THE VIETNAM GENERAL CONFEDERATION OF LABOUR

TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF USER

RESISTANCE ON MOBILE LEARNING USAGE
AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Lecturer: Phung Minh Tuan (PhD)

Class: 16070611
Group: 01

Ho Chi Minh City, May 25 2018

0
TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY
30/05/2018

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF USER RESISTANCE

ON MOBILE-LEARNING USAGE AMONG
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Le Thi Ngoc Anh – 71608001 - lethingocanhvt2014@gmail.com - Ton Duc Thang Unversity

Ngo Minh Vu – 71608200 – ngominhvu0898@gmail.com – Ton Duc Thang University

Tran Ha Thien Phu – 71608192 - tranthienphu.lt@gmail.com - Ton Duc Thang University

Thuong Nguyen Khoi – 71608054 – nottnkhoi@gmail.com – Ton Duc Thang University

This study examined the factors affecting university students' resistance and
intention to use of mobile learning by developing an integrated research
model that combines innovation diffusion theory (IDT) and model of
innovation resistance (MIR). We added the concepts of inertia and
innovativeness to shed light on the personal aspects of students' adoption of
mobile learning. Data were collected by an online survey at Ton Duc Thang
University (N=174). The results show that the relative advantages of mobile
learning, the complexity of mobile devices, and the inertia of students, these
three factors greatly affect the ability to interfere. In the use of mobile
devices for learning purposes, the most important factor is inertia. In
addition, interference is the mediator of the relative advantage and
complexity of using mobile devices in learning.The results provide valuable
implications for researchers and educational practitioners to develop and
implement appropriate strategies for mobile learning.

Keywords: Mobile learning, User resistance, Innovation diffusion, Inertia, Innovativeness, Ton
Duc Thang University

