THE EVOLUTION OF TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL (TAM)

AND RECENT PROGRESS ON TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE RESEARCH IN

ELT: STATE OF THE ART ARTICLE

by:
I Dewa Gede Rat Dwiyana Putra

Abstract:
The vast development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)
improves the integration of technology for the academic purpose. This phenomenon then
raises an issue of technology acceptance, which becomes an interesting field of investigation
for many scholars. In this respect, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has proven to be a
robust, powerful, and parsimonious framework for predicting user acceptance of
technology integration in various fields (Lai, 2017; Rondan-Cataluna et al., 2015). Although
there is a lot of research studies reported the use of TAM and its developed versions in
investigating the technology acceptance in the educational field, there is no publication that
trying to map current studies which focus on educational technology acceptance research
especially in ELT. Based on the needs of providing such information, this article would
present the state of the art of the current research trends on the application of TAM
framework in investigating ICT integration acceptance in ELT. The main part of this article
would describe the evolution of TAM framework, followed by the discussion of recent
research results concerning the technology acceptance, and the future trends of technology
acceptance research in ELT. This state of the art article is expected to inspire other researchers
to conduct further studies on technology acceptance in ELT and also suggest the ELT
practitioners about the current and future trends in technology integration for academic
purpose.

Keywords: English Language Teaching (ELT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).

INTRODUCTION studies use the Technology Acceptance

Technology acceptance research
has long been practiced in various fields,
such as economy, business, health, and
also education that had been reported by
various research reviews synthesis
(Rondan-Cataluña et al., 2015; Venkatesh
et al., 2016; Lai, 2017). Most of the studies
reported are the result on the investigation
of the users’ acceptance of a new system to
be implemented in a working
environment and also the factors that
might contribute to the users’ intention to
use the system introduced. Most of those
Model (TAM) and its developed versions
including TAM1, TAM2, TAM3, Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT1) and UTAUT2 as a
research framework to explore the users’
acceptance behavior. TAM itself was
initially introduced by Fred D. Davis in
1986 and continuously developed until
the introduction of UTAUT2 in 2012.
However, although there are a lot of
research reports on the use of TAM in the
educational field, there are limited
number of studies reported which are

Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio 25

September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
done in ELT context. Therefore, this state
of the art article sought to fulfill this
information gap by providing the
evolution of TAM, recent progress of
TAM application in ELT context and also
the research gap in the field of
investigation. The implication for ELT
practitioners and other researchers in ELT
also is provided at the end of this article.
THE EVOLUTION OF TAM
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
The main issue that initiated the
development of TAM is the lack of
measurement scale that can be used to
predict user acceptance of technology e.g.
computer, at that time. Therefore, Davis
(1986) proposed Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) which was adapted from
the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) by
Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen in 1975.
TAM is specifically developed for
modeling the user acceptance of
information systems (Davis et al., 1989).
TAM can be used to predict the
technology usage and expected to be
beneficial for vendors who would need to
know the users’ requirement and the
information system manager within the
user organization who need to evaluate
the new technology or system design
offered by vendors (Davis, 1989: 320).
Figure 1. Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) (Davis et al., 1989: 984)
26
There are two specific variables that
were developed and validated in
constructing TAM, namely ‘perceived
usefulness’ (PU) and ‘perceived ease of use’
(PEOU). PU is defined as “the degree to
which a person believes that using a
particular system would enhance his or
her job performance.” This definition was
generated from the word ‘useful’: “capable
of being used advantageously” (Davis,
1989: 320). Besides, PEOU is defined as
“the degree to which a person believes
that using a particularly system would be
free of effort.” This definition was rooted
from the word ‘ease’: “freedom from
difficulty or great effort” (Davis, 1989:
320). These two variables were
hypothesized to be the fundamental
determinants of user acceptance.
PU and PEOU have three
dimensions each. The dimensions of PU
variable are job effectiveness, productivity
& time saving and the importance of the
system to one’s job. The final proposed
scale items to assess perceived usefulness
are related to work more quickly, job
performance, increase productivity,
effectiveness, makes job easier, and useful
(Davis, 1989: 325). Besides, the dimensions
of PEOU are physical effort, mental effort
and perception on how easy the system
can be learned. Then final proposed scale
items to assess perceived ease of use are
relate to easy to learn, controllable, clear
and understandable, flexible, easy to
become skillful and easy to use.
Technology Acceptance Model 1
(TAM1)
TAM1 was introduced by
Venkatesh and Davis (1996) in an article
that investigates the antecedent of
perceived ease of use. TAM1 in figure 2
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Education
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
shows the omission of ‘Attitude’ (A) which adoption decision to be non-mandatory”
mediate the relationship between PU and (Agarwal & Prasad, 1997; Hartwick &
PEOU on ‘Behavior’ (B) in the previous Barki 1994; Moore & Benbasat 1991in
model. The A variable was omitted Venkatesh & Davis, 2000:188), (3) Social
because it does not fully mediate the effect influence is defined as “influence to accept
of PU and PEOU on B (Davis, 1989:335). information from another as evidence
about reality” (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955:
629 in Venkatesh & Davis, 2000:189), and
(4) Images is defined as “the degree to
which use of an innovation is perceived to
enhance one’s . . . status in one’s social
system” (Moore & Benbasat, 1991:195 in
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000:189).
Figure 2. Technology Acceptance Model 1 (TAM1) The operational definitions of the
(Venkatesh & Davis, 1996:453)
variables constructing ‘social influence
processes’ are; (1) Job relevance is defined as
Technology Acceptance Model 2
“an individual’s perception regarding the
(TAM2)
degree to which the target system is
Venkatesh & Davis (2000) develop
applicable to his or her job” (Venkatesh &
and tests a theoretical extension of TAM
Davis, 2000:191), (2) Output quality is
which is called TAM 2. TAM 2 explains
defined as “how well does a system could
PU in terms of two external variables,
perform a task and the degree to which
namely ‘social influence processes’ and
those tasks match the job goal”
‘cognitive instrumental processes’ which has
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000:191), (3) Result
proven to be significantly influenced user
demonstrability is defined as “tangibility of
acceptance (Venkatesh & Davis,
the results of using the innovation”
2000:186). The social influence processes
(Moore & Benbasat, 1991: 203 in
include subjective norms (as in TRA),
Venkatesh & Davis, 2000:192) and (4)
voluntariness, social influence, images, and
PEOU is still consistent with previous
experience, while the cognitive
definition. Figure 3 illustrates the
instrumental process includes job
relationship among variables in TAM2.
relevance, output quality, result
demonstrability, and PEOU.
The operational definitions of the
variables constructing ‘social influence
processes’ are; (1)‘Subjective norms’ is
defined as “person’s perception that most
people who are important to him think he
should or should not perform the
behavior in question” (Fishbein and Ajzen
1975: 302 in Venkatesh & Davis, 2000:187),
(2) Voluntariness is defined as “the extent
to which potential adopters perceive the

Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio 27

September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
 construct of ‘control’ are perceptions of
internal control or computer self-efficacy
and perceptions of external control or
facilitating conditions. The construct of
‘intrinsic motivation’ is computer
playfulness. The construct of ‘emotion’ is
computer anxiety. Besides, ‘adjusting
frame’ is defined as “belief that is shaped
based on direct experience with the target
system” which includes ‘perceived
enjoyment’ and ‘objective usability’
Figure 3. Extended Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM 2) (Vankantesh & Davis, 2000:197) (Venkatesh, 2000:346). Figure 4 illustrates
the relationship among the anchoring
Technology Acceptance Model 3 frame, adjusting frame and PEOU. Then,
(TAM3) in TAM3 as illustrated in Figure 5,
Venkatesh and Bala (2008: 280) combine
the whole determinants of PU and PEOU
in a single model which also shows new
tested moderating effects on the
relationship between ‘computer anxiety’
and PEOU, PEOU and PU, PEOU and BI.

