Telematics and Informatics: Contents Lists Available at

Telematics and Informatics 38 (2019) 133–165
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Telematics and Informatics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele
Social, individual, technological and pedagogical factors

T
influencing mobile learning acceptance in higher education: A case
from Iran
Amir Chavoshi, Hodjat Hamidi
⁎
Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: The increasing usage of smartphones, the increasing acceptance of electronic learning (e-
M-learning learning), the improvement of the status of mobile networks and global internet as well as the
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) need to flexibility in learning process have been led to the emergence of a phenomenon called
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use mobile learning (m-learning). M-learning is not limited to time and place and it will make the
Technology (UTAUT)
desire of “equal education for all people around the world” comes true. Despite the advantages
Partial Least Squares-Artificial Neural Network
(PLS-ANN)
and opportunities that m-learning brings, it has not been implemented in developing countries
Higher education (like Iran). The goal of this research is exploring the important factors affecting the acceptance of
m-learning in Iran. These factors are divided into four macro groups: (1) Technological, (2)
Pedagogical, (3) Social and (4) Individual issues. The purpose of this categorization is to discover
the important factors affecting the acceptance of m-learning in both macro and micro scales.
Because, it can help the developers to prioritize the issues in order to implement m-learning
successfully in Iran. In this regard, a survey was conducted at one of the biggest and oldest
universities of technology in Iran. The proposed model has been presented based on the com-
bination of two models of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use Technology (UTAUT) and some other factors due to cultural and social
structure of Iran. This model has been tested using the new approach called Partial Least Squares-
Artificial Neural Network (PLS -ANN), which has the ability to analyze both linear and nonlinear
relationships. The results demonstrate that the selection of mobile devices as an educational
strategy is depended on the combination of pedagogical, technological, social and individual
factors. These results show that perceived usefulness is the most effective factor in acceptance of
m-learning in Iran. Also, due to the cultural and social structure of Iran, personal innovativeness
has no impact on acceptance of m-learning. Moreover, pedagogical factors are effective on
perceived usefulness as well as technological and individual factors are effective on perceived
ease of use. Social factors also have a positive effect on perceived usefulness and perceived ease
of use.
1. Introduction
Today, everything is going to be mobile. Mobile devices like telephones, smart phones, tablets etc. are turned into the main part of
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran. Tel.: +98 21 88464143.
E-mail addresses: amirchavoshi@email.kntu.ac.ir (A. Chavoshi), h_hamidi@kntu.ac.ir, hamidi_h1389@yahoo.com (H. Hamidi).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.007
Received 29 May 2018; Received in revised form 29 August 2018; Accepted 24 September 2018
Available online 29 September 2018
0736-5853/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Chavoshi, H. Hamidi Telematics and Informatics 38 (2019) 133–165
our lives. These multi-purpose devices are changing the socio-cultural structures in all aspects of life (Pimmer et al., 2016; Shuib
et al., 2015). Smart phones progress has allowed the users to employ the applications whenever and wherever they wanted. This
caused an intensive influence on method of people communicate with each other and with their surrounding environment as well as
the way of use and exchange of information (Shuib et al., 2015). Up to now, any technology couldn’t reach to the expansion and
pervasiveness of mobile phones technology in recent years. For example, the number of mobile phone subscribers has reached to
7.7 billion people in the end of 2017 from which 6.133 billion people are living in developing countries (Internation
Telecomunications Union, 2017). Also, the number of mobile phone subscribers in Iran (who have at least one provider of mobile
network) was 80.5 million people in 2016 (94.4% of the total population) (Information Technology Organization of Iran, 2017).
In today's modern world, governments are investing and spending a lot in the ICT sector. For example, according to the Iranian
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, in 2012, 3.4 billion dollars of ICT equipment and services had imported in
Iran, and in 2017 investment volume in the ICT sector was 4 billion dollars (Information Technology Organization of Iran, 2017).
Therefore, considering the capabilities of mobile devices and existing of ICT infrastructure, developing countries (such as Iran) are
expected to use this infrastructure to advance goals beyond telephony communication and internet accessibility.
According to the published statistics by the Educase Applied Research Center in 2017,1 97% of students have a smartphone that
has grown by 1% since last year (Brooks and Pomerantz, 2017). In addition, the type and style of students has changed, and most of
them prefer to deal their daily challenges with technological methods (Koç et al., 2016). In the field of education, the use of common
mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, is on the rise and has proven successful in classrooms (Sharma et al., 2017).
Especially in young people, use of wireless and mobile technologies can stimulate learning, support interests and improve the
learning and development process. Thus, learning through mobile devices has spread to various levels and fields (Xiangming and
Song, 2018). (Generally, m-learning is considered to be the occurrence of any form of learning using mobile devices (Yeap et al.,
2016).)
Today's learning and teaching methods are very different from the past, and technological advances have also been effective on
these changes. Many experts in educational fields believe that the educating approach should shift focus from the teacher to focus on
the student (Hsieh and Tsai, 2017; Hwang et al., 2015). Learning and educating is a personal activity, and its effectiveness will be
greater when learning conditions are more appropriate, adequate, reliable and attractive (Althunibat, 2015). In all cultures, learning
has always been the most important one and different teaching methods have been determined according to social behavior, ex-
pectations and values. For example, in the 1930s, a student should only learn facts without Q&A, but the view of modern education is
very different. It is believed that students should be active in the classroom, in order to learn how to think and use their knowledge to
solve dynamic problems (Crompton, 2013).
Learning is a change that is created by teaching different subjects and skills in learner’s behavior and can be visible or invisible in
the short term (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018). Student-centered learning, lifelong learning and constructivism are the new and today’s
accepted approaches. M-learning enables students to become active participants and not just be receivers of knowledge passively. The
specific features of this technology make it more “independent” and “autonomous” as well as creation of motivation and ability to
“self-regulate learning”. Consequently, m-learning meets the principles of student-centered learning, lifelong learning and con-
structivism, and satisfies its requirements (Şad and Göktaş, 2014).
According to Khan et al. (2015), many parts of the world, especially advanced countries in the education (including South Korea,
the United States, Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, the European Union and Australia) are studying about m-learning as well as
implementing this technology at various levels of education. For example, European countries have launched number of m-learning
projects. One of these projects is called MoleNET, with a budget of 12 million PGB and 40,000 students. But in the Middle East, there
has not yet been a case, and if so, it's rarely doing at small scales. m-learning brings many benefits to students and educational
institutions, including savings in expenses, inclusive communications at any time and place, assistance to study, etc. (Cheon et al.,
2012). However, there are some viewpoints that oppose the use of mobile technology in education.
In contrast with the benefits of m-learning in the learning process and the opportunities that come with it (Şad and Göktaş, 2014),
the dimensions of its requirements for implementation have not yet been clarified for researchers, and in particular in developing
countries is in the phase of research on technology acceptance. To this end, after reviewing previous studies in the context of m-
learning adoption, three results were obtained:
1. Extensive and practical studies for accepting m-learning in Iran have not been done yet (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018). In addition,
in previous studies, Iran's socio-cultural conditions have not been considered for m-learning adoption. Therefore, the findings of
this study could be useful for researchers in the further development of m-learning studies as well as their developers. For this
purpose, in this study, after reviewing previous studies, using two commonly accepted TAM and UTAUT as well as some factors in
accordance with the cultural and social conditions of Iranian society, a comprehensive model is proposed in order to consider the
important and effective factors in m-learning adoption among Iranian students.
2. Previous studies have not provided any exact and complete categorization for m-learning adoption. In this research, the issues
affecting the m-learning adoption at the macro level are divided into four categories of technological, pedagogical, social and
individual issues. The purpose of this categorization is to discover the key factors affecting acceptance of m-learning at macro and
micro levels and to help m-learning developers make better decisions in planning and prioritizing m-learning implementation
issues.
1
This research has been conducted on 43,559 students in 124 existing institutes in 10 countries and 40 states in America.
134
3. All previous studies have used casual-explanatory statistical methods to analyze the results of their research (Al-Shihi et al., 2018).
Since the artificial neural network models have higher predictive power than statistical models and can discover non-linear
relationships and due to the conditions of m-learning technology in Iran and the lack of experience in higher education, in this
study, the novel two-step approach of PLS-ANN is used. Using this approach is more appropriate with regard to the existing
conditions of m-learning technology in Iran.
The paper is organized as follows: In the second part of this research, the m-learning literature is reviewed and in the third part,
the research model and the hypotheses of this study are presented. In the fourth part, the survey has been analyzed and then in part 5,
the results of this analysis are discussed. In the last part, conclusions and suggestions for future research are considered.
2. Theoretical background and literature review
2.1. m-learning
The concept of m-learning has evolved from distance learning to e-learning (Yeap et al., 2016). M-learning is in fact a kind of e-
learning that uses mobile technologies to create a learning environment (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018; Tan et al., 2014; Yeap et al.,
2016; Yousafzai et al., 2016) regardless of the time and place. According to Althunibat (2015), m-learning is an advanced type of e-
learning that maintains the main elements of e-learning. Although some are opposed to the notion that m-learning is the same as e-
learning using mobile technologies (such as Brantes Ferreira et al., 2013; Cheon et al., 2012).
According to Brantes Ferreira et al. (2013), the value of mobile devices as a learning tool, is associated with their capacity about
no limited access to learning content at any time and place, as well as to facilitate communication between all individuals at any time
and place. Therefore, if e-learning separates students from traditional classrooms, m-learning has separated them not only from
traditional classrooms, but also from presence in a fixed location.
In the past, m-learning was often limited to using mobile technologies, but today the mobility of learners is dominant thinking
(Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018). In fact, the unique feature of m-learning, which has been emphasized in previous studies, is related to
its mobile capability. This feature is not just about the possibility of learning anywhere in the classroom or the library, also refers to
the ability to learn without time constraints (Ubiquitousness) (Şad and Göktaş, 2014). In addition, it has been observed that students
(especially girls) are banned from educating in less developed regions due to problems such as transportation costs. Also, in populated
areas there is the problem of population density and lack of classrooms (Ali et al., 2016), which due to the mobility of this technology,
such problems can be eliminated. (Almaiah et al., 2016) has defined m-learning as a new technology for learning that uses mobile
devices to support students-related learning activities to give them easy access to learning content. These mobile devices can include
a range of devices that have handheld capabilities (suitable for maintenance and don’t need to be installed on the desk or any other
location), easy to carry (portable to any location in the pocket or bag, and their battery can be charged anywhere) and they are
lightweight (not having much weight) (Yeap et al., 2016).
Today, mobile devices can be used by people around the world. Therefore, according to the target, m-learning can be used in
various areas with different goals. For example, (Huang, 2015) has examined key factors affecting the use of mobile technologies in
organizational learning. (Hwang et al., 2016) compared the use of game-based m-learning method and traditional learning methods
to enhance the ability to listening and speaking a foreign language. The results of this study show the significant effect of using m-
learning in learning English as a foreign language. Also, according to Zydney and Warner (2016), many studies have been conducted
on various fields of science learning, including life, earth, physics, etc., using m-learning. According to the results of Bano et al.
(2018), the implementation of m-learning for teaching mathematics in the secondary school has been effective and beneficial. Due to
the capabilities of mobile technology, the implementation of m-learning in various sectors like engineering (Astatke et al., 2016),
medicine (Briz-Ponce et al., 2016; Phelps et al., 2017), nursing (Chang et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; Lin & Lin, 2016), archeology (Hou
et al., 2014), tourism (Fathima et al., 2018; Gössling, 2018; Tan et al., 2017), etc. will be beneficial.
According to the mentioned studies, m-learning can be defined as: “Acquisition knowledge, attitude and skill through the benefits
of mobile technologies at any time and place that leads to change learning behavior for all (regardless of gender and living area)”.
2.2. Mobile learning in higher education
Digitization of education at universities has changed the traditional image of universities and has created a need for academic
education in the future (de Witt and Gloerfeld, 2018). According to Yeap et al. (2016), applying m-learning in higher education can
cover the range of simple applications that are based on traditional teaching to complex systems specifically designed for m-learning.
M-learning plays an important and growing role in the development of teaching methods in higher education (Milošević et al., 2015).
According to Althunibat (2015), m-learning is appropriate for academic environments, because this technology matches students’
requirements in various contexts with learning environment and has no limitations in scheduling and location, which makes the
learning process simpler for students.
Previous studies have highlighted many benefits for using m-learning in higher education, but with regard to the different
attitudes of students and the differences in their perceptions, m-learning has not been successfully implemented in all universities.
Some previous studies have investigated these effective factors in adopting m-learning in higher education. Althunibat (2015) ex-
amined the factors affecting the implementation of m-learning in higher education in Jordan and has concluded that the factors of
perceived usefulness (PU), the perceived ease of use (PEOU), self-efficacy and facilitation conditions have a positive impact on the
135
usage of m-learning by students. Also, another study recently conducted in Jordan (as a developing country) shows that facilitating
conditions and social influence are effective in m-learning adoption (Al-Adwan et al., 2018). The study found that facilitating
conditions are the most important enabler in m-learning adoption in Jordan, and on the contrary, social influence is recognized as the
weakest facilitator.
Sabah (2016) has focused on students' awareness and understanding of m-learning and tested the effective factors on m-learning
acceptance among the technical students of the Gaza Strip in Palestine. In addition, the control variables (gender, field of study and
education level), and moderator variables (device’s capabilities, level of use and the frequency of the mobile services usage) are used
to confirm individual differences among respondents. The results of this study indicate that PU and PEOU are the main factors
influencing the intention to use m-learning and social influence also has a positive effect on m-learning acceptance, while the
limitations of mobile devices are the main obstacle to accept m-learning. Furthermore, most control variables don’t create a sig-
nificant difference between students, but moderator variables are important determinants that can affect m-learning acceptance by
students.
Briz-Ponce et al. (2017) was conducted on University of Coimbera's medical students and tested the attitude, social influence,
reliability, facilitating conditions, self-efficacy, PU, PEOU and anxiety. The results of this research show that social influence is an
important factor for the attitude and intention to use m-learning. In addition, PEOU is the major factor affecting the social influence.
Also, PU and PEOU have a positive effect on people's attitudes. Milošević et al. (2015) has also studied the use of new technologies
(with emphasis on mobile technology as one of the new approaches) at the University of Bor in Belgrade. Based on the results
obtained from this research, performance expectancy and personal innovativeness have the greatest impact on behavioral intention to
use m-learning (BI), which leads to an improvement in learning efficiency and performance. This study found that effort expectancy is
the weakest studied factor, because students feel that they need a lot of effort to utilize m-learning. Also, due to the great influence of
teachers' attitudes and suggestions, lecturer influence is also an important factor in the intention to use m-learning. According to a
research conducted in Columbia, higher education students have a positive attitude toward the use of Mobile
Assisted Language Learning (MALL) (García Botero et al., 2018). The results indicated that performance expectancy, social in-
fluence and facilitating conditions affect the attitude of students toward the use of m-learning. Accordingly, performance expectancy
is the most important factor in MALL acceptance, while social influence and facilitating conditions also has a significant effect.
Mohammadi (2015) has studied for the first time about the adoption of m-learning in Iran. In his research, individual and social
determinants for m-learning adoption among Iranian students have been discovered. According to the findings of this study, sub-
jective norms and image are the most important prerequisites for the intention to use m-learning. Moreover, although the perceived
usefulness is in the important factors affecting on the intention to use m-learning, the perceived ease of use is known as an unim-
portant factor in the intention to use m-learning among Iranian students. The study of Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018), second research
conducted in Iran about m-learning adoption in higher education, has evaluated the factors influencing m-learning acceptance in
Iran. Accordingly, PEOU has a positive effect on PU. Also, the trust factor has a positive effect on the BI. Table 1 shows a summary of
previous studies on the issue of m-learning acceptance in higher education and the factors that each of them considers for their
proposed model.
2.3. M-learning acceptance models
Acceptance of a new system or technology is the first step in its successful implementation (Davis, 1989). There are many
accepted theoretical frameworks as technology acceptance models, but in conducted research on m-learning acceptance (or adoption)
by students, technology acceptance model (TAM), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use Technology (UTAUT), Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB), Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), and Model of Innovation Resistance (MIR) can be observed. Table 2 gives a brief
definition of these models.
Table 3 represents the references of these models as the basis for the proposed m-learning acceptance model.
As it is obvious, the most usage of acceptance models is related to TAM and UTAUT. Most of the previous studies used the TAM
model as their base for the m-learning acceptance model. The other three models (i.e. TPB, IDT and MIR models) were rarely used.
Fig. 1 shows the number of citations to each model in recent articles.
3. Research model
UTAUT is one of the most comprehensive models of technology acceptance, somehow that the originators of this model combine
and unify the characteristics and elements of the eight models of TAM, TPB, IDT, Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Social Cognitive
Theory (SCT), Model of PC Utilization (MPCU), the Motivational Model (MM) and the combination of Model Combining the
Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior (C-TAM-TPB). In fact, the advantage of the UTAUT model is its
comprehensiveness, which means that the conceptual and empirical similarities of the eight models are included in its design
(Venkatesh et al., 2003) (Fig. 2).
The TAM model, established by Davis (1989), is the most widely used technology acceptance model. This model has been used in
several studies to predict the factors affecting acceptance of technology. In fact, the TAM base is taken from the TRA accepted model.
This model explains the influences of external factors on internal beliefs and proposes a continuous relationship between beliefs,
attitudes and behavioral intentions that ultimately lead to actual use (Fig. 3). According to Althunibat (2015), due to the concept of
TAM, researchers should consider one of these three approaches in order to apply this model:
136
Table 1
Summary of previous studies.
Reference Factors Results and findings
Althunibat (2015) PU, PEOU, self-efficacy, facilitating conditions, quality of service Positive impact of facilitating conditions and self-efficacy on the
PU and PEOU
Positive impact of PU, PEOU and quality of service on the
intention to use m-learning by Jordanian higher educators
Briz-Ponce et al. Attitude, social impact, reliability, facilitating conditions, self- Positive impact of anxiety, PU, PEOU and social influence on the
(2017) efficacy, PU, PEOU, anxiety attitude
Positive impact of anxiety and PU on the social influence
Positive impact of attitude and social influence on the reliability
Positive impact of PU on the facilitating conditions
Positive impact of reliability and social influence on the
intention to use m-learning
Self-efficacy does not affect reliability
Milošević et al. (2015) Performance expectancy, effort expectancy, lecturer's influence, Positive impact of performance expectancy, lecturer’s influence,
quality of service, personal innovativeness quality of service and personal innovativeness on the intention to
use m-learning in Serbia
Negative impact of effort expectancy on the intention to use m-
learning in Serbia
Sabah (2016) M-learning services, PU, social influence, PEOU, mobile Positive impact of m-learning services, social influence and
limitations PEOU on the PU
Negative impact of mobile limitations on the PEOU and intention
to use m-learning
Positive impact of m-learning services, PU, PEOU and social
influence on the intention to use m-learning in Palestine
Social influence has more impact on women than men
Stronger PU in men than women
The effect of the field of study on mobile limitations and m-
learning services
The effect of the level of study on social influence and mobile
limitations
The effect of all moderator variables on the factors affecting the
adoption of M-Learning
Hao et al. (2017) PU, PEOU, facilitating conditions, image, subjective norms, Classifying the factors influencing m-learning acceptance:
voluntariness, personal innovativeness pedagogical, individual and social factors
Pedagogical factors are the most effective factors on the
intention to use m-learning among Chinese students
PU is the most important factor affecting m-learning acceptance
Positive impact of PU, PEOU, facilitating conditions and image
on the intention to use m-learning
Positive impact of facilitating conditions, subjective norms and
image on PU
Positive impact of facilitating conditions, image and personal
innovativeness on PEOU
Positive impact of subjective norms and voluntariness on
facilitating conditions
Positive impact of image, subjective norms and voluntariness on
personal innovativeness
Subjective norms and personal innovativeness don’t affect
intention to use m-learning
Subjective norms don’t affect PEOU
Personal innovativeness don’t affect PU
Joo et al. (2014) User interface, personal innovativeness, PU, PEOU, satisfaction Investigate the relationship between user interface, personal
innovativeness, PU, PEOU, and satisfaction in learning in a
virtual university
Positive impact of user interface and PEOU on PU
Positive impact of user interface and personal innovativeness on
PEOU
Positive impact of PU and PEOU on satisfaction in learning
PU doesn’t influence on intention to use m-learning
Hamidi and Chavoshi Context, trust, personal characteristics, perceived usefulness, Positive impact of context on PU and PEOU
(2018) perceived ease of use, culture of using Positive impact of PEOU on PU
Positive impact of personal characteristics on culture of using
Positive impact of trust and culture of using on intention to use
m-learning in Iran
(continued on next page)
137
Table 1 (continued)
Reference Factors Results and findings
Yeap et al. (2016) PEOU, PU, instructor readiness, student readiness, self-efficacy, Positive impact of attitude, subjective norms and behavioral
autonomous learning, attitude, subjective norms, behavioral control on the intention to use m-learning in Malaysia
control More emphasis on subjective norms and perceived behavioral
control
Positive impact of PU and PEOU on attitude
Positive impact of instructor and student readiness on subjective
norms
Positive impact autonomous learning and self-efficacy on
behavioral control
Mohammadi (2015) Self-efficacy, image, subjective norms, mobility, absorptive Intention to use and satisfaction lead to use m-learning in Iran
capacity, PU, PEOU, satisfaction Subjective norms and image are the most important antecedents
of intention to use m-learning
PU is the mediator of PEOU and user intention
Positive impact of PU and PEOU on satisfaction
Positive impact of personal innovativeness, mobility, self-
efficacy and satisfaction on intention to use m-learning
Absorptive capacity doesn’t influence on intention to use m-
learning
Almaiah et al. (2016) PU, PEOU, learning content quality, content design quality, Describing qualitative features on the user beliefs about the use
interactivity, functionality, user interface, accessibility, of m-learning in Jordan
availability, personalization, responsiveness Positive impact of qualitative features such as learning content
quality, content design quality, interactivity, functionality, user
interface, accessibility, personalization, responsiveness on PU
Positive impact of learning content quality, content design
quality, interactivity, functionality, user interface, accessibility,
availability, personalization, responsiveness on PEOU
Positive impact of PU and PEOU on intention to use m-learning
Availability doesn’t influence on PU
Table 2
M-learning acceptance models definition.
Model Definition
TAM TAM is suitable for information systems and design to predict acceptance and use of technology (Davis, 1989).
UTAUT UTAUT is a useful tool for managers to evaluate the likelihood of the success of introducing new technology and helps them to understand the
acceptance factors in order to design proactively interventions (such as education, marketing, etc.) in the population of the users, which may cause
less tendency to adopt and use of the new system (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
TPB A theory that links one's beliefs and behavior. This theory includes some of the basic concepts of social and behavioral science and these concepts are
defined in a way that allows to predict and understand the specific behaviors in specific contexts (Ajzen, 1991).
IDT IDT seeks to explain how, why and how much new ideas and technology are expanding. This theory is about diffusion of a process in which an
innovation is used among members of a social system over time (Rogers, 2003).
MIR MIR suggests that the pattern of resistance has been used to the adoption of an innovation (Ram, 1987). (Resistance to innovation is defined as the
resistance of customers to change when faced with innovation.)
Table 3
References using m-learning technology acceptance models.
Model References
TAM Althunibat (2015), Briz-Ponce et al. (2017), Sabah (2016), Hao et al. (2017), Joo et al. (2014), Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018), Chung et al. (2015),
Tan et al. (2012), Huang et al. (2007), Almaiah et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2010), Lu and Viehland (2008), Iqbal and Qureshi (2012), Tan et al. (2014),
Cheng (2015), Park et al. (2012) and Iqbal and Bhatti (2017)
UTAUT Althunibat (2015), Briz-Ponce et al. (2017), Milošević et al. (2015), Sabah (2016), Hao et al. (2017), Arpaci (2015), Bere (2014), Wang et al. (2009),
Lu et al. (2017), Iqbal and Qureshi (2012), Ali et al. (2016), Tan et al. (2014), Thomas et al. (2013) and Park et al. (2012)
TPB Cheon et al. (2012)
IDT Kim et al. (2017)
MIR Kim et al. (2017)
• Defining model factors

