Journal Pre-proof

Predicting the intention to use and hedonic motivation for mobile learning: A
comparative study in two middle eastern countries

Ahmed Al-Azawei, Ali Alowayr

PII: S0160-791X(20)30213-X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101325
Reference: TIS 101325

To appear in: Technology in Society

Received Date: 9 March 2020

Revised Date: 2 May 2020
Accepted Date: 28 June 2020

Please cite this article as: Al-Azawei A, Alowayr A, Predicting the intention to use and hedonic
motivation for mobile learning: A comparative study in two middle eastern countries, Technology in
Society (2020), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101325.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Predicting the Intention to Use and Hedonic Motivation for
Mobile Learning: A Comparative Study in Two Middle
Eastern Countries
Authors’ Details

First Author: Ahmed Al-Azawei*,

Department of Software, College of Information Technology, University

of Babylon, Hillah-Al-Najaf Street, Hillah, Babil, Iraq email:
ahmedhabeeb@itnet.uobabylon.edu.iq

Second Author: Ali Alowayr

Information Technology Department, Albaha University, Saudi Arabia,
email: Aalowayr@bu.edu.sa

*
Corresponding author

Funding: This work was supported by Albaha University, Saudi Arabia

Conflict of interests: The authors confirm that there is no conflict of

interests
 Predicting the Intention to Use and Hedonic Motivation for Mobile
Learning: A Comparative Study in Two Middle Eastern Countries

Abstract: Drawing on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) Model, this
study aimed to determine the key variables that facilitate the acceptance of mobile learning in two Middle
Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia and Iraq), as well as identifying the constructs that can help enhance learners'
motivation. A conceptual framework was proposed based on a modified UTAUT2, wherein trust was integrated,
and new relationships were assumed among the proposed Model variables. Data were gathered using an online
questionnaire from 469 higher education students of Computer Science. The collected data were analyzed with
partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling and multi-group analysis (MGA) techniques. The
results suggest significant differences in learners' perceptions from both countries. It was found that although
some variables were significant in one country, they were not in the other and vice versa. Overall, the proposed
framework explained 56.1% and 40.7%, respectively of the variance of behavioral intention and hedonic
motivation among the Saudi sample (N=246), and 51.1% and 41.9%, respectively of the variance of behavioral
intention and hedonic motivation in the Iraqi sample (N=223). These research outcomes are significant for
educational institutions as they could help policy-makers better understand the issues facing mobile learning
acceptance in terms of cultural similarities and differences. Accordingly, new strategies could be formulated to
ensure improved mobile learning uptake.

Keywords: Mobile learning, Middle East, UTAUT2, behavioral intention, hedonic motivation

1. Introduction
There has been a tremendous increase in the number of mobile users worldwide. According to Holst [1], the
global figures for mobile uptake are rising at a rate that could grow to around 7.26 billion users. In response,
organizations that provide mobile products and services have been aiming to enhance their services to include
lifestyle sectors such as mobile internet, mobile social media, mobile payment, mobile commerce, mobile
shopping, mobile government, and mobile learning [2]. Mobile learning is considered to be a self-directed
approach, in which small and portable smart and wireless devices are used. It is defined as "an extension of
elearning [e-learning] that allows users to accomplish learning using small and portable wireless devices" [3].
Educational institutions have duly begun exploiting the availability of mobile devices among students to provide
education in innovative ways.

Today’s students are often referred to as ‘millennials’ or ‘digital natives’ and tend to use new technologies in
many different aspects of their lives. [3]. According to Thakre and Thakre [4], students commonly use
cellphones for communication, entertainment, and learning. The key aim in accelerating the provision of mobile
learning services is to facilitate students' learning and improve the quality of its outcomes. Despite this, mobile
learning is still in the early stages of its development and is yet to mature, as many issues have not been
addressed in previous research [3]. These include, but are not limited to, cultural, technical, and social factors
that hinder mobile learning acceptance. Accordingly, researchers have examined mobile learning adoption in
different cultures, taking into account learners' perceptions and attitudes [5][6][7]. Nevertheless, studies on the
continued adoption of mobile learning are still scarce [8]. This should invite further effort to identify the
variables that may influence students' hedonic motivation to use this technology, as well as their willingness to
accept it. Hedonic motivation refers to both the pleasure and/or fun enjoyed during technology use, while
technology acceptance consists of an evident willingness to use technology for the activities that it was
developed for.

