British Journal of Educational Technology

doi:10.1111/bjet.12160

Vol 46 No 4 2015

699712

A comparative study of the effects of cultural differences on the

adoption of mobile learning
Ibrahim Arpaci
Ibrahim Arpaci is an assistant professor in the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technology at
Gaziosmanpasa University. His current research interests are mobile learning, e-learning systems and e-government
systems. Address for correspondence: Dr Ibrahim Arpaci, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education, Department of
Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat 60150, Turkey. Email:
ibrahim.arpaci@gop.edu.tr

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to understand the impact of cultural differences on mobile
learning adoption through identifying key adoption characteristics in Canada and
Turkey, which have markedly different cultural backgrounds. A multi-group analysis
was employed to test the hypothesised relationships based on the data collected by means
of survey questionnaires from 190 and 163 undergraduate students in Turkey and
Canada respectively. The results indicated that there is a strong relationship between
culture and adoption behaviour, and there are major differences in patterns between the
adoption behaviours of the two countries. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Introduction
A higher adoption rate of mobile devices is desirable as mobile learning can provide several
advantages. Possible advantages such as anytime/anywhere access to media-rich content,
enhanced interaction between peers, differentiation of learning needs, bespoke learning, reduced
cultural barriers and help facilitate collaboration through synchronous and asynchronous communication (Corbeil & Valdes-Corbeil, 2007, p 54). Given the arrival of smart mobile devices, the
limitations of traditional mobile devices such as small screen size, poor screen resolution, lack of
data input capability, low storage, low bandwidth, limited processor speed and short battery
life (Kukulska-Hulme, 2007; Maniar, Bennett, Hand & Allan, 2008) have been largely resolved.
However, some issues still need to be addressed, such as compatibility and interoperability of
different systems, security and trust for wireless networks, accessibility and usability of mobile
applications, and content-related issues.
The percentage of mobile telephone subscribers has reached 96% of the population worldwide as
of 2014, with mobile broadband as the most dynamic information and communication technology service (ITU, 2014). Turkey and Canada are representatives of different national cultures,
while being two prime examples where the mobile telecommunications industry has experienced
rapid growth. Turkey, with a population of 76.7 million, possesses one of the largest youth
populations in Europe (TURKSTAT, 2014) of which 91% are mobile telephone subscribers, with a
proportion of smart phones of all mobile phones being 33% overall (ICTA, 2014). The number of
3G subscribers exceeded 49.3 million (64% of the population) as of December 2013 (ICTA, 2014).
In Canada, the number of mobile phone subscribers surpassed the 27 million (80%) in 2013,
with smart phones proportion of totalling 62% (CRTC, 2014). 3G technology, capable of streaming video, games and the Internet, is already available to 99% of Canadians (CRTC, 2014).
2014 British Educational Research Association

700

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

Practitioner Notes
What is already known about this topic
Canada (as an individualistic, low uncertainty avoidance, and low power distance
culture) and Turkey (as a collectivist, high uncertainty avoidance, and high power
distance culture) have markedly different cultural backgrounds.
There is a strong relationship between national culture and adoption behaviour.
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has been widely used to
explain the adoption of information technologies. UTAUT constructs were also used in
this study while being enhanced with individual characteristics, including experience
and personal innovativeness.
What this paper adds
There is a gap in research investigating the effects of culture in mobile learning
adoption.
In this study, we aim to fill that gap by examining the effects of culture on adoption
behaviour of students, identifying first the differences between Canada and Turkey in
terms of their adoption behaviour and second the cultural differences that may affect
those adoption decisions, hereby gaining insight into the effects of cultural differences
on the adoption decision and their factors.
Results suggest that national culture has a significant effect on the adoption mobile
learning by undergraduate students, and there are major differences in their adoption
behaviour.
Implications for practice and/or policy
The findings of this study have different implications for the students in the two
countries.
Instructors, content and application developers, service providers, and device manufacturers should be sensitive to the cultural differences for a successful adoption.
An effective strategy for mobile service providers and device manufacturers would
be to take into account the cultural background of students while developing and
marketing mobile services and devices in a mobile learning context.
Content and application developers should consider cultural differences in developing
mobile learning content and mobile applications.
The findings of this study can be used to guide the development of effective blended
learning strategies.
For a successful adoption, universities and academics need to be equipped with the
acquired literacy and skills regarding the new educational technology.

Furthermore, Canada has also started to offer services at even higher broadband speeds moving
to 4G Long Term Evolution.
An investigation into the differences in patterns of adoption behaviours between the two countries was studied aiming to identify the impact of cultural differences on adoption. The results
of this study may lead to successful understanding for the adoption of mobile learning under
different cultures.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. First, it reviews the literature on comparative
studies of technology adoption and usage, followed by the research methods and the results of
2014 British Educational Research Association