• Defining beliefs or substitutes
• Analysis of perceived backgrounds and intermediates for its usefulness and ease of use
As in many previous studies in the context of m-learning adoption, TAM has been combined with other external variables, or has
been developed by combining factors of the other models (Al-Emran et al., 2018), also this study uses three main factors of TAM
138
18
16
14
12
10
0
TAM UTAUT TPB IDT MIR
Fig. 1. Distribution of the use of m-learning acceptance models.
Fig. 2. UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Fig. 3. TAM model (Davis, 1989).
including: (1) perceived ease of use, (2) perceived usefulness, and (3) intention to use m-learning. Since, due to the specific scope of
each technology, the implementation of TAM needs to be modified and customized (Althunibat, 2015), in the proposed model, in
addition to TAM factors, UTAUT factors (include performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating con-
ditions) in combination with seven other factors of learning content quality, interactivity, user interface, mobile device limitations,
personal innovativeness, self-efficacy and trust (which was used in previous studies) and another new factor called government
139
support has been used. The aim of combining these models and factors together is to provide a comprehensive and indigenous model
for the m-learning adoption based on the cultural and social conditions of Iran.
Different factors influence the acceptance of m-learning by students, and these factors include a wide range of subjects. If each of
these factors is explored separately and outside the context of m-learning, they themselves are a subset of other large collections, each
require further in-depth research. In previous studies on m-learning, there are no categorization for these different factors. Only in the
Hao et al. (2017) there is a categorization that divides the factors influencing m-learning acceptance into three pedagogical, social
and personal categories. The important point is that they haven’t placed the factors related to infrastructure and technology within
these categories and believe that these factors will not be effective in m-learning acceptance, but many previous studies emphasize
the impact of technology-related factors (like Almaiah et al., 2016; Althunibat, 2015; Briz-Ponce et al., 2017; Joo et al., 2014; Sabah,
2016, etc.). For example, Khan et al. (2015) has emphasized that m-learning acceptance affecting factors are divided into two
categories: technical and non-technical. Cheon et al. (2012) also believes there are three categories of m-learning limitations that
affect users' non-acceptance: technical constraints (such as small screens, low resolution, inadequate memory, low network speed,
etc.), psychological (like intention to use them as entertaining tools rather than educational) and pedagogical (e.g., mobile phone
using causes distraction). Moreover, it is also stated in Cheng (2015) that the technological features of this technology can’t be
denied, because users tend to take advantage of the technological benefits of using new information systems/information technol-
ogies in comparison with traditional ones in order to be able to determine their attitude toward its usage.
By considering the conclusion of previous studies about m-learning, as well as its definition, this result was obtained that
technological issues are an integral and effective part of m-learning acceptance. Of course, in some cases, it’s difficult to determine
the exact boundary between these categories and place a factor in a category, because each of the factors depends on many con-
ditions. For example, the definition of facilitating conditions in Hao et al. (2017) is a combination of system-based and human
supports that helps to reduce both technical and learning challenges. So, finally, the category of issues related to technology was
added to the three existence categories in the Hao et al. (2017) to provide a more detailed and complete categorization.
3.1. Pedagogical factors
M-learning is more than just accessing information through anything like computers (but in a mobile mood), and requires a
detailed pedagogical design that reflects learning theories and addresses the needs of learners (Hao et al., 2017). This technology
should be concerned of pedagogical aspects such as learning process, learning goals, user needs, learning experience, learning content
and learning outcomes (Ivanc et al., 2012). The purpose of using mobile devices in learning is improving learning using the specific
features of these devices, which facilitates and improves learning. Among these features, we can refer to the availability of facilities
such as chat and forum, as well as active and collaborative learning (Hassanzadeh et al., 2012).
3.1.1. Learning Content Quality (LCQ)

The learning content refers to any designed digital source (such as lectures, courses, assignments, images, quizzes, etc.), and the
quality of content refers to the suitability of content to users in terms of reliability, currentness, and appropriateness (Almaiah et al.,
2016). Content should be consistent with the context of m-learning and provide personalized information that is valuable to the user
(Kukulska-Hulme, 2007). Contents and their presentations can be different from each other depending on the subject of lesson or
course.
According to Almaiah et al. (2016), LCQ includes both richness and continuous updating of learning content. So, in addition to the
content itself, the way of its presentation to the user and its design in the proper format should be taken into account. In the subject of
m-learning, there are three main formats for presenting content: (1) basic learning content (text, image and diagram), (2) multimedia
learning content (audio, video and animation), and (3) collaborative learning content (shared learning content). Of course, Gedik
et al. (2012) has shown that users are more likely to have textual content and prefer to add videos and photos as complementary.
Table 4 highlights their priority about the format of learning content. Web content, which is the major form of e-learning content, is
not always appropriate for mobile browsers and the ability to display information in a variety of multimedia formats is limited (Ivanc
et al., 2012). The learning content format plays an important role for users. In fact, when the learning content is matched with the
content format, the sense of usefulness in users will also increase (Cheng, 2012). In addition to the presentation format, it should also
be noted that the learning content is designed to be implemented and displayed on all mobile devices without any problem, re-
gardless of screen size, performance, operating system, etc.
LCQ is one of the main components of the m-learning success, because that the main idea of using this system is learning, so if the
quality of learning content doesn’t be at a certain level, the goal of m-learning alongside its users (learning efficiently and effectively)
Table 4
Users' priority about content delivery form.
Content Priority
Text based content 1

Video content 2
Visualize content 3
Open-ended questions 4
Multiple choice questions 5
140
will not be attain. In fact, content quality is the quality of the system output and measures semantic success. Some of the indicators for
measuring the content quality are (Hassanzadeh et al., 2012):
• Provide understandable content

• Provide updated content
• Provide accurate and true content
• Provide concise content
• Provide organized content
• Provide required content
• Provide on time content
• Provide relevant content
• Provide useful content
• Provide comprehensive content
Compared to traditional learning, rich content and available various activities in the m-learning content (e.g. lectures, courses,
assignments, images, quizzes, etc.) may make a sense of usefulness of m-learning for them (Almaiah et al., 2016; Cheng, 2012). A
number of previous studies have emphasized that LCQ has a positive impact on PU (e.g. Almaiah et al., 2016; Cheng, 2012).
Hypothesis 1 is explained on mentioned basis:
H1. LCQ has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
3.1.2. Interactivity (INT)

INT can be defined as the interaction between students and their lecturers, as well as between students themselves. This inter-
action between them can lead to greater collaboration and sharing of learning (Almaiah et al., 2016; Cheng, 2012). Previous studies
divided INT into three categories including: user-machine, user-user, and user-message interaction (Liu and Shrum, 2002; Yoo et al.,
2010). In the context of m-learning, the interaction between user-user is more considerable.
Lecturers must perform various tasks in the learning process. For example, providing a structure for the content of the course,
providing quick feedback to assignments and tasks, stimulating students and reflecting on the content and helping them with learning
activities. Also, users can enjoy the benefits of interaction with other classmates. These benefits can be included in working in small
groups to create an understanding of learning, easy and quick exchange of information and knowledge with each other, socio-
emotional support and learning in a coherent and positive environment (Paechter et al., 2010). Regardless of the environment in
which learning occurs, learning is a dynamic and interactive process (Chen, 2007). If users conclude that there is a two-way in-
teraction between them and instructors, as well as between them and other classmates, and they can communicate effectively with
the lecturer and classmates and quickly exchange and share the content between themselves, they will feel that such systems would
be beneficial (Almaiah et al., 2016; Cheng, 2012).
According to Ali et al. (2016), INT plays an important role in user satisfaction and learning levels. Additionally, attendance of
interaction and active users have a considerable effect on successful learning. In past learning approaches, students often had a
passive role and were only listeners, but by using m-learning they could play an active role in the learning process and implement
student-centered strategies. Some of past studies have emphasized that INT affects PU of users (e.g. Ali et al., 2016; Almaiah et al.,
2016; Cheng, 2012; Pituch and Lee, 2006). Hypothesis 2 is explained on mentioned basis:
H2. INT has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
3.2. Technological factors
M-learning is an emerging tool that uses the capabilities of mobile devices to support learning activities (Cheng, 2015). Among
technological topics that mobile devices are involved with, there are some factors including the IT infrastructure, software and
hardware of mobile devices, their geometry, and so on (Traxler, 2007). Most important indicators of measuring the technical quality
of a system are accessibility, user-friendliness, personalization, attractiveness, system speed, security, reliability, usability, main-
tainability, flexibility and simplicity of integration (Hassanzadeh et al., 2012).
3.2.1. Facilitating Conditions (FC)

