Ali - Extending The TAM To Examine The Effects of Quality

J. Comput. Educ.
DOI 10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1
Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality

features on mobile learning acceptance
Mohammed Amin Almaiah1 • Masita Abdul Jalil1 •
Mustafa Man1
Received: 10 June 2016 / Revised: 24 July 2016 / Accepted: 25 July 2016

Beijing Normal University 2016
Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of quality features on
students’ beliefs towards acceptance of mobile learning based on extending tech-
nology acceptance model (TAM) and the updated DeLone and McLean information
system success model (DL&ML). This study gathered sample data from five public
universities in Jordan. A total of 400 questionnaires were randomly distributed, and
392 usable questionnaires were analyzed, with a usable response rate of 81.6 %. The
research results revealed that learning content quality, content design quality,
interactivity, functionality, user-interface design, accessibility, personalization, and
responsiveness, as the primary antecedents of mobile learning acceptance which had
positive effects on students’ perception with regard to their beliefs (i.e., perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use) and this situation can lead to enhance stu-
dents’ behavioral intention to use of mobile learning application.
Keywords Mobile learning acceptance Quality features TAM model

The updated DeLone and McLean model Students’ perception Jordan
& Mohammed Amin Almaiah

Mohammed.Almaiah@hotmail.com
Masita Abdul Jalil
Masita@umt.edu.my
Mustafa Man
Mustafaman@umt.edu.my
1
Department of Computer Science, School of Informatics and Applied Mathematics, Universiti
Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Introduction
Recently, the new generations of mobile devices contribute more benefits in

learning environments rather than traditional and desktop computers (Althunibat
2015). Mobile learning can be defined as a flexible learning tool through the use of
mobile handheld devices in the context of learning and education (Abachi and
Muhammad 2014) which offers some special capabilities that support learners such
as mobility, freedom and self study, availability, facilitate student–teacher
interactions and information sharing (Bidin and Ziden 2013; Ozdamli and Cavus
2011; Viberg and Grönlund 2013). Mobile learning has a positive impact on
learners, regardless of whether they are teachers or students, in that it positively
affects on their attitudes towards learning, and enhances their perceptions to easily
access learning activities in a real time (Abachi and Muhammad 2014; O’bannon
and Thomas 2014). Previous studies have pointed out that learning of anytime and
anywhere and access to learning materials and interaction between learners are
facilitated through using mobile learning (Althunibat 2015; O’bannon and Thomas
2014). Dahlstrom et al. (2013) noted that 67 % of the students involved in mobile
learning expressed that mobile learning is very essential in educational context, and
they favor using this technology because of the flexible access regardless of time
and place, facile online collaborative learning, and assisting teachers to deliver
information anytime and anywhere. In contrast, Jaradat (2014) indicated that
majority of students in Jordan have some concerns about using mobile learning and
that the percentage of students’ acceptance of mobile learning is 39 %. However,
mobile learning is still in an early stage of development (Park et al. 2012) and the
demand for the development of mobile learning is increasingly growing (Abu-Al-
Aish and Love 2013); still there is a need for further research on key factors
affecting mobile learning acceptance (Al-Emran et al. 2016; Althunibat 2015;
Mohammadi 2015) like quality features, which could contribute to enhance the
system quality, design, contents and services, and their implications on a successful
implementation of mobile learning system. Students do not want just mobile
devices; they want a high quality of mobile learning applications which satisfy and
meet their needs and requirements in order to accept and use this technology
(Almaiah and Man 2016).
Previous studies have used theories of information technology acceptance such as
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),
DeLone & McLean’s model (DL&ML), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology (UTAUT) to identify mobile learning students’ acceptance
based on their beliefs and behavioral intentions to use. Some of these studies have
taken into consideration some of the factors of mobile learning acceptance like
social, culture, cost, and facilitating conditions (e.g., Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013;
Althunibat 2015; Mohammadi 2015). In this study, it is intended to introduce a
hybrid model of TAM and DeLone & McLean’s model for evaluating the quality
features as antecedents of mobile learning acceptance. As Cheng (2012) noted, it is
essential to examine the relationship between quality factors and learners’
123
J. Comput. Educ.
perceptions and their beliefs, because quality factors are an important indicators of
the system’s success.
Almarashdeh et al. (2010) in their attempts to assess learning management
systems success in Malaysian universities, identified information quality, system
quality, service quality, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, influential
towards user satisfaction, and intention to use. Cheng (2012), in his attempts to
assess the influence of quality factors on students’ acceptance of e-learning systems
in Taiwan, identified that information quality, system quality, service quality,
perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and perceived enjoyment improve
students’ intentions to use e-learning systems.
However, in most of the studies conducted in mobile learning setting, some
important external variables are ignored, and thus, in this research, we tried to
incorporate a collection of external quality factors in our model and examine their
effects on mobile learning acceptance based on a hybrid model of DeLone &
McLean’s model and TAM model. This study is focused on Jordan as one of the
developing countries in the Arab world, which registers a large penetration rate of
mobile phones over 140 % in 2013, ranking Jordan second in the Arab world in
terms of mobile Internet users aged 18–29 according to The Jordan Times (2014).
This research, compared to Cheng (2012) who uses the TAM and DeLone &
McLean’s model to measure e-learning antecedents, tries to step forward to
investigate the students’ acceptance on e-learning which seems to be the main
contribution of the study along with the fact that it tries to examine quality factors
such as course content quality, design quality, functionality, interactivity, interface
design, and responsiveness, which have seldom been investigated in the context of
mobile learning acceptance.
This study attempts to fill a research gap by evaluating whether quality features
including learning content quality, content design quality, interactivity, function-
ality, user-interface design, accessibility, interactivity personalization, and respon-
siveness as the antecedents to student beliefs including perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use can affect students’ intention to use mobile learning.
Moreover, this study tries to determine the most relevant quality features for mobile
learning that aid in developing mobile learning applications in the education
environment in order to avoid possibility of failure in post-implementation.
Therefore, the main research objectives are formulated as follows:
Q1 Do the quality features have positive effects on mobile learning acceptance in

Jordan?
Q2 Which are the most relevant quality features for developing mobile learning
applications?
The structure of this paper is organized as follows: ‘‘Literature review’’ section

presents the literature and related studies of mobile learning acceptance. ‘‘The
proposed contribution’’ section presents the proposed contribution of this study.
‘‘Research model and hypotheses’’ section proposes the research model and
hypotheses. Methodology is presented in ‘‘Research methodology’’ section. ‘‘Data
analysis and results’’ and ‘‘Discussion’’ sections contain data analysis and discuss
123
J. Comput. Educ.
the results. Finally, ‘‘Conclusion and future works’’ section summarizes this paper
and future works.
Literature review
Acceptance of a new system and technology has become a prior step for a successful
implementation of any system. To address this problem, several theories were
presented to explore the determinants of user acceptance of Information System/
Technology IS/IT (Davis 1989). The Technology Acceptance Model developed by
Davis (1989) seems to be the most widely used technology adoption model. This
model has been applied in a variety of studies to predict the factors affecting user’s
acceptance of new technology (Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Wang et al. 2003). In
fact, TAM is derived from a well-known model of Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA). TAM model describes the influences of external variables on the internal
beliefs, and proposes a sequential relationship of beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral
intentions which in turn leads to actual use of the system (see Fig. 1), which enables
us to predict the acceptance of information systems and technologies by users.
Essentially, TAM focuses on two key constructs of internal beliefs, perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), that are the key drivers for
measuring and predicting acceptance of IS/IT by users (Venkatesh et al. 2003).
Perceived usefulness refers to the degree to which the end-user believes that using
the system will enhance the performance, and perceived ease of use indicates to the
degree to which the end-user believes that using the system will be free of effort
(Davis 1989). Many studies have examined and confirmed constructs of PU and
PEOU to be valid in understanding an individual’s perception towards the
acceptance of mobile learning system (Althunibat 2015; Mohammadi 2015).
On the other hand, the updated DeLone & McLean’s IS success model proposed
by DeLone and McLean (2003) appears to be the most widely used model for IS
success. This model has been applied in a variety of studies to examine information
systems success in different contexts (Ahn et al. 2007; Cheng 2012; Lwoga 2014;
Wang and Wang 2009). The main idea of DL&ML model is to provide an extensive
review for formulating the measures of information system success. DeLone and
McLean (2003) suggests six dimensions of IS success including information quality,
system quality, service quality, user satisfaction, intention to use, and net benefits.
Perceived
Usefulness
External Atude Behavioral Perceived
Variables Toward to Intenon to Usefulness
Use Use
Perceived
Ease of Use
Fig. 1 TAM model
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Essentially, DL&ML model focuses on quality factors that are the key components
of information systems success. Many researchers approved that the factors relating
to quality play a vital role in the success of many types of information systems
(Holsapple and Lee-Post 2010; Lee and Kozar 2006; Roca et al. 2006).
Wang and Wang (2009) conducted an empirical study to examine the effect of
quality factors on adoption of web-based learning systems in Taiwan. The findings
indicated that the information quality, system quality, and service quality had
significant effect on perceived ease of use of web-based learning system, while
system quality had insignificant effect on perceived usefulness of web-based
learning system. Ahn et al. (2007) conducted a study to investigate the effect of
three types of quality factors on user acceptance of web retailing site among 492
users in Korea. The findings of the study showed that the system quality,
information quality, and service quality had significant impact on perceived ease of
use and perceived usefulness. Cheng (2012) in his study has examined the effect of
quality factors on intention to use e-learning system in Taiwan. The results indicated
the effects of information quality factors: content quality had significant effects on
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, and design quality had significant
effects on perceived ease of use, but insignificant effects on perceived usefulness. In
addition, the results showed that the service quality had significant effects on
perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Also the results from system quality
factors as follows: functionality, interactivity, responsiveness, and interface design
had significant effects on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness, except
esponsiveness had insignificant effects on perceived ease of use. In addition, Lwoga
(2014) confirmed in a study among 408 students in Tanzania that system quality and
information quality had significant effect on perceived usefulness, while service
quality had insignificant effects on perceived usefulness. Cho et al. (2009) in his
study in relation to examining the factors influencing users’ intentions to continue
use e-learning tool reported that system functionality and interface design had
significant and positive impact on perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.
Pituch and Lee (2006) confirmed in the study using TAM that system functionality,
interactivity, and responsiveness had significant and positive impact on perceived
ease of use and perceived usefulness of e-learning system in the USA among 259
students. Al-Debei (2014) conducted a study to examine the influence of quality
factors on behavioral intention to use university websites among Jordanian students.
The findings indicated that the information quality had significant effect on
perceived usefulness, and system quality had significant effect on perceived ease of
use. But seldom does any research have examined the effects of quality features on
Other related studies
On the other hand, there are other related studies in the area of mobile learning
acceptance that deserve to be mentioned in this research. Researchers used other
range of information technology acceptance theories in mobile learning studies such
as Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), Innovation
Diffusion Theory (IDT) (Rogers 1983), and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
123
J. Comput. Educ.
of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003), in order to explore and predict