Figure 4. The relationship among the anchoring

frame, adjusting frame and PEOU (Vankantesh &
Davis, 2000:197)
After the introduction of TAM2 by
Venkatesh & Davis (2000), in the same
year, Venkatesh also publish an article
concerning the determinants of PEOU
which was actually already introduced in
Venkatesh and Davis (1996). The
determinants of PEOU include two
frames, namely ‘anchoring’ and
‘adjustment’. ‘Anchoring frame’ is defined
as “user’s initial or general belief about
computer and computer usage,” which
including the constructs of ‘control’,
‘intrinsic motivation’, and ‘emotion.’ The Figure 5. Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3)
(Vankantesh & Bala, 2008:280)

28 Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Education

September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology (UTAUT)
Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT) was
formulated by Venkatesh, Morris, Davis,
& Davis (2003). UTAUT is the fusion of
eight prominent models that are used to
predict the user acceptance behavior.
Those models are; (1) Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA), (2) Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM), (3) Motivational Model
(MM), (4) Theory of Planned Behavior
(TBP), (5) Combined of TAM and TBP (C-
TAM-TBP), (6) Model of PC Utilization
(MPCU), (7) Innovation Diffusion Theory
(IDT), and Social Cognitive Theory (SCT).
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis
(2003) conducted several steps in
formulating UTAUT, those are; (1)
reviewing user acceptance literature and
research and discuss the eight prominent
models, (2) comparing the eight models
and their extensions empirically, (3)
formulating a unified model that
integrated elements across the eight
models, and then (4) validate the unified
model. The final validated unified model
comprises four main determinants of
intention and usage behavior and four
moderators of the main relationships
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,
200:425). Figure 6 shows the relationships
among the construct and variables in
UTAUT.
Figure 6. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT)
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003:447)
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
Based on the illustration above,
the four unified determinants of intention
and usage are ‘performance expectancy’,
‘effort expectancy’, ‘social influence’, and
‘facilitating conditions.’ The root construct
of ‘performance expectancy’ are perceived
usefulness, extrinsic motivation, job-fit,
relative advantage and outcome
expectation. The root construct of ‘effort
expectancy’ are perceived ease of use,
complexity, and ease of use. The root
construct of ‘social influence’ are
subjective norms, social factors, and
image. The root construct of ‘facilitating
conditions’ are perceived behavioral
control, facilitating condition, and
compatibility. While the four main
relationship moderators are ‘gender’, ‘age’,
‘experience’, and ‘voluntariness of use’
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology 2 (UTAUT2)
UTAUT2 is the extension of
UTAUT in a sense that there are three
additional constructs that are
incorporated into the previous Unified
Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology. Those three additional
constructs are ‘hedonic motivation’, ‘price
value’, and ‘habit’. ‘Hedonic motivation’ is
defined as “the fun or pleasure derived
from using a technology.” ‘Price value’ is
defined as “consumers’ cognitive tradeoff
between the perceived benefits of the
applications and the monetary cost for
using them” (Dodds et al. 1991 in
Venkatesh, Thong, Xu, 2012: 161). ‘Habit’
is defined as “the extent to which people
tend to perform behaviors automatically
because of learning” (Limayem et al. 2007
in Venkatesh, Thong, Xu, 2012: 161).
29
 In the development of UTAUT2,
the investigation also focused on the role
of ‘gender’, ‘age’, and ‘experience’ in
moderating the relationship performed
by ‘hedonic motivation’, ‘price value’, ‘habit’,
and also facilitating condition toward
‘behavioral intention’ and ‘use behavior’.
There are sevaral statement hypothesized
based on these investigated moderating
relationship, those are: (1) the effect of
facilitating conditions on behavioral
intention will be stronger among older
women in early stages of experience with
a technology, (2) the effect of hedonic
motivation on behavioral intention will be
stronger among younger men in early
stages of experience with a technology, (3)
the effect of price value on behavioral
intention will be stronger among women,
particularly older women, (4) the effect of
habit on behavioral intention will be
stronger for older men with high levels of
experience with the technology, (5) the
effect of habit on technology use will be
stronger for older men with high levels of
experience with the technoloy, and (6) the
effect of behavioral intention on use will
be stronger for consumers with less
experience. Figure 7 illustrates the
relationships among variables in
UTAUT2.
Figure 7. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology 2 (UTAUT2)
(Venkatesh, Thong, Xu, 2012: 160)
30
If we focused on the specified
technology acceptance investigated along