This present research investigates the key variables that can facilitate or inhibit the acceptance of mobile
learning in two Middle Eastern nations, namely Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It contributes to the existing literature by
predicting the factors that could determine hedonic motivation, where these were not included in the original
UTAUT2. It also integrates ‘trust’ with UTAUT2 as another predictor of both behavioral intention and hedonic
motivation. Thus, it endeavors to provide insights into mobile learning use in order to help universities promote
its acceptance and achieve further improvement in education quality. Finally, this work compares the proposed
Model findings from two Middle Eastern countries which differ in some respects but share certain cultural
similarities.

This study is organized as follows. The next section discusses the use of cellphones in Saudi Arabia and Iraq,
along with previous research on mobile learning adoption in both countries. Meanwhile, the rationale for
proposing the associations between the research constructs and hypotheses are introduced in section three. The
research Methods section subsequently describes the research participants, survey, procedure, and data analysis.
Section five presents the research findings, whereas the Discussion section explains the current research findings
alongside previous research results. Finally, the research conclusions, contribution, and limitations are outlined
in the Conclusion section, ending with a brief summary of the study.

2. Mobile Use in Saudi Arabia and Iraq

Saudi Arabia and Iraq are two Middle Eastern countries that share a border, which stretches from Turaif near the
Jordanian border in the West to Hafar Al-Batin near the Kuwaiti border in the East, spanning a distance of 814
km. The most frequently used border crossing between Saudi Arabia and Iraq is at Arar, located in the north-
east. The dominant language in both countries is Arabic, and the main religion in each case is Islam, although
there are some other minorities in Iraq. In brief, there are numerous similarities in culture, customs, and lifestyle
between the societies of these two nations.

Concerning the education systems of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, they each consist of three key stages [9][10]. The
first of these is the primary school stage which lasts for six years. This is followed by secondary school, also
extending for six years. Once they have completed these two stages, students can start studying in higher
education institutions. A student’s choice of academic specialism will mainly be based on his/her grade point
average for the final year of secondary school. However, the key difference between the education systems of
these two countries is that Saudi Arabia does not allow male and female students to attend the same educational
institutions [11], whereas there is no gender segregation in Iraq [12].

Cellphones represent one of this century’s major innovative technologies, as they affect all aspects of daily life.
For example, they can be used to make calls, or as other means of communication, marketing, business,
entertainment, and learning. The small size and high functionality of cellphones are the key characteristics that
make them so practical and attractive for users. According to Kaliisa, Palmer, and Miller [13], the widespread
use of cellphones has rapidly grown in both the developed and developing world. By the end of 2019, it was
estimated that there were around 3.8 billion cellphone users worldwide, with China, India, and the United States
registering the highest uptake [14].

In Iraq, however, there is no available information on mobile phone adoption for the years 1996-2001 [15]. This
is unsurprising because the Iraqi regime at the time prohibited public use of these devices until the Second Gulf
War in 2003 [9]. Accordingly, the history of cellphone use in Iraq began in 2003, with the first company to
provide mobile phone services being Atheer in the city of Basra. At that time, cellphone costs were very high
compared to the quality of services offered to customers [16]. Figure 1 shows the number of Iraqi cellphone
users during the period 2002-2018 [17]. It may be noted that there was a clear increase in uptake to 36.47
million by the end of 2018.
 Figure 1: Number of mobile phone subscriptions in Iraq for the period, 2002-2018 [17]

There are now many companies providing cellphone services in Iraq, including Zain, Asiacell, and Korek. To
obtain a new SIM card, customers are required to present certain ID documents such as a residence card, civil
ID, or food ration book. The overall cost of using telecom services differs according to the company and its
popularity in Iraq [5].