determinants to accept mobile learning. However, the most used theoretical
background in the mobile learning acceptance studies is TAM. Researchers have
integrated, extended, enriched, widened, augmented, modified, and decomposed the
TAM model to be an appropriate fit into the mobile learning student acceptance
studies (Chang et al. 2012; Park et al. 2012; Prieto et al. 2014).
Park et al. (2012) extended TAM with self-efficacy, system accessibility, and
subjective norm in a study of 288 students to investigate the factors that affect
mobile learning acceptance in Konkuk University in Korea. The results supported
the hypotheses that perceived usefulness, system accessibility, and subjective
norm significantly affected behavioral intention to accept mobile learning.
However, perceived ease of use and self-efficacy had less significant effects on
accepting mobile learning. In the same way, Sánchez-Prieto et al. (2016)
augmented TAM with subjective norm, self-efficacy, facilitating conditions,
previous experience, and perceived enjoyment for explaining acceptance of
mobile technologies from teachers’ perspectives in Spain. Another study
conducted by Al-Emran et al. (2016) have conducted study to determine the
significant factors that influencing learners’ attitudes towards acceptance of
mobile learning in higher education. The findings indicated that smartphone
ownership, academic majors, gender, and age had positive attitude to use mobile
learning in the higher education of UAE and Oman. Mohammadi (2015)
discovered the effects of subjective norm, self-efficacy, personal innovativeness,
and perceived image on users’ satisfaction and intention to use mobile learning in
Iran. The researcher found the significant effects of two factors: subjective norm
and perceived image. In Taiwan, Su and Cheng (2015) determined six factors that
affected significantly on Taiwanese users’ acceptance of mobile learning:
compatibility, convenience, navigation, usefulness, ease of use and enjoyment.
Another study in Latin America, Yamakawa et al. (2013) used TAM with mobility
and social influence to study the factors that affected the use of mobile
technologies at Peruvian university. The results supported the hypothesis that
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use significantly affected behavioral
intention to adopt mobile learning. In the same way, Yong Wee et al. (2011) found
that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use had high influence on
intention to use smart phone on learning environment in Malaysia. Zarmpou et al.
(2012) extended TAM for mobile services adoption with constructs trust,
innovativeness, relationship drivers, and functionality to predict acceptance of
mobile services in Greece. The results showed that the perceived usefulness,
innovativeness, and relationship drivers had the most impact on behavioral
intention to use mobile services, while perceived ease of use, trust, and
functionality had less impact. A study was conducted by Liu et al. (2010) to
explore what are the factors that influence the acceptance of mobile learning in
China. The researchers proposed a model based on six factors: self-efficacy,
learning autonomy, teacher readiness, student readiness, subjective norm, and
behavioral control.
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Mobile learning (M-learning)
Mobile learning can be defined as the integration of mobile handheld devices

together with wireless network technologies to enhance the learning and education
by facilitating students’ access to the learning materials anywhere and anytime (Lan
and Sie 2010). Basically, mobile learning is based on the use of mobile devices at
any time and in any place (Abachi and Muhammad 2014). In this research, mobile
learning refers to a new technology for learning that uses the mobile devices to
support students’ learning activities (Bidin and Ziden 2013; Ozdamli and Cavus
2011), which allows them to easily access to learning materials (e.g., courses,
lectures, assignments, and tests).
Essentially, the usage of mobile learning technology in higher education has
become very crucial due to the significant benefits that offered. Al-Emran et al.
(2016) argued, when mobile learning is integrated in higher education, it offers
many advantages for both students and educators such as learning at anytime and
anywhere, assisting educators to deliver any information anytime and anywhere,
and enabling them to perform their learning activities in more flexible and
comfortable. The findings of a survey conducted by Dahlstrom et al. (2013)
indicated that 67 % of the students expressed that mobile learning technology is
very necessary in the higher educational environments to support their learning
activities. Gikas and Grant (2013) conducted a qualitative study to explore the
effects of using mobile computing devices and social media on learning and
teaching based on students’ perceptions in three universities in the USA. The
researchers found that these technologies provided better opportunities for learning
and teaching. In addition, Glackin et al. (2014) highlighted that the integration of
mobile computing devices such as smart phones and e-books contributes to increase
the students’ awareness towards digital library. Advanced countries in the education
such as the United Kingdom, USA, Australia, European countries, Malaysia, and
Japan are using mobile learning in their higher education institutions (Khan et al.
2015). These countries have made a great effort to make the best use of mobile
learning technology. For instance, the United Kingdom has tackled a project of
mobile learning known as mobile learning network (MoLeNET) with a cost of
twelve millions British pounds towards supporting mobile learning in universities
and colleges in the UK (Molenet.org 2009). In Malaysia, the higher education of
Malaysia is working very hard to integrate mobile learning in their learning
programs as well as to motivate their students to use mobile learning due to the
cultural barriers to accept mobile learning (Ariffin 2011). In the USA, universities
are starting to provide free mobile devices to students for learning purposes, where
these devices enable students to download files from the library of the university. To
date, Jordan already has witnessed a very excellent development and significantly
booming in mobile telecommunication infrastructures, due to the strong commit-
ment of the Jordan government (Al-Shboul et al. 2013). With highly advanced
information and communication technologies, the mobile technologies find its way
into the field of education in Jordan as well, and thus, Jordanian universities are
exploiting mobile learning for enhancing learning and educational setting (Hassan
et al. 2016). Besides, with the development of new generations of mobile devices,
123
J. Comput. Educ.
mobile learning has emerged as a new trend in Jordanian universities (Hassan et al.
2016). In addition, mobile phone devices are the most widely used in Jordan,
because Jordan has registered the penetration rate of mobile phones over 140 % in
2013, according to statistics issued by the Telecommunications Regulatory
Commission (TRC). Also, Jordan scored a second rank in terms of mobile Internet
users aged (18–29) in the Arab world, which approximately 95 % (The Jordan
Times 2014). Furthermore, the mobile learning applications have the promising
potential to provide learning activities to Jordanian students (Althunibat 2015).
Based on these facts, it indicates that the Jordanian universities are very keen to
keep up with new technologies. However, mobile learning is still in early stage of
implementation in Jordan (Almasri 2014; Althunibat 2015). Mobile learning is a
relatively new tool; thus, mobile learning applications are still facing some
limitations in Jordan, and one of the major limitations is the students’ acceptance
(Althunibat 2015).
The proposed contribution
Based on the previous studies in the literature section which presents the
comparison between different studies and models for mobile learning acceptance,
the researcher found that these models are incomplete and do not cover all factors.
These models ignored some determinants that could contribute to enhance the
system quality, design and implementation, and how these determinants could
influence on the acceptance of mobile learning system. In addition, these models
ignored the importance of quality factors that may contribute to a successful
implementation of mobile learning system. Based on these facts, this study proposes
a model for mobile learning system acceptance based on nine quality features:
learning content quality, content design quality, functionality, accessibility,
interactivity, interface design, availability, personalization, and responsiveness
with the main constructs of TAM model. The proposed research model for this study
is shown in Fig. 2. All variables and hypotheses will be discussed in the following
sections.
Research model and hypotheses
This section of the study aims to present the justifications of the research model
selection and to discuss the research variables and hypotheses.
Conceptual framework development
TAM model provides robust theoretical support for the relationships between
acceptance antecedents and individual’s intention to use (Venkatesh et al. 2003).
But Davis (1989) noticed that external variables enhanced TAM’s ability to measure
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Learning content
quality
Content design
quality
Interactivity
Functionality Perceived
usefulness
Mobile learning User-Interface Behavior