Cross-country differences in mobile learning adoption

701

data analysis. Finally, a discussion of the research findings and their implications is provided
along with the limitations of the study.
Literature review
Triandis (1994, p 22) defines culture as a set of human-made objective and subjective elements. Triandis identifies four cultural dimensions that apply to all cultures: cultural complexity,
cultural tightness, individualism and collectivism. Trompenaars (1993, p 6) however views
culture as a way in which a group of people solve problems. Trompenaars (1996) describes
national culture across several dimensions such as affective versus neutral relationships, universalism versus particularism, specificity versus diffuseness, internal versus external control and
achievement versus ascription.
Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010, p 3) define culture as the collective programming of the
mind that distinguishing the members of a group or category of people from others. Hofstedes
(1980, 2001) cultural taxonomy describes national culture along the dimensions of individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity and power distance, and uncertainty
avoidance has been the most popular conceptualisation of national culture.
Recently, Shin (2012) used Hofstedes cultural dimensions to examine the relations between
usability and aesthetic values focusing on the cultural differences in Korea and the USA. These
results showed that aesthetic, quality, usability and enjoyment are significant predictors of a
smart phone user intentions coupled with Hofstedes cultural dimensions differentially moderating hypothesised paths. Another study of Saad, Nebebe and Mak (2009) explored the motivational differences among Canadian and Chinese online students by analysing the effects of
intrinsic motivation on technology acceptance model (TAM); showing the influence of perceived
usefulness on intention to use online learning context in Chinese culture by TAM is limited,
contrary to the Canadians.
Teo, Su Luan and Sing (2008) investigated the intention to use personal computer using the TAM
based on data collected by an email survey of 245 Malaysian and 250 Singaporean preservice
teachers. Teos results showed that perceived usefulness, computer attitude and perceived ease of
use have a significant influence on behavioural intention in both countries. In another study,
Hunter and Beck (2000) investigated the effect of national culture on perceptions of excellent
systems analysts interviewing 70 Canadian and 17 Singaporean excellent analysts. They found
that excellent analysts in Canada, which is an individualistic and uncertainty-accepting society,
follow a more participative approach, whereas analysts in Singapore, which is a collectivist and
uncertainty-avoiding society, follow a more dominant and technocratic approach against clients.
Keil et al (2000) explored decision makers willingness to continue a troubled information technology (IT) project comparing lab experiments in Finland, Singapore and Netherlands. They
found that the countries with a low uncertainly avoidance culture (such as Singapore) exhibit
greater tendency to continue a troubled IT project as their perceived risk is lower than the
countries with a high uncertainty avoidance culture. In another study, Steensma, Marino,
Weaver and Dickson (2000) investigated the tendency for SMEs to form technology alliances
between firms with a survey of five countries. They found that technology alliances with other
firms are greater in the countries, which have a high uncertainty avoidance and femininity
culture (such as Mexico). In addition, the firms in a collectivistic country (such as Indonesia and
Mexico) are more likely to form technology alliances than the firms in an individualistic country
(such as Australia).
Griffith (1998) explored satisfaction of the students in the USA and Bulgaria with group support
systems (GSSs). Results showed that students in the USA, which has a high power distance, are
more likely to report being satisfied with the GSS outcome than the students in Bulgaria, which
2014 British Educational Research Association

702

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

has a low power distance. In another study, Hasan and Ditsa (1999) investigated IT adoption by
10 organisations in Australia, Africa and Middle East. They found that IT adoption is higher in
uncertainty-accepting cultures, successful adoption is more likely to occur in low power distance
cultures, collectivist cultures are more favourably disposed to adopt a GSS and, finally, adoption
patterns vary according to level of femininity that focuses on people and masculinity that focuses
on technology.
Png, Tan and Wee (2001) explored IT infrastructure adoption with a survey of 153 firms in 23
countries. They found that the firms in the countries with a low uncertainty avoidance are more
likely to adopt frame relay. In another study, Srite (2000) investigated innovativeness and trust in
technology based on data collected from 33 countries. Results show that students in a low power
distance country are found to be more innovative and more trusting of technology.
Straub (1994) explored email use of employees based on a survey and follow-up interviews in
the USA and Japan. Results show that employees in the USA, which has a higher uncertainty
avoidance, are more likely to adopt and use email, whereas Japanese employees prefer more
information-rich and socially present forms of media. Similarly, Downing, Gallaugher and Segars
(2003) explored the effect of national culture on use of media for employee empowerment in the
US and Japanese organisations. They found that organisations in Japan, which is a collectivist
and high uncertainty avoidance country, are more willing to use information-rich and socially
present forms of media such as face to face and phone to facilitate empowerment, whereas
organisations in the US, which is a individualistic and low uncertainty avoidance society, are
more willing to use lean forms of media such as email, intranets and groupware.
Husted (2000) performed a data analysis based on business software alliance records. Husted
showed that software piracy is more prevalent in collectivist cultures than in individualistic
cultures. In another study, Milberg, Burke, Smith and Kallman (1995) investigated the effect
of national culture on regulatory approaches to privacy based on a survey of 900 information
system audits across 30 countries. They found that the countries with a low level of uncertainty
avoidance and power distance culture exhibit lower levels of government involvement in privacy
regulation, whereas the countries with a collectivistic culture exhibit higher levels of government
involvement.
Shore et al (2001) explored the effect of national culture on attitudes towards intellectual property rights based on a survey of students from the USA, Hong Kong, New Zealand and Pakistan.
They found that students in the countries with a low power distance, individualistic, a low
uncertainty avoidance and a high masculinity perceived more of an ethical problem with soft
lifting. In another study, Chow, Deng and Ho (2000) investigated the effect of national culture
on employees propensity to share knowledge with co-workers based on a survey and follow-up
interviews with US and Chinese managers. They found that managers in China, which is a
collectivist country, are more likely to share knowledge with group members, and they are much
less willing to share knowledge with out-group members.
Leidner, Carlsson, Elam and Corrales (1999) investigated the effect of national culture on executive information system (EIS) use based on a survey of Swedish and Mexican senior managers.
Results showed that Mexican managers perceived faster decision-making speed with EIS use than
Swedish managers. This suggests that EIS is best suited in countries with a low power distance and
uncertainty avoidance. In another study, Mejias, Shepherd, Vogel and Lazaneo (1996/97) investigated the effect of national culture on GSS use by the US and Mexican students. They found that
the students in Mexico, which is a high power distance and collectivist society, experience higher
levels of participation equity, satisfaction and group consensus than the students in the USA.
Overall, the studies reviewed here provide consistent evidence that there is a strong relationship
between national culture and adoption behaviour as national culture shapes the environment in
2014 British Educational Research Association