The facilitating condition defines as a degree of individual beliefs toward the subject of “there is organizational and technical
infrastructure to support the use of the system” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). These infrastructures can include ICT infrastructure, which
definitely more powerful and advanced infrastructures will lead to better organizational and technical support (Arpaci, 2015). In m-
learning context, FC can include factors such as resources, knowledge, internet speed and support staff. In the absence of these
conditions, users will not be willing to use m-learning. For example, limited access to broadband wireless networks will prevent users
from using m-learning (Iqbal and Qureshi, 2012). Indeed, if there are more and better facilities, users will have better experience and
more effective use of m-learning.
M-learning is a new concept compared to e-learning; therefore, its implementation requires users who have a basic knowledge of
the services and applications of mobile devices. Also, in this technology, users are responsible for the costs associated with the m-
141
learning usage. This aspect of m-learning distinguishes it from the traditional technology acceptance styles and can lead to a negative
impact on successful m-learning implementation. In fact, if these costs are high, in spite of the potential benefits of m-learning for
users, they will prefer using traditional methods (Althunibat, 2015). In addition, FC can include an assistant to help with the use of
technology. Studies have shown that the existence of such people to support users will have a significant effect on the intention to use
technology (Hao et al., 2017). Due to the fact that m-learning requires a mobile device and some developing countries don’t have
enough budget to buy these devices for each student, in some cases, the need for parental support is also felt as an effective factor in
acceptance of m-learning (Ali et al., 2016). As a result, whatever these conditions is more at hand, using m-learning will be easier
(Hao et al., 2017).
In previous studies, it has been observed that FC had a positive effect on PU and PEOU of users (e.g. Althunibat, 2015; Hao et al.,
2017; Lu et al., 2003). The following hypotheses are presented on mentioned basis:
H3.a. FC have positive impact on PU of m-learning.
H3.b. FC have positive impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.2.2. User Interface (UI)

Many technologies are dependent on UI design, because UIs facilitate user control and interaction with that technology to turn
technical capabilities into a usable product. A good UI can lead to continuous using or not to use a technology (Cho et al., 2009). The
UI in the IT refers to the symbols and command structures which have been used in human-computer interaction. In the m-learning
literature, the UI implies a user environment that includes menus and various controller functions of the mobile device (Joo et al.,
2014; Nikou and Economides, 2017).
A well-organized and carefully designed web page can help users to navigate pages and find the relevant information easily.
Moreover, if the instructions of an e-learning tool are clear and its page layout have a good structure, users may find information
easily and learn in an effective way (Cho et al., 2009). According to Hong et al. (2011), UI design is something different from the
human factor and human-computer interaction. The quality of the UI design is critical in determining the level of PEOU in the m-
learning environment (Almaiah et al., 2016; Cheng, 2012) and the more user-friendliness will lead to easier use (Liang, 1987), and
vice versa, the weak design, can lead to user confusion (Almaiah et al., 2016). UI elements in m-learning, such as user-friendliness of
the environment, graphical and textual designs, menu, navigation, and the screen design will have a significant impact on PEOU (Joo
et al., 2014). Also, the results of Nikou and Economides (2017) show that the better UI design in m-learning will lead to the larger
level of PEOU. Considering the above-mentioned cases, hypothesis 4 is presented:
H4. UI has positive impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.2.3. Mobile Device Limitations (ML)

Although the rapid growth of mobile technologies should create greater freedom in student education, there are actually con-
straints that still prevent acceptance of mobile technologies in the learning process. Technically, these constraints are divided into
three categories: features and usability, device lifecycles, and dispersion and lack of standardization (Parsons, 2010). There are some
technical challenges in adapting the current e-learning service with m-learning, which has made users reluctant to accept and use m-
learning (Iqbal and Qureshi, 2012; Sabah, 2016). Some of these limitations are (Iqbal and Qureshi, 2012; Khan et al., 2015; Parsons,
2010; Rosman, 2008; Sabah, 2016; Wang et al., 2009):
• Lack of standardization
• Low bandwidth
• Low processing speed
• Small screen
• Limited memory
• Short lifetime
• Low transfer speed
• Security and privacy issues
• Browser restrictions
• Unsafe and unsecured internet
• Short battery life
• Software problems
• Inappropriate user interface
• Low image resolution
• Low computing power
• Weak navigation
The small keyboard and display make users to spend more time to search for information than time to read information (Wang
et al., 2009). According to Sabah (2016), ML has a significant negative impact on PEOU of m-learning. According to previous studies,
hypothesis 5 is presented:
142
H5. ML have negative impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.3. Social factors
M-learning users utilize communication technologies for both communication and personal activities. For this reason, they aren’t
passive and they are social actors. Individuals are influenced by others and affect others. Mobile devices are not only means of
communicating and sharing information. For many, especially in developing countries, mobile devices act as a symbol of social
progress (Hao et al., 2017).
3.3.1. Government Support (SUP)

As described in the previous parts, the success of m-learning depends on various pedagogical, technological and social factors.
These macro-scale issues will require government and relevant organizations support. For example, the Ministry of Science should
integrate universities into its policies and encourage them to use m-learning through various methods, or the Ministry of ICT
guarantee to provide the infrastructure and bandwidth required for implementation the proper access and ease of use. According to
the UNESCO report on the Middle East countries, m-learning suffers from a lack of strong policy and should be supported through
political leadership to cause positive results (Khan et al., 2015).
Developing countries (like Iran) can use the experience of educationally advanced countries to implement successful m-learning
and use them as guidelines. For example, the Singapore Science Ministry has developed a five-year comprehensive plan (2009–2014)
to integrate ICT into learning, and the Taiwan Science Ministry has considered m-learning as part of the national e-learning strategies
(Khan et al., 2015). Moreover, analyzing the educational system of these countries and comparing them with the condition in the
Middle East countries has provided suggestions for successful m-learning implementation in the Middle East countries:
1. Targeting for m-learning at national level, proper planning and leadership support
2. Development of cooperation between the private and public sectors
3. Define user attributes, cultural norms and create customized content
4. Evaluating the m-learning infrastructure and take action for the required improvements
5. Developing trust and awareness through workshops, training and successful experiences
The Ministry of Science can accompany universities along with m-learning policies and regulations. Because the students are not
directly involved with the Ministry of Science and affected by the upper level of authorities’ decisions through the university. Indeed,
if the faculty members recommend the usefulness of a particular system, students will also have the same impression and will tend to
use the system. In addition, university support is compulsory for technology integration and learning in terms of financial, training,
technical support, and senior management commitment. In fact, in addition to individual beliefs and measures, the managers’
strategies and policies also can be effective on acceptance of any technology. Additionally, adequate support services can be effective
on PU. Iqbal and Bhatti (2017) has proven that university and faculty support has a positive impact on PU of users and, in fact,
reduces their concern about the use of new technology. Hypothesis 6 is explained on mentioned basis:
H6. SUP has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
3.3.2. Social Influence (SI)

SI is defined as the degree to which one understands that “the most important persons in his individual's life believe in the use of a
new system by him” (Venkatesh et al., 2003). According to Briz-Ponce et al. (2017), SI measures the external influences and support
of external institutions. SI denotes the variances of technology acceptance in various cultural and social environments, including
professors, classmates, important people in the individuals’ lives, the media and institutions (Gan and Balakrishnan, 2014; Sabah,
2016). When users begin to use m-learning and become familiar with it gradually, they begin to encourage and convince their
classmates and friends to use it (Wang et al., 2009). Therefore, students themselves can potentially promote the use of this tech-
nology.
One of the most important people for the student is the lecturer of his/her courses. Lecturers' influence is an important driver for
students to encourage them to use m-learning and help their more adaptation (Milošević et al., 2015). Hao et al. (2017) divided the
social effects of m-learning into three categories: Subjective norms, image, and voluntariness of using m-learning. Subjective norms
refer to one's perception of what others think about him. Image is the role that technology plays in social communication. For
example, people who own and use smartphones are thought to be wealthy and professional people. So, social image is important for
many people, because the use of mobile devices can improve the social status and the sense of their feeling helpful (Tan et al., 2014).
Voluntariness also reflects a degree of understanding of people about using m-learning as a choice (rather than compulsion). Re-
searchers have shown that SI in the early stages of using technology is the strongest factor in acceptance of that technology, and this
effect will be reduced gradually (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Since the social structure and culture of a society is different from other societies, SI in Iran (as a developing country) may be
different from other countries. According to Hofstede et al. (2010), Iranian culture is based on collectivism. In collectivist societies, SI
will be stronger in m-learning acceptance in students (Arpaci, 2015). However, some past studies have focused on the impact of SI on
intention to use m-learning (Bere, 2014; Chong et al., 2011; Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018; Iqbal and Qureshi, 2012; Lu et al., 2017;
143
Thomas et al., 2013; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2009). By consideration of past studies (Hao et al., 2017; Iqbal and Bhatti,
2017; Sabah, 2016; Tan et al., 2014), SI has positive effects on PU and PEOU. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are presented:
H7.a. SI has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
H7.b. SI has positive impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.4. Individual factors
Individual characteristics of each person with regard to his subconscious and his bio experience can be different from each other.
Human attributes depend on different factors such as level of education, age, gender and individual interests (Hamidi and Chavoshi,
2018), and these individual characteristics directly or indirectly affect BI (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018; Hao et al., 2017). Therefore, it
is important to identify individual characteristics of m-learning acceptance and analyze their impact (Kim et al., 2017). In fact, for
successful implementation of the m-learning environment, students need to have skills to access to the learning content of m-learning,
and eager to use m-learning services (Althunibat, 2015). The following three sub-sections describe the intrinsic and human char-
acteristics of each individual which their discovery in humans simply doesn’t occur because they are very intrinsic and subjective.
According to the previous studies, these factors are very effective in m-learning acceptance.
3.4.1. Personal Innovativeness (PI)

PI refers to the individual's eager for accepting and using new information technology (Joo et al., 2014; Milošević et al., 2015).
Also, in definition of (Hao et al., 2017), acceptance of risks and attempts to use a new technology are also included in the PI. IDT
defines innovativeness as a psychological feature (Kim et al., 2017). Humans are different, and this difference is referred to their
personal comfort level (Hao et al., 2017). People with a high degree of innovativeness are more interested in giving positive feedback
on new technology and have greater capacity for uncertainty (Milošević et al., 2015). Also, these people, especially in learning
technologies, are more interested than others to be the innovators (Joo et al., 2014; Milošević et al., 2015). Kim et al. (2017)
mentioned that innovators are more interested in acquiring knowledge about high-tech products and the use of new technologies.
Because m-learning has both of these mentioned features, it is expected that innovators will tend to use it, and since most students
don’t have previous experience in using m-learning, expected that innovators accept the risks of using m-learning and show more
intention to use it (Abu-al-aish and Love, 2013; Tan et al., 2014).
According to Tan et al. (2014), innovators are divided into two different categories: innovating in a particular domain and open-
processing. Innovating in a particular domain is the individual's intention to accept a particular product for the purpose of acquiring
knowledge, and open processing is a general behavior about the innovating of the acceptance of new technologies that depend on the
personal intelligence, attitude and perception. Innovativeness has a direct impact on the decision to accept that technology (here, m-
learning) (Abu-al-aish and Love, 2013; Joo et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2017; Tan et al., 2014). In general, it has been proven that PI,
especially in computer-based technologies, is one of the main factors influencing technology acceptance (Tan et al., 2014). The
authors argue that young innovators have high levels of education, high incomes, power of community stimulation and a better
attitude towards risks, and show more social participation. They also accept more risks in using new systems (Milošević et al., 2015;
Tan et al., 2012). They are comfortable with the new experience and don’t limit themselves with “not knowing the results” (Hao et al.,
2017).
Societies that have low power distances, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity are more eager to accept m-learning (Arpaci,
2015). According to Hofstede et al. (2010), Iran has high power distance and the uncertainty avoidance and also it has a relatively
low masculinity. Therefore, it is anticipated that the innovating of Iranian students doesn’t have much effect on m-learning accep-
tance. According to previous studies (Hao et al., 2017; Joo et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2010; Tan et al., 2014), PI has a positive effect on
users' PEOU of m-learning and doesn’t have any impact on PU. The following hypothesis is presented on the same basis:
H8. PI has positive impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.4.2. Self-efficacy (SE)

SE is individual's belief in his ability to perform a particular activity. In the context of m-learning, SE is an individual's judgment
about the use of m-learning (Althunibat, 2015). Based on the Social Cognitive Theory, SE is one's trust in one's abilities and is a direct
determinant of the individuals’ behavior (Gan and Balakrishnan, 2014). Also, based on the IDT, SE is defined as ability to use mobile
applications by the user interface (Rogers, 2003). Also, Cheon et al. (2012) defines the SE as a belief in him/herself ability and
motivation to perform specific tasks. Specifically, people who believe they have the ability to become master in a particular skill or
activity show a more intention to conduct it. It has also been proven that high levels of SE in the field of computers will lead to high
levels of intention and use of IT artifacts. In addition, researchers have found that people with high SE are more likely to succeed in
performing a task. These people usually work more and harder rather than people with low SE (Chung et al., 2015).
In the context of the integration of IT with higher education learning, if the SE carries out quality enhancement, it directly leads to
the BI of the implemented system. Conversely, if the quality of the service is not in accordance with the technical or promising terms,
the BI considerably degrades (Althunibat, 2015). According to Gan and Balakrishnan (2014), it is anticipated that individuals accept
m-learning in accordance with their ability to use it. In addition, user anxiety about new technology and security concerns can
directly reduce SE and thus negatively influence the decision to accept it. In the context of m-learning, familiarity with technology
144
can increase SE. Also, for people familiar with the internet, the use of mobile devices shouldn’t be difficult. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the higher level of SE lead to more effort to achieve the required results (Mohammadi, 2015). According to Shen et al.
(2013), SE is one of the most important components of online learning and has a multi-dimensional nature and depends on factors
such as gender, the number of passed online courses and academic conditions.
According to measurement of the level of the SE by Cheon et al. (2012), the higher level of perceived comfort of the system lead to
increase self-confidence to use it. As a result, SE will have a direct relation with PEOU. Pituch and Lee (2006) have also proven that SE
in e-learning has a positive effect on PEOU. According to past studies (Althunibat, 2015; Chung et al., 2015; Park et al., 2012), SE has
a positive impact on the PU and PEOU of m-learning. The following hypotheses have been developed on this basis:
H9.a. SE has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
H9.b. SE has positive impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.4.3. Trust (TR)