Application Design intension to
use
Accessibility Perceived ease
of use
Availability
Personalization
Responsiveness
Fig. 2 Proposed model
and predict the antecedents of acceptance of technology. Thus, there is an essential

need to add additional external variables to the main constructs of TAM. On the
other hand, the updated DeLone and McLean model provides solid theoretical
support that the quality factors including learning content quality, content design
quality, interactivity, functionality, user-interface design, accessibility, availability,
personalization, and responsiveness are the critical aspects of information systems
success (Holsapple and Lee-Post 2010; Lee and Kozar 2006; Roca et al. 2006);
however, it lacks the theoretical support regarding the relationships between quality
features and individual’s beliefs and intention to use in the context of mobile
learning. Combining both types of models may complement each other and help
address their weaknesses. Thus, it appears reasonable to draw theoretical support
from both the updated DeLone and McLean and TAM in order to build a hybrid
model by taking quality features with perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
and behavioral intention to use (see Fig. 2).
The proposed model of this study contains twofold:
• Evaluation of quality features as the antecedents of mobile learning acceptance.

• Development of mobile learning application based on the quality antecedents of
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Research hypotheses
Learning content quality
Learning content quality consists of both content richness and update continuously
of the learning content (Lee and Kozar 2006). From Rieh’s (2002) viewpoint,
content quality refers to the extent of suitability of the content for users in terms of
reliability, currentness, and appropriateness. Learning content refers to any written
digital material sources such as lectures, courses, assignments, images, and quizzes.
The learning content quality is the primary component that plays a central role in the
success of mobile learning because it contributes to fully engage of students in the
learning experience. In addition, the learning content quality depends on specifying
the learners’ preferences and their needs, and thereby, mobile learning application
must be able to offer all students’ preferences about learning content (e.g., lectures,
courses, assignments, images, and quizzes). The requirements of learners should be
considered when designing learning content in educational technology systems
(Rovai 2004). To meet students’ requirements, mobile learning applications should
create separate learning content and should not be the same learning content that is
used in the computer-based applications (Sarrab et al. 2014). Practically, mobile
learning has great benefits to learners because of the richness of learning content
provided by the mobile learning application. As compared to other learning settings
(e.g., traditional learning and online learning), rich content and various activities of
learning content (e.g., lectures, courses, assignments, images, and quizzes) provided
by the mobile learning application may lead to feel that the mobile learning can be a
useful means of learning. Cheng (2012) found that the quality of learning content
has significant positive effects on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of
e-learning system. Therefore, this research discusses the relationship between
learning content quality and perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. This
leads to the following hypotheses for this study:
H1 Learning content quality will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
mobile learning application.
H2 Learning content quality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of
Content design quality
The content design quality refers to the type and format of learning content (Lee and
Kozar 2006). Format of learning content refers to the perceptions of students of how
the learning content is presented by the system. Liu et al. (2010) confirmed that the
type of learning content plays an important role for learners. In the mobile learning
context, there are three main formats of mobile learning content: (1) basic learning
contents (text, graphics, and charts), (2) multimedia learning contents (audio, video,
and animation), and (3) collaborative learning contents (share and send learning
content files). Therefore, the type and format of learning content will play a critical
123
J. Comput. Educ.
role in the design of mobile learning content. Cheng (2012) noted that the content
design quality is a critical factor in determining the success of e-learning. He also
found that the quality of design content has significant positive effects on perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use. Practically, when the design of mobile
learning content meets the learners’ preferences and their needs at various formats
of learning content with ease of access to different types of learning contents (e.g.,
text, graphics, audio, video, and animation), learners will start to perceive the
mobile learning application as a useful tool for learning and easy to use. Hence, this
research hypothesizes the following:
H3 Content design quality will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
H4 Content design quality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of
Interactivity
Interactivity can be defined is the interaction between students and their instructors
as well as among students themselves, and this interaction between them leads to
more collaboration and sharing in learning (Pituch and Lee 2006). Cheng (2012)
indicated that if students can get contact effectively with instructors and other
learners via the e-learning system and offers bidirectional contact between students
and instructors and among students themselves via the system; as a result, students
perceive that such a system is useful (Cheng, 2012; Paechter et al. 2010). Cheng
(2012) found that interactivity could positively affect perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use of the e-learning system. Practically, if students feel that the
mobile learning application allow them for more effective interaction between
students and instructors and among students themselves, and quickly exchange and
share the learning content among students via the application, they will perceive that
the mobile learning is an easy-to-use and useful tool for learning. Based on the
above discussion, this research discusses the relationship between interactivity and
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of mobile leaning. This leads to the
following hypotheses:
H5 Interactivity will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
learning application.
H6 Interactivity will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
Functionality
Cho et al. (2009) defined functionality as the necessary functions and features
provided by an information system that enable users to achieve their goals. As
reported by Pituch and Lee (2006), perceived functionality is the perception that the
e-learning system must include the necessary features that provide flexible access to
123
J. Comput. Educ.
learning materials and accomplish the required tasks. Cho et al. (2009) confirmed
that system functionality enhances the users’ perception about the system
usefulness. Cheng (2012) found that system functionality has significant effects
on learners’ beliefs of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of e-learning
system. In this study, mobile learning functionality through provides effective
features that would enable students to effectively perform their learning activities
and enable them to easily navigate between learning materials via mobile learning
application, and hence improve the application’s usefulness. In this regard, the
mobile learning application will be perceived as a useful learning tool and easy to
use. This leads us to come up with the following hypotheses for this research:
H7 Functionality will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H8 Functionality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
User-interface design
Cho et al. (2009) defined user-interface design as the perception of the structural
design of the interface of an information system which presents the features and
functions of the system. System with a good user interface leads to an ease of use
(Liang 1987). In contrast, poor interface design can create confusion and
misunderstanding. Cheng (2012) stated that the quality of user-interface design is
the key element in determining the level of usefulness and ease of use of the system.
Thus, user-interface design should be considered in the development of the mobile
learning application. Practically, a well-designed and organized interface can help
students to identify particular functions and features of the mobile learning
application; this will make students perceive that such application is useful for
learning. In addition, a simple and flexible user interface with good menu design
with control tool bars will reduce the effort while using a system; they will perceive
that the mobile learning application is user-friendly. Based on the above facts, this
study proposes the following hypotheses:
H9 User-interface design will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
H10 User-interface design will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of
Accessibility
Accessibility refers to the degree of ease of how a user can access and use the
information and extracted from the system (Al-Debei 2014). Park (2009) expressed
that system accessibility refers to the degree of ease that enables students to access
and use e-learning system. The researcher also indicated that higher accessibility of
e-learning system brings more use of information and more perception of ease of
123
J. Comput. Educ.
use for students. Lin and Lu (2000) noted that system accessibility is a direct
indicator of perceived of ease of use of a website. Park (2009) found that
accessibility has a significant effect on perceived ease of use of e-learning system.
In this study, mobile learning accessibility refers to the degree of ease access of
students to the learning content via mobile learning application. Practically, when
mobile learning provides students online access and download the learning
materials when and where they need via mobile learning application, they will
perceive that the mobile learning is an easy to use and useful tool for learning. Thus,
this study hypothesizes the following:
H11 Accessibility will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H12 Accessibility will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
Availability
Availability refers to the extent to which the information and system services can be
available for users regardless of time and place. Rahman et al. (2010) stated that
availability is a primary factor for users in determining service quality of mobile. Özer
et al. (2013) pointed out that availability of the services is directly related with user
satisfaction. Sarrab et al. (2016) indicated that the availability of mobile devices will
make mobile learning a viable and exciting option for students. Franklin (2011) noted
that the availability of mobile technologies creates opportunities for new tools for
learning. In the context of this study, the availability of mobile devices has given
universities unique opportunities to extend their services and deliver learning content
for students via mobile learning applications. Thus, if students feel that they can reach
the mobile learning services, and retrieve stored learning content in any environment
anytime and anywhere they would like via mobile learning application, they will
perceive high level of usefulness of this application and an exciting tool for learning
and ease of use. Based on the above discussion, this research discusses the relationship
between availability and perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of mobile
leaning. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H13 Availability will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H14 Availability will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
Personalization
Personalization refers to the level of customization of the information, services, and