A review of the previous literature on the use of mobile learning in Iraq will reveal a dearth of research in this
area. In fact, only two studies were found on mobile learning adoption in this context. The first extended the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Model [18], finding that effort expectancy,
performance expectancy, social influence, perceived playfulness, and self-management of learning had a
significant effect on behavioral intention towards mobile learning [19]. The second of these was conducted by
Ameen and Willis [5], who examined the factors that could affect mobile learning adoption based on extending
UTAUT2 and considering the role of gender diversity. Their overall findings indicate that there was a
significant difference in students' perceptions of mobile learning use according to gender diversity.

In a comparison between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the figures for mobile penetration differ historically. According
to Alterman [20], portable phones first made an appearance in Saudi Arabia in 1983, in the form of two-way
radio systems produced by the Motorola Company. The rapid adoption of this technology was due to the high
per capita income of the Saudi population. Saudi Arabia has subsequently been quick to accept the use of
cellphones since their emergence over two decades ago. Alterman [20] argues that as long as the Saudi
population can afford cellphone technology, its diffusion is not an issue. Initially, the only service provider was
the Saudi Telecom Company (STC), founded in 1998, but now many other companies are providing mobile
services, such as the Integrated Telecom Company (ITC), Virgin Mobile Saudi Arabia, GO Telecom/Etihad
Atheeb, Zain KSA, Mobily/Etihad Etisalat/Bayanat Al-Oula, and Arabsat [21].

Holst [22] reports that the number of mobile phone subscriptions in Saudi Arabia totaled 41.31 million by the
end of 2018. In particular, Figure 2 illustrates the number of mobile internet users from 2017-2023. In 2018,
over 20.2 million users accessed the internet via their cellphones, whereas this figure is projected to increase to
22.5 million by 2023 [23].
 Figure 2: Mobile phone internet users in Saudi Arabia over the period, 2017-2023 [23]

Regarding academic research on the adoption of mobile learning in Saudi higher education, many studies have
identified several different variables that may affect its acceptance. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM),
proposed by Davis [24] was extended in one research study to analyze the factors that can affect mobile learning
adoption [25]. A significant correlation was found among perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, perceived
information communication technology anxiety, and mobile intention. Nassuora [26] modified UTAUT to
examine mobile learning acceptance in higher education. Overall, effort expectancy, performance expectancy,
and social influence were found to have a significant effect on mobile learning adoption. In line with the above
research, Alasmari and Zhang [6] extended UTAUT to examine the acceptance of mobile learning in different
Saudi universities. The findings showed that effort expectancy, learning expectancy, the characteristics of
mobile learning, and social influence were significant determinants of students’ behavioral intention towards
mobile learning.

3. The Proposed Conceptual Model

This research is aimed at predicting mobile learning acceptance based on the perceptions held by higher
education students in two Middle Eastern countries. The literature across the disciplines of psychology,
technology, and sociology argues that the behavioral intention of human beings to perform or refrain from
performing a specific behavior could be the best predictor of a particular action [27][24][18]. This assumption
has been widely confirmed in information systems research [28][29]. Based on consistent findings from earlier
work that behavioral intention is a determinant of actual behavior, the literature has investigated factors that
could affect the intention to use, rather than actual use. Therefore, this present study compares learners'
perceptions in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, investigating their behavioral intention to adopt mobile learning based on
a modified UTAUT2 Model.

Unlike UTAUT2 [30], this proposed Model does not consider the role of facilitating conditions and habits. The
facilitating conditions construct was only suggested as a determinant of actual use in UTAUT [18]. Likewise,
earlier studies on mobile learning acceptance failed to find that facilitating conditions constituted a predictor of
either behavioral intention or actual use [31]. Moreover, the exclusion of habit is based on the fact that in order
to analyze the influence of this variable, users should have extensive experience of the technology under
investigation [32]. However, mobile learning has only recently been introduced into Saudi and Iraqi educational
institutions, with the result that students need sufficient time to construct a habitual behavior towards this
technology. Figure 3 depicts the key relationships and variables identified in the original UTAUT2 [30].
 Figure 3: UTAUT2 [30]