the evolution of technology acceptance
model, there is a gradual shift from
investigating the user acceptance of
computer-based technology toward the
behavioral usage of mobile-based
technology. In developing the original
TAM, the technologies investigated are
file (text) processing and editing software
and electronic mail system (Davis,
Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Davis, 1989;
Davis, 1993). TAM1 which is introduced
in 1996 also investigates the college
students’ acceptance of word processing
and spreadsheet software (Venkatesh, &
Davis, 1996). TAM2 which is introduced
in 2000, investigated the employee
acceptance of proprietary software,
company or operational business system,
costumer account management system,
financial system, online-help desk system,
multimedia system for property
management, company payroll
application, etc. (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000;
Venkatesh, 2000). TAM3 still deals with
the acceptance of IT systems applied in the
development of TAM2, it is more directed
for business use of technology
(Venkatesh, Bala, 2008). The fusion of
eight mainframes of user acceptance
framework to develop UTAUT in 2003
was also gone through a validation based
on an investigation of two computer-
based system software; financial system
and user account system (Venkatesh,
Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003).
A shift of technology focus could
be seen in the development of UTAUT 2
in 2012. UTAUT2 gives emphasis on the
acceptance and use of mobile internet
technology in the customer context. The
mobile internet technology investigated
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Education
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
was e-government services system, which
provides such services including filing tax
returns, booking public facilities, checking
traffic information, appointment booking
for various government services, and
renewal of driving licenses (Venkatesh,
Thong, Xu, 2012). It shows that, in the
previous development, starting from
TAM until UTAUT, the investigation
focus was in computer-based technology,
while in the development of UTAUT 2 the
focus is shifted to mobile-based
technology. Figure 8 illustrates the
evolution of technology acceptance
framework and focus of technology
investigated in its initial development and
testing.
Figure 8. Technology Acceptance Framework
Evolution Based on Types of Technology
Investigated
RECENT PROGRESS ON
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE
RESEARCH IN ELT
The evolution of technology
acceptance framework influences the
current trend of technology acceptance
research in various fields, especially
education. Based on the recent
development of UTAUT2, research on
technology acceptance in general
education field all around the world are
mostly focused on the acceptance of
mobile-based learning technology
(Ahmed & Kabir, 2018; Lebzar & Jahidi,
2017; Chaka & Govender, 2017, Alharbi,
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
et.al. 2017; Alzaidiyeen, 2017; Ali &
Arshad, 2016). Besides, there are also
studies that investigate the technology
acceptance in a bigger educational scope,
such as classroom and school
management system (Wei, et.al, 2016;
Zyad, 2016).
The applications of UTAUT and
UTAUT2 framework in predicting user
acceptance of mobile technology in
general education field raise various
findings which support the premises
offered by those frameworks. Chaka &
Govender (2017) states that ‘performance
expectancy’, ‘effort expectancy’, ‘social
influence’, and ‘mobile learning conditions’
are positively correlated and significantly
predict Nigerian college students’
intention towards m-learning. These
findings are also confirmed by Ahmed &
Kabir (2018) who states that that UTAUT2
model constructs are significant
predictors for the acceptance of
smartphone as m-learning tools among
university students in Bangladesh, where
there is an equal acceptance showed by
man and woman users. He also found
that younger age group students (18-20)
are potential users of mobile technology,
so it is suggested m-learning would be
more effective if it is applied to the
students in those ages.
While there are many reports on
the application of UTAUT and UTAUT2
in the education field, research that
investigated technology acceptance in the
field of ELT is relatively rare. A synthesis
article made by Venkatesh, Thong, Xu
(2016), which present a summary of the
application of UTAUT from 2007 to 2014,
does not mention any studies conducted
in ELT context. There are 4 out of 11 total
application of UTAUT model recorded in
31
 the synthesis which is done in educational
context, but none of them are especially
done in English Language Teaching
context (Venkatesh, Thong, Xu, 2016: 333).
Therefore, to fulfill this information gap, I
have collected several published studies
on the application of either TAM or its
other developed versions including
UTAUT to investigate the technology
acceptance in ELT. The collected research
studies are ranging from the publications
of 2014 to 2017. Table 1 below provides
information about the authors, acceptance
model used, users, technology
investigated, language skills, research
location, and research result.