user interface of the system based on the user’s needs. Kellerer et al. (2003) claimed
personalization as one of the critical characteristics of service quality for mobile
systems in the future. Wingkvist (2009) stated that providing personalization and
123
J. Comput. Educ.
customization for students through the application makes learning experience better.
Pollara and Broussard (2011) confirmed that the use of personalization features in
mobile learning helps design an application that accommodates the learners’ needs
and requirements. Personalization features can be achieved through determining the
learners’ characteristics such as requirements, learner profile, and learning styles
(Ali et al. 2015). In mobile learning context, mobile learning application allows
students to create learning profiles, organize and share their personal learning issues,
and perform learning services such as courses registration. In this regard, the mobile
learning application will be perceived as a useful learning tool and easy to use. This
leads us to come up with the following hypotheses for this research:
H15 Personalization will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H16 Personalization will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
Responsiveness
Responsiveness refers to the degree to which a user perceives that the response from the
system is fast, reasonable, and consistent (Pituch and Lee 2006). Voss (2000)
considered fast response as one of the critical items for determining service quality by
users. Sarrab et al. (2016) suggested responsiveness as an important factor for learners’
satisfaction in collaborative learning that makes the learning process more useful on the
basis of location and the response time. In order to ensure the success of the
responsiveness, should be avoided any delay in responding to students’ queries and their
requests. In contrast, slow response time will impede the learning process. In mobile
learning context, responsiveness can be defined as ability of mobile learning application
to quick respond to students’ requests. When the mobile learning application enables
instructors to easily respond to students’ questions and their requests, and offers prompt
responses and interactions between students and instructors by using Short Message
Service (SMS) regardless of time and location, this leads to build a positive perceive
among students towards this application. Cheng (2012) found that responsiveness has
significant effect on perceived usefulness of e-learning system. Based on the above
facts, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H17 Responsiveness will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H18 Responsiveness will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
Perceived usefulness (PU)
Perceived usefulness indicates to the level to which an individual believes that using
a particular system would enhance a person’s job performance (Davis 1989).
Student who perceives a higher usefulness of a system has a stronger attitude for
123
J. Comput. Educ.
acceptance (Lee and Chung 2009). Perceived usefulness is the primary determinant
of behavioral intention to use (Cheng 2012; Kanthawongs and Kanthawongs 2013).
Past studies have found that perceived usefulness have a significant positive effect
on behavioral intention to use mobile learning (e.g., Althunibat 2015; Mohammadi
2015; Chang et al. 2012; Park et al. 2012; Prieto et al. 2014; Sánchez-Prietoet al.
2016). This leads to the following hypothesis for this study:
H19 Perceived usefulness will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to use
of mobile learning application.
Perceived ease of use
Perceived ease of use indicates the degree to which the end-user believes that using
the system will be free of effort (Davis 1989). Several studies have examined and
confirmed perceived ease of use to be valid in understanding an individual’s
perception towards accepting of mobile learning system (Althunibat 2015; Moham-
madi 2015). Past studies have indicated that perceived ease of use have a significant
positive effect on behavioral intention to use mobile learning (Su and Cheng 2015;
Prieto et al. 2014; Sánchez-Prieto et al. 2016; Yamakawa et al. 2013). Moreover,
perceived ease of use has been found to have a significant positive effect on perceived
usefulness (Althunibat 2015; Chen and Tseng 2012; Cheng 2012; Prieto et al. 2014).
H20 Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to
use of mobile learning application.
H21 Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
Behavioral intention to use (BI)
Behavioral intention is defined as the measure of the strength of user’s intention to

perform a specified behavior (Davis 1989). Many researchers have confirmed that the
behavioral intention have a high correlation with the system acceptance and thus
usage (Hassanzadeh et al. 2012; Mohammadi 2015; Roca et al. 2006). Furthermore,
the majority of theories in the technology acceptance field have used behavioral
intention as an antecedent of user acceptance (e.g., TRA, TPB, TAM, DTPB, TAM2,
TAM3, and UTAUT). In this study, BI is considered as the main construct of TAM to
predict mobile learning acceptance by students (a direct predictor of mobile learning
acceptance). Moreover, Mohammadi (2015) and Hassanzadeh et al. (2012) confirmed
the significant positive relationship between behavioral intention and actual use.
Research methodology
In this study, the research methodology used is based on a quantitative method. The
quantitative method presents statistical findings relating to the scope of study
through an investigation empirically of the statistics achieved. For this purpose, a
123
J. Comput. Educ.
survey was organized together with the development of an instrument. The survey
was conducted in five universities distributed on three main cities in Jordan:
Yarmouk University, University of Science and Technology, University of Jordan,
Hashemite University, and Mutah University, and the questionnaire was translated
into the Arabic language for facilitating the students in understanding the research
topic. These selected universities had implemented the mobile learning system since
2012, and students from these universities were using the mobile learning system.
A pilot study was conducted in the University of Jordan, Amman, in order to
assist us in making the improvements on the developed instrument if needed based
on the comments and the responses of the participants. At the beginning, the
instrument was tested on 54 students and their feedback comments were collected,
respectively. After that, these comments and feedbacks were used in improving the
developed instrument. According to Hunt et al. (1982), the minimum sample size
for conducting a pilot study is 30 participants; therefore, the pilot sample size in this
study is sufficient. The final version of the instrument was now developed for being
distributed on the selected sample size (400 participants) for this study.
Data collection
A total of 400 participants were selected in the survey. According to Sekaran and
Bougie (2009), the minimum sample size for the study is 384 participants; therefore,
the sample size in this research is acceptable for representing the Jordanian students’
perspectives towards mobile learning acceptance for being an exploratory study.
About 8 questionnaires were excluded for being incomplete. Thus, the data were
analyzed from a total of 392 questionnaires using SPSS. The students who were
participated to fill the questionnaire were from different colleges. At the beginning
of the data collection process, the researcher introduced the objectives of this study
and the definition of mobile learning; then the students completed the questionnaire.
Table 1 reflects the frequencies among the respondents with regard to their gender,
age, study level, and years of using mobile devices. The demographics of the
research show that the females were in 52.8 % and the remaining 47.2 % were
males. Regarding the age factor, 80.1 % of respondents were in between 18 and 24.
Considering the study level, 66.6 % of respondents were undergraduate students and
the remaining 33.4 % were postgraduate students. Regarding the years of using
mobile devices, 84.9 % of respondents were between 3 and 5 years.
Instrument development
The final instrument was employed to collect data using a five-point Likert scale,
and the existing constructs of this study were adopted with the essential
modifications to fit the context of this study: learning content quality and content
design quality were adopted from Lee et al. (2009) and Cheng (2012), interactivity
and functionality from Pituch and Lee (2006), accessibility from Park (2009), user-
interface design from Lee et al. (2009), availability, personalization, and respon-
siveness from Al-Mushasha and Nassuora (2012), perceived ease of use and
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 1 Characteristics of
Characteristics Frequency Percent
participants
Student age
18–24 314 80.1
Over 24 78 19.9
Student gender
Male 185 47.2
Female 207 52.8
Study level
Undergraduate 261 66.6
Postgraduate 131 33.4
Years of using mobile devices
Less than 1 year 3 0.8
1–3 years 56 14.3
3–5 years 333 84.9
perceived usefulness from Mohammadi (2015), and behavioral intention to use from
Hassanzadeh et al. (2012). Table 2 presents a list of all constructs and their sources.
To ensure the validity and reliability of the instrument, the cronbach’s alpha (a)
and the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were taken in this research. For
reliability, the internal consistency among items in the same construct was tested
using the cronbach’s alpha coefficient (a). The values of cronbach’s alpha (a) should
be greater than 0.7 to be an acceptable as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). As shown
in Table 3, the cronbach’s alpha was greater than 0.7 that makes its internal
consistency to be good, thereby indicating satisfactory reliability for all constructs.
On the other hand, the principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was
conducted in order to determine the underlying structure for each construct (Field
2009). The principal components analysis depends on the values of factor loadings.
According to Field (2009), the factor loadings should be greater than 0.7 for each
item, and if the item has loadings less than 0.7 should be removed from the structure
of the construct. The results in Table 3 showed that one item (P6) was removed
from personalization factor due to the value of factor loadings less than 0.7. The
other items loaded on the appropriate factor with loadings of above 0.7.
Then, convergent validity test measures whether items under individual scale are
correlated; it can be evidenced by relatively high correlations between items under
the same construct (Compeau and Higgins 1995). Convergent validity can be
evaluated based on the factor loadings that should be greater than 0.7 as
recommended by Campbell and Fiske (1998). As presented in Table 3, the results
indicated that the items loadings were above 0.7; thereby, the convergent validity
for the constructs is good. Discriminant validity test determines the degree of
correlation between the different constructs. If the degree of correlation is weak, this
means that each construct is unique and measures different dimensions (Campbell
and Fiske 1998). According to Compeau and Higgins (1995), if the values in the
correlation matrix are smaller than 0.85, it indicates that the discriminant validity
exists among the constructs. Therefore, the discriminant validity analysis was
123
Table 2 Instrument constructs and their sources
Construct Measure Source
123
Learning content quality Mobile learning application can provide me complete content Lee et al. (2009), Cheng (2012)
Mobile learning application can provide me sufficient content
Mobile learning application provides various activities of learning content
Mobile learning application provides detailed contact information
Content design quality Mobile learning application can provide me text, audio and video content Lee et al. (2009), Cheng (2012)
Mobile learning application can provide me content that exactly fits your needs
Mobile learning application provides up-to-date content
Mobile learning application provides accurate content
Interactivity Mobile learning application easy for you to discuss with your teachers Pituch and Lee (2006)
Mobile learning application easy for you to discuss with other students
Mobile learning application easy for you to share what you learn with the learning community
Mobile learning application easy for you to access the shared content from the learning community
Functionality Mobile learning application compatible with different platforms Pituch and Lee (2006), Cheng (2012)
Mobile learning application provides enables easy navigation.
Mobile learning application enables easy search by text
The size and resolution of the interface are good
User-interface design Mobile learning application provides attractive interface colors, graphics, and animations Lee et al. (2009)
Mobile learning application provides visual features
Mobile learning application provides a well-designed menus and icons
Mobile learning application provides a good page layout
Accessibility Mobile learning application provides me to download files Park (2009), (2012)
Mobile learning application provides me to upload files
Mobile learning application easy for you to access learning materials and services by using Wi-Fi
Mobile learning application easy for you to access learning materials and services by using 3G, 4G
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 2 continued
Construct Measure Source
Availability Mobile learning application provides me learning content and services anywhere Al-Mushasha and Nassuora (2012)
Mobile learning application provides me learning content services any time
J. Comput. Educ.
Personalization Mobile learning application provides the personalized messages from teachers and administrators Al-Mushasha and Nassuora (2012)
Mobile learning application enables me to learn the content you want
Mobile learning application enables me to choose how you want to learn
Mobile learning application enables me to control your learning progress
Mobile learning application records my performance
Mobile learning application remembers the preferences for me
Responsiveness Mobile learning application provides a prompt service Al-Mushasha and Nassuora (2012)
Mobile learning application always ready to assist me
Mobile learning application provides me exactly when services will be performed
Perceived usefulness Using mobile learning application would enable you to accomplish tasks more quickly Mohammadi (2015)
Using mobile learning application would improve your performance in learning environment
Using mobile learning application would increase your productivity in learning environment
Using mobile learning application would enhance your effectiveness in learning environment
Using mobile learning application would make it easier for you to engage in learning environment
Perceived ease of use The mobile learning application is easy to use Mohammadi (2015)
Your interaction with the mobile learning application is clear and understandable
Overall, mobile learning application is user-friendly
Behavioral intention to use I intend to use mobile learning application in the future Hassanzadeh et al. (2012)
I would like to recommend the services of mobile learning application to others
I will use mobile learning application frequently in the future
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 3 Measurements items, factors, and their statistics