Cross-country differences in mobile learning adoption

703

which students learn, with a potential to impact their adoption behaviour. However, there is a gap
in research investigating the effects of culture in mobile learning adoption. In this study, we aim
to fill that gap by examining the effects of culture on adoption behaviour of students, identifying
first the differences between Turkey and Canada in terms of their adoption behaviour and second
the cultural differences that may affect those adoption decisions, hereby gaining insight into the
effects of cultural differences on the adoption decision and their factors.
Theoretical framework
Rogers defines adoption as a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of
action, whereas rejection is a decision not to adopt an available innovation (Rogers, 1983, p 21).
This study focuses on adoption of mobile learning through smart phones, which offer enhanced
functionality and features such as voice communication, email, mobile TV and Internet. In this
study, adoption is therefore defined as the decision of a student to use smart phones to conduct
learning activities.
The cultural theory on which this study is based has been developed by Hofstede (1980) which has
been used successfully in cross-cultural studies and validated by many other researchers (Barczak,
Hultink & Sultan, 2008; Shin, 2012; Zhao, 2011). This theory has five distinctly different dimensions: uncertainty avoidance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, and long term-short term orientation (Hofstede, 2001).
Individualism is defined as the degree to which a society emphasizes the role of the individual
(Hofstede, 1984). Canada has an individualistic culture, whereas Turkey has a collectivistic
culture (Hofstede, 2001). Likewise, uncertainty avoidance refers to peoples tolerance of ambiguity. Canadian culture is a low uncertainty avoidance culture, whereas Turkish culture is
a high uncertainty avoidance culture (Hofstede, 2001). Thus, in this study, we mainly focus
on these two dimensions to investigate whether these cultural differences have an impact on
adoption.
The second theory on which this theoretical framework is based is the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). This theory, which was developed by Venkatesh, Morris,
Davis and Davis (2003), has been widely used to explain the adoption of information technologies.
The UTAUT integrates and unifies the characteristics and elements of eight TAMs and proposes
four core constructs: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating
conditions. These four constructs are used in this study while being enhanced with individual
characteristics of experience and personal innovativeness.
Constructs and associated hypotheses
Performance and effort expectancy
Performance expectancy defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using the
system will help him or her to attain gains in job performance (Venkatesh et al, 2003, p 447).
This construct is similar to the notion of relative advantage in the Diffusion of Innovation
theory. The relative advantage of mobile learning over traditional learning methods comes from
unique features of smart phones, including ubiquity, flexibility, accessibility and always-on
connectivity. Due to the these unique features of smart phones, mobile learning can extend
educational opportunities to all socio-economics levels, encourage a sense of responsibility and
afford learners with greater individualism, mobility and ubiquity compared with traditional
learning methods (Attewell, 2005; Franklin, 2011; Klopfer & Squire, 2008; Kukulska-Hulme,
2007; Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005; Murphy, 2006; Naismith, Peter, Giasemi & Sharples,
2004; Pei-Luen, Gao & Li-Mei, 2006; Savill-Smith & Kent, 2003; Sharma & Kitchens, 2004).
In this study, the key educational activities such as access to online learning materials, downloading and listening to streaming videos, podcasts, audio books and e-books are used. Their
2014 British Educational Research Association

704

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

effort expectancy defined as the degree of ease associated with the use of the system (Venkatesh
et al, 2003, p 450) of mobile learning using smart phones largely depends on how easy it is to
perform these activities. The easier it is to perform these activities, the lower the level of effort
expectancy and the quicker and easier adoption of mobile learning by students.
Hofstedes cultural theory indicates that Canada and Turkey have a short-term oriented culture.
This suggests that both cultures measure performance and benefits on a short-term basis. This
also prompts students to seek immediate rather than distant results. We therefore predict that the
performance expectancy and effort expectancy will have a strongly significant effect on the
adoption of mobile learning in both countries. In line with this discussion, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: Performance expectancy will have a positive impact on the adoption of mobile learning.
H2: Effort expectancy will have a positive impact on the adoption of mobile learning.