1
INTRODUCTION
Mobile learning, regardless of a
distinctive learning model, sharply
increases in applying in academic and
practical interest .Recently, the usage of
mobile technology has become crucial
for higher educational institution
worldwide due to the wide spectrum of
its benefits. When mobile learning is
integrated with various universities
systems, it provides learning in anytime
anywhere ( Al-Emran, Elsherif, &
Shaalan, 2016).
( Harris, 2001) defines mobile
learning as “an point interacted to
provide mobile computer technologies
and internet-based learning to be
‘everytime, everywhere’ learning
experience”. The term learning from
mobile implies the use of mobiles
devices as tool to deliver learning
materials. The learning with mobile
indicates the use of mobile devices as
tool/cognitive tool to promote higher
order thinking skills (Hamdani, 2013).
However, mobile learning has not yet
popular in learning method in
comparison with the using of smartphone
in daily life. Despite the fact that mobile
learning is integrated with various
universities systems, attraction with
students and the access to mobile
learning has not been as effective as
expected (Hashemi, Azizinezhad, Najafi,
& Nesari, 2011). Some studies also show
the weaknesses and the lack of using
mobile learning in learning equipment
(Briz-Ponce & Juanes-Me´ndez, 2016;
2
Furio´, Juan, Seguí, & Vivo´, 2015) and
the requirement in these findings is
intensive understanding of reaction of
students to mobile learning.
The object of this study is
to identify the factors that impact on the
university students’ resistance and their
intention to use mobile learning in
various field of academic and practical
interest. Compared to previous studies,
this study expands the scope of the
literature about mobile learning in two
aspects. Prior studies concentrated on
adoption and contentment of using
mobile learning, followed technology
acceptance model (TAM) and innovation
diffusion theory (IDT) (Cheon et al.,
2012; Hashim, 2007). The element that
affects resistance and the impaction of
students’ resistance has rarely been
analysed, in spite of the fact that the
importance role of an individual’s level
of resistance for innovation (Kim &
Kankanhalli ,2009). This study is filling
this gap by investigating both user
resistance and the use of mobile learning.
Besides that, individuals’ psycho-
logical characteristics, as well as
innovation characteristics that respond to
changes as independent variables is
added in this study improving this
discussion.
In this study, we apply
both innovation diffusion theory (IDT)
and model of innovation resistance
(MIR) to identify how the innovation
characteristics and individual
characteristics effect on intended using
and students’ resistance of mobile
learning. In practical, this study will
supply for strategists valuable
information to make a right decision in
making mobile learning more effective.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Innovation diffusion theory
IDT and TAM are typical model
and have been considered the attributes
of an innovation to be effective factors
for forecasting and interpreting about
consumers’ adoption of new technology
(Sanson-Fisher, R. W.,2004) and the
diffusion process, influence factors (Lee,
Hsieh, & Hsu, 2011) of great interest in
both academic and the industrial field.
Rogers (2003) proposed IDT, has
remained one of the strong theories to
predict the diffusion of innovations in a
social system (Tahir A. Wani and Syed
Wajid A.,2015). He stated that the five
attributes of an innovation - relative
advantage, compatibility, simplicity,
observability, and trialability- are
determinants of the adoption and
diffusion of the innovation in a target
clinical community (Sanson-Fisher, R.
W., 2004).
The role of each characteristic has
not been adequately evaluated at the
same level, so the results have been
confused, in spite of the fact that the
influence of innovation characteristics
has been proven in many previous
studies. The effects of trialability and
observability have not been examined as
much as the explanatory power of the
3
relative advantage, complexity, and
compatibility in some studies (Lee et al.,
2011; Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). Effects
of relative advantage and complexity
were more important than the five
innovation characteristics that were
figured out in the examination of mobile
learning applied IDT usage ( Joo, Lim,
and Lim,2014). The effects of these
commonly used external factors on
TAM's two main constructs, Perceived
Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived
Usefulness (PU) (Abdullah, F., & Ward,
R,2016) also have a connection about
literature (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw,
1989). In many previous studies
researched about education and other
fields such as demographic, PEOU and
PU are also useful in predicting the
adoption of user to new information
technologies (Porter & Donthu, 2006).
Model of innovation resistance
There are also have some primary
limitations existing because the amount
of theories focus on the viewpoint of
innovation adoption despite of
considerable explanatory power in
prevous studies. The first limitation is
that the examination of adoption has not
consist of negative emotional status
(Ram, 1987). For instance, if the user
resistance is 4 or 5 on a 5-point Linkert
scale, that means the resistance is high
and consumers will not accept this
innovation. However, it is hard to find
out whether this behavior are displeasure
or resistance. The next limitation is that
the existing learning methods have
capable of supplying the similar function
with the innovating method as a
substitute. Therefore, for the consumers,
the adoption a new technology has a
parallel relationship and maintains with
the existing approach (Garcia, Bardhi, &
Friedrich, 2007). Hence, this study
requires us a clearly differentiation
between the innovation adoption and the
resistance to innovation.
MIR (Ram, 1987; Ram & Sheth,
1989) is a typical theory to prove for
resistance paradigm. The perceived
innovation characteristics, consumer
characteristics, and propagation
mechanism are the element that make an
impact on innovation resistance
(Ram,1987). Innovation characteristics
variables that have been proved in IDT
were re-examined so that they can be
accepted for the innovation resistance
background. He explained that the higher
perception of complexity and perceived
risk, the lower perception of the relative
advantage and the compatibility,
trialability, and for innovation in MIR
and makes the resistance of consumers to
innovation greater. With MIR,
consumers have a tendency that they feel
they receive more losses than achieves as
they consider the consequences of
particular acts (Kahneman & Tversky,
1979). Therefore they automatic
psychologically behaviour to support for
current approach and protest innovations
with other conditions are the same.
The variables of consumer
characteristics that affect innovation
resistance includes 2 variables:
psychological variables and
demographics. Personality, beliefs, and
attitudes represent for psychological
variables, which is defined “Willingness
to innovate”. Age, education, and income
decribe demographics variables and
show the “ability to innovate” (Ram,
1987, p. 211).
Research model
This study presents the research
model below, relied on the preious
studies and concerned theories to
discover the effect of innovation
characteristics which includes relative
advantage and complexity, individual
characteristics which consists of inertia
and innovativeness, on 2 dependent
variables are intention and resistance of
mobile learning.