Table 1 Summary of TAM & UTAUT Application in ELT Research

Model
Source Users Tech. Skills Location Result
Used
Chung et TAM College Vocabulary Vocabulary Taiwan Learners’ behavioral
al, 2014 Students Learning intention to use mobile
Resources English vocabulary
learning resources was
significantly determined
by ‘compatibility’ of the
technology.
Zyad, TAM2 College Online Writing Morocco Almost all the students
2016 Students Moodle across different degree of
Course engagement perceived
Moodle as a useful tool
for sharing, collaboration
and learning.
Hashim UTAUT College Mobile All skills Malaysia ESL students show a
et al., Students Learning positive attitude towards
2016 mobile learning.
Dizon, TAM College Quizlet Vocabulary Japan Quizlet was found to be
2016 Students a useful approach to
studying L2 vocabulary.
Students would like to
continue using it in the
future.
Al- TAM College Online Reading Worldwide Participants held strong
Seghayer, Level Reading beliefs about the
2016 English Text usefulness of online
Instructor reading in improving the
quality of L2 reading
instruction and
developing learners’
reading skills.

32 Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Education

September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
Mussa & TAM Post- Flashcard on
Izkair, Graduate Mobile
2017 Students Phone
Although there are very limited
publications could be presented on the
table, yet the information provided still
shows the recent progress of technology
acceptance research in ELT. Most of the
studies still used TAM framework to
explain students’ technology acceptance
in ELT, although there are already
renewed model including TAM2 and
TAM3. It means that the findings would
be not as comprehensive as what is
suggested by the last developed TAM.
Therefore, based on this issue, the first
gap of technology acceptance research in
ELT is; there are a limited number of studies
on technology acceptance in ELT which
applied the recent updated TAM3 framework.
Besides, it was rarely found a research that
utilizes UTAUT2 framework in
predicting technology acceptance in ELT.
So, the second gap is; there are a limited
number of studies on technology acceptance in
ELT which applied the recent updated
UTAUT2 framework.
The second information that we
can get from the table above is regarding
the target user of technology in ELT
context. The table shows that most of the
studies that had been conducted recently
investigate the technology acceptance of
college-level users, both students and
lecturers. However, the high school level
smartphone users are also potential target
investigation of technology acceptance.
American demographic data shows that
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
Vocabulary Malaysia Using flash-cards on
mobile phones was a
more useful tool in
enhancing learners’
vocabulary acquisition
than using flashcards on
paper.
there is 90% of less than high school
graduates are smartphone users (Pew
Research Center, 2018). Less than high
school graduates are including the
smartphone users in high school, lower
secondary and might also be in primary
school or lower. Therefore, the third gap
is: Users’ technology acceptance from different
ages and education levels is left unexplored.
The third information provided
by Table 1 is the technology in a form of
hardware or software/system/platform
that is investigated for its acceptance in
ELT context. However, the hardware and
software listed on the table are only a
small number of technologies which are
developed for the academic purpose.
There might be hundreds of software and
applications especially for mobile devices,
which are developed for the educational
purpose and many of them, are created
especially for English language teaching
and learning e.g. Duo Lingo, Hello English,
50 Languages, all types of Dictionaries
application, etc. This phenomenon
suggests the fourth gap, that is: there are a
limited number of studies which investigated
English language learning mobile application
acceptance in ELT context.
The target language component
and skill investigated in technology
acceptance research in ELT is only limited
to vocabulary, reading and writing. ELT
researchers need to investigate the
acceptance of other technologies which
33
match the language component and skill
other than vocabulary, reading and
writing. Besides, English language
learning technology investigated should
also follow the development of the view
of communicative competence which is
not limited to language component and
skill only. There are 6 latest developed
communicative competencies that should
be taken into account in developing and
researching ELL technology acceptance,
those are; linguistic competence,
formulaic competence, sociocultural
competence, interactional competence,
discourse competence and strategic