Factor Item Factor loadings ([0.7) Alpha (a C 0.70)
Learning content quality CQ1 .801 0.968

CQ2 .808
CQ3 .825
CQ4 .828
Content design quality DQ1 .865 0.938
DQ2 .870
DQ3 .862
DQ4 .869
Interactivity IN1 .857 0.922
IN2 .870
IN3 .880
IN4 .880
Functionality F1 .866 0.859
F2 .867
F3 .878
F3 .884
User-interface design ID1 .899 0.867
ID2 .903
ID3 .896
ID4 .880
Accessibility AC1 .856 0.860
AC2 .841
AC3 .857
AC4 .855
Availability AV1 .901 0.774
AV2 .902
Personalization P1 .879 0.885
P2 .874
P3 .873
P4 .871
P5 .846
P6 .643 (Deleted)
Responsiveness R1 .857 0.946
R2 .851
R3 .861
evaluated based on this criterion. Discriminant validity was conducted by using the
correlation matrix approach. As shown in Table 4, the results of discriminant
validity analysis showed that all the off-diagonal values for all constructs are
smaller than 0.85 (Bontis 1998), thereby indicating that discriminant validity is
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 4 Discriminant validity

Construct CQ DQ IN F ID AC AV P R
CQ 1
DQ .480 1
IN .471 .433 1
F .461 .528 .441 1
ID .367 .513 .401 .386 1
AC .564 .463 .513 .584 .301 1
AV .469 .429 .291 .338 .345 .421 1
P .546 .395 .469 .338 .428 .390 .386 1
R .564 .417 .387 .417 .315 .456 .478 .506 1
* Off-diagonal values are less than 0.85
supported in this study. Therefore, the results support the reliability and validity of
the constructs in the research model that may contribute to the acceptance of mobile
learning in order to be a successful implementation of mobile learning application in
Jordanian universities.
Data analysis and results
Descriptive analysis
Descriptive statistics analysis was conducted for all items for their mean, standard
deviation, and skewness and kurtosis for testing the normality of data. The results
showed that the mean value ranged from (3.94) to (4.19) on a five-point scale, which
4.5000
4.1952
3.9892 4.0000 4.0077 3.9987 4.0286

3.9675 3.9400 3.9643
4.0000
3.5000
Fig. 3 Mean values of quality factors
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 5 Descriptive analysis

Factors Items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
Learning content quality (CQ) CU1 3.9923 1.00761 -.799- .113

CU2 3.9872 1.00502 -.795- .104
CU3 3.9872 .99479 -.789- .066
CU4 3.9898 .99610 -.791- .070
Content design quality (DQ) CA1 4.0255 .99326 -.964- .408
CA2 4.0000 .98063 -.949- .459
CA3 3.9847 .97265 -.925- .462
CA4 3.9898 .98058 -.912- .387
Functionality (F) F1 3.9745 1.04593 -.852- .031
F2 3.9719 1.04464 -.850- .036
F3 3.9643 1.02837 -.850- .124
F4 3.9694 1.03102 -.853- .114
Accessibility (AC) AC1 4.0128 .98963 -.837- .038
AC2 3.9923 .99227 -.853- .135
AC3 3.9949 .96484 -.814- .136
AC4 3.9949 .97013 -.851- .254
Interactivity (IN) IN1 4.0153 1.00626 -.924- .254
IN2 4.0128 1.00502 -.922- .259
IN3 3.9974 .99744 -.912- .287
IN4 4.0051 1.00126 -.917- .272
Interface design (ID) ID1 4.2270 .96855 -1.368- 1.520
ID2 4.2015 .96628 -1.319- 1.423
ID3 4.1837 .97903 -1.345- 1.490
ID4 4.1684 .97131 -1.319- 1.487
Availability (AV) AV1 4.0204 .95398 -1.000- .736
AV2 3.9796 .94590 -.962- .634
Personalization (P) P1 3.9796 .94590 -.962- .634
P2 4.0204 .98302 -.983- .578
P3 4.0255 .98290 -.993- .600
P4 4.0230 .96591 -.919- .406
P5 4.0255 .96717 -.921- .401
P6 4.0485 .94623 -.989- .674
Responsiveness (R) R1 4.0791 .94144 -.972- .480
R2 4.0765 .94029 -.951- .439
R3 4.0510 .93931 -.921- .397
indicated that most of the students were satisfied with the items of quality features
for mobile learning as shown in Fig. 3.
The results of the descriptive statistics are shown in Table 5; the standard
deviations ranged from (.093) to (1.04) which indicated that the values were
123
J. Comput. Educ.
acceptable, and the normality distribution of the data was sufficient because the
values ranged between -1 and ?1 according to skewness and kurtosis assumption.
Hypothesis testing: correlation analysis
The correlation between the variables in the hypothesized relationship was first
assessed by using the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Compeau
and Higgins (1995) proposed that the lower limit of correlation coefficient is 0.05.
Thus, when hypothesis indicates that there is a significant positive relationship
between two variables, this means that there is a significant correlation found
between the two variables; in this case, the hypothesis is supported. In this study, 21
hypotheses were tested in order to investigate relationships between quality features
and perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU) and behavioral
intention to use mobile learning (BI). Therefore, three correlation analyses
involving three different statistics are used for testing all the proposed hypotheses
in this study.
In the first correlation analysis, ten hypotheses were tested in order to investigate
relationships between learning content quality (CQ), content quality design (DQ),
functionality (F), accessibility (AC), interactivity (IN), interface design (ID),
availability (AV), personalization (P), responsiveness (R), and perceived usefulness
(PU). As shown in Table 6, the results showed that all hypotheses demonstrated a
significant positive relationship between the variables, thereby supporting all the ten
hypotheses.
In the second correlation analysis, nine hypotheses were tested in order to
investigate relationships between learning content quality (CQ), content quality
design (DQ), functionality (F), accessibility (AC), interactivity (IN), interface
design (ID), availability (AV), personalization (P), responsiveness (R), and
perceived ease of use (PEU). As shown in Table 7, the results showed that all
hypotheses demonstrated a significant positive relationship between the variables,
thereby supporting all the nine hypotheses.
In the last correlation analysis, two hypotheses were tested in order to investigate
relationships between perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease of use (PEU), and
Table 6 Correlation analysis

