAM. Technovation,28(9), 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen, X. B., & Kessler, G. (2013). Tablets for informal language learning: Student usage and attitudes. Language Learning & Technology,17(1), 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen, Y., Lin, Y., Yeh, R., & Lou, S. (2013). Examining factors affecting college students’ intention to use web-based instruction systems: Towards an integrated model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(2), 111–121. Retrieved from https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Comas-Quinn, A., Mardomingo, R., & Valentine, C. (2009). Mobile blogs in language learning: Making the most of informal and situated learning opportunities. ReCALL,21(1), 96–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly,13, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,22(14), 1111–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research,50(1), 61–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management,36(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dishaw, M. T., Strong, D., & Bandy, D. B. (2002). Extending the task-technology fit model with self-efficacy constructs. AMCIS 2002 Proceedings,143, 194.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Motivation in second and foreign language learning. Language Teaching,31(3), 117–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. Journal of Usability Studies,5(3), 104–110.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goodhue, D. L., Klein, B. D., & March, S. T. (2000). User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance. Information & Management,38(2), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly,19(2), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods,3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jolliet, Y. (2007). M-Learning: A pedagogical and technological model for language learning on mobile phones. In J. Fong & F.-L. Wang (Eds.), Blended learning: Proceeding of workshop on blended learning 2007 (pp. 327–339). Hong Kong: City University of Hongkong.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kim, M. J., Chung, N., Lee, C. K., & Preis, M. W. (2015). Motivations and use context in mobile tourism shopping: Applying contingency and task–technology fit theories. International Journal of Tourism Research,17(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kim, T. T., Suh, Y. K., Lee, G., & Choi, B. (2010). Modelling roles of task technology fit and self-efficacy in hotel employees’ usage behaviors of hotel information systems. International Journal of Tourism Research,12(6), 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Klopping, I. M., & McKinney, E. (2004). Extending the technology acceptance model and the task-technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal,22(1), 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2009). Will mobile learning change language learning? ReCALL,21(2), 157–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lai, C., Wang, Q., & Lei, J. (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers & Education,59(2), 569–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lan, Y.-J., Sung, Y.-T., & Chang, K.-E. (2007). A mobile-device-supported peer-assisted learning system for collaborative early EFL reading. Language Learning & Technology,11(3), 130–151.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education,61(1), 193–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin, N., Kajita, S., & Mase, K. (2007). Story-based CALL for Japanese kanji characters: A study on student learning motivation. The JALT CALL Journal, 3(1–2), 25–44. Retrieved from http://www.jaltcall.org.

  37. Lin, T. C., & Huang, C. C. (2008). Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: An integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Information & Management,45(6), 410–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Liu, T. Y., & Chu, Y. L. (2010). Using ubiquitous games in an English listening and speaking course: Impact on learning outcomes and motivation. Computers & Education,55(2), 630–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,60(1), 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Murphy, P., Bollen, D., & Langdon, C. (2012). Mobile technology, collaborative reading, and elaborative feedback. In J. Díaz-Vera (Ed.), Left to my own devices: Learner autonomy and mobile-assisted language learning innovation and leadership in English language teaching (pp. 131–159). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Oroujlou, N., & Vahedi, M. (2011). Motivation, attitude, and language learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,29(1), 994–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pintrich, P. R. (2004). A conceptual framework for assessing motivation and self-regulated learning in college students. Educational Psychology Review,16(4), 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43(3), 450–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1), 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shao, Y. (2011). Second language learning by exchanging cultural contexts through the mobile group blog. In S. Thouësny & L. Bradley (Eds.), Second language teaching and learning with technology: Views of emergent researchers (pp. 143–168). Dublin: Research-publishing.net.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioural Research,25(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Stockwell, G. (2008). Investigating learner preparedness for and usage patterns of mobile learning. ReCALL,20(3), 253–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stockwell, G., & Hubbard, P. (2013). Some emerging principles for mobile-assisted language learning. Monterey, CA: The International Research Foundation for English Language Education. Retrieved from http://www.tirfonline.org/english-in-the-workforce/mobile-assisted-language-learning.