Social influence
People in individualistic cultures are encouraged to make a decision on their own, whereas people
in collectivistic cultures are encouraged to decide as a family or community rather than themselves (Hofstede, 2001). We therefore theorise that social influence defined as the degree to
which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system
(Venkatesh et al, 2003, p 451) will have a stronger effect on the adoption of mobile learning by
students in collectivistic cultures. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3: The relationship between social influence and adoption of mobile learning will be stronger in Turkey
than those in Canada.

Facilitating conditions
The existence of organisational and technical infrastructure to support students use of mobile
learning may have a positive effect on their adoption decision. The available statistics indicate that
Canada, as a developed country, has a more powerful and advance mobile telecommunication
infrastructures, and therefore, the availability of organisational and technical infrastructure to
support mobile learning will also be greater in this country. Thus, we predict that facilitating
conditions defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an organisational and
technical infrastructure exists to support use of the system (Venkatesh et al, 2003, p 453) will
have a stronger effect on the adoption of mobile learning in Canada. On the basis of the arguments just mentioned, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H4: Facilitating conditions will have a stronger effect on the adoption of mobile learning in Canada than
those in Turkey.

Experience
Experience can be defined as the technical knowledge and skills of the individuals that have
been gained through previous interactions with smart phones. If students believe that they can
use the key features of smart phones, they would be less concerned about the learning curve
effects. We therefore suggest that the existence of the prior experience on mobile devices may
positively affect adoption of mobile learning through smart phones in both countries. Hence, the
following hypothesis is formulated:
H5: Experience will have a positive impact on the adoption of mobile learning.

Personal innovativeness
Hofstedes cultural theory suggests that uncertainty-accepting cultures are more prone to be
accepting of new ideas and innovations, and more open to try new or different products
(Hofstede, 2001). Similarly, Yeniyurt and Townsend (2003) found that having a high score of
power distance and uncertainty avoidance prevents the acceptance of new products. In another
2014 British Educational Research Association

Cross-country differences in mobile learning adoption

705

study, Singh (2006) found that the societies that have a low score of power distance, uncertainty
avoidance and masculinity are more innovative. We therefore predict that the personal
innovativeness defined as the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new
ideas than other members of a system (Rogers, 2003, p 22) may have a stronger effect on the
adoption of mobile learning in low uncertainty avoidance cultures. Deriving from the above
theoretical and empirical support, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H6: The relationship between personal innovativeness and adoption of mobile learning will be stronger in
Canada than in Turkey.

Methodology
Data collection
Significant cultural differences between Canada and Turkey may have a significant impact on
technology adoption and usage behaviour. As they are substantially different, particularly in
the dimensions of individualism versus collectivism and uncertainty avoidance, Canada
(high individualism, low uncertainty avoidance) and Turkey (high collectivism, high uncertainty
avoidance) were selected to conduct this study. In total, 353 participants, including 190 Turkish
(87 male, 103 female) and 163 Canadian (82 male, 81 female) randomly selected undergraduate
students whose ages ranged from 18 to 25 years, were recruited for the study. The participants
were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point scale ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree.
The questionnaire items were carefully developed in an attempt to obtain content validity and
face validity. In preparing them, we utilised questionnaire items that had been successfully used in
prior studies: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, financial resources
(Venkatesh et al, 2003), personal innovativeness (Wang & Qualls, 2007) and experience (Lin & Lin,
2008). Accordingly, the questionnaire items were tailored to the adoption of mobile learning. The
measurement items and their properties, including means, standard deviations (SD), factor loadings (load) and the p-values of regression coefficients, are shown in Table A1 in the Appendix.
Data analysis
A multi-group analysis using amos (v.20; IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS AMOS, Armonk,
NY, USA) was employed to identify relationships among the constructs and test the hypothesised
relationships. Kline (2005) recommended a sample size of 100150 to obtain reliable results in
structural equation modelling. The sample size for both cases of the study is more than the upper
bound, and thus meets recommended guidelines. The data met the assumptions of parametric
statistics (ie, normal distribution and equal variance). Therefore, as a further analysis, an
independent-samples t-test was carried out to identify significant differences between the groups.
Reliability analysis
The reliability analysis results show that the Cronbachs alpha value of the questionnaire items
was .88 for Turkey. For Canada, the reliability of the questionnaire items was .87. These suggest
that the instrument has strong internal consistency with the Cronbachs alpha values above an
acceptable level of .70.
Convergent and discriminant validity
The validity of each construct was assessed by investigating discriminant validity and convergent
validity. The average variance extracted (AVE) values for each construct exceeded 0.50, demonstrating that the convergent validity for all constructs is adequate as convergent validity is judged
to be adequate when AVE equals or exceeds 0.50 (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010). In
addition, the composite reliability values exceeded the threshold value of .70 recommended by
Nunnally (1978).
2014 British Educational Research Association

706

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

Table 1: Correlation matrix and validity assessment results

Turkey
PE
EE
SI
FC
PI
Ex
Canada
PE
EE
SI
FC
PI
Ex

AVE

CR

PE

EE

SI

FC

PI

Ex

0.64
0.69
0.59
0.51
0.54
0.77

0.84
0.87
0.81
0.75
0.76
0.91

0.80
0.66
0.45
0.33
0.32
0.35

0.83
0.53
0.34
0.32
0.46

0.77
0.46
0.33
0.52

0.71
0.27
0.23

0.73
0.56

0.88

0.58
0.67
0.58
0.67
0.53
0.76

0.71
0.85
0.71
0.86
0.76
0.90

0.76
0.39
0.27
0.40
0.16
0.10

0.82
0.16
0.28
0.42
0.47

0.76
0.42
0.06
0.04

0.82
0.19
0.16

0.73
0.54

0.87

Note: Diagonal elements are shown in bold. AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability; EE,
effort expectancy; Ex, experience; FC, facilitating conditions; PE, performance expectancy; PI, personal
innovativeness; SI, social influence.