4
 Relative
advantage

Innovation Mobile learning

characteristics resistance
distinguish
Complexity

Inertia
Intention to
Individual use mobile
characteristics learning
Innovativeness

Fig.1. Research model

METHODOLOGY mesured in this study. They were

Measurements
Relative advantage, complexity,
inertia, innovativeness, mobile learning
resistance, and intention to use mobile
learning are six- contructs which were
Construct Item
measured using multiple items and each
item employed a 5-point Likert scale,
ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to
“strongly agree” (5). The items used in
the questionnaire are listed in the Table 1

Relative advantage Mobile learning is relatively faster than existing learning methods.

Mobile learning is relatively convenience than existing learning methods.

Mobile learning is relatively efficient than existing learning methods.
Complexity Mobile learning is complex and difficult
Mobile learning is more difficult to become familiar than other learning
methods.

5
 It is difficult to learn how to use the service or device to mobile learning.
Inertia I will continue using my existing learning method because it would be
stressful to change.
I will continue using my existing learning method simply because it is what I
have always done.
I will continue using my existing learning even though I know it is not the
most effective way to do things.
Innovativeness Other people come to me for advice on new technologies.
I usually figure out new high-tech products and services without help from
others.
In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to acquire a new
technology when it appears.
Mobile learning resistance I will not comply with the change my existing learning method into mobile
learning.
I oppose the change my existing learning method into mobile learning.
Intention to use mobile I will continue to use mobile learning.
learning
I will extend the use of mobile learning

Moore and Benbasat (1991) Items of students' resistance to

adapted Relative advantage. The items
for relative advantage addressed relative
convenience, relative learning efficiency,
and relative learning speed in their study.
Moore and Benbasat (1991) also adopted
three items for complexity to measure
the degree to which mobile learning is
perceived as being difficult to use. A
scale for inertia in the context of new
system acceptance was developed by
three items of inertia were adapted from
Polites and Karahanna’s (2012). The
measures for innovativeness were
adapted from the Technology Readiness
Index recommended by Parasuraman
(2000).
mobile learning were adapted from Kim
and Kankanhalli (2009) who developed
user resistance scales with four items
based on Bovey and Hede’s (2001)
framework of resistance behaviors.
Data collection
This study was based on Kim, H.
J., Lee, J. M., & Rha, J. Y. (2017) so
data was collected by a main survey. The
main survey was conducted using a self-
administered online questionnaire from
April 26 to May 2, 2018. Participant
recruitment and data collection were
conducted by Google Forms, Google
Sheet (www.docs.google.com)

6
Table 2
Sample characteristics. (N=174)
Variable Category Frequency Percentage
Gender Male 56 32.2
Female 115 66.1
Other 3 1.7
Age 15-18 3 1.7
18-19 36 20.7
>19 135 77.6
Grade Freshman 21 12.1
Sophomore 135 77.6
Other 18 10.3
Quota sampling was performed on the basis of gender and grade to obtain general
responses of university students. A total of 174 sets were collected. Table2 shows the
general characteristics of the sample
Data Analysis RESULT
Internal consistency reliability for Measurement model testing
the six-contructs were examined using
the Cronbach's alpha values and EFA – Internal consistency reliability for
Exploratory Factor Analysis. SPSS 23 the six measurement scales was
Software used in data processing and examined using the Cronbach's alpha
dissecting .
values. As listed in Table 3, all of these
The order, formula and analysis
results will be displayed in tne following values were greater than the
parts. recommended threshold value of 0.7
(Nunnally, 197

7
 Table 3

Cronbach’s Cronbach's Alpha Based

Construct Item N of Items
Alpha on Standardized Items

A1
Relative Advantage A2 0.864 0.865 3
A3
B1
Complexity B2 0.844 0.846 3
B3
C1
Inertia C2 0.809 0.810 3
C3
D1
Innovativeness D2 0.771 0.717 3
D3

Mobile Learning E1
0.726 0.727 2
Resistance E2

Intention to use mobile F1

0.766 0.766 2
learning F2

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) complete model. The statistic is a

measure of the proportion of variance
Test is a measure of how suited
among variables that might be common
your data is for Factor Analysis. The test
variance. The lower the proportion, the
measures sampling adequacy for each
more suited your data is to Factor
variable in the model and for the
Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .748
Approx. Chi-Square 1700.653
Bartlett's Test of
df 120
Sphericity
Sig. .000