Although TR is an important issue in many research fields, its satisfactory and comprehensive definition is still not provided, and
definitions are changing every day, and researchers are seeking a comprehensive definition of it (Taddeo, 2011). The issue of TR has
been discussed in various fields including psychology, sociology, politics, economics, law, anthropology, computer science and
neuroscience (Rompf, 2015). In psychology literature, TR defines as one’s tendency to accept a vulnerability based on the belief in the
trustee's abilities. Moreover, defined as the emotional bond between trustor and trustee (Dunn et al., 2012).
According to McAllister (1995), TR has two dimensions: affect and cognition. Cognition-based trust depends on users' rational
judgment and is judged by the “why and under what circumstances” question and based on “good reasons” that indicate trust-
worthiness of the trusted party. Affect-based trust also refers to the emotional bond between the trustor and the trustee, based on
feelings, not reasoning and understanding (Wang et al., 2016). In the domain of IT artifacts and information systems, TR is defined as
relying on or depending on the systems infrastructure, such as the web or relying on specific information systems (Vance e tal., 2008).
Lee and Song (2013) mentioned that a user's trust in the provider of a specific ICT-based service means that the provider has the
ability, benevolence, and integrity in delivering his service. Therefore, in the context of m-learning, TR refers to the user's belief in the
ability, benevolence and integrity of m-learning in the learning process.
TR is one of the most important factors affecting the acceptance of a technology and the intention to use it, and has been
considered in previous studies on a variety of topics, including e-commerce (Choi and Lee, 2017; Ladhari and Michaud, 2015; Nilashi
et al., 2016; Pappas, 2016; Paravastu et al., 2014; Ponnapureddy et al., 2017; Rouibah et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Yi et al., 2013).
The role of TR in mobile services is also very important and directly affects its acceptance (Aloudat et al., 2014; Hanafizadeh et al.,
2014; Lee and Song, 2013; Malaquias and Hwang, 2016; Shaw, 2014). Also, in the case of e-learning (El-Masri and Tarhini, 2017;
Tarhini et al., 2017) and m-learning (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018; Koç et al., 2016), studies have also been conducted on the role of
TR in accepting and intention to use.
Many factors can affect the general public's TR like the ability to protect privacy and security of information and transactions
(Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018). The user's trust is vital in the development and success of mobile service acceptance, because trust
building requires time passing and is also very fragile and simply eliminated (Koç et al., 2016). Since trust can be achieved gradually
and may be decrease or increase, m-learning should also protect students' confidence over time and promote it. According to
Computer as Social Actors (CASA) theory (Al-Natour and Benbasat, 2009; Johnson et al., 2006), rational and social attractions affect
people because they are using the same rules in dealing with software agents that use in human communication. Rational attractions
refer to design features that are used to convince the user through communications and discussions based on facts (For example, the
reason of specific suggestions made by the system) and social attractions are design features that can simulate different types of social
symbols in interpersonal communication through the user interface (for example, use the avatar of the lecturer). These twofold
attractions are effective on cognition and affect-based trust, and these two type of trust influence on PEOU and PU (Wang et al.,
2016). According to previous studies (Lee and Song, 2013; Wang et al., 2016), TR has a positive effect on users' PU and PEOU. The
following hypotheses have been developed on mentioned basis:
H10.a. TR has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
H10.b. TR has positive impact on PEOU of m-learning.
3.5. Perceived Ease of Use (or Effort Expectancy) (PEOU)
PEOU (like PU) is one of the most important and repetitive factors in acceptance a technology (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018). This
factor has been raised in TAM and has been used widely. PEOU “is defined as a degree of belief in the fact that the use of a particular
system will not require effort” (Davis, 1989). Also defined PEOU as the individual's belief in the system in terms of eliminating mental
and physical pressures within a specific domain. Moreover, Joo et al. (2014) mentioned that PEOU is a level of students’ belief in the
use of a device without special difficulty. In the m-learning context, PEOU is associated with easy access to information, flexibility,
ease of use, and the interface of the m-learning system (Sabah, 2016), and focuses on the ability of the user to navigate pages and
learn how to use a system (Hao et al., 2017). Venkatesh et al. (2003) stated that the Effort Expectancy is like PEOU in the TAM, and
defined it as a degree of simplicity associated with using the system.
In order to maximize the system's performance, students must believe that m-learning will meet their values and needs (Milošević
145
et al., 2015). In the early stages of using a new technology, the simplicity of using is important, and since Iran still at the beginning of
m-learning path, it is believed that the effort expectancy will be crucial to intention to use technology (Wang et al., 2009). In fact, if
students believe that using this technology is easy, they will accept it (Ali et al., 2016). In addition, under the same conditions, users
find more beneficial the technology that is easier to use (Huang et al., 2007).
According to the previous studies (Almaiah et al., 2016; Cheng, 2015; Huang et al., 2007; Iqbal and Bhatti, 2017; Joo et al., 2014;
Mohammadi, 2015; Park et al., 2012; Sabah, 2016; Tan et al., 2012, 2014), PEOU of m-learning has a positive effect on PU of m-
learning. Also, PEOU of m-learning has a positive effect on BI (Almaiah et al., 2016; Althunibat, 2015; Cheng, 2012; Cheng, 2015;
Iqbal and Bhatti, 2017; Iqbal and Qureshi, 2012; Lu et al., 2017; Lu and Viehland, 2008; Milošević et al., 2015; Sabah, 2016; Tan
et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2009). The following hypotheses are presented on the mentioned basis:
H11.a. PEOU of m-learning has positive impact on PU of m-learning.
H11.b. PEOU of m-learning has positive impact on BI.
3.6. Perceived usefulness (or Performance Expectancy) (PU)
PU is one of the main and accepted factors in accepting a technology that originates from TAM and is used in many models of
acceptance/adaption to new technology (Hamidi and Chavoshi, 2018). PU is defined as “a degree of belief in the use of a particular
system which leads to an improvement in its performance” (Davis, 1989). Althunibat (2015) also defines PU as the degree of
individual reliance on the system in terms of improving performance in a particular domain. In the context of m-learning, PU
represents a degree of one's belief that m-learning will lead to an improvement in personal performance or learning outcomes (Hao
et al., 2017). Also (Huang et al., 2007; Joo et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2012), defined PU as a level of students' belief that a mobile device
help to achieve educational goals. M-learning has many different advantages for students, and they can have a better control over
their learning environment (Tan et al., 2012). Students find it useful to use m-learning because they improve their performance in
studying and cooperation with professors and classmates will lead to an enhancement in their learning productivity and quality, and
helps them accomplish their learning tasks quickly, regardless of time and place (Sabah, 2016).
Venkatesh et al. (2003) stated that the Performance Expectancy is like PU in the TAM and defines it as a degree of personal belief
that the use of system will help him/her achieve his/her goals. In the context of m-learning, performance expectancy indicates that m-
learning is beneficial with regards to the opportunity that mobile devices provide to users in order to access information quickly at
any time and place (Milošević et al., 2015). If students believe that m-learning improves their performance, they will accept this
technology (Ali et al., 2016). In fact, performance expectancy is the strongest factor in the BI (Thomas et al., 2013; Venkatesh et al.,
2003; Wang et al., 2009).
According to the previous studies (Almaiah et al., 2016; Althunibat, 2015; Cheng, 2015; Chung et al., 2015; Hao et al., 2017;
Huang et al., 2007; Iqbal and Bhatti, 2017; Iqbal and Qureshi, 2012; Liu et al., 2010; Lu et al., 2017; Lu and Viehland, 2008; Milošević
et al., 2015; Mohammadi, 2015; Sabah, 2016; Tan et al., 2012; Tan et al., 2014; Thomas et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2009), PU of m-
learning has a positive impact on BI. The following hypothesis is presented on the same basis:
H12. PU of m-learning has positive impact on BI.
4. Research methodology and results
The applied research methodology in this study is based on quantitative approach. The quantitative approach yields statistical
results through empirical and systematic analysis of achieved statistics. For this purpose, a questionnaire was prepared in the winter
of 2018, which was provided to students in both electronic and paper forms. The questionnaire distribution was also completely
random and distributed among the groups, forums and social networks of the K.N.Toosi University of Technology (KNTU). As Iranian
students isn’t familiar with m-learning, a brief explanation of the concept of m-learning is presented at the beginning of the ques-
tionnaire and then questions in both English and Persian languages (for clarification of the ambiguities in English translation into
Persian and helping contributors to respond simpler) was asked. A Pilot study was conducted on a population of 30 graduate IT
students to identify possible defects through feedback and suggestions, and improve the questionnaire. After passing this stage,
according to the achieved results, three questions that reduced the validity and reliability of the research were deleted and the
questionnaire was updated.
4.1. Questionnaire development
The final questionnaire consists of 8 primary questions related to demographic characteristics and 42 questions about the af-
fecting factors on m-learning acceptance (LCQ, INT, FC, UI, ML, SI, SUP, PI, SE, TR, PEOU, PU, BI) which answers are based on
Likert’s 5-point scale. This questions are selected based on previous studies on m-learning acceptance and proposed model, and these
questions are changed and adapted due to social culture and status of Ian in order to questions were tangible for responders. The
questionnaire is provided in the appendix.
146
Table 5
Demographic profile of respondents.
Characteristics Number Percentage
Gender Male 127 49.4

Female 130 50.6
Age 18–22 33 12.8
23–27 167 65
28–31 36 14
> 31 21 8.2
Marital status Single 207 80.5
Married 50 19.5
Level of education Undergraduate 70 27.2
Graduate 179 69.6
Postgraduate 8 3.1
Type of education Online 230 89.5
Traditional 27 10.5
Income (or financial support) to RS (×1000) 0–300 63 24.5
300–600 48 18.7
600–1,000 50 19.5
1,000–1,500 22 8.6
1,500–2,000 27 10.5
2,000–3,000 28 10.9
> 3000 19 7.4
4.2. Samples and data collection
The case study of this paper is KNTU students, so samples are selected among the undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate
students of KNTU. The completion of the questionnaire is optional either in electronic or paper forms and there is no compulsory to
response them. Also, using the snowball method (Goodman, 1961), people were asked to share the questionnaire with their friends
and colleagues in order to better access to students from different field studies and faculties. Due to the statistics, approximately 2500
people have seen the questionnaire electronically, of which 223 people responded to the questionnaire, 210 of them completed the
questionnaires correctly and completely and 60 respondents received paper questionnaire, of which 47 people completed the
questionnaire correctly and completely. Therefore, the statistical population of this research consists of 257 respondents.
By considering the subject of this research, which is the acceptance of m-learning among Iranian students, most of the participants
in this study are young, and approximately 92% of them are between 18 and 31 years old. Also, 49.4% (127 people) of respondents
were male and 50.6% (130) of them were women, reflecting approximately the proportion of male and female student dispersion in
Iranian universities (Mohammadi, 2015).
In addition, approximately 27% of the participants are undergraduate and 70% are graduate, and the few remaining are post-
graduate students. Also, 10% of all participants are e-learning students. Table 5 shows a summary of demographic characteristics.
Table 6 shows different values for mean, standard deviation, variance, skewness coefficient and kurtosis. The average of all
constructs is larger than the midpoint (3.33–4.08). The standard deviation is from 0.77 to 1.16, which represents a narrow band
around the average. Moreover, the values of skewness and kurtosis can be considered as normality test data. Data is normal when
these values are between ± 1 (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017). As shown in Table 6, except ML, all values are verifiable. The distribution of
abnormal data can distort analysis. Although the Partial Least Squares (PLS) method reduces this problem, according to the rule of
thumb presented by (Kline, 2016), skewness < 3 and kurtosis < 10 can be accepted as acceptable values. So, the value of 1.05 for
kurtosis is accepted in the ML construct.
Table 6
Descriptive statistics.
Construct Mean Standard deviation Variance Skewness Kurtosis
LCQ 3.899805447 0.87032792 0.757470779 −0.584186892 −0.052337594

INT 3.386511025 1.1618781 1.349960719 −0.36642908 −0.92045429
FC 3.412451362 0.966924113 0.93494224 −0.307076657 −0.567782945
UI 3.590142672 0.901422053 0.812561718 −0.344606672 −0.093826496
ML 3.339494163 1.136807487 1.292331262 −0.333911218 −1.056568165
SI 3.993514916 0.802854485 0.644575324 −0.800343473 0.785778999
SUP 3.891050584 0.921601443 0.849349221 −0.72735759 0.299841288
PI 4.071984436 0.952507009 0.907269603 −0.954320767 0.248680322
SE 4.026264591 0.831230661 0.690944412 −0.67915747 0.099784704
TR 4.040207523 0.835149953 0.697475443 −0.690073423 0.100178964
PEOU 4.088197147 0.772419006 0.596631121 −0.726797031 0.536778074
PU 4.050583658 0.85946869 0.73868643 −0.713039104 0.159362421
BI 4.025291829 0.823619239 0.67834865 −0.788599397 0.78339676
147
Fig. 4. Proposed model for m-learning acceptance.
The results of the preliminary analysis of the questionnaire are shown in Fig. 5. This figure shows the percentage of participants'
responses in separation of each factor, based on Likert's 5-point scale. As shown in the figure, most participants believe that the use of
m-learning will be simple. Also in their view, mobile devices have not so much limitations. Half of users believe that m-learning will
lead to an improvement in their interaction with their instructors and their classmates, as well as better sharing of course-related
content. In addition, if there is a valid third party, approximately 80% of users will be confident in m-learning capabilities, they also
will trust in privacy and security issues in m-learning. The notable point is that more than 70% of users consider using m-learning to
the support of government from this plan (Ministry of Science, Ministry of ICT, etc.).
4.3. Data analysis
Applying the Structural Equation Model (SEM) techniques is very important in this research. According to Hsu et al. (2006), there
are two types of SEMs: covariance-based (such as LISREL, EQS or AMOS) and variance-based (e.g., Minimum Partial Least Square).
Blunch (2013) has been defined SEM as “one of the most commonly used statistical modeling techniques widely used in behavioral
sciences.” SEM can also be considered as a combination of factor analysis and regression analysis or path analysis. Both techniques
are highly resistance to skewness scenarios, but variance-based SEM techniques are more accurate at small scales cases or predictive
purposes (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017). Basically, PLS was designed to analyze and determine the value of variables for predictive pur-
poses (Chin, 1998). Finally, regarding the conditions of this research (257 people and lack of experience of using m-learning in
universities of Iran) and less restrictiveness of PLS model, this model was selected for data analysis.
The PLS has two components: the measurement model (also called the outer model) and the structural model (also called the
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LCQ INT FC UI ML SI SUP PI SE TR PU PEOU BI
Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
Fig. 5. Distribution of responses.
148
Fig. 6. Proposed method.
inner model). The outer model determines the quality of all constructs to evaluate validity and reliability and the inner model
estimates the relationships between different model constructs (Hair et al., 2011a). Also, the bootstrapping method has been used to
test the importance of coefficients and path load.
Conventional linear statistical techniques, like SEM and PLS, often are not sufficient to model the complex nature of human
decisions. These techniques usually simplify the complexity of the decision to accept/adopt a technology because they have only the
ability to test linear models. In order to overcome this problem, applying Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) is proposed (Liébana-
Cabanillas et al., 2018).
The methodology is that the important predictors which identified in the PLS analysis are used as neuron inputs for ANN analysis.
According to Ooi and Tan (2016), for three reasons, PLS techniques are preferred to SEM to integrate with neural networks: (1) PLS is
suitable for studies of a small sample size and doesn’t need to prove the data normality; (2) PLS is appropriate for predictive models
that are related to multi-functional constructs, and (3) PLS has the ability to simultaneously analyze the structural and measurement.
Therefore, PLS can offer higher levels of statistical power SEM. In addition, the two-step PLS-ANN approach has been used for two
reasons: (1) PLS is a variance based SEM which can’t detect nonlinear relationships, and (2) Although the ANN is capable of detecting
linear and nonlinear relationships, it is not appropriate to test hypotheses due to the nature of the “black box” algorithm. In order to
take advantage of these two methods, the two-stage PLS-ANN approach was used in this study to test hypotheses and recognize the
both linear and nonlinear relationships in the research model. Steps of this approach is shown in Fig. 6. To perform computations and
analyze the data collected from the questionnaire, SPSS (V.25) and SmartPLS (V. 3.2.6) were used.
4.3.1. Outer model: validity and reliability

Based on Briz-Ponce et al. (2017), the outer model performs an exploratory analysis to obtain the reliability of the scale and
validity of the constructs. Reliability and validity of the outer model are evaluated through item reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity. According to Sabah (2016), “reliability is about how well a set of instrument items selected for a given
construct measures the same construct and consistent on different occasions” and “validity is about how well the selected instrument
items for a given construct are reasonable measurement of the construct”. Based on criteria proposed by Briz-Ponce et al. (2017),
Cronbach’s alpha, factor loadings and composite reliability (CR) are reliability measurements, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and
CR are convergent validity measurements and square root of AVE is discriminant validity measurement.
To verify the reliability of the questionnaire, outer loadings should be calculated using the SmartPLS software. For this purpose,
149
Table 7
Outer model.
Construct Indicator Factor loading t-statistics Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
LCQ LCQ1 0.811 31.193 0.783 0.859 0.603