Hypotheses Correlation value Results
between quality features and
perceived usefulness
(H1) CQ ? PU 0.781** Supported
(H3) DQ ? PU 0.697** Supported
(H5) IN ? PU 0.626** Supported
(H7) F ? PU 0.584** Supported
(H9) ID ? PU 0.657** Supported
(H11) AC ? PU 0.567** Supported
(H13) AV ? PU 0.756** Supported
(H15) P ? PU 0.584** Supported
(H17) R ? PU 0.688** Supported
** Correlation is significant at (H21) PEU ? PU 0.653** Supported
the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 7 Correlation analysis

between quality features and
perceived ease of use
(H2) CQ ? PEU 0.765** Supported
(H4) DQ ? PEU 0.692** Supported
(H6) IN ? PEU 0.634** Supported
(H8) F ? PEU 0.590** Supported
(H10) ID ? PEU 0.610** Supported
(H12) AC ? PEU 0.523** Supported
(H14) AV ? PEU 0.656** Supported
(H16) P ? PEU 0.632** Supported
** Correlation is significant at (H18) R ? PEU 0.552** Supported
the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 8 Correlation analysis between perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and behavioral
intention to use
(H19) PU ? BI 0.863** Supported

(H20) PEU ? BI 0.727** Supported
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
behavioral intention to use (BI). As shown in Table 8, the results showed that the
two hypotheses demonstrated a significant positive relationship between the
variables, thereby supporting the hypotheses.
Hypothesis testing: regression analysis
In this research, 21 hypotheses were tested by using regression analysis in order to

investigate the effect of quality features on the students’ beliefs with regard to
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use that can affect behavioral intention
to use of mobile learning application. Based on that, in this research there is more
than one dependent variable, and thus, the proposed hypotheses are tested by
multiple regression analysis (Gefen et al. 2000). Therefore, three regression models
involving three different statistics are used for testing the proposed model fully in
this study.
The first regression model was tested by multiple regression analysis between
perceived usefulness as the dependent variable with learning content quality,
content design quality, interactivity, functionality, user-interface design, accessi-
bility, availability, personalization, responsiveness, and perceived ease of use as
independent variables. As results shown in Table 9, perceived usefulness was
significantly impacted by learning content quality (H1, b = 0.229, p \ 0.001),
content design quality (H3, b = 0.189, p \ 0.001), interactivity (H5, b = 0.130,
p \ 0.001), functionality (H7, b = 0.096, p \ 0.001), user-interface design (H9,
b = 0.074, p = 0.001), accessibility (H11, b = 0.089, p \ 0.001), personalization
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Table 9 Perceived usefulness (PU) regression model

Model 1 Beta (b) Sig. (p \ 0.001) Supported or not
Learning content quality (CQ) 0.229 .000 Supported

Content design quality (DQ) 0.189 .000 Supported
Interactivity (IN) 0.130 .000 Supported
Functionality (F) 0.096 .000 Supported
User-interface design (ID) 0.074 .000 Supported
Accessibility (AC) 0.089 .001 Supported
Availability (AV) 0.064 .005 Not supported
Personalization (P) 0.161 .000 Supported
Responsiveness (R) 0.095 .000 Supported
Perceived ease of use (PEU) 0.116 .000 Supported
Dependent variable: perceived usefulness (PU), (p B .001, R2 = .893)
(H15, b = 0.161, p \ 0.001), responsiveness (H17, b = 0.095, p \ 0.001), and

perceived ease of use (H21, b = 0.116, p \ 0.001). However, hypothesized
relationship between availability and perceived usefulness was not supported
(H13, b = 0.064, p [ .001). In addition, the value of R2 for the dependent variable
perceived usefulness is 0.893; this means that the quality features, learning content
quality, content design quality, interactivity, functionality, user-interface design,
accessibility, personalization, and responsiveness with perceived ease of use in the
proposed model, are capable of explaining 89.3 % of the variance in the perceived
usefulness of mobile learning application. Thus, the first regression model supports
the following hypotheses:
H1 Learning content quality will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
H3 Content design quality will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
H5 Interactivity will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H7 Functionality will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H9 User-interface design will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
H11 Accessibility will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
H15 Personalization will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile
123
J. Comput. Educ.
H17 Responsiveness will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile

H21 Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of
The second regression model was tested by multiple regression analysis between
perceived ease of use as the dependent variable with learning content quality,
content design quality, interactivity, functionality, user-interface design, accessi-
bility, availability, personalization, and responsiveness as independent variables.
The results in Table 10 showed that the perceived ease of use was significantly
influenced by learning content quality (H2, b = 0.268, p \ 0.001), content design
quality (H4, b = 0.201, p \ 0.001), interactivity (H6, b = 0.120, p \ 0.001),
functionality (H8, b = 0.085, p \ 0.001), user-interface design (H10, b = 0.092,
p \ 0.001), accessibility (H12, b = 0.088, p \ 0.001), availability (H14,
b = 0.071, p = .001), personalization (H16, b = 0.182, p \ 0.001), and respon-
siveness (H18, b = 0.089, p \ 0.001). In addition, the value of R2 for the dependent
variable perceived ease of use is 0.888; this means that the quality features, learning
content quality, content design quality, interactivity, functionality, user-interface
design, accessibility, availability, personalization, and responsiveness, are capable
of explaining 88.8 % of the variance in the perceived ease of use of mobile learning
application in Jordan. Thus, the second regression model supports the following
hypotheses:
H2 Learning content quality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of
H4 Content design quality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of
H6 Interactivity will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
Table 10 Perceived ease of use (PEU) regression model

Model 2 Beta (b) Sig. (p \ 0.001) Supported or not
Learning content quality (CQ) 0.268 .000 Supported

Content design quality (DQ) 0.201 .000 Supported
Interactivity (IN) 0.120 .000 Supported
Functionality (F) 0.085 .000 Supported
User-interface design (ID) 0.092 .000 Supported
Accessibility (AC) 0.088 .000 Supported
Availability (AV) 0.071 .001 supported
Personalization (P) 0.182 .000 Supported
Responsiveness (R) 0.089 .000 Supported
2
Dependent variable: perceived ease of use (PEU), (p B .001, R = .888)
123
J. Comput. Educ.
H8 Functionality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile

H10 User-interface design will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of
H12 Accessibility will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
H14 Availability will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
H16 Personalization will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
H18 Responsiveness will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile
In third the regression model, behavioral intention to use was significantly
affected by two determinants including perceived usefulness (H19, b = 0.734,
p \ 0.001) and perceived ease of use (H20, b = 0.169, p \ 0.001) as depicted in
Table 11. In addition, the value of R2 for the dependent variable behavioral
intention to use is 0.757; this means that the perceived usefulness and perceived
ease of use are capable of explaining 75.7 % of the variance in the behavioral
intention to use mobile learning. Thus, the third regression model supports the
following hypotheses:
H19 Perceived usefulness will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to use
of mobile learning application.
H20 Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect on behavioral intention to
use of mobile learning application.
Discussion
In view of the fact that individual beliefs with regard to their perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use are the main determinants of acceptance and both of them
affect individuals’ behavioral intention to use positively, it can be concluded that
quality features, such as learning content quality, content design quality,
Table 11 Behavioral intention to use (BI) regression model