8
 Structure Matrix

Factor

1 2 3 4

A2 .869
A1 .864
A3 .805
F2 .723
F1 .680
B2 .863
B1 .862
B3 .825
E1 .579
C2 .845
C3 .809
C1 .763
E2 .557
D1 .798
D2 .785
D3 .611

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

CONCLUSION of the relative advantage, complexity,

The purpose of this paper is to
identify the factors that influence the
interference and intention to use mobile
devices in learning through the use of
two integrated research models,
innovation diffusion theory IDT) and
model of innovation resistance (MIR).
We also add the concept and influence of
inertia and innovation to the adoption of
mobile devices in learning.
“The effects of trialability and
observability have been dismissed in
some studies, and the explanatory power
and compatibility have been found to be
relatively high” (Lee et al., 2011;
Tornatzky & Klein, 1982). In this
studies, the relative advantage or
perceived usefulness have been reported
as variables that increase students’
satisfaction and adoption of mobile
learning. The results of this study show
that relative advantage not only increases
the intention but also reduces the
impediment to using mobile devices in
learning. From this point of view, to
increase the number of students using
mobile devices in our study, we should

9
show the visible effects of the use of
mobile devices, thus comparing with the
effects of learning. usually, common,
normal. This allows them to see how
learning on a mobile device is more
effective than regular learning.
The study by Weber (Yow, &
Soong, 2005), learning by mobile
devices, makes communication between
students very convenient and flexible.
So, in order for students to understand
and take advantage of the advantages of
mobile learning, we need to develop
content and services so that it is
compatible with mobile devices. Unless
you apply the content on the mobile web
to your mobile device, doing so will not
take full advantage of the use of mobile
devices for learning.
In recent studies that have applied
IDT or TAM, the explanatory power of
the complexity or the perceived ease of
use has tended to decrease (Al-
Jabri&Sohail, 2012; Kapoor,
Dwivedi,&Williams, 2014), probably
because adoption (intention) has been the
dependent variable. The direct effect of
complexity on the intention to use
mobile learning was also not significant
in present study.
According to the study (Burnham,
Frels, & Mahajan, 2003), the complexity
will dominate the adoption and spread of
mobile phone use in learning, the
complexity of these services. Mobile
devices will increase the cost of the
device, thereby hindering the purchase of
mobile devices for learning, thereby
10
hindering acceptance of mobile learning.
The three factors, the complexity, the
obstruction, the adaptation are closely
related, this change will affect the other
two factors. So we have to understand
the structure of the three elements to
verify their relationship.
According to a recent study (Hao
et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2009)
Mobile devices such as
smartphones are not specifically
designed for learning, and most people
use mobile devices for gaming, surfing,
listening to music, watching movies, and
so on. The focus is so much that these
activities will distract you, which is a
deterrent to learning (Polites &
Karahanna, 2012), inertia, loyalty to
current learning methods, hesitating to
learn to change is a major factor
affecting the use of mobile devices in
learning. Persons with high inertia state
that they will not spend time learning
new learning methods, as well as
adjusting their current learning habits
(Oreg, 2003). Therefore, based on the
inertia factor, we can determine the
degree of obstruction
Personal change, like new things,
is found to increase the use of mobile
devices in student learning. (Liu, Li, &
Carlsson, 2010; Milo sevi c et al., 2015)
who prefer change, adventurous, they
appreciate the use of mobile devices for
learning, as they tend to absorb novelty
than those other. Therefore, factors such
as personality and attitudes need to be
taken into account to determine the
extent to which mobile devices are used
in learning.
Mobile learning resistance was
found to be a predictor of the intention to
use mobile learning and mediated the
relationship between the relative
advantage, complexity, and intention to
use mobile learning. These results imply
that proactively reducing resistance is
necessary to promote the adoption and
diffusion of mobile learning. Resistance
may change according to each situation,
and the level of resistance can vary
depending on the characteristics of the
innovation or technology (Kuisma,
Laukkanen,&Hiltunen, 2007; Ram,
1987). Although mobile learning
References
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016).
Developing a General Extended
Technology Acceptance Model for E-
Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing
commonly used external factors.
Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238-
256.
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.
Bovey, W. H., & Hede, A. (2001).