As seen in Table 1, the diagonal elements, which are the square root of the shared variance
between the constructs and their measures, in the correlation matrix were greater than the
off-diagonal elements, which are correlations between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This
suggests that the each construct shared more variance with its items than it does with other
constructs, thereby ensuring that no multicollinearity exists among the constructs.
Hypotheses testing
The multi-group analysis was employed to test hypothesised relationships. The results for Canada
show that performance expectancy, effort expectancy and experience have a significant effect
on adoption at the .001 level, whereas social influence, facilitating conditions and personal
innovativeness have a significant effect at the .01 level. However, the results for Turkey indicate
that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence and experience have a significant
effect on adoption at the .001 level, whereas personal innovativeness has a significant effect at the
.05 level. On the other hand, facilitating conditions have no statistically significant effect on the
adoption in Turkey at the .05 level. These results provide support for H1, H2, H3 and H5.
To test H4 and H6, along with their significance levels, path coefficients, which indicate the
relative importance of each variable in the combination of predictors, were used. First, distribution of data was analysed by the KolmogorovSmirnov test. Normally distributed data were
compared using an independent-samples t-test to determine whether the responses across
the variables differ based on the country of the respondents. The independent-samples t-test
results show that there is a significant difference between the countries in all factors except effort
expectancy.
The results indicate that social influence has a much stronger and more significant effect on
adoption in Turkey than in Canada; therefore, H4 is supported. Likewise, personal innovativeness
has a much stronger and more significant effect on adoption in Canada than in Turkey; therefore,
H6 is supported. Note that the percentage of total variance explained by these factors is 60%
for Turkey, whereas it is 65.4% for Canada. These suggest that the tested variables have a
high explanatory power. Table 2 provides the results of hypotheses testing, including the path
2014 British Educational Research Association

Cross-country differences in mobile learning adoption

707

Table 2: Hypothesis-testing results

Turkey

Canada

Construct

Path
coefficient

C.R.

Path
coefficient

C.R.

t-value

Results

Performance expectancy
Effort expectancy
Facilitating conditions
Social influence
Experience
Personal innovativeness

0.333***
0.353***
0.059 (NS)
0.376***
0.999***
0.056*

4.13
5.51
1.95
3.52
7.78
1.99

0.540***
0.309***
0.195**
0.226**
0.431***
0.137**

4.96
4.03
3.21
3.11
5.88
3.15

4.06***
0.433 (NS)
4.89***
5.19***
13.96***
5.67**

H1: Supported
H2: Supported
H3: Supported
H4: Supported
H5: Supported
H6: Supported

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. C.R., critical ratio; NS, not significant.

coefficients (unstandardised estimates) with significance levels, the estimate divided by the standard error (abbreviated C.R. for critical ratio) and t-values along with their significance levels.
The Pearsons chi-squared test was conducted to determine whether there was a significant
difference in adoption decision between two groups of undergraduate students. The results show
that cultural differences have a strongly significant effect on adoption behaviour of students at the
.001 level (2 = 10.81). This finding suggests that there is a higher adoption rate in Canada,
which is an individualistic and low uncertainty avoidance culture than in Turkey, which is a
collectivistic and high uncertainty avoidance culture.
Furthermore, an independent samples t-test was conducted to examine whether there were
significant differences between adopters and non-adopters in relation to their attitudes and opinions on each factor. The test revealed a statistically significant difference between adopters and
non-adopters in all factors at the .0001 level.
Implications and conclusion
Key findings
We hypothesised that performance expectancy, effort expectancy and experience have a positively
significant effect on the adoption of mobile learning through smart phones in both countries. Our
findings, along with previous studies, support these hypotheses. Previously, Zhou, Lu and Wang
(2010) combined the UTAUT with task technology fit theory to identify drivers of mobile banking
adoption. Their findings indicate that the performance expectancy, task technology fit, social
influence and facilitating conditions have a significant effect on adoption. In another study,
Wang, Wu and Wang (2009) applied the UTAUT to predict the acceptance of mobile learning
based on 330 completed questionnaires from five organisations. They found that the selfmanagement of learning, social influence, perceived playfulness, effort expectancy and performance expectancy are all significant antecedents of mobile learning adoption by organisations.
Experience has been also identified as a significant adoption factor as in (Cheong & Park, 2005;
Liao & Lu, 2008).
We predict that the availability of organisational and technical infrastructure to support mobile
learning will be greater in Canada as a developed country. We therefore hypothesised that facilitating conditions will have a stronger effect on the adoption of mobile learning in Canada. Our
findings suggest that facilitating conditions factor is a significant predictor of adoption in
Canada, while it has no significant effect on the adoption in Turkey, and thereby provide support
for this hypothesis. We also hypothesised that social influence will have a stronger effect on
adoption in Turkey as a collectivistic country. The findings show that social influence has a
much stronger and more significant effect on the adoption in Turkey, and thus provide support
for this hypothesis.
2014 British Educational Research Association