3.1 Effort Expectancy

Effort expectancy is similar to the concept of ease of use, as first introduced by Davis [24] in TAM. It is
suggested as a direct predictor of attitudes towards use. In another research study by Davis, Bagozzi, and
Warshaw [33], a direct relationship between ease of use and behavioral intention was found. Models based on
TAM have substituted ease of use for the synonym ‘effort expectancy’ [18][30]. However, Venkatesh et al. [15]
argue that effort expectancy relates to ease of use and complexity. In the present study, effort expectancy is
applied to indicate both the degree of complexity and ease of use. Meanwhile, UTAUT2 defines effort
expectancy as "the degree of ease associated with consumers' use of technology" [30]. The key assumption
behind this factor is that consumers are more likely to accept technology that requires little effort to use.

The role of effort expectancy in predicting technology acceptance has been supported in several studies
[34][35][36]. Earlier literature also proposes a significant association between effort expectancy and mobile
learning adoption [5][7]. It has been assumed that if learners find mobile learning easy to use, they will have a
high level of willingness to adopt it. Furthermore, this current research assumes that effort expectancy is a
significant predictor of hedonic motivation. The rationale for this assumption is that when students feel that they
can use technology with an acceptable or low level of effort, they may be more likely to perceive it as fun and
entertaining to use. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Effort expectancy has a significant and positive effect on behavioral intention.

H2: Effort expectancy has a significant and positive effect on hedonic motivation.

3.2 Performance Expectancy

In TAM, Davis [21] defined perceived usefulness as users believing that technology use would enhance their
outcomes. TAM suggests that perceived usefulness is a direct predictor of the behavioral intention to use
technology. Meanwhile, another synonym, ‘performance expectancy’ was included in UTAUT2, referring to the
extent of the benefits perceived by users from the use of a particular technology [30]. In this research,
performance expectancy indicates learners’ perceived benefits of mobile learning for accelerating traditional
teaching and learning processes such as retrieving lectures, discussing learning content, and communicating
with peers or teachers. The effect of this variable on technology adoption is consistent across the literature
[28][12][37].

With respect to mobile learning, Nikou and Economides [7] found performance expectancy to be a significant
determinant of mobile learning acceptance. In agreement with this finding, Aliaño et al. [38] confirmed the
influence of performance expectancy on behavioral intention towards mobile learning. However, this present
research also suggests that performance expectancy can be a significant predictor of hedonic motivation. As
hedonic motivation refers to fun and engagement, it is expected that learners' motivation will be improved if
they find that the use of technology can enhance their overall performance, thereby significantly affecting their
hedonic motivation.

H3: Performance expectancy has a significant and positive effect on behavioral intention.

H4: Performance expectancy has a significant and positive effect on hedonic motivation.

3.3 Social Influence

Venkatesh et al. [30] define social influence as “the extent to which consumers perceive that important others
(e.g. family and friends) believe they should use a particular technology”. Earlier research indicates that users
can have a high degree of willingness to adopt technology if it has been used by others around them [18][27].

In mobile learning, Briz-Ponce et al. [39] found social influence to be a significant variable that could influence
behavioral intention to adopt mobile learning. Hao, Dennen, and Mei [40] suggest that students might consider
how the people around them perceive their adoption of mobile technology. In this research, it is also assumed
that social influence can affect hedonic motivation. The rationale for this assumption is that when learners
perceive that their friends and family members generally believe that they should use mobile learning, their
motivation to adopt it improves. As a result, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H 5: Social influence has a significant and positive effect on behavioral intention.

H 6: Social influence has a significant and positive effect on hedonic motivation.

3.4 Price Value

Venkatesh et al. [30] define price value as “consumers’ cognitive trade-off between the perceived benefits of the
applications and the monetary cost for using them”. It refers to users' evaluation of the cost of technology and its
possible benefits, whereupon, if the benefits of the technology outweigh its monetary cost, this variable will be
positive. It has been discussed in the literature that pricing structure and cost can influence technology use,
particularly in the consumer adoption environment as the monetary price is usually compared to the cost of
employees [30]. Price value has demonstrated a significant influence on technology adoption in previous work
[30][32].