  52. Ushida, E. (2005). The role of students’ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses. CALICO Journal,23(1), 49–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ushioda, E. (2013). Motivation matters in mobile language learning: A brief commentary. Language Learning & Technology,17(3), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advance. Experimental Social Psychology,29(1), 271–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van Seters, J. R., Ossevoort, M. A., Tramper, J., & Goedhart, M. J. (2012). The influence of student characteristics on the use of adaptive e-learning material. Computers & Education,58(3), 942–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vavoula, G., & Sharples, M. (2008). Challenges in evaluating mobile learning. In Proceedings of MLearn 2008, 8–10 Oct 2008, Wolverhampton, UK.

  57. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly,23, 239–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science,46(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Winne, P. H. (1995). Self-regulation is ubiquitous but its forms vary with knowledge. Educational Psychologist,30(4), 223–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology,90(2), 224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wu, W. C. V., Yen, L. L., & Marek, M. (2011). Using online EFL interaction to increase confidence, motivation, and ability. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,14(3), 118–129.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Yamada, M., Kitamura, S., Shimada, N., Utashiro, T., Shigeta, K., Yamaguchi, E., et al. (2011). Development and evaluation of English listening study materials for business people who use mobile devices: A case study. CALICO Journal,29(1), 44–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zare, H., & Yazdanparast, S. (2013). The causal model of effective factors on intention to use of information technology among payamnoor and traditional universities students. Life Science Journal,10(2), 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by Peak Discipline Construction Project of Education at East China Normal University, and the Project of Science & Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality of China (Grant No. 17DZ2281800).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yanyan Sun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix: Survey items used in the study

Part I

What kind of mobile devices do you owe?

  • iPhone

  • Android Phone

  • Windows Phone

  • Blackberry Phone

  • Other Smart Phone (Please specify)

  • iPod Touch

  • iPad

  • Android Tablet

  • Other Tablet (Please specify)

Typically, how much time do you spend every day using your mobile devices for the following purposes?

(No use, rare use, about 5–10 min, about 11–30 min, about 31–60 min, about 1–2 h, about 2–3 h, more than 3 h)

  • Reading news

  • Checking emails

  • Playing music

  • Playing games

  • Watching movies

  • Shopping

  • Social networking (e.g. Wechat, QQ, Weibo)

  • Other (optional: please specify if you use mobile devices for other purposes

Part II

Rating scales Strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree

Intrinsic motivation (11 items)

Please rate the following items regarding your motivation for English learning

  • Interest/enjoyment

    • I enjoy learning English very much

    • Learning English is fun.

    • I would describe English learning as very interesting.

    • I thought English learning is quite enjoyable.

  • Perceived competence

    • I think I am pretty good at English.

    • I felt pretty competent in English.

    • I am satisfied with my English language proficiency.

    • I was pretty skilled at English language related learning tasks.

  • Effort/importance

    • I put a lot of effort into English language learning.

    • I try very hard to learn English.

    • It is important for me to learn English well.

Perceived usefulness (5 items)

How useful do you think that mobile devices is for English learning?

  • Using mobile devices improves my ability to learn English.

  • Using mobile devices for English learning makes learning more accessible.

  • Using mobile devices for English learning makes learning more fun and engaging.

  • Using mobile devices for English learning helps improve my English.

  • Mobile devices are useful for my English learning.

Task technology fit (4 items)

In your opinion, would mobile devices work well for you to learn English?

  • I think that using mobile devices would be well suited for the way I like to learn English.

  • Mobile devices would be a good medium to provide the way I like to learn English.

  • Using mobile devices would fit well for the way I like to learn English.

  • I think that using mobile devices would be a good way to learn English.

Perceived ease of use (4 items)

How easy is it for you to use mobile devices for English learning?

  • I don’t have any problems learning about the features of the English learning applications/tools on my mobile device(s).

  • My interaction with these tools/applications is clear and understandable.

  • I believe that the English learning applications/tools on my mobile device(s) are easy to use.

  • I believe that the English learning applications/tools on my mobile device(s) are easy to operate.

Behavioral intention

  • I will continue using mobile devices for English language learning.

  • I will use mobile devices on a regular basis for English language learning in the future.

Part III

Gender

  • Male

  • Female

Age: ___

Major: ___

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, Y., Gao, F. An investigation of the influence of intrinsic motivation on students’ intention to use mobile devices in language learning. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1181–1198 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09733-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mobile assisted language learning
  • Path analysis
  • Motivation
  • Higher education