competence (Celce-Murcia, 2007:45). This
raises the fifth gap, that is: user acceptance
investigation of a technology which matches all
of the communicative competence aspects is
still rarely found.
Based on the five gaps elaborated
based on the recent progress of
technology acceptance research in ELT,
there would be four main directions of
future research trend in this particular
field of investigation. First, more ELT
researchers will explore the application of
the latest developed TAM and UTAUT
frameworks in ELT. There will also be
more studies that investigate other
external variables that might be added to
the established TAM3 or UTAUT2 which
are able to explain the technology
acceptance in ELT better. Second, there
will be more studies conducted in various
demographic backgrounds of technology
users, especially different education
levels, ages, etc. Third, future research
will move toward mobile technology
acceptance in ELT context. The
technology investigated would be
including English language learning
mobile application, newly developed
34
devices that support mobile or distance
learning, or any other developed
technology that supports the 21st-century
learning. Lastly, the technology
acceptance research will also consider the
aspects of communicative competence in
ELT which probably would still growing
and developing.
CONCLUSION
The development of technology
acceptance research, which is indicated by
the evolution of TAM and UTAUT
frameworks, is expected to offer a robust
and powerful tool in predicting the ELT
practitioner acceptance of English
language learning technology. Present
progress in the field of technology
acceptance research also suggests that the
English language teaching and learning
practices are moving toward the mobile
internet learning environment. However,
there are relatively rare studies that report
the use of the latest TAM and UTAUT
frameworks in ELT context. Therefore,
more studies are expected to contribute to
the development of both the technology
acceptance research in ELT and the ELT
practices itself. Theoretically, there are still
a lot more external variables that could
explain the technology acceptance
behavior in ELT which are left
unexplored. Practically, the integration of
technology in ELT should be preceded by
an acceptance research, in order to ensure
the users’ intention to use at the following
time.
This state of the art article which
provides recent progress in the field of
technology acceptance research in ELT
and its research gaps is expected to inspire
both ELT practitioner (lecturer, teachers,
student teachers, students,
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Education
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
school/institution organizer, etc.) and
researchers in their activities around ELT
field. ELT practitioner should be able to
take the information given in this article as
an anchoring point of technology
integration practices in their instructional
process, classrooms organization or
institution management. The research
results provided could also give them a
suggestion about the appropriate
technology for a specific level of education
and targeted language component or skill.
Besides, ELT researchers should be able to
fill in the gaps that are suggested by the
previous researchers.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M.S., Kabir, S.M.A. 2018. The
Acceptance of Smartphone as a
Mobile Learning Tool: Students of
Business Studies in Bangladesh.
Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Technology, (6)2, 38-47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17220/mojet.20
18.04. 003
Alharbi, O., Alotebi, H., Masmali, A.,
Alreshidi, N. 2017. Instructor
Acceptance of Mobile Learning in
Saudi Arabia: A Case Study of Hail
University. International Journal of
Business and Management, (12)5,
doi:10.5539/ijbm.v12n5p27
Ali, R.A., Arshad, M.R.M. 2016.
Perspectives of Students’ Behavior
towards Mobile Learning (M-
learning) in Egypt: an Extension of
the UTAUT Model. Engineering,
Technology & Applied Science
Research, (6)4, 1109-1114. www.
etasr.com
Al-Seghayer, K. 2016 ESL/EFL Instructors’
Perceptions of the Efficacy of Online
Reading Instruction. International
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
Journal of Linguistics, (8)4, 119-132.
http://dx.doi.org /10.5296/ijl.v8i4.
9571
Alzaidiyeen, N.J. 2017. English as a
Foreign Language Students
Attitudes towards the Utilization of
iPad in Language Learning.
Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Technology, (5)3, 16-24.
www.mojet.net
Celce-Murcia, M. 2007. Rethinking the
Role of Communicative
Competence in Language Teaching.
In Soler, E. A., Jordà, M. P. S. (Eds.),
Intercultural Language Use and
Language Learning (pp. 41-57).
Netherland: Springer. DOI.