LCQ2 0.813 30.243
LCQ3 0.729 17.505
LCQ4 0.750 20.454
INT INT1 0.884 38.575 0.830 0.898 0.745
INT2 0.870 30.814
INT3 0.835 27.765
FC FC1 0.934 39.752 0.731 0.876 0.781
FC2 0.830 15.332
UI UI1 0.900 42.687 0.894 0.934 0.825
UI2 0.919 49.510
UI3 0.906 49.573
ML ML1 0.772 2.600 0.812 0.856 0.598
ML2 0.786 3.583
ML3 0.732 3.125
ML4 0.801 3.691
SI SI1 0.774 18.084 0.745 0.853 0.659
SI2 0.819 22.355
SI3 0.840 32.846
SUP SUP1 0.890 38.478 0.853 0.910 0.771
SUP2 0.855 23.034
SUP3 0.888 39.539
PI PI1 0.917 52.327 0.762 0.893 0.806
PI2 0.878 33.076
SE SE1 0.753 15.920 0.795 0.866 0.618
SE2 0.777 20.420
SE3 0.821 22.948
SE4 0.792 21.891
TR TR1 0.737 5.649 0.787 0.836 0.632
TR2 0.707 5.558
TR3 0.924 11.833
PEOU PEOU1 0.864 45.439 0.764 0.864 0.680
PEOU2 0.871 43.868
PEOU3 0.731 15.277
PU PU1 0.831 34.314 0.827 0.884 0.657
PU2 0.847 37.855
PU3 0.759 24.664
PU4 0.803 32.905
BI BI1 0.885 45.507 0.888 0.923 0.749
BI2 0.814 24.286
BI3 0.875 37.538
BI4 0.884 46.722
the following criteria have been used (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017):
• Factor loads of all indicators should be important and larger than 0.5;
• Factor loads should be at least 0.7 and the t-statistic should pass ± 1.96 level of 5%;
• CR should be larger than 0.7.
Based on Table 7, the factor loadings obtained in this study are important at 5% level and have passed from ± 1.96. Also, the
factor loads are above 0.7, which satisfy both the first and second conditions.
The questionnaire used for this research is a Likert's 5-point scale. Therefore, an assessment of internal consistency reliability is
essential. According to Hair et al. (2011a), three methods are used to calculate the internal consistency reliability: split-half method,
alpha correlation (or Cronbach’s alpha) and CR.
In the split-half method, the questionnaire's questions are divided into two parts (for example, even and odd questions), and they
are considered as a single questionnaire and compared with each other. Employing SPSS software, the reliability of the questionnaire
was accomplished using split-half method. Results show the correlation value of Guttman’s split-half as 0.771, which would be
acceptable as it is larger than 0.7.
In Cronbach’s alpha method, introduced in Cronbach (1951), the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is calculated. This value can be
between [0, 1], and how much is closer to 1, indicates higher internal consistency. According to Nummally (1978), the alpha ac-
ceptance value depends on the type of research. In exploratory studies, the minimum acceptable value for alpha coefficient is 0.7. The
overall alpha coefficient for this questionnaire is 0.914, which is excellent according to Briz-Ponce et al. (2017).
The third method of computing the internal consistency reliability is CR. CR evaluates the internal consistency of a criterion.
150
Table 8
Discriminant validity.
BI FC INT LCQ ML PEOU PI PU SE SI SUP TR UI
BI 0.865
FC 0.259 0.884
INT 0.413 0.205 0.863
LCQ 0.572 0.299 0.418 0.777
ML −0.118 −0.050 −0.064 −0.133 0.773
PEOU 0.515 0.296 0.309 0.414 −0.138 0.825
PI 0.533 0.295 0.214 0.385 −0.041 0.403 0.898
PU 0.636 0.212 0.413 0.544 −0.145 0.579 0.356 0.811
SE 0.528 0.298 0.176 0.436 −0.134 0.481 0.550 0.334 0.786
SI 0.621 0.146 0.358 0.537 −0.117 0.425 0.464 0.471 0.401 0.812
SUP 0.594 0.187 0.338 0.446 −0.048 0.371 0.477 0.507 0.324 0.594 0.878
TR 0.248 0.103 0.261 0.378 0.057 0.282 0.313 0.243 0.204 0.296 0.247 0.795
UI 0.296 0.234 0.360 0.350 −0.006 0.275 0.142 0.345 0.205 0.199 0.214 0.209 0.909
Sabah (2016) mentioned that “it corresponds to the total amount of scale score variance that is accounted for by all underlying
constructs”. This parameter is similar to the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, but is calculated differently. The assumption of the alpha
coefficient is that the weight of all the items is the same, but CR considers the weight of each item based on the unique weight of each
item. Therefore, for a robust evaluation, CR is more accurate than the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017). Also, the
minimum accepted value for CR is 0.7 (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). The CR obtained from SmartPLS software is also larger than 0.7.
In order to evaluate the validity of the questionnaire, two methods of convergent validity and discriminant validity should be
used. Ooi and Tan (2016) defined convergent and discriminant validity as “the extent to which different measures of the same
construct are in fact related” and “how different measures of different constructs are not related” respectively. Based on Briz-Ponce
et al. (2017) and Yeap et al. (2016), the AVE value should be larger than 0.5. Also, Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018) stated that the CR
value should also be larger than AVE in order to validate convergent validity. Sabah (2016) mentioned that “AVE measures the
amount of variance captured by a construct in relation to variance due to random measurement error”. The summary of the results for
reliability and validity is shown in Table 7. Due to these results, it can be concluded that the convergent validity and reliability of the
questionnaire are confirmed.
Discriminant validity is evaluated by comparing the square roots of AVE with the factors correlation coefficient (Briz-Ponce et al.,
2017; Yeap et al., 2016). Accordingly, if the AVE is larger than the correlation coefficient of other factors, the divergent validity of the
questionnaire will be confirmed. Table 8 shows these comparisons. The Bold numbers represent the square roots of the AVE, which
must be larger than all the numbers in the corresponding rows and columns. In summary, the divergent validity of this questionnaire
is confirmed, and as a result, validity is acceptable.
4.3.2. Inner model

An inner model describes the relationship between latent variables based on the substantive theory (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017). In
order to evaluate the inner model, the path coefficients and their significance, R2 (variance of each construct), f 2 (representing the
effect size of each independent item for the relevant factor) and Q 2 (indicator of model’s predictive relevance) should be calculated
(Briz-Ponce et al., 2017; Yeap et al., 2016).
Table 9
Inner model’s hypotheses.
Hypothesis Path coefficients Standard deviations t-statistics Supported
LCQ → PU 0.271 0.062 4.411 Yes

INT → PU 0.126 0.053 2.398 Yes
FC → PU −0.033 0.051 0.654 No
FC → PEOU 0.123 0.062 1.988 Yes
UI → PEOU 0.117 0.057 2.048 Yes
ML → PEOU −0.076 0.057 1.325 No
SI → PU 0.027 0.061 0.437 No
SI → PEOU 0.201 0.072 2.788 Yes
SUP → PU 0.221 0.057 3.865 Yes
PI → PEOU 0.071 0.069 1.039 No
SE → PEOU 0.267 0.066 4.049 Yes
SE → PU −0.053 0.055 0.966 No
TR → PEOU 0.113 0.050 2.244 Yes
TR → PU −0.048 0.050 0.972 No
PEOU → PU 0.383 0.059 6.473 Yes
PEOU → BI 0.221 0.066 3.337 Yes
PU → BI 0.508 0.067 7.580 Yes
151
Table 9 shows the path correlation for all constructs. As it is obvious, all t-values pass from ± 1.96 in the level of 5%, except for
the connections between FC and PU, ML and PEOU, PI and PEOU, SE and PU, SI and PEOU, as well as TR and PU. Hence, all
hypotheses are accepted except 3.a, 5, 6.a, 8, 9.b and 10.b.
From the path analysis, for pedagogical factors, hypothesis 1 (LCQ → PU) and 2 (INT → PU) are supported with significant β
values of 0.271 (p < 0.05) and 0.126 (p < 0.05) respectively. For technological factors, hypothesis 3.b (FC → PEOU) and 4 (UI →
PEOU) are supported with significant β values of 0.123 (p < 0.05) and 0.117 (p < 0.05) respectively. Out of the three hypotheses
related to social factors, two are supported. Hypotheses 6 (SUP → PU) and 7.b (SI → PEOU) are supported with significant β values of
0.201 (p < 0.05) and 0.221 (p < 0.05) respectively. Five hypotheses related to individual factors which two of them were sup-
ported. Hypotheses 9.b (SE → PEOU) and 10.b (TR → PEOU) were supported with significant β values of 0.268 (p < 0.05) and 0.113
(p < 0.05) respectively.
Fig. 7 shows the path correlation values andR2 for each factor. According to this figure, approximately 51% of the variance of PU
is assigned to variables LCQ, INT, FC, SI, SUP, SE, TR and PEOU. 35% of PEOU variances are assigned to FC, UI, ML, SI, PI, SE and TR.
Also, 43% of the BI-specific variance is specific to PU and PEOU. Hair et al. (2011b) suggested that the values of 0.75, 0.5 and 0.25 for
R2 indicate respectively that the model is substantial, moderate and weak. In addition, according to Cohen (1987), the values of
R2 larger than 0.35 represent a substantial model. Therefore, according to the results of the proposed model, the model is reliable and
substantial.
After evaluating the hypotheses, it is the time to calculate the effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable by
calculating f 2 (Hair et al., 2011b; Milošević et al., 2015; Yeap et al., 2016). According to Cohen (1992), the values 0.02, 0.15 and
0.35 respectively indicate low, moderate, and high effects. Table 10 shows the effect size of each independent variable on dependent
variables. In this table, columns are dependent variables and rows are independent variables. Considering the f 2 values, the 8 small-
size variables (with a slight neglect of 0.001, the effect of the UI with a size of 0.019 is also considered as a low effect), there are two
variables of moderate size, and none of the independent variables have high effect on their respective dependent variable.
By using the Blindfolding process, the predictive relationship of the model is evaluated. This method is a reusing technique that
removes every number of dth data point in the indices of the endogenous constructs and estimates the parameters with the remaining
data point (Yeap et al., 2016). This parameter specifies how to reconstruct well-observed values by the model and estimates it (Briz-
Ponce et al., 2017). This criterion is calculated by the Q 2 index, and according to Hair et al. (2014), if this value is larger than 0, the
model has a predictive relation for the endogenous construct. According to Table 11, all Q 2 values are larger than zero and are from
0.215 to 0.303; therefore, the proposed model has predictive relation. Also, according to (Hair et al., 2014), if the values of Q 2 are
0.02, 0.15 and 0.35, respectively, it is indicates a low, moderate, and high predictive relation. So, all predictive communications of
the proposed model are moderate.
4.3.3. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) analysis

ANN is “a machine that is invented to model the manner in which human brain performs a specific task or function” (Ooi and Tan,
2016). An artificial neural network is a parallel distributed processor and its processing units (neurons) are used to store knowledge
and make it available for use. The knowledge gained through the learning process is stored in neuronal connections which called
synaptic weights.
According to Liébana-Cabanillas et al. (2018) and Ooi and Tan (2016), there are three stages to design an artificial neural
network:
1. Choice of artificial neural network: In order to evaluate the relationships between independent and dependent variables of this
study, one of the most commonly used neural network models, namely feed-forward multi-layer perceptron (MLP) models, has
been used in the training and testing phases (Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2018; Ooi and Tan, 2016).
2. Determining the number of layers: A typical neural network consists of several layers: input, output, and one or more hidden
layers between these two layers and determining the number of hidden layers depends on the complexity of the problem. Usually
a hidden layer is sufficient in the models of the neural network of technology acceptance. In feed-forward networks, signals are
sent forward from the input layer through the entire network to reach the output layer. Through supervised learning, knowledge is
stored in the network, and during this process, the error (difference between the known output and the predicted output by the
network) is calculated and then it propagates in the opposite direction through the network to adjust all the synaptic weights,
thereby decreasing the estimation error (Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2018).
3. Determining the number of neurons in each layer: Determining the number of neurons in the input and output layer is simple,
because the number of neurons in the input layer is in accordance with the predictors and output neurons is in accordance with
the dependent variables. Of course, determining the number of neurons in the hidden layers is complex, and depends on the
number of hidden layers, sample size, neural network architecture, complexity of the activation function, training algorithm, etc.
Generally, the greater number of hidden neurons leads to an increase in prediction accuracy, but this occurs to some point, and
after that, the increase in the number of neurons merely increases the computational load without improving in the accuracy of
the estimates. Unfortunately, there is no general rule that determines the number of hidden neurons, and this often happens in the
form of trial and error, and rule-of-thumb (Liébana-Cabanillas et al., 2018).
In this research, the most important determinants obtained in the previous stage (PLS), have been used as artificial neural network
inputs. The model presented in Fig. 4 is divided into three artificial neural network models shown in Fig. 8. Model A has two inputs
(SE and SI) and one output (PEOU), model B has three input (LCQ, SUP, and PEOU) and one output (PU), and model C has two input
152
Fig. 7. Obtained values of path correlations and R2 through SmartPLS.
153
Table 10
Effect size of independent variables.
Dependent variable
Independent variable PU PEOU BI
LCQ 0.082 — —
INT 0.025 — —
FC 0.002 0.020 —
UI — 0.019 —
ML — 0.009 —
SI 0.001 0.045 —
SUP 0.060 — —
PI — 0.005 —
SE 0.004 0.070 —
TR 0.004 0.017 —
PU — — 0.305
PEOU 0.193 — 0.058
Table 11
Indicator of model’s predictive relevance.
Dependent variable Construct cross-validated redundancy
PEOU 0.215
PU 0.303
BI 0.300
Fig. 8. Ann models.
(PEOU and PU) and one output (BI).

According to Liébana-Cabanillas et al. (2018) and Ooi and Tan (2016), in order to avoid the overfitting, a 10-fold cross-validation
procedure have been used with 90% of data for network training and 10% of data for testing. Also, the sigmoid function is used as an
activator in both hidden and output layers. The number of hidden layers and neurons are automatically calculated by SPSS and, as
seen, all three models have one hidden layer. All inputs and outputs are also set to [0, 1] to get better performance for the model. The
prediction of the model is evaluated based on Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values. All of these values are shown in Table 12 for
154
Table 12
RMSE values of ANN.
Network Model A Model B Model C
Inputs: SE and SI Inputs: LCQ, SUP and PEOU Inputs: PEOU and PU
Output: PEOU Output: PU Output: BI
Training Test Training Test Training Test
1 0.1253 0.1507 0.1168 0.1104 0.0975 0.0982

2 0.1270 0.1063 0.1043 0.0955 0.0935 0.1022
3 0.1318 0.1229 0.1030 0.1046 0.0963 0.0869
4 0.1246 0.1326 0.0995 0.1085 0.0929 0.1125
5 0.1266 0.1175 0.1014 0.0890 0.0970 0.0841
6 0.1276 0.1213 0.1023 0.0753 0.0975 0.1048
7 0.1282 0.1007 0.1012 0.0870 0.0995 0.0945
8 0.1278 0.1112 0.1008 0.0821 0.0992 0.0761
9 0.1274 0.1229 0.1065 0.0981 0.0955 0.0942
10 0.1245 0.1521 0.1174 0.1275 0.0982 0.1060
Mean 0.1271 0.1238 0.1053 0.0978 0.0967 0.0959
Standard deviation 0.0020 0.0162 0.0061 0.0146 0.0020 0.0105
both training and test datasets in the all three models and their 10 networks as well as their mean values and their standard
deviations.
According to Liébana-Cabanillas et al. (2018) and Ooi and Tan (2016), All three artificial neural network models have a very
accurate prediction because the average RMSE values for both training and test datasets are very small. Accordingly, sensitivity
analysis has been used to measure the BI’s predictors sensitivity. Sensitivity analysis indicates how much the predicted output varies
with different inputs, using relative importance. For this purpose, in each model, normalized importance based on the percentage of
the relative importance over the largest relative importance among the predictors is calculated. Table 13 shows the results of the
sensitivity analysis of all three models.
As outlined in the table, SE is the most important determinant for PEOU, followed by SI is after that. The results of sensitivity
analysis of the model B show that the PEOU and the LCQ are the main determinants of PU respectively, and SUP is in third place. Also
for BI, PU has much stronger influence than PEOU. These results are consistent with the results obtained by analyzing f 2 whose
values are shown in Table 10 and confirms the PLS analysis.
5. Discussion
The purpose of this research is to investigate the effective factors on the acceptance of m-learning to use in Iran higher education.
This study provides a useful perspective on the effective factors from the perspective of the m-learning’s end-users. Each of these
factors divided into pedagogical, technological, social and individual factors at the higher level. The factors at the micro level are
tested by hypotheses. This test was performed by SEM modeling with SPSS (V.25) and SmartPLS (V. 3.2.6). The required data for this
study were collected by publication of a questionnaire (electronic and paper). Since m-learning has not been implemented at
Table 13
ANN sensitivity analysis.
Network Model A Model B Model C
SE SI PEOU LCQ SUP PEOU PU
1 0.600 0.400 0.422 0.323 0.255 0.447 0.553