708

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

The findings provide support for the last hypothesis, which predicts that personal innovativeness
will have a stronger effect on the adoption of mobile learning in Canada. The findings show that
personal innovativeness has a much stronger and more significant effect on the adoption in
Canada, and thus provide support for this hypothesis.
Hofstedes cultural theory (1984) imply that Canadian culture is more accepting towards
uncertainty. This requires that Canadians should be more prone to accept new ideas and more
willing to try innovative products. According to results, along with this theory, the significance
and explanatory power of personal innovativeness is much higher in Canada than in Turkey.
However, based on our observations, it appears that Canadians use the products that they have
purchased for a longer period of time and do not explore new products frequently. Thus, although
they have a high level of innovativeness, Canadians tend to keep their purchased products for a
longer time and therefore do not feel the necessity to purchase new items as frequently as the
consumers in Turkey. In addition, it may be beneficial to state that Turkey has the sixth largest
youth mobile subscriber base in the world (TURKSTAT, 2014). Young consumers may have a
higher tendency to be brand obsessed and therefore feel more compelled to purchase new items on
the market even though they may not necessarily have the need or the means for the purchase.
Previously, Dittmar (2005) examined the role of gender, age and endorsement of materialistic
values in buying behaviour. The results show that age has a strongly significant impact on buying
behaviour with younger customers more prone to compulsive buying.
Implications and directions for future research
This paper aims to understand the effect of cultural differences on the adoption behaviour of
students in two different countries. In Turkey, experience has been identified as the strongest
predictor of adoption behaviour. Therefore, it seems that the existence of previous experience in
using mobile technologies has a positive and significant impact on mobile learning adoption
through smart phones. However, facilitating conditions are not a significant predictor of adoption. This can be interpreted as there are problems arising from the lack of organisational and
technical infrastructure to support mobile learning.
In Canada, traditional UTAUT constructs were found more important than individual characteristics. Specifically, performance expectancy appeared to be the strongest determinant of adoption
behaviour. This implies that the advantages of smart phones such as mobility, ubiquity, flexibility
and always-on connectivity are key drivers of adoption. Furthermore, personal innovativeness
is also a significant predictor of adoption behaviour in Canada. This finding suggests that students adoption decisions are mainly derived from their character traits of being open to new ideas
and tending to accept innovative products. In this regard, a high level of personal innovativeness
positively affects adoption.
The findings suggest that there are significant differences in adoption behaviour of students
between the two countries. There are also key differences between them in pedagogical context
and perceptions of teaching and learning. Therefore, the implications of the findings for the
students in these countries will also be different. For example, students in collectivist cultures
such as Turkey are more introvert and depend on group effort. The adoption of mobile learning
facilitates communication among group members and provides easy and flexible access to social
networks. For the faculty in collectivist cultures, an effective strategy would be to assign small
group projects and use social networks effectively as they are the primary source of information
in collectivist societies. Thus, students may appreciate mobile learning, which allow them to
interact and learn in a more democratic and participatory environment than traditional learning
environments.
On the other hand, students in individualistic cultures such as Canada are more extrovert,
self-reliant and more concerned about privacy. The successful adoption of mobile learning may
2014 British Educational Research Association

Cross-country differences in mobile learning adoption

709

enable students in individualistic cultures to communicate with their faculty and each other in a
more private and personal environment. Moreover, such an adoption may also help social construction of knowledge fostering cooperative and collaborative learning activities through synchronous and asynchronous communication.
Taken together, the present study demonstrated that cultural differences have a significant effect
on the adoption mobile learning. Therefore, instructors, content and application developers,
service providers, and device manufacturers should be sensitive to the cultural differences for a
successful adoption. An effective strategy for mobile service providers and device manufacturers
would be to take into account the cultural background of students while developing and marketing mobile services and devices in a mobile learning context. Likewise, content and application
developers should also consider these differences in developing mobile learning content and
mobile applications.
The findings of this research can be used to guide the development of effective blended learning
strategies. For example, in individualistic cultures such as Canada, mobile learning may influence
the effectiveness of blended learning allowing teachers work closely and directly with individual
students as smart phones provide richer and deeper interactions between them. On the other
hand, in collectivistic countries such as Turkey, mobile learning may enhance group collaboration while supporting user-centred learning, thereby addresses individual differences in speed of
learning, allowing students to control content and more importantly fully master their skills.
Several limitations of the study should be addressed by future research. First, the proposed model
was tested in Canada and Turkey; therefore, additional studies in different countries would be
required to enhance the generalisability of findings. Second, future studies of a qualitative nature
would be required to confirm and triangulate the findings. Third, this study focused on smart
phones; therefore, the results should be applied to other technologies with caution.
The study examined the effect of cultural differences on the adoption of mobile learning focusing
on students. Focusing only on the students and neglecting the academics adoption mindset is a
limitation as academics readiness is a vital point in mobile learning. Future research should
therefore focus on a comparison between the two countries to see how academics think about
such movement, given that in many countries academics still prohibit students from using mobile
phones in the classroom. It would also be interesting to compare how academics think about
the real process of integrating mobile learning into the educational system, as mobile learning
implementation needs to be addressed with regard to various educational aspects, such as curriculum and pedagogy, institutional readiness, teacher competencies, and long-term financing.
To handle such drastic changes in education, not only students are expected to be supportive of
new learning methodologies; universities and academics also need to be equipped with the
acquired literacy and skills regarding the new educational technology.
References