10.1007/978-1-4020-5639-0_3
Chaka, J.G., Govender, I. 2017. Students’
perceptions and readiness towards
mobile learning in colleges of
education: a Nigerian perspective.
South African Journal of Education,
(37)1, 1-11. doi: 10.15700/saje.v37
n1a1282
Chung, H.H., Chen, S.C., Kuo, M.H. 2014.
A Study of EFL College Students’
Acceptance of Mobile Learning.
Social and Behavioral Sciences, (176),
333-339. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro
.2015.01.479
Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness,
Perceived Ease of Use, and User
Acceptance of Information
Technology. MIS (Management
Information System) Quarterly, (13)3,
319-340.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw,
P.R. 1989. User Acceptance of
Computer Technology: A
Comparison of Two Theoretical
Models. Management Science, (35)8,
35
 982-1002.
https://www.researchgte.net
Davis, F.D. 1993. User Acceptance of
Information Technology: System
Characteristic, User Perception and
Behavioral Impact. International
Journal of Man-Machine Studies, (38)3,
475-487.
https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1
022
Dizon, G. 2016. Quizlet in the EFL
Classroom: Enhancing Academic
Vocabulary Acquisition of Japanese
University Students. Teaching
English with Technology, 16(2), 40-56,
http://www.tewtjournal.org
Hashim, H., Yunus, M.M., & Embi, M.A.
2016. Pre-University English as
Second Language (ESL) Learners’
Attitude towards Mobile Learning.
Creative Education, (7)8, 1147-1153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2016.78
119
Lai, P.C. 2017. The Literature Review of
Technology Adoption Models and
Theories for the Novelty
Technology. Journal of Information
Systems and Technology Management,
(14)1, 21-38. DOI: 10.4301/S1807-
17752017000100002
Lebzar, B., Jahidi, R. 2017. Factors
Influencing the Acceptance of M-
Learning by Students of Higher
Education in Morocco. International
Journal of Emerging Research in
Management & Technology, (6)6, 258-
264. www.ermt.net
Mussa, I.H. & Izkair, A.S. 2017. The
Acceptance of Using Mobile
Assisted Language among EFL and
ESL Students. International Journal of
Contemporary Applied Sciences, (4)5,
1-11. www.ijcas.net
36
Pew Research Center.2018. Mobile Fact
Sheet: Who owns cellphones and
smartphones? Online. Accessed on 8th
April 2018, from
http://www.pewinternet.org
Rondan-Cataluña, F.J., Arenas-Gaitán, J.,
and Ramírez-Correa, P.E. 2015. A
comparison of the different versions
of popular technology acceptance
models: A non-linear perspective.
Kybernetes, (44)5, 788-805.
https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2014-
0184
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. 1996. A
Model of the Antecedents of
Perceived Ease of Use:
Development and Test. Decision
Science, (27)3, 451-481.
https://goo.gl/52VTqm
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. 2000. A
Theoretical Extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model:
Four Longitudinal Field Studies.
Management Science 46(2), 186-204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.
186.11926
Venkatesh, V. 2000. Determinants of
Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating
Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and
Emotion into the Technology
Acceptance Model. Information
Systems Research, (11)4, 342-365.
https://goo.gl/wYQzzi
Venkatesh, V. & Bala, H. 2008.
Technology Acceptance Model 3
and a Research Agenda on
Interventions. Decision Science, (39)2,
273-315.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B.,
& Davis, F.D. 2003. User Acceptance
of Information Technology: Toward
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Education
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
 a Unified View. MIS Quarterly,
(27)3, 425-478. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L, Xu, X. 2012.
Consumer Acceptance and Use of
Information Technology: Extending
the Unified Theory of Acceptance
and Use of Technology. MIS
Quarterly, (36)1, 157-178.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/414104
12
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L, Xu, X. 2016.
Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology: A Synthesis and
the Road Ahead. Journal of the
Association for Information Systems.
(17)5, 328-376. https://goo.gl/
qiwY17
Yavana Bhāshā: Journal of English Language Educatio
September 2018, Volume 1, Issue 2
Wei, L.M., Piaw, C.Y., Kannan, S.,
Moulod, S.A. 2016. Relationship
Between Teacher ICT Competency
And Teacher Acceptance And Use
Of School Management System
(SMS). Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Technology. (4)4, 36-52.
www.mojet.net
Zyad, H. 2016. Technology-mediated ELT
Writing: Acceptance and
Engagement in an Online Moodle
Course. Contemporary Educational
Technology, (7)4, 314-330. https://eric.
ed. gov/?id=EJ1117601
37