2 0.594 0.406 0.461 0.267 0.272 0.325 0.675
3 0.516 0.484 0.295 0.406 0.299 0.268 0.732
4 0.551 0.449 0.421 0.296 0.284 0.348 0.652
5 0.561 0.439 0.407 0.298 0.295 0.321 0.679
6 0.566 0.434 0.374 0.320 0.306 0.395 0.605
7 0.558 0.442 0.399 0.318 0.284 0.543 0.547
8 0.629 0.371 0.386 0.309 0.305 0.398 0.602
9 0.578 0.422 0.282 0.441 0.276 0.250 0.750
10 0.601 0.399 0.413 0.288 0.300 0.286 0.714
Average importance 0.575 0.425 0.386 0.327 0.288 0.349 0.651
Normalized importance (%) 100 73.9 100 84.7 74.6 53.6 100
155
Table 14
Comparison of Path coefficient between the proposed method and the other studies.
Hypothesis Almaiah et al. Sabah (2016) Iqbal and Bhatti Althunibat Hao et al. Mohammadi Hamidi and The proposed
(2016) (p < 0.001) (2017) (2015) (2017) (2015) Chavoshi model
(p < 0.001) (p < 0.01) (p < 0.001) (2018) (p < 0.05)
LCQ → PU 0.229 — — — — — — 0.271

INT → PU 0.130 — — — — — — 0.126
FC → PU — — — 0.235 0.400 — — -0.033
(p < 0.0001)
FC → PEOU — — — 0.201 0.380 — — 0.123
(p < 0.0001)
UI → PEOU 0.092 — — — — — — 0.117
ML → PEOU — 0.469 — — — — — -0.076
SI → PU — 0.322 0.108 — — — — 0.027
SI → PEOU — 0.025 — — — — 0.201
SUP → PU — — — — — — — 0.221
PI → PEOU — — — — 0.140 — — 0.071
(p < 0.05)
SE → PEOU — — — 0.536 — — — 0.267
SE → PU — — — 0.211 — — — -0.053
TR → PEOU — — — — — — — 0.113
TR → PU — — — — — — — -0.048
PEOU → PU 0.116 0.390 0.112 — — 0.310 0.57 0.383
(p < 0.01)
PEOU → BI 0.169 0.323 0.089 0.203 0.240 0.170 0.15 0.221
(p < 0.001)
PU → BI 0.734 0.288 0.214 0.668 0.460 0.420 0.14 0.508
(p < 0.001) (p < 0.001)
universities in Iran so far, students are not familiar with this phenomenon, so at the beginning of the questionnaire, the m-learning
concepts and their explanations have been presented to the students. The target population have access to the tools needed for m-
learning (smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.). Each of mentioned categories as well as TAM-based factors will be reviewed further.
Also, Table 14 presents an analytical evaluation comparison between the results of studies conducted in this context.
5.1. Pedagogical factors
Due to the path analysis, hypotheses 1 (LCQ → PU) and 2 (INT → PU) have been supported. LCQ and INT factors have a significant
effect on PU, which are supported by the results of Almaiah et al. (2016) in m-learning acceptance and (Cheng, 2012) in e-learning
acceptance.
The results of this study indicate that if students perceived that the learning content (including the content of the lessons,
pamphlets, tutorials, quizzes, assignments, etc.) is up to date, sufficient and complete, and the presentation format (text, image,
diagram, audio, video, animation, etc.) is match with learning content, they will feel that learning content is more useful in m-
learning. Also, developers of this technology should note that m-learning systems will run on devices with different screen size,
keyboard, operating system, and capabilities, so m-learning content must be designed in such a way that it runs without any problem.
Educational professionals should provide students with appropriate and personalized content considering their needs, which will
increase their sense of usefulness.
If students can communicate with their instructors through m-learning systems better and faster and receive personal feedback on
their tasks, assignments and test results, and instructors can also make a positive contribution to their students, and in addition, if
students can discuss with their classmates and share information in a quick and convenient manner, the use of m-learning will be
more beneficial for them. Therefore, according to the results of this study, m-learning developers should provide collaborative
learning mechanisms using various tools such as chat, forum, and so on to enhance PU.
Therefore, pedagogical factors are among the most important issues that m-learning developers need to consider them completely.
5.2. Technological factors
According to the path analysis, the hypotheses 3.b (FC → PEOU) and 4 (UI → PEOU) have been supported. FC and UI factors have
significant effect on PEOU. The positive effect of FC on PEOU is supported by Althunibat (2015) and Hao et al. (2017). Also, the
positive impact of UI on PEOU is consistent with the results of Almaiah et al. (2016) and Joo et al. (2014) in m-learning and Cheng
(2012) in e-learning. The better the control over the device will lead the less complexity of use, and therefore access to different parts
requires less effort. Hence, if the environment, text design, menu, navigation and page design are more user-friendly, its usage will be
156
perceived easier. Developers of m-learning systems should consider the proper organization of the pages so that users achieve their
goal with the least effort.
Results indicates that the lack of appropriate facilitating conditions will be effective in users’ ease of use. The existence of
facilitating conditions, including advanced mobile devices, low cost usage, high internet speed, and support services, will make the
user experience better and easier with the m-learning systems. For example, if there are people to help with the use, users will
perceive the use of m-learning easy. Therefore, the developers of this technology should provide the appropriate ICT infrastructure, as
well as promote it with the technology advancement to make the use of this technology easy for users. Also, it is critical to train the
appropriate support force that helps the user when needed.
As shown in Table 10, hypothesis 3.a (FC → PU) is rejected, which is opposed to the results of Althunibat (2015) and Hao et al.
(2017). This means that facilitating conditions have no effect on the PU. As mentioned in the previous sections, these results may be
due to the fact that the ICT infrastructure in Iran is in a favorable situation. In fact, facilitating conditions up to a threshold point will
increase the usefulness and then will remain constant. In this case, users may also perceive that they have the minimum requirements
for using m-learning technology (including Internet speed, cost of use, availability of a suitable device, etc.), and improving these
conditions will not make a significant change in quality, so improving the facilitating conditions will not increase the usefulness. In
fact, they don’t need to better infrastructure to use m-learning.
Also, based on Table 10, the results of the ML analysis (as a barrier factor to the use of m-learning) show that hypothesis 4 (ML →
PEOU) has been rejected, which is opposed to the results of Sabah (2016); i.e., students of the KNTU believe that ML does not prevent
m-learning from being used easily. Today, smartphones have made significant progress and have become more efficient tools that in
many cases have eliminated the need for computers. Also, the experience of users in using this tool has increased and many people
have mastered in use of its applications. The population of this study is made up of young and educated people, and therefore mobile
device limitations may not seem significant to them. In fact, the weaknesses of mobile devices (including low internet speed, small
screen size, low memory, poor battery life, low processing speed, etc.) will not limit the simple use of mobile devices. For example,
today, cloud technologies have somewhat solved the problem of memory deficits, and the mobile internet has impressive speed.
Due to the analysis of technological factor, it can be concluded that these issues effect on ease of using m-learning, and in the lack
of adequate infrastructure, applying m-learning will face a serious challenge.
5.3. Social factors
Among the three hypotheses related to social factors, two hypotheses 6 (SUP → PU) and 7.b (SI → PEOU) have been supported,
and both SI and SUP have a significant and indirect impact on BI. The positive effect of SI on PEOU is in contrast with the results of
Tan et al. (2014) and Iqbal and Bhatti (2017). According to the results, it can be inferred that society can influence the PU and PEOU
politically, socially, culturally and so on, and give users positive or negative feedback. For example, if an individual, in addition to the
usual uses of smartphones, uses them to carry out specialized tasks, he/she may be regarded as a professional and with a high social
status. Therefore, this social image that created for individuals is considered worthwhile, thus the BI increase. Also, in other cases, the
use of m-learning may be increased and accepted by the general public, and individuals will conclude that the use of these systems is
not complicated and affects PEOU and they also consider its usage simple. If instructors and experts advise using m-learning, users'
concerns will reduce and they will be sure that they will have the right support for using the system and they will not require much
effort. Therefore, the developers of these systems should justify the professors to use this technology in the learning process and
educate them well so they can solve the possible problems of using m-learning for students.
Moreover, if the public sector supports m-learning, it will attract attention and reduce the risks of its use, and if there are sufficient
and adequate advertising, they will be informed about the benefits of m-learning and use of these systems will also be beneficial for
them. When an upstream entity supports the use of a phenomenon, implementation and utilization will be successful. In the m-
learning context, the success of implementing this technology depends on the support and participation of the faculty and university
management (Iqbal and Bhatti, 2017). The Ministry of Science and Technology of Iran considering the 20-year technological de-
velopment plan of Iran (which aims to bring the country to the highest technological and educational level in the region in 2025
(Mohammadi, 2015)) should accompany other relevant bodies (such as the ICT Ministry) and contribute with the private sector to put
in place comprehensive policies for the use of m-learning in Iran. Universities should accompany their faculty members with their
policies by holding workshops to increase the productivity of m-learning application.
In the proposed model, hypothesis 7.a (SI → PU) has been rejected, which is opposite to the results of Sabah (2016), Tan et al.
(2014) and Iqbal and Bhatti (2017). The results of the analysis show that the society can’t influence on the PU. This means that the
advice of friends and relatives as well as relevant lecturers about the usefulness of m-learning can’t be effective in inferring them from
the usefulness of m-learning. Occurrence of such a case can be due to bad past experience. Also, since the entire population of this
study is at a higher education level, they may have the required knowledge to diagnose the usefulness of m-learning and don’t require
a recommendation from individuals about this. In addition, the advice of instructors to use m-learning can be somehow compelled to
use this technology, and this compulsory doesn’t deserve to some people. Since the integration of technology in higher education in
Iran has not implemented so far, users' subjective norms may not perceive the usefulness of m-learning and somehow detect it as a
distraction. On the other hand, the advice of the instructors may induce a sense of compulsion so the user may not find it beneficial.
According to Sabah (2016), social influence has an inverse relationship with education level and as the level of education increases,
157
the effect of SI on PU decreases. As a result, professional users are less influenced by the others’ opinions and decide based on the
services provided by the system. Since all the respondents are educated and students of university of technology, this is a predictable
result. Based on the results of the analysis of these two hypotheses, it can be concluded that the opinion of society is effective on the
PEOU of m-learning, but does not affect the PU. Therefore, considering the culture, language and religious beliefs of Iranian people,
m-learning developers should create customized content for users to make m-learning beneficial for users. In addition, they should
modify users' perceptions of the m-learning usefulness through improving the quality of their services and making their subjective
norms positive. Changing perspectives can be done using social networks (having a lot of young people) and through ads on the
benefits of m-learning. Educated young people can change the opinions of their friends and family and promote word of mouth
advertising, and thus this technology can be best introduced to the general public.
Finally, it can be concluded that social factors are one of the determinants that need to be addressed, because it can be effective on
PU and PEOU. Therefore, it's better for developers to focus on this issue at macro scale, so that they can implement it in the best way.
5.4. Individual factors
There are five hypotheses about individual factors, among which two hypotheses have been supported and three hypotheses have
been rejected. In the proposed model, two hypotheses 9.a (SE → PEOU) and 10.a (TR → PEOU) have been confirmed and both SE and
TR have a significant effect on PEOU. The positive effect of SE on PEOU supports Althunibat (2015) and Park et al. (2012). The self-
confidence of users about using m-learning makes them perceive that they have control over the environment and its application is
not complicated for them so they can easily use this technology. Basically, the students of a university of technology have enough
literacy and expertise to apply new technologies (mobile technologies here) and the use of such technologies is not complicated for
them. Also, even if there are complexities in their usage, they can easily find a way to use them through a simple search. This suggests
that m-learning developers at the beginning of the introduction of this technology can rely a special account on professionals who
have self-confidence in using m-learning. In other words, by identifying these people, they will open the way for the public to enter
the public and even use it at lower educational levels.
If the user perceives that a technology has the ability, benevolence, and integrity in delivering its services, he/she trust it, and if
users have trust in a technology, they feel comfortable with it. M-learning developers must use appropriate elements (social and
rational appeals) to attract the user's trust. Furthermore, if you obtain an endorsement and guarantee of a trusted third party that
doesn’t beneficiary, it will build trust for users and will make it easy for them to use.
About the issues related to individuals, three hypotheses 8 (PI → PEOU), 9.b (SE → PU) and 10.b (TR → PU) have been rejected. In
fact, PI's influence on the PEOU is not effective. This finding was predictable with respect to the prevalent culture of Iranian society,
because according to Arpaci (2015), the BI will be low in societies where the power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
is high. Since the culture of Iran has high power distance and uncertainty avoidance, Hofstede et al. (2010) the BI is low. This is not
consistent with Hao et al. (2017), Tan et al. (2014) and Liu et al. (2010). Also, the lack of effect of SE on PU is similar to the results of
Park et al. (2012). The results of the analysis show that SE and TR have no effect on the PU. In some cases, it may be easy to use a
technology for an individual, but it's not beneficial for him. In fact, students believe that they have the ability to use m-learning and it
is not complicated for them, but this usage will not have any advantage for them. Also, they can’t rely on m-learning capabilities to
improve their educational process and profit. To resolve this problem, developers can obtain standards or certificates from trusted
third parties (who aren’t beneficiaries), and win the trust of users through collaboration with the government and the private sector
as well as advertising. In addition, if this technology is implemented correctly, the time passing will be beneficial, and will familiarize
users with the benefits of this technology. In this way the trust building will be formed.
Finally, it can be concluded that individual factors will be effective on PEOU of users, and developers can use the potential
features of individuals at the start and the stages of technology introduction in order to encourage more people to use these systems.
5.5. PU and PEOU
Table 13 shows that each of the three hypotheses 11.a (PEOU → PU), 11.b (PEOU → BI) and 12 (PU → BI) are supported and PU
and PEOU factors have a direct impact on BI. Also, it's important to note that according to the results, PEOU also affects the PU. The
positive effect of PEOU on PU is consistent with the results of Sabah (2016), Joo et al. (2014), Tan et al. (2012), Huang et al. (2007),
Almaiah et al. (2016), Tan et al. (2014), Cheng (2015), Park et al. (2012), Iqbal and Bhatti (2017), and Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018).
Also, the positive effect of PEOU on BI is similar to the results of Althunibat (2015), Sabah (2016), Hao et al. (2017), Hao et al.
(2017), Tan et al. (2012), Huang et al. (2007), Almaiah et al. (2016), Iqbal and Qureshi (2012), Tan et al. (2014), Cheng (2015), and
Iqbal and Bhatti (2017) and opposes the results of Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018), Park et al. (2012) and Liu et al. (2010). Moreover,
about the positive effects of PU on BI, it can be claimed that supports the results of Althunibat (2015), Sabah (2016), Hao et al.
(2017), Tan et al. (2012), Huang et al. (2007), Almaiah et al. (2016), Iqbal and Qureshi (2012), Tan et al. (2012), Cheng (2015), Iqbal
and Bhatti (2017) and opposes to Joo et al. (2014), Park et al. (2012), and Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018). In fact, KNTU students
believe that if m-learning is easy to use, its usage will also be useful. In addition, this model shows that if students find the m-learning
useful and easy to use, they will tend to use it. These two factors are quite reasonable, because the use of these systems should be
useful and not complicated so that users tend to use them.
Based on hypotheses 11.a and 12, users who perceive the use of m-learning is useful and easy are more likely to use it. This
indicates that if users can easily use this technology, they will tend to use it. This indicates that users will tend to use this technology,
if they can use it easily. Given that all users have access to m-learning tools, all of them are familiar with mobile devices and its
158
applications, so they find it easy to use. In addition, the results of this study show that when m-learning application is more useful to
users, they are more likely to use it. In fact, the benefits that m-learning brings to students makes them accept it. Also, these results
have proven that when m-learning usage requires less effort, the use of it will be more beneficial. M-learning developers should pay
attention to these two important aspects that PU and PEOU are the most important factors from the students’ perspective. Therefore,
they should reduce the user's efforts to use m-learning by designing a user-friendly interface, and the manufacturers will also reduce
the mobile devices limitations as well as the government will provide the appropriate ICT infrastructure. Additionally, they must
move to increase the usefulness of m-learning through proper pedagogical designing. Advertising campaigns should also conduct on
the benefits of m-learning.
Based on Table 12, the most important factor for BI is PU, followed by PEOU. The most important factors affecting PU are PEOU,
LCQ and SUP, respectively. Also, the most important factor affecting PEOU is SE, and then SI is the most effective one. With these
results, it can be concluded that to increase the PEOU, it should first be addressed to professionals and youth, and then, using their
comments, other people can be encouraged to use m-learning. Also, in order to increase PU, after trying to decrease the complexity of
using m-learning, they should prioritize relevant issues. Then, the social issues and acquisition government support can be con-
sidered.
6. Conclusion
In this study, a comprehensive model was proposed based on combination of TAM and UTAUT models and some external factors
influencing m-learning environment to explain the effect of factors at macro and micro level on m-learning acceptance. This study
differs from other previous studies of m-learning adoption in higher education. Firstly, after two studies Mohammadi (2015) and
Hamidi and Chavoshi (2018) in Iran, this study presented a more comprehensive model according to Iran's cultural and social
conditions, which shows that the selection of mobile devices as an educational strategy depends on a combination of pedagogical,
technological, social and individual issues. Secondly, this article, in comparison with other studies, such as Hao et al. (2017), Joo
et al. (2014), and Mohammadi (2015), is the first article to present a comprehensive macro-level model (technological, pedagogical,
social, and individual). However, it's worth mentioning that individual issues are themselves due to the conditions of society, but in
this research it was tried to focus more on the psychological aspects of individuals. Developers of this technology, especially in
developing countries, with the results of this research, can understand what priority should be given to different parts for successful
implementation. Thirdly, in contrast to all previous studies in this context and considering the conditions of this research, in this
study, the two-stage PLS-ANN approach was used that has both higher predictive power and detecting nonlinear relationships.
The mobility feature that m-learning brings with it will improve learning in less developed areas. In fact, this advantage that m-
learning implementation doesn’t require some infrastructures, the creation of universities and its essentials, will lead to achieve the
goal of equal education. Because students in these areas can also access the same content as the same with a student at the best
university of the world, as well as get advice from the best professors in the world at any time and place. Female students who are
banned from attending university on religious reasons can have higher education, and even people with any disability and who don’t
have the physical conditions to enter and attend a university, can educate with a mobile device easily.
7. Limitations and future work
If we be honest, this research has some shortcomings. In fact, a university research, like this study, can’t consider all aspects of m-
learning and the factors affecting user acceptance due to sample constraints. However, the lack of experience in implementing m-
learning in the university environment is also effective. Additionally, due to the population in this study which is only limited to one
of universities in Iran with a limited number, its results cannot be generalized. Furthermore, there are important variables in the
user's acceptance such as age, gender, education level, income level, etc. which the investigation of their effect has been neglected in
this study. It is suggested that these factors be investigated in future studies. Also, the major factors affecting the acceptance of m-
learning by itself include a vast world of other factors, which can be studied more precisely by evaluating their impact on m-learning
acceptance in order to observe its implementation more successfully and less risky in Iran.
Appendix A
Construct Item Source(s)
UI UI1- M-learning apps using suitable colors, graphical design and attractive animations Almaiah et al. (2016)
UI2- M-learning apps design with beautiful menus and icons Almaiah et al. (2016)
UI3- M-learning apps have good page layout. Almaiah et al. (2016)
ML ML1- Mobile devices have unsafe and unreliable internet connections. Sabah (2016)
ML2- Mobile devices have small screen and keypad. Sabah (2016)
ML3- Mobile devices have low battery capacity and memory. Sabah (2016)
ML4- Navigation between pages is hard in mobile devices. Sabah (2016)
159
FC FC1- I have the necessary resource required for m-learning usage. Briz-Ponce et al. (2017)
Arpaci (2015)
Iqbal and Qureshi (2012)
Thomas et al. (2013)
Venkatesh et al. (2003)
FC2- The appropriate ICT infrastructure is available for m-learning usage. Iqbal and Qureshi (2012)
INT INT1- Discussion with instructors in m-learning is easier for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
INT2- Discussion with classmates in m-learning is easier for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
INT3- Sharing knowledge with others in m-learning is easier for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
LCQ LCQ1- M-learning can provide complete content for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
LCQ2- M-learning can provide adequate content for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
Cheng (2012)
LCQ3- M-learning can provide text, audio and video content for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
LCQ4- M-learning can provide update content for me. Almaiah et al. (2016)
Cheng (2012)
SI SI1- I use m-learning, if my classmates use it. Tan et al. (2014)
Hao et al. (2017)
SI2- My friends’ recommendation influence on my decision to use m-learning. Tan et al. (2014)
SI3- I use m-learning, if my instructors support and recommend to use it. Milošević et al. (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Hao et al. (2017)
Abu-al-aish and Love (2013)
Iqbal and Bhatti (2017)
SUP SUP1- I use m-learning, if Science Ministry support and recommend to use it. Self-developed
SUP2- I use m-learning, if governmental media support it. Self-developed
SUP3- I use m-learning, if ICT Ministry guarantee the required infrastructure support. Self-developed
PI PI1- If I know about new information technology, I'd like to try it somehow. Milošević et al. (2015)
Hao et al. (2017)
Arpaci (2015)
Mohammadi (2015)
Liu et al. (2010)
PI2- I'd like to be the first to use the services, functions, and/or applications of mobile Milošević et al. (2015)
devices. Hao et al. (2017)
Arpaci (2015)
Mohammadi (2015)
Liu et al. (2010)
SE SE1- I have the necessary skills required for m-learning usage. Cheon et al. (2012)
Park et al. (2012)
SE2- If there are only online instructions on how to use m-learning, I have self- Pituch and Lee (2006)
confidence in using it. Mohammadi (2015)
SE3- Even if there is no one who teaches me how to use m-learning, I have self- Briz-Ponce et al. (2017)
confidence in using it. Chung et al. (2015)
Pituch and Lee (2006)
Mohammadi (2015)
SE4- Even if I haven’t used m-learning before, I have self-confidence in using it. Pituch and Lee (2006)
Mohammadi (2015)
TR TR1- A trusted third-party must ensure the quality of m-learning. Self-developed
TR2- A trusted third-party must ensure the security and privacy of m-learning. Self-developed
TR3- m-learning has the ability to discover the weaknesses of my educational issues Self-developed
and can fix them.
160
PEOU PEOU1- Using m-learning is easy for me. Mohammadi (2015)