Model 3 Beta (b) Sig. (p \ 0.001) Results
Perceived usefulness (PU) 0.734 .000 Supported

Perceived ease of use (PEU) 0.169 .000 Supported
Dependent variable: behavioral intention to use (BI), (p B .001, R2 = .757)
123
J. Comput. Educ.
interactivity, functionality, user-interface design, accessibility, personalization, and

responsiveness, are antecedents of acceptance having positive effects on individual
beliefs, and all these indirectly has a positive effect on behavioral intention to use
through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. In fact, quality features
have been mentioned as the main antecedents of IS acceptance in most past studies,
but seldom attentions have been given to evaluate the effects of these quality
features on mobile learning acceptance. In this study, the results and implications
for quality features on students’ beliefs are discussed below.
In this study, learning content quality is revealed to have a significant effect on
perceived usefulness (PU), and perceived ease of use (PEU), which supports the
studies in e-learning system carried out by Cheng (2012), Lee et al. (2009), and Liu
et al. (2010). These results indicates that when student perceives the learning
contents are complete and sufficient and provides various activities of learning
contents (e.g., lectures, courses, assignments, images, and quizzes), they will feel
that the learning contents on the mobile learning application are more useful and
easy to use for learning (Cheng 2012; Lee et al. 2009). In this study, content design
quality is found to have a strong effect on perceived usefulness (PU), and perceived
ease of use (PEU), which confirms the results of the previous research studies
(Cheng 2012; Lee et al. 2009). Based on the above facts, this research suggests that
the designers of learning contents should take into consideration the students’ needs
and formats of learning contents (e.g., text, graphics and charts, audio, video and
animation, share and send learning content files) to enhance students’ interest in
learning via the mobile learning applications. As for factor of interactivity, this
study showed that interactivity has significant effects on perceived usefulness (PU),
and perceived ease of use (PEU), that is in correspondence with the studies of
Cheng (2012), and Pituch and Lee (2006) which found that interactivity has a
significant effect on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of e-learning
system. These results reflect when students feel that the mobile learning application
allow them for more effective interaction between students and instructors and
among students themselves, and quickly exchange and share the learning content
among students via the application, they will perceive that the mobile learning is an
easy-to-use and useful tool for learning. Based on that, this study presents
suggestion that the mobile learning application designers should develop interac-
tivity-based mechanisms (e.g., message board, discussion room, instant messenger,
and online chat room), to make the application more useful and easy to use to
enhance students’ acceptance of mobile learning. In this study, functionality is
identified to be a significant factor affecting perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use, consistent with Cheng (2012) and Cho et al. (2009), who discovered that
functionality has a significant impact on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use of e-learning system. This study also showed that user-interface design has
significant effects on perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use, that is in
correspondence with the studies of Cheng (2012), Cho et al. (2009), and Lee et al.
(2009), which found that user-interface design as the most important antecedent of
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of e-learning system. Based on these
results, when students find a well-designed and organized interface can help
students to identify particular functions and features of the mobile learning
123
J. Comput. Educ.
application, this will make students perceive that such application is useful for
learning. In addition, a simple and flexible user interface with good menu design
with control tool bars will reduce the effort while using a system; they will perceive
that the mobile learning application is user-friendly. In this study, system
accessibility is revealed to have a significant effect on perceived usefulness, and
perceived ease of use, which supports the studies in e-learning system carried out by
Park (2009) and Park et al. (2012). These results indicate that when mobile learning
provides for students online access and download the learning materials when and
where they need via mobile learning application, they will perceive that the mobile
learning is an easy-to-use and useful tool for learning. In this study, availability is
found to have a significant effect on perceived ease of use, which confirms to the
studies conducted by Al-Mushasha and Nassuora (2012).
In the recent years, Jordan already has witnessed a very excellent development
and significantly booming in mobile telecommunication infrastructures, due to the
strong commitment of the Jordan government. The implementation of the national
e-learning strategy is in line with the aspiration of Her Royal Highness Queen Rania
of Jordan, who stresses the importance of mobile learning and who calls for the
implementation of this project more broadly in Jordan. Her Royal Highness has
urged for further research in this area to encourage students in accepting the use of
mobile learning in higher education. It is expected to improve the reputation and to
create competitive advantage in higher education in Jordan. This aspiration has
invoked the interest of this study to find out the factors that influence the students’
acceptance of mobile learning in Jordanian universities. The final results include
invaluable conclusions for university administrators and system designers which
may provide a clear picture of the effect of quality features on students’ beliefs in
acceptance of mobile learning application based on a hybrid model of quality
features and TAM and thereby highlighting on the most important guidelines to
develop high quality of mobile learning application.
Conclusion and future works
In this study, we proposed a hybrid model of quality features from the updated
DeLone and McLean model and TAM to investigate the effects of quality features
on students’ acceptance of mobile learning. The results of this study, conducted in
five public universities in Jordan are summarized as follows. With regard to the part
of quality features as the antecedents of students’ beliefs, revealed that learning
content quality, content design quality, interactivity, functionality, user-interface
design, accessibility, personalization, and responsiveness have significant effects on
perceived usefulness of mobile learning (PU) and perceived ease of use of mobile
learning (PEU), and availability has significant effects on perceived ease of use of
mobile learning (PEU). This study investigated the relationships between students’
beliefs with regard to their perceptions—perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease
of use (PEU), and behavioral intention to use (BI)— and found that perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU) have significant effects on
behavioral intention to use of mobile learning application (BI), and perceived ease
123
J. Comput. Educ.
of use (PEU) also indirectly affects behavioral intention to use of mobile learning
application (BI) through perceived ease of use (PU). Based on these results, this
study presents the antecedents of mobile learning acceptance through providing
invaluable information about the key quality features underpinning students’
perceptions with regard to their beliefs (perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use), and this situation can lead to enhance students’ behavioral intention to use the
mobile learning.
This study has some limitations that should be mentioned. First, this research
covers only public Jordanian universities, and thus, it can be generalized the results
only to public universities not private. Half of universities in Jordan is private
universities and contains a large number of students, and thus, private universities
should be taken into consideration in future studies. Second, the sample of this study
is limited to only five public universities in Jordan and requires to cover more
populations of other Jordanian universities with different attributes in terms of
education, psychological, and demographical, to improve the generalizability of the
research results. Thus, future research should be conducted with the aim to develop
mobile learning applications based on the quality features identified as the
antecedents of mobile learning acceptance.
References
Abachi, H. R., & Muhammad, G. (2014). The impact of m-learning technology on students and educators.
Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 491–496.
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)
Ahn, T., Ryu, S., & Han, I. (2007). The impact of web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of
online retailing. Information & Management, 44(3), 263–275.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Al-Debei, M. M. (2014). The quality and acceptance of websites: an empirical investigation in the context
of higher education. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 15(2), 170–188.
Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile
learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102.
Ali, A., Alrasheedi, M., Ouda, A., & Capretz, L. F. (2015). A study of the interface usability issues of
mobile learning applications for smart phones from the users perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.
01875.
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.
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)
Almasri, A. K. M. (2014). The influence on mobile learning based on technology acceptance model
(TAM), mobile readiness (MR) and perceived interaction (PI) for higher education students.
Al-Mushasha, N. F., & Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Factors determining e-learning service quality in
Jordanian higher education environment. Journal of Applied Sciences, 12(14), 1474.
Al-Shboul, M., Rababah, O., Al-Sayyed, R., Sweis, G., & Aldreabi, H. (2013). Roadmap to advance
e-Learning management system at The University of Jordan. Journal of American Science, 9(1),
531–545.
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan
higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71.
Ariffin, S. A. (2011). Mobile learning in the institution of higher learning for Malaysia students: Culture
perspectives. International Journal on Advanced Science, Engineering and Information Technology,
1(3), 283–288.
Bidin, S., & Ziden, A. A. (2013). Adoption and application of mobile learning in the education industry.
Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 720–729.
Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models.
Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76.
Campbell, D., & Fiske, D. (1998). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethods
matrix. Personality, 56, 162.
Chang, C. C., Yan, C. F., & Tseng, J. S. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended technology
acceptance model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 809–826.
Chen, H. R., & Tseng, H. F. (2012). Factors that influence acceptance of web-based e-learning systems
for the in-service education of junior high school teachers in Taiwan. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 35(3), 398–406.
Cheng, Y. M. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Research, 22(3),
361–390.
Cho, V., Cheng, T. E., & Lai, W. J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage
intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers & Education, 53(2), 216–227.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial
test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.
Dahlstrom, E., Walker, J. D., & Dziuban, C. (2013). ECAR study of undergraduate students and
information technology. 2013.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
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.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Franklin, T. (2011). Mobile learning: At the tipping point. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 10(4), 261.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression:
Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1),
7.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on
learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19,
18–26.
Glackin, B. C., Rodenhiser, R. W., & Herzog, B. (2014). A library and the disciplines: A collaborative
project assessing the impact of eBooks and mobile devices on student learning. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 40(3), 299–306.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
analysis (Vol. 6). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hassan, M. H., Alhosban, F., & Hourani, M. A. (2016). Using mobile technologies for enhancing student
academic experience: University of Jordan case study. International Journal of Interactive Mobile
Technologies (iJIM), 10(1), 13–18.
Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012). A model for measuring e-learning systems success in
universities. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10959–10966.
Holsapple, C. W., & Lee-Post, A. (2010). Behavior-based analysis of knowledge dissemination channels
in operations management. Omega, 38(3), 167–178.
Hunt, S. D., Sparkman Jr, R. D., & Wilcox, J. B. (1982). The pretest in survey research: Issues and
preliminary findings. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), 269–273.
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.
Kanthawongs, P., & Kanthawongs, P. (2013). Individual and social factors affecting student’s usage
intention in using Learning Management System. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 88,
89–95.
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Kellerer, W., Wagner, M., & Balke, W. T. (2003). Preference-based session management for personalized
services. In Proceedings of the MOMUC
Khan, A. I., Al-Shihi, H., Al-Khanjari, Z. A., & Sarrab, M. (2015). Mobile learning (M-Learning)
adoption in the Middle East: Lessons learned from the educationally advanced countries. Telematics
and Informatics, 32(4), 909–920.
Lan, Y. F., & Sie, Y. S. (2010). Using RSS to support mobile learning based on media richness theory.
Computers & Education, 55(2), 723–732.
Lee, K. C., & Chung, N. (2009). Understanding factors affecting trust in and satisfaction with mobile
banking in Korea: A modified DeLone and McLean’s model perspective. Interacting with
Computers, 21(5–6), 385–392.
Lee, Y., & Kozar, K. A. (2006). Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: An
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1383–1401.
Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and
results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320–1329.
Liang, T. P. (1987). User interface design for decision support systems: A self-adaptive approach.
Information & Management, 12(4), 181–193.
Lin, J. C. C., & Lu, H. (2000). Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention to use a web site.
International Journal of Information Management, 20(3), 197–208.
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An empirical study.
Computers & Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.
Lwoga, E. T. (2014). Critical success factors for adoption of web-based learning management systems in
Tanzania. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communi-
cation Technology, 10(1), 4.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Social and individual antecedents of m-learning adoption in Iran. Computers in
Human Behavior, 49, 191–207.
Molenet.org. (2009). The Mobile Learning Network (MoLeNET). Retrieved Apr 28, 2016 from http://
www.molenet.org.uk/
O’bannon, B. W., & Thomas, K. (2014). Teacher perceptions of using mobile phones in the classroom:
Age matters! Computers & Education, 74, 15–25.
Ozdamli, F., & Cavus, N. (2011). Basic elements and characteristics of mobile learning. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 937–942.
Özer, A., Argan, M. T., & Argan, M. (2013). The effect of mobile service quality dimensions on customer
satisfaction. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 428–438.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning:
Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1),
222–229.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’
behavioral intention to use e-Learning. Educational technology & society, 12(3), 150–162.
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.
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers
& Education, 47(2), 222–244.
Pollara, P., & Kee Broussard, K. (2011, March). Student perceptions of mobile learning: A review of
current research. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference (pp. 1643–1650).
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & Garcı́a-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014, October). Mobile learning adoption
from informal into formal: An extended TAM model to measure mobile acceptance among teachers.
In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
Multiculturality (pp. 595–602). ACM.
Rahman, S., Haque, A., & Ahmad, M. I. S. (2010). Exploring influencing factors for the selection of
mobile phone service providers: A structural equational modeling (SEM) approach on Malaysian
consumers. African Journal of Business Management, 4(13), 2885.
Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145–161.
Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. M., & Martı́nez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An
extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
64(8), 683–696.
123
J. Comput. Educ.
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A
revised theory of protection motivation. Social Psychophysiology, 153–176.
Rovai, A. P. (2004). A constructivist approach to online college learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 7(2), 79–93.
Sarrab, M., Alzahrani, A., Alwan, N. A., & Alfarraj, O. (2014). From traditional learning into mobile
learning in education at the university level: Undergraduate students perspective. International
Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3–4), 167–186.
Sarrab, M., Elbasir, M., & Alnaeli, S. (2016). Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile
learning services: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 100–112.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, M. (2009). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Chichester:
Wiley.
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.
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & Garcı́a-Peñalvo, F. J. Intención de Uso de Tecnologı́as Mobiles
Entre los Profesores en Formación.
The Jordan Times. (2014). 95 % of Jordanians own mobiles; 47% use the Internet. Retrieved 21 April,
2016 from http://jordantimes.com/95-of-jordanians-own-mobiles-47-use-the-internet.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four
longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
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.
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users’ attitudes toward the use of mobile
devices in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from Sweden and
China. Computers & Education, 69, 169–180.
Voss, C. (2000). Developing an eService strategy. Business Strategy Review, 11(1), 21–34.
Wang, W. T., & Wang, C. C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning
systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761–774.
Wang, Y. S., Wang, Y. M., Lin, H. H., & Tang, T. I. (2003). Determinants of user acceptance of Internet
banking: An empirical study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 14(5),
501–519.
Wingkvist, A. (2009). Understanding scalability and sustainability in mobile learning: A systems
development framework.
Yamakawa, P., Delgado, C., Dı́az, 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.
Yong Wee, S., Siong Hoe, L., Kung Keat, T., Check Yee, L., & Parumo, S. (2011). Prediction of user
acceptance and adoption of smart phone for learning with technology acceptance model. Journal of
Applied Sciences, 10(20), 2395–2402.
Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2012). Examining behavioral intention toward mobile
services: An empirical investigation in Greece. In Mobile opportunities and applications for
E-service innovations (Vol. 37).
123