Based on the notion explored above, the use of mobile phones in the learning context could add to the financial
cost for learners. As such, they may cognitively evaluate its potential benefits along with its financial price. This
factor was found to affect learners' adoption of mobile learning [5][41]. Here, it is expected that price value will
be a significant predictor of behavioral intention and hedonic motivation, with the following hypotheses being
proposed:

H 7: Price value has a significant and positive effect on behavioral intention.

H 8: Price value has a significant and positive effect on hedonic motivation.

3.5 Trust

Trust in technology refers to users' belief that the use of that technology is trustworthy and reliable [7]. This
could include stability, reliability, security, and credibility, which all have a positive effect on behavioral
intention towards technology [42][43]. In this context, trust is defined as the degree of perceived trustworthiness
of mobile-based learning. It is founded on its capacity to help perform learning tasks and the security it offers in
protecting learners' information from illegal technological attack. In previous research, trust has been found to
have a significant effect on behavioral intention towards technology adoption [2][32][43][44].

This research integrates trust as a predictor of behavioral intention and hedonic motivation to use mobile
technology. The research rationale depends on the fact that the Saudi and Iraqi people are sensitive to privacy
issues because of their cultural and religious beliefs, especially in an online environment. However, the use of
mobile internet requires the provision of a higher level of personal and/or financial information. In turn, this can
trigger users' concerns about the degree of privacy and security afforded them when adopting such technologies
[2]. Hauer et al. [45] support the importance of building trust in learning contexts. Sharples [46] also reports that
one of the issues surrounding mobile learning is that in the real world, people can develop a reasonable sense of
whom they should trust, whereas online interaction can affect people's perceptions as they make themselves
more vulnerable to external influences. Here, we hypothesize that:

H 9: Trust has a significant and positive effect on behavioral intention.

H 10: Trust has a significant and positive effect on hedonic motivation.

3.6 Hedonic Motivation

A direct association between hedonic motivation and users' behavioral intention to adopt technology was
proposed by Venkatesh et al. [30]. Hedonic motivation includes playfulness, fun, enjoyment, and entertainment.
It is defined as "fun or pleasure derived from using technology" [30]. Based on the motivation theory, hedonic
motivation can play a key role in formalizing users' technology acceptance [41]. Indeed, across the information
systems literature, this variable has been widely used as a predictor of technology use [32]. The previous
literature provides strong support for the role of hedonic motivation in formalizing users' decisions to accept
mobile technology [32]. This has also been confirmed in mobile learning adoption studies [5][41]. Accordingly,
the present research assumes the following hypothesis:

H 11: Hedonic motivation has a significant and positive effect on behavioral intention.

Figure 4 shows the associations and constructs of the proposed Model.

 Figure 4: The proposed research Model

4. Research Methods

4.1 Data Collection, Study Population, and Sampling Method

A survey design was adopted for this study, since it is highly recommended in information systems research
[47][48]. The data were gathered using a five-point Likert scale in which 25 items were adapted from the
previous literature [30][49]. These items would measure the seven constructs explained above in the proposed
conceptual Model (see Appendix). The questionnaire was distributed separately in one public university in
Saudi Arabia and another in Iraq. The study population was selected according to a convenience sampling
approach as this is deemed appropriate in such situations [50]. Overall, 469 students completed the research
survey: 246 from Saudi Arabia and 223 from Iraq. Table 1 presents the demographic information of the research
sample.

Table 1: Participants’ demographic information (N=469)

Item Number %
Nationality
- Saudi Arabian 246 52.45
- Iraqi 223 47.54
Gender
- Male 189 40.3
- Female 280 59.7
Year of Study
- First 136 29.0
- Second 44 9.4
- Third 73 15.6
- Fourth 171 36.5
- Postgraduate 45 9.6
Age
- 18-22 years 351 74.8
- 23 years or above 118 25.2
Mobile Experience
- Low 8 1.7
- Good 201 42.9
- High 260 55.4
 How Long Have You Used a
Mobile Phone:
- I have not used one before 7 1.5
- One year 26 5.5
- Two to three years 47 10.0
- Four years or more 389 82.9

4.2 Data Analysis

The data collected with the questionnaire were analyzed using SmartPLS version 3 for Windows 10 [51]. A
partial least square (PLS) method with multi-group analysis (MGA) was subsequently applied to find the cause
and effect association between the constructs of the proposed Model as well as to investigate the research
hypotheses. A significance level of p<0.05 was adopted here to identify the degree of significance between the
constructs of the two research groups. Conversely, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 23 was used for descriptive and inferential statistics. This included producing frequency values, finding
the Pearson correlation, and conducting a one-way ANOVA test.