Briz-Ponce et al. (2017)
Milošević et al. (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Almaiah et al. (2016)
Tan et al. (2014)
Interact with m-learning is clear and understandable for me. Briz-Ponce et al. (2017)
Sabah (2016)
Tan et al. (2014)
PEOU3- Using m-learning doesn’t require much effort for me. Milošević et al. (2015)
Sabah (2016)
PU PU1- Using m-learning is useful for my learning. Mohammadi (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Tan et al. (2014)
PU2- Using M-learning would enable me to accomplish learning tasks more quickly. Mohammadi (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Tan et al. (2014)
PU3- Using m-learning reduces my costs. Mohammadi (2015)
PU4- Using m-learning improves my learning performance. Mohammadi (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Hao et al. (2017)
BI BI1- I intend to use m-learning. Mohammadi (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Hao et al. (2017)
BI2- I guess I'll use m-learning in the future. Mohammadi (2015)
Tan et al. (2014)
BI3- I recommend using m-learning to others. Milošević et al. (2015)
Sabah (2016)
BI4- I believe that using m-learning will be enjoyable for me. Milošević et al. (2015)
Sabah (2016)
Appendix B. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.09.007.
161
References
Abu-al-aish, A., Love, S., 2013. Factors influencing students’ acceptance of M-learning: an investigation in higher education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 14 (5),
1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9204-1.
Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Al-Adwan, A.S., Al-Madadha, A., Zvirzdinaite, Z., 2018. Modeling students’ readiness to adopt mobile learning in higher education: an empirical study. Int. Rev. Res.
Open Distrib. Learn. 19 (1). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3256.
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A., 2018. Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: a systematic review. Comput. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.COMPEDU.2018.06.008.
Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., 2009. The adoption and use of IT artifacts: a new interaction-centric model for the study of user- artifact relationships. J. Assoc. Inform.
Syst. Adopt. Use IT Artif. 10 (9), 661–685.
Al-Shihi, H., Sharma, S.K., Sarrab, M., 2018. Neural network approach to predict mobile learning acceptance. Educ. Inform. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-
018-9691-9.
Ali, R.A., Rafie, M., Arshad, M., 2016. Perspectives of students’ behavior towards mobile learning (M-learning) in Egypt: an extension of the UTAUT model. Eng.,
Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 6 (4), 1109–1114. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.61006.
Almaiah, M.A., Jalil, M.A., Man, M., 2016. Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. J. Comput. Educ. 3 (4),
453–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1.
Aloudat, A., Michael, K., Chen, X., Al-Debei, M.M., 2014. Social acceptance of location-based mobile government services for emergency management. Telematics
Inform. 31 (1), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TELE.2013.02.002.
Althunibat, A., 2015. Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan higher education. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 65–71. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.046.
Arpaci, I., 2015. A comparative study of the effects of cultural differences on the adoption of mobile learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 46 (4), 699–712. https://doi.org/
10.1111/bjet.12160.
Astatke, Y., Ladeji-Osias, J.O., James, P., Moazzami, F., Scott, C., Connor, K., Saka, A., 2016. Improving and expanding engineering education in the Middle East and
Africa using mobile learning technology and innovative pedagogy. In: Advances in Engineering Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Springer
International Publishing, Cham, pp. 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15323-0_10.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 2012. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40 (1), 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11747-011-0278-x.
Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Kearney, M., Schuck, S., Aubusson, P., 2018. Mobile learning for science and mathematics school education: a systematic review of empirical
evidence. Comput. Educ. 121, 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.006.
Bere, A., 2014. Exploring determinants for mobile learning user acceptance and use: an application of UTAUT. In: 2014 11th International Conference on Information
Technology: New Generations, pp. 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITNG.2014.114.
Blunch, N.J., 2013. Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics and AMOS. In: Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using IBM
SPSS Statistics and AMOS. SAGE Publications, Ltd., 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402257.
Brantes Ferreira, J., Zanela Klein, A., Freitas, A., Schlemmer, E., 2013. Mobile Learning: Definition, Uses and Challenges. Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher
Education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-9968(2013)000006D005.
Briz-Ponce, L., Juanes-Méndez, J.A., García-Peñalvo, F.J., Pereira, A., 2016. Effects of mobile learning in medical education: a counterfactual evaluation. J. Med. Syst.
40 (6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-016-0487-4.
Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J.A., García-Peñalvo, F.J., 2017. Learning with mobile technologies – students’ behavior. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 72, 612–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027.
Brooks, D. Christopher, Pomerantz, J., 2017. ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2017 < https://library.educause.edu/resources/
2017/10/ecar-study-of-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2017 > .
Chang, C.Y., Lai, C.L., Hwang, G.J., 2018. Trends and research issues of mobile learning studies in nursing education: a review of academic publications from 1971 to
2016. Comput. Educ. 116, 28–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.09.001.
Chen, Y., 2007. Effects of online interaction on adult students’ satisfaction and learning. J. Hum. Resour. Adult Learn. 3 (December), 78–89.
Cheng, Y., 2012. Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Res. 22 (3), 361–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241211235699.
Cheng, Y.M., 2015. Towards an understanding of the factors affecting m-learning acceptance: roles of technological characteristics and compatibility. Asia Pacific
Manage. Rev. 20 (3), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.12.011.
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. Comput.
Educ. 59 (3), 1054–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Modern Methods for Business Research.
Cho, V., Cheng, T.C.E., Lai, W.M.J., 2009. The role of perceived user-interface design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Comput. Educ. 53 (2),
216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.014.
Choi, B., Lee, I., 2017. Trust in open versus closed social media: The relative influence of user- and marketer-generated content in social network services on customer
trust. Telematics Inform. 34 (5), 550–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TELE.2016.11.005.
Chong, J.L., Chong, A.Y.L., Ooi, K.B., Lin, B., 2011. An empirical analysis of the adoption of m-learning in Malaysia. Int. J. Mobile Commun. 9 (1), 1. https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJMC.2011.037952.
Chung, H.-H., Chen, S.-C., Kuo, M.-H., 2015. A study of EFL college students’ acceptance of mobile learning. In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier B.V,
pp. 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.479.
Cohen, J., 1987. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 1, 1)..
Cohen, J., 1992. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 112 (1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Crompton, H., 2013. A historical overview of m-learning: toward learner-centred education. In: Handbook of Mobile Learning. Routledge, pp. 3–14. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203118764.ch1.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13 (3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/
249008.
de Witt, C., Gloerfeld, C., 2018. Mobile learning and higher education. In: The Digital Turn in Higher Education. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp.
61–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19925-8_6.
Dunn, J., Ruedy, N.E., Schweitzer, M.E., 2012. It hurts both ways: how social comparisons harm affective and cognitive trust. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117
(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OBHDP.2011.08.001.
El-Masri, M., Tarhini, A., 2017. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Education Tech. Research Dev. 65 (3), 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8.
Fatima, J.K., Ghandforoush, P., Khan, M., Mascio, R. Di., 2018. Mobile learning adoption for tourism education in a developing country. Curr. Iss. Tour. 1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2018.1434135.
Gan, C.L., Balakrishnan, V., 2014. Determinants of mobile wireless technology for promoting interactivity in lecture sessions: an empirical analysis. J. Comput. High.
Educ. 26 (2), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-014-9082-1.
García Botero, G., Questier, F., Cincinnato, S., He, T., Zhu, C., 2018. Acceptance and usage of mobile assisted language learning by higher education students. J.
Comput. High. Educ. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9177-1.
Gedik, N., Hanci-Karademirci, A., Kursun, E., Cagiltay, K., 2012. Key instructional design issues in a cellular phone-based mobile learning project. Comput. Educ. 58
162
(4), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.002.