Ali - Extending The TAM To Examine The Effects of Quality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ali - Extending The TAM To Examine The Effects of Quality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J. Comput. Educ.

Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality

Mohammed Amin Almaiah1 • Masita Abdul Jalil1 •

Received: 10 June 2016 / Revised: 24 July 2016 / Accepted: 25 July 2016

Keywords Mobile learning acceptance Quality features TAM model

& Mohammed Amin Almaiah

Recently, the new generations of mobile devices contribute more benefits in

Q1 Do the quality features have positive effects on mobile learning acceptance in

The structure of this paper is organized as follows: ‘‘Literature review’’ section

Fig. 1 TAM model

Other related studies

of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003), in order to explore and predict

Mobile learning (M-learning)

Mobile learning can be defined as the integration of mobile handheld devices

The proposed contribution

Research model and hypotheses

Conceptual framework development

Mobile learning User-Interface Behavior

Fig. 2 Proposed model

and predict the antecedents of acceptance of technology. Thus, there is an essential

• Evaluation of quality features as the antecedents of mobile learning acceptance.

Learning content quality

Content design quality

Personalization refers to the level of customization of the information, services, and

Perceived usefulness (PU)

Perceived ease of use

Behavioral intention to use (BI)

Behavioral intention is defined as the measure of the strength of user’s intention to

Construct Measure Source

Table 3 Measurements items, factors, and their statistics

Learning content quality CQ1 .801 0.968

Table 4 Discriminant validity

* Off-diagonal values are less than 0.85

Data analysis and results

3.9892 4.0000 4.0077 3.9987 4.0286

Fig. 3 Mean values of quality factors

Table 5 Descriptive analysis

Learning content quality (CQ) CU1 3.9923 1.00761 -.799- .113

Hypothesis testing: correlation analysis

Table 6 Correlation analysis

Table 7 Correlation analysis

(H19) PU ? BI 0.863** Supported

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Hypothesis testing: regression analysis

In this research, 21 hypotheses were tested by using regression analysis in order to

Table 9 Perceived usefulness (PU) regression model

Learning content quality (CQ) 0.229 .000 Supported

Dependent variable: perceived usefulness (PU), (p B .001, R2 = .893)

(H15, b = 0.161, p \ 0.001), responsiveness (H17, b = 0.095, p \ 0.001), and

H17 Responsiveness will have a positive effect on perceived usefulness of mobile

Table 10 Perceived ease of use (PEU) regression model

Learning content quality (CQ) 0.268 .000 Supported

H8 Functionality will have a positive effect on perceived ease of use of mobile

Table 11 Behavioral intention to use (BI) regression model

Perceived usefulness (PU) 0.734 .000 Supported

Dependent variable: behavioral intention to use (BI), (p B .001, R2 = .757)

interactivity, functionality, user-interface design, accessibility, personalization, and

Conclusion and future works

You might also like