Attewell, J. (2005). Mobile technologies and learning: a technology update and m-learning project summary.
London: Learning and Skills Development Agency.
Barczak, G., Hultink, E. J. & Sultan, F. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of information technology
usage in NPD: a comparison of Dutch and U.S. Companies. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25,
6, 620631.
Cheong, J. H. & Park, M. C. (2005). Mobile internet acceptance in Korea. Internet Research, 15, 2, 125140.
Chow, C. W., Deng, F. J. & Ho, J. L. (2000). The openness of knowledge sharing within organizations:
a comparative study of the United States and the Peoples Republic of China. Journal of Management
Accounting Research, 12, 6595.
Corbeil, J. R. & Valdes-Corbeil, M. E. (2007). Are you ready for mobile learning? Educause Quarterly, 30, 2,
5158.
CRTC (2014). Communications monitoring report. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://www.crtc.gc.ca/
eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2013/cmr2013.pdf
2014 British Educational Research Association

710

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

Dittmar, H. (2005). Compulsive buyinga growing concern? An examination of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 4, 467491.
Downing, C. E., Gallaugher, J. M. & Segars, A. H. (2003). Information technology choices in dissimilar
cultures: enhancing empowerment. Journal of Global Information Management, 11, 1, 2039.
Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 1, 3950.
Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: at the tipping point. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology
(TOJET), 10, 4, 261275.
Griffith, T. L. (1998). Cross cultural and cognitive issues in the implementation of a new technology: focus
on group support systems in Bulgaria. Interacting With Computers, 9, 4, 431447.
Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hasan, H. & Ditsa, G. (1999). The impact of culture on the adoption of it: an interpretive study. Journal of
Global Information Management, 7, 1, 515.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: international differences in work-related values (pp 335355).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: international differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across
nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind (3rd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hunter, M. G. & Beck, J. E. (2000). Using repertory grids to conduct cross-cultural. Information Systems
Research, 11, 1, 93101.
Husted, B. W. (2000). The impact of national culture on software piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 26, 3,
197211.
ICTA. (2014). Electronic communications market in Turkey. Ankara: Information and Communication
Technology Authority.
ITU (2014). The World in 2013: ICT facts and figures. Retrieved March 26, 2014, from http://www.itu.int/
en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2013-e.pdf
Keil, M., Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V. & Wassenaar, A. (2000). A cross-cultural study
on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects. MIS Quarterly, 24, 2, 295325.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Klopfer, E. & Squire, K. (2008). Environmental detectivesthe development of an augmented reality platform for environmental simulations. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 2, 203228.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007). Mobile usability in educational contexts: what have we learnt? The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 2, 116.
Kukulska-Hulme, A. & Traxler, J. (2005). Mobile learning: a handbook for educators and trainers. London:
Routledge.
Leidner, D. E., Carlsson, S., Elam, J. & Corrales, M. (1999). Mexican and Swedish managers perceptions of
the impact of EIS on organizational intelligence, decision making, and structure. Decision Sciences, 30, 3,
633661.
Liao, H. L. & Lu, H. P. (2008). The role of experience and innovation characteristics in the adoption and
continued use of e-learning websites. Computers & Education, 51, 4, 10451416.
Lin, H. F. & Lin, S. M. (2008). Determinants of e-business diffusion: a test of the technology diffusion
perspective. Technovation, 28, 3, 135145.
Maniar, N., Bennett, E., Hand, S. & Allan, G. (2008). The effect of mobile phone screen size on video based
learning. Journal of Software, 3, 4, 5161.
Mejias, R. J., Shepherd, M. M., Vogel, D. R. & Lazaneo, L. (1996/97). Consensus and perceived satisfaction
and consensus levels: a cross cultural comparison of GSS and non-GSS outcomes within and between the
US and Mexico. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 3, 137161.
Milberg, S. J., Burke, S. J., Smith, J. H. & Kallman, E. A. (1995). Rethinking copyright issues and ethics on the
net: values, personal information privacy, and regulatory approaches. Communications of the ACM, 38,
12, 6573.
Murphy, A. (2006). Mobile learning in a global context: a training analysis. ICN/ICONS/MCL 2006, 219,
Morne, Mauritius.
Naismith, L., Peter, L., Giasemi, V. & Sharples, M. (2004). Literature review in mobile technologies and learning.
Bristol: Futurelab.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
2014 British Educational Research Association