Goodman, L.A., 1961. Snowball sampling. Ann. Math. Stat. 32 (1), 148–170. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148.
Gössling, S., 2018. Tourism, tourist learning and sustainability: an exploratory discussion of complexities, problems and opportunities. J. Sustain. Tour. 26 (2),
292–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1349772.
Hair, J.F., Celsi, M.W., Money, A.H., Samouel, P., Page, M.J., 2011a. Essentials of Business Research Methods. M.E, Sharpe.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., 2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Retrieved from < https://uk.
sagepub.com/en-gb/mst/a-primer-on-partial-least-squares-structural-equation-modeling-pls-sem/book244583 > .
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011b. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market. Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-
6679190202.
Hamidi, H., Chavoshi, A., 2018. Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: a case study of students of the University of
Technology. Telem. Inform. 35 (4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016.
Hanafizadeh, P., Behboudi, M., Abedini Koshksaray, A., Jalilvand Shirkhani Tabar, M., 2014. Mobile-banking adoption by Iranian bank clients. Telem. Inform. 31 (1),
62–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TELE.2012.11.001.
Hao, S., Dennen, V.P., Mei, L., 2017. Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users. Educ. Tech. Res. Dev. 65 (1), 101–123. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11423-016-9465-2.
Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., Elahi, S., 2012. A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (12), 10959–10966. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its Importance for Survival. May.
third ed. McGraw Hill, pp. 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cede.2012.04.002.
Hong, J.C., Hwang, M.Y., Hsu, H.F., Wong, W.T., Chen, M.Y., 2011. Applying the technology acceptance model in a study of the factors affecting usage of the Taiwan
digital archives system. Comput. Educ. 57 (3), 2086–2094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.011.
Hou, H.-T., Wu, S.-Y., Lin, P.-C., Sung, Y.-T., Lin, J.-W., Chang, K.-E., 2014. A blended mobile learning environment for museum learning. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 17 (2),
207–218. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.17.2.207.
Hsieh, W.M., Tsai, C.C., 2017. Taiwanese high school teachers’ conceptions of mobile learning. Comput. Educ. 115, 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.
07.013.
Hsu, S.-H., Chen, W., Hsieh, M., 2006. Robustness testing of PLS, LISREL, EQS and ANN-based SEM for measuring customer satisfaction. Total Qual. Manage. Bus.
Excel. 17 (3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360500451465.
Huang, J., Lin, Y., Chuang, S., 2007. Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning. Electron. Lib. 25 (5), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710829569.
Huang, R.-T., 2015. Overcoming invisible obstacles in organizational learning. J. Organ. Change Manage. 28 (3), 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-07-2014-
0130.
Hwang, G.-J., Lai, C.-L., Wang, S.-Y., 2015. Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. J. Comp.
Hwang, W.Y., Shih, T.K., Ma, Z.H., Shadiev, R., Chen, S.Y., 2016. Evaluating listening and speaking skills in a mobile game-based learning environment with
situational contexts. Comp. Assist. Lang. Learn. 29 (4), 639–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1016438.
Information Technology Organization of Iran, 2017. Overview of Information Technology Industry of Iran. Retrieved from. http://ito.gov.ir/documents/20181/
32435/doc230538826.
Internation Telecomunications Union, I., 2017. Stat_page_all_charts_2017 < https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/.../2017/Stat_page_all_charts_2017.xls
%0A > (retrieved May 27, 2018).
Iqbal, S., Bhatti, Z.A., 2017. What drives m-learning? An empirical investigation of university student perceptions in Pakistan. High. Educ. Res. Develop. 36 (4),
730–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1236782.
Iqbal, S., Qureshi, I.A., 2012. M-learning adoption: a perspective from a developing country. Retrieved from. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 13 (3), 147–164.
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1152/2213.
Ivanc, D., Vasiu, R., Onita, M., 2012. Usability evaluation of a LMS mobile web interface. In: CCIS, vol. 319. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 348–361. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-33308-8_29.
Johnson, R.D., Marakas, G.M., Palmer, J.W., 2006. Differential social attributions toward computing technology: an empirical investigation. Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Stud. 64 (5), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHCS.2005.09.002.
Joo, Y.J., Lee, H.W., Ham, Y., 2014. Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM for mobile learning in Cyber University. J. Comput. High.
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. Telem. Inform. 32 (4), 909–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.04.005.
Kim, H.J., Lee, J.M., Rha, J.Y., 2017. Understanding the role of user resistance on mobile learning usage among university students. Comput. Educ. 113, 108–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015.
Kline, R.B., 2016. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. The Guilford Press.
Koç, T., Turan, A.H., Okursoy, A., 2016. Acceptance and usage of a mobile information system in higher education: an empirical study with structural equation
modeling. Int. J. Manage. Educ. 14 (3), 286–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.06.001.
Kukulska-Hulme, A., 2007. Mobile usability in educational contexts: what have we learnt? Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 8 (2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.
v8i2.356.
Ladhari, R., Michaud, M., 2015. eWOM effects on hotel booking intentions, attitudes, trust, and website perceptions. International Journal of Hospitality Management
46, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2015.01.010.
Lee, J.-H., Song, C.-H., 2013. Effects of trust and perceived risk on user acceptance of a new technology service. Soc. Behav. Person.: Int. J. 41 (4), 587–597. https://
doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.587.
Li, K.C., Lee, L.Y.K., Wong, S.L., Yau, I.S.Y., Wong, B.T.M., 2018. Preference and readiness of nursing students for mobile learning. In: Innovations in Open and Flexible
Education. Springer, Singapore, pp. 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7995-5_9.
Liang, T., 1987. User interface design for decision support systems: a self-adaptive approach. Inf. Manage. 12 (4), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(87)
90041-3.
Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Marinkovic, V., Ramos de Luna, I., Kalinic, Z., 2018. Predicting the determinants of mobile payment acceptance: a hybrid SEM-neural network
approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 129 (October), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.015.
Lin, Y.-T., Lin, Y.-C., 2016. Effects of mental process integrated nursing training using mobile device on students’ cognitive load, learning attitudes, acceptance, and
achievements. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 1213–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2015.03.076.
Liu, Y., Li, H., Carlsson, C., 2010. Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: an empirical study. Comput. Educ. 55 (3), 1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.05.018.
Liu, Y., Shrum, L.J., 2002. What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on
advertising effectiveness. J. Advert. 31 (4), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673685.
Lu, A., Chen, Q., Zhang, Y., & Chang, T. (2017). Investigating the Determinants of Mobile Learning Acceptance in Higher Education Based on UTAUT. In: Proceedings -
2016 International Computer Symposium, ICS 2016. IEEE, pp. 651–655. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICS.2016.0133.
Lu, J., Yu, C., Liu, C., Yao, J.E., 2003. Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Res. 13 (3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10662240310478222.
Lu, X., Viehland, D., 2008. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Mobile Learning Factors Influencing the Adoption of Mobile Learning. International Business, Ph.D.
(Attwell 2005), 597–606 < http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1342733221&Fmt=7&clientId=12303&
163
RQT=309&VName=PQD > .
Malaquias, R.F., Hwang, Y., 2016. An empirical study on trust in mobile banking: a developing country perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 54, 453–461. https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.CHB.2015.08.039.
McAllister, D.J., 1995. Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manage. J. 38 (1), 24–59. https://doi.
org/10.2307/256727.
Milošević, I., Živković, D., Manasijević, D., Nikolić, D., 2015. The effects of the intended behavior of students in the use of M-learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 51 (PA),
207–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.041.
Mohammadi, H., 2015. Social and individual antecedents of m-learning adoption in Iran. Comput. Hum. Behav. 49, 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.
006.
Nikou, S.A., Economides, A.A., 2017. Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Comput. Educ. 109, 56–73. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005.
Nilashi, M., Jannach, D., Ibrahim, O.Bin, Esfahani, M.D., Ahmadi, H., 2016. Recommendation quality, transparency, and website quality for trust-building in re-
commendation agents. Electron. Com. Res. Appl. 19, 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ELERAP.2016.09.003.
Nummally, J., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, Retrieved from. < https://books.google.com/books/about/Psychometric_theory.html?id=
WE59AAAAMAAJ > .
Ooi, K.B., Tan, G.W.H., 2016. Mobile technology acceptance model: an investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Syst. Appl. 59,
33–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.04.015.
Paechter, M., Maier, B., Macher, D., 2010. Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction.
Comput. Educ. 54 (1), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005.
Pappas, N., 2016. Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying behaviour. J. Retail. Cons. Serv. 29, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JRETCONSER.2015.11.007.
Paravastu, N., Gefen, D., Creason, S.B., 2014. Understanding trust in IT artifacts. ACM SIGMIS Database 45 (4), 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2691517.2691520.
Park, S.Y., Nam, M.-W., Cha, S.-B., 2012. University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: evaluating the technology acceptance model. Brit. J. Educ.
Technol. 43 (4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x.
Parsons, G., 2010. Information provision for HE distance learners using mobile devices. Electron. Lib. 28 (2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640471011033594.
Phelps, M., Scott, K.M., Chauffeté-Manillier, M., Lenne, F., Le Jeunne, C., 2017. Mobile devices, learning and clinical workplaces: medical student use of smartphones
in Parisian hospitals. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 48 (6), 1330–1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12477.
Pimmer, C., Mateescu, M., Gröhbiel, U., 2016. Mobile and ubiquitous learning in higher education settings. A systematic review of empirical studies. Comput. Hum.
Behav. 63, 490–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.057.
Pituch, K.A., Lee, Y., kuei, 2006. The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Comput. Educ. 47 (2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.
10.007.
Ponnapureddy, S., Priskin, J., Ohnmacht, T., Vinzenz, F., Wirth, W., 2017. The influence of trust perceptions on German tourists’ intention to book a sustainable hotel:
a new approach to analysing marketing information. J. Sustain. Tour. 25 (7), 970–988. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1270953.
Ram, S., 1987. A Model of Innovation Resistance. ACR North American Advances, NA-14. Retrieved from < http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6688/volumes/
v14/NA-14 > .
Rogers, E.M., 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, fifth ed. Free Press, New York. https://books.google.com/books/about/Diffusion_of_Innovations_5th_Edition.html?id=
9U1K5LjUOwEC.
Rompf, S.A., 2015. The Concept of Trust. In: Trust and Rationality. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, pp. 29–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-
07327-5_2.
Rosman, P., 2008. M-learning-as a paradigm of new forms in education. Retrieved from. E&M Econ. Manage. 11 (1), 119–125. http://custom.kbbarko.cz/e+m/01_
2008/13_rosman.pdf.
Rouibah, K., Lowry, P.B., Hwang, Y., 2016. The effects of perceived enjoyment and perceived risks on trust formation and intentions to use online payment systems:
new perspectives from an Arab country. Electron. Comm. Res. Appl. 19, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ELERAP.2016.07.001.
Sabah, N.M., 2016. Exploring students’ awareness and perceptions: influencing factors and individual differences driving m-learning adoption. Comput. Hum. Behav.
65, 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.009.
Şad, S.N., Göktaş, Ö., 2014. Preservice teachers’ perceptions about using mobile phones and laptops in education as mobile learning tools. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 45
(4), 606–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12064.
Sharma, S.K., Sarrab, M., Al-Shihi, H., 2017. Development and validation of mobile learning acceptance measure. Interact. Learn. Environ. 25 (7), 847–858. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2016.1224250.
Shaw, N., 2014. The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of the mobile wallet. J. Retail. Cons. Serv. 21 (4), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.
2014.03.008.
Shen, D., Cho, M.H., Tsai, C.L., Marra, R., 2013. Unpacking online learning experiences: online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. Internet High. Educ. 19,
10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.04.001.
Shuib, L., Shamshirband, S., Ismail, M.H., 2015. A review of mobile pervasive learning: applications and issues. Comput. Hum. Behav. 46, 239–244. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.002.
Taddeo, M., 2011. Defining trust and e-trust. In: Sociological and Philosophical Aspects of Human Interaction with Technology. IGI Global, pp. 24–36. https://doi.org/
10.4018/978-1-60960-575-9.ch002.
Tan, G.W.-H., Lee, V.H., Lin, B., Ooi, K.-B., 2017. Mobile applications in tourism: the future of the tourism industry? Indust. Manage. Data Syst. 117 (3), 560–581.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2015-0490.
Tan, G.W.-H., Ooi, K.-B., Sim, J.-J., Phusavat, K., 2012. Determinants of mobile learning adoption: an empirical analysis. J. Comp. Inf. Syst. 52 (3), 82–91. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08874417.2012.11645561.
Tan, G.W.H., Ooi, K.B., Leong, L.Y., Lin, B., 2014. Predicting the drivers of behavioral intention to use mobile learning: a hybrid SEM-Neural Networks approach.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 36, 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.052.
Tarhini, A., Masa’deh, R., Al-Busaidi, K.A., Mohammed, A.B., Maqableh, M., 2017. Factors influencing students’ adoption of e-learning: a structural equation modeling
approach. J. Int. Educ. Bus. 10 (2), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-09-2016-0032.
Traxler, J., 2007. Defining, discussing, and evaluating mobile learning: The moving finger writes and having writ... Int. Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 8 (2). https://doi.
org/10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.346.
Thomas, Troy Devon, Singh, L., Gaffar, K., 2013. The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. Int. J. Educ.
Develop. Inf. Commun. Technol. 9 (3), 71–85.
Vance, A., Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C., Straub, D.W., 2008. Examining trust in information technology artifacts: the effects of system quality and culture. J. Manage. Inf. Syst.
24 (4), 73–100. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240403.
Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, Davis, 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27 (3), 425. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
Wang, W., Qiu, L., Kim, D., Benbasat, I., 2016. Effects of rational and social appeals of online recommendation agents on cognition- and affect-based trust. Dec. Supp.
Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.03.007.
Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C., Wang, H.Y., 2009. Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 40
(1), 92–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00809.x.
Xiangming, L., Song, S., 2018. Mobile technology affordance and its social implications: a case of “Rain Classroom”. Brit. J. Educ. Technol. 49 (2), 276–291. https://
doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12586.
Yeap, J.A.L., Ramayah, T., Soto-Acosta, P., 2016. Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher education. Electron. Mark. 26 (4), 323–338.
164
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-015-0214-x.
Yi, M.Y., Yoon, J.J., Davis, J.M., Lee, T., 2013. Untangling the antecedents of initial trust in Web-based health information: the roles of argument quality, source
expertise, and user perceptions of information quality and risk. Dec. Supp. Syst. 55 (1), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DSS.2013.01.029.
Yoo, W.S., Lee, Y., Park, J.K., 2010. The role of interactivity in e-tailing: Creating value and increasing satisfaction. J. Retail. Cons. Serv. 17 (2), 89–96. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.10.003.
Yousafzai, A., Chang, V., Gani, A., Noor, R.M., 2016. Multimedia augmented m-learning: issues, trends and open challenges. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 36 (5), 784–792.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.05.010.
Zydney, J.M., Warner, Z., 2016. Mobile apps for science learning: review of research. Comput. Educ. 94, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.001.
Hodjat Hamidi (Hojatollah Hamidi), born 1976, in Dorood, Iran, He got his PhD in computer engineering. His main research interest
areas are Information Technology, Smart Health, Mobile Learning, Fault-Tolerant systems and e-commerce. He has published several
research articles in outstanding journals in the field of information technology. Since 2013 he has been a faculty member at the
Information Technology group of K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran Iran.
Amir Chavoshi is a graduate student in K.N. Toosi University of Technology. He is studying in the field of Information Technology engineering. His bachelor degree
also is in Information Technology engineering from Isfahan University of Technology. He is interested in mobile learning and its successful implementation. Amir’s
previous paper about mobile learning acceptance (“Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of
the university of technology” with DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016) was published in telematics and informatics journal.
165

Telematics and Informatics: Contents Lists Available at

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

Telematics and Informatics: Contents Lists Available at

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Telematics and Informatics 38 (2019) 133–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Telematics and Informatics

Social, individual, technological and pedagogical factors

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

2. Theoretical background and literature review

2.2. Mobile learning in higher education

2.3. M-learning acceptance models

Reference Factors Results and findings

• Defining model factors

Fig. 1. Distribution of the use of m-learning acceptance models.

Fig. 2. UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Fig. 3. TAM model (Davis, 1989).

3.1. Pedagogical factors

3.1.1. Learning Content Quality (LCQ)

Text based content 1

• Provide understandable content

3.1.2. Interactivity (INT)

3.2. Technological factors

3.2.1. Facilitating Conditions (FC)

3.2.2. User Interface (UI)

3.2.3. Mobile Device Limitations (ML)

H5. ML have negative impact on PEOU of m-learning.

3.3. Social factors

3.3.1. Government Support (SUP)

3.3.2. Social Influence (SI)

3.4. Individual factors

3.4.1. Personal Innovativeness (PI)

3.4.2. Self-efficacy (SE)

3.4.3. Trust (TR)

3.5. Perceived Ease of Use (or Effort Expectancy) (PEOU)

3.6. Perceived usefulness (or Performance Expectancy) (PU)

4. Research methodology and results

4.1. Questionnaire development

Gender Male 127 49.4

4.2. Samples and data collection

LCQ 3.899805447 0.87032792 0.757470779 −0.584186892 −0.052337594

Fig. 4. Proposed model for m-learning acceptance.

4.3. Data analysis

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Fig. 5. Distribution of responses.

Fig. 6. Proposed method.

4.3.1. Outer model: validity and reliability

LCQ LCQ1 0.811 31.193 0.783 0.859 0.603

the following criteria have been used (Briz-Ponce et al., 2017):

4.3.2. Inner model

LCQ → PU 0.271 0.062 4.411 Yes

4.3.3. Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) analysis

Fig. 7. Obtained values of path correlations and R2 through SmartPLS.

Independent variable PU PEOU BI

Fig. 8. Ann models.

(PEOU and PU) and one output (BI).

Training Test Training Test Training Test

1 0.1253 0.1507 0.1168 0.1104 0.0975 0.0982

SE SI PEOU LCQ SUP PEOU PU

1 0.600 0.400 0.422 0.323 0.255 0.447 0.553

LCQ → PU 0.229 — — — — — — 0.271

5.1. Pedagogical factors

5.2. Technological factors

5.3. Social factors

5.4. Individual factors

5.5. PU and PEOU

7. Limitations and future work