Resistance to organisational change: The
role of defence mechanisms. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548
Briz-Ponce, L., & Juanes-
Méndez, J. A. (2015). Mobile devices
and apps, characteristics and current
11
resistance can have a negative impact on
the use or satisfaction of learning-related
technologies, it can also contribute to
recognizing the limitations of the
innovation and improving on it (Joo et
al., 2016). Therefore, education decision-
makers and service providers should
understand and reduce user resistance by
seeking concrete measures, which
increase the benefits of converting to a
new learning style and decrease the
costs. Before promoting the innovative
factors of a new learning style, the
direction of mobile learning should be
modified in a way that can further
increase the benefits gained from the
existing learning approaches.
potential on learning. Journal of
Information Technology Research
(JITR), 8(4), 26-37.
Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M.,
& Song, J. (2012). An investigation of
mobile learning readiness in higher
education based on the theory of planned
behavior. Computers & Education,
59(3), 1054-1064.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &
Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance
of computer technology: A comparison
of two theoretical models. Management
Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Furió, D., Juan, M. C., Seguí, I.,
& Vivó, R. (2015). Mobile learning vs.
traditional classroom lessons: a
comparative study. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, 31(3), 189-201.
 Garcia, R., Bardhi, F., & diffusion theory to the technology
Friedrich, C. (2007). Overcoming acceptance model: Supporting
consumer resistance to innovation. MIT employees' intentions to use e-learning
Sloan Management Review, 48(4), 82-88 systems. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 14(4), 124-137.
Hamdani, D. (2013). Mobile
Learning: A Good Practice. Procedia - Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I.
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, (1991). Development of an instrument to
665-674. measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation.
Harris, P., (2001), Goin’ Mobile,
Information Systems Research, 2(3),
Web Site:
192-222.
http://www.astd.org/LC/2001/0701_harri
s.htm, 20.08.2010. Parasuraman, A. (2000).
Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a
Hashemi, M., Azizinezhad, M.,
multiple-item scale to measure readiness
Najafi, V., & Nesari, A. J. (2011). What
to embrace new technologies. Journal of
is mobile learning? Challenges and
Service Research, 2(4), 307-320
capabilities. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 30, 2477-2481. Polites, G. L., & Karahanna, E.
(2012). Shackled to the status quo: The
Joo, Y. J., Lim, K. Y., & Lim, E.
inhibiting effects of incumbent system
(2014). Investigating the structural
habit, switching costs, and inertia on new
relationship among perceived innovation
system acceptance. MIS Quarterly,
attributes, intention to use and actual use
36(1), 21-42
of mobile learning in an online university
in South Korea. Australasian Journal of Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N.
Educational Technology, 30(4), 427-439. (2006). Using the technology acceptance
model to explain how attitudes determine
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
Internet usage: The role of perceived
(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of
access barriers and demographics.
decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2),
Journal of Business Research, 59(9),
263e292.
999-1007.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
Ram, S. (1987). A mode of
(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of
innovation resistance. Advances in
decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2),
Consumer Research, 14, 208-212.
263-292.
Ram, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1989).
Kim, H. W., & Kankanhalli, A.
Consumer resistance to innovations: The
(2009). Investigating user resistance to
marketing problem and its solutions.
information systems implementation: A
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6(2),
status quo bias perspective. MIS
5e14.
quarterly, 567-582.
Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Hsu,
C. N. (2011). Adding innovation
12
 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion Adoption of Smartphones in India .
of innovations (3th ed.). New York: Free Journal of General Management
Press. Research, 3(2), pp 101–118.
Sanson-Fisher, R. W. (2004). Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J.
Diffusion of innovation theory for (1982). Innovation characteristics and
clinical change. Medical journal of innovation adoption-implementation: A
Australia, 180(6 Suppl), S55. meta-analysis of findings. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering
Tahir A. Wani., Syed Wajid A.
Management, 29(1), 28-45.
(2015). Innovation Diffusion Theory
Review & Scope in the Study of

13