Cross-country differences in mobile learning adoption

711

Pei-Luen, P. R., Gao, Q. & Li-Mei, W. (2006). Using mobile communication technology in high school
education: motivation, pressure, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 50, 1, 122.
Png, I. P. L., Tan, B. C. Y. & Wee, K. L. (2001). Dimensions of national culture and corporate adoption of IT
infrastructure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48, 1, 3645.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Saad, R. G., Nebebe, F. & Mak, T. (2009). The role of intrinsic motivation in system adoption: a crosscultural perspective. Journal of Information, Information Technology, and Organizations, 4, 2009, 107126.
Savill-Smith, C. & Kent, P. (2003). The use of palmtop computers for learning: a review of the literature. London:
Learning & Skills Development Agency.
Sharma, S. K. & Kitchens, F. L. (2004). Web services architecture for mobile learning. Journal of e-Learning,
2, 1, 203216.
Shin, D.-H. (2012). Cross-analysis of usability and aesthetic in smart devices: what influences users
preferences? Cross Cultural Management, 19, 4, 563587.
Shore, B., Venkatachalam, A. R., Solorzano, E., Burn, J. M., Hassan, S. Z. & Janczewski, L. J. (2001).
Softlifting and piracy: behavior across cultures. Technology in Society, 23, 4, 563581.
Singh, S. (2006). Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers propensity to adopt innovations.
International Marketing Review, 23, 2, 173191.
Srite, M. (2000). The influence of national culture on the acceptance and use of information technologies:
an empirical study, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., Weaver, M. K. & Dickson, P. H. (2000). The influence of national culture on
the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 5,
951973.
Straub, D. (1994). The effect of culture on it diffusion: email and fax in Japan and the US. Information Systems
Research, 5, 1, 2347.
Teo, T., Su Luan, W. & Sing, C. C. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology
between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: an application of the technology acceptance
model (TAM). Educational Technology & Society, 11, 4, 265280.
Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the wave of culture. London: The Economist Books.
Trompenaars, F. (1996). Resolving international conflict: culture and business strategy. Business Strategy
Review, 7, 3, 5168.
TURKSTAT. (2014). Turkeys statistical yearbook. Ankara: Turkish Statistical Institute.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B. & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425478.
Wang, Y. C. & Qualls, W. (2007). Towards a theoretical model of technology adoption in hospitality organizations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 3, 560573.
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, 92118.
Yeniyurt, S. & Townsend, J. D. (2003). Does culture explain acceptance of new products in a country? An
empirical investigation. International Marketing Review, 20, 4, 377396.
Zhao, F. (2011). Impact of national culture on e-government development: a global study. Internet Research,
21, 3, 362380.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y. & Wang, B. (2010). Integrating TTF and UTAUT to explain mobile banking user adoption.
Computers in Human Behaviour, 26, 4, 760767.

2014 British Educational Research Association

712

British Journal of Educational Technology

Vol 46 No 4 2015

Appendix
Table A1: Measurement items and their properties
Turkey
Construct and items
Performance expectancy (Venkatesh et al, 2003)
Using mobile learning would increase the
efficiency of my studies and work.
Using smart phones would enhance my access
to information related to my study anytime
and anywhere.
Mobile learning enables me to accomplish tasks
more quickly.
Effort Expectancy (Venkatesh et al, 2003)
Learning to use smart phones for mobile
learning would be easy.
It would be easy for me to become skilful at
using mobile learning devices.
Access to information related to my study using
smart phones would be simple.
Facilitating Conditions (Venkatesh et al, 2003)
I have the mobile devices necessary for mobile
learning.
Mobile learning is compatible with other
systems I use.
A specific person (or group) is available for
assistance with mobile learning difficulties.
Social Influence (Venkatesh et al, 2003)
People who influence my behaviour think that I
should use mobile learning devices.
People who are important to me think that I
should use mobile learning devices.
My university has supported the use of mobile
learning.
Experience (Lin & Lin, 2008)
I am aware of the functions of smart phones.
I am knowledgeable enough to use smart
phones for mobile learning.
I am knowledgeable enough to use smart
phones for my studies.
Personal Innovativeness (Wang & Qualls, 2007)
I welcome new ideas.
I frequently explore new products.
I often buy new products first.
**p < .001; ***p < .0001. SD, standard deviation.

2014 British Educational Research Association

Canada

Mean

SD

Load

Mean

SD

Load

2.01

0.83

0.76

**

2.39

0.98

0.70

**

1.86

0.79

0.71

**

1.96

0.97

0.70

**

2.12

0.94

0.60

***

2.28

1.00

0.74

***

2.12

0.83

0.76

**

2.13

0.90

0.74

**

2.09

0.82

0.68

**

1.94

0.88

0.81

**

1.97

0.83

0.74

***

2.11

0.90

0.62

***

2.69

1.00

0.88

**

2.03

1.06

0.77

**

2.62

1.02

0.85

**

2.14

0.88

0.90

**

1.93

0.79

0.30

***

2.71

0.87

0.50

***

2.76

1.43

0.68

**

2.85

0.94

0.68

**

2.67

0.97

0.75

**

2.85

1.00

0.62

**

2.56

1.09

0.54

***

2.50

0.88

0.55

***

2.46
2.67

1.09
1.09

0.74
0.92

**
***

1.68
1.79

0.78
0.81

0.72
0.81

**
***

2.69

1.11

0.81

**

1.77

0.86

0.87

**

1.50
2.34
3.81

0.66
1.07
1.11

0.33
0.80
0.69

***
**
**

1.59
1.97
2.80

0.67
0.88
1.15

0.55
0.71
0.57

***
**
**