5. The Research Findings

The research analysis consisted of four steps to examine the association between the proposed research
constructs: 1) reporting the descriptive statistics, 2) investigating the differences between participants'
perceptions of mobile learning based on country (Saudi Arabia or Iraq), 3) analyzing the psychometric
properties of the research survey, and 4) examining the predictive ability of the proposed research Model based
on the PLS method and MGA.

5.1 Descriptive Statistics and Survey Analysis

The descriptive statistics for each variable proposed in this research framework are presented in Table 2. All
means were greater than 3.7, indicating that most of the participants expressed positive perceptions of the
measured factors. Moreover, the normal distribution of the data was analyzed according to kurtosis and
skewness values. Kurtosis provides “information about the ‘peakedness’ of the distribution”, whereas skewness
provides “an indication of the symmetry of the distribution” [52]. Kurtosis and skewness values falling below (-
3) or above (+3) are an indication that the constructs are not normally distributed [53]. As presented in Table 2,
the research data were more or less normally distributed.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics (N=469)

Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
PE 4.1178 0.71152 -0.854 .113 1.031 .225
EE 4.1279 0.72751 -0.832 .113 1.042 .225
SI 3.4307 0.83276 -0.162 .113 -0.171 .225
BI 4.0597 0.83151 -1.007 .113 1.069 .225
HM 3.9972 0.93522 -0.723 .113 0.016 .225
PV 3.7093 0.83267 -0.339 .113 0.099 .225
Ts 3.7468 0.79326 -0.189 .113 -0.345 .225
BI: Behavioral Intention, EE: Effort Expectancy, HM: Hedonic Motivation, PE: Performance Expectancy, PV: Price Value, SI: Social
Influence, Ts: Trust

Meanwhile, Table 3 shows the application of Pearson’s correlation coefficient to measure the association
between the research Model constructs. It is clear that all research constructs were significantly correlated and
the highest association was between performance expectancy and behavioral intention (r=0.644).
 Table 3: Factor correlation

EE SI BI HM PV Ts
PE .589** .486** .644** .498** .440** .574**
EE .402** .541** .527** .544** .574**
SI .450** .255** .385** .520**
BI .541** .457** .555**
HM .478** .501**
PV .567**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
BI: Behavioral Intention, EE: Effort Expectancy, HM: Hedonic Motivation, PE: Performance Expectancy, PV: Price Value, SI: Social
Influence, Ts: Trust

5.2 Differences between Groups

Table 4 reports the findings from the application of one-way ANOVA, in order to analyze the differences
between students' perceptions from both countries. It shows a significant difference in their perceptions for
many of the constructs, including performance expectancy (MSaudi Arabia=4.2449, MIraq=3.9776), effort
expectancy (MSaudi Arabia=4.2734, MIraq=3.9675), hedonic motivation (MSaudi Arabia=4.0949, MIraq=3.8894), and
trust (MSaudi Arabia=3.9350, MIraq=3.5392). These results suggest that the Saudi students had higher perceptions of
these factors.

Table 4: Differences between the groups by country (one-way ANOVA)

Factor Country N M SD df F-value P-value

PE Saudi Arabia 246 4.2449 .71730 1, 467 17.080 <0.001
Iraq 223 3.9776 .67954
EE Saudi Arabia 246 4.2734 .70870 1, 467 21.587 <0.001
Iraq 223 3.9675 .71566
SI Saudi Arabia 246 3.4648 .86472 1, 467 .866 0.353
Iraq 223 3.3931 .79627
BI Saudi Arabia 246 4.1220 .87065 1, 467 2.911 0.089
Iraq 223 3.9910 .78228
HM Saudi Arabia 246 4.0949 .92240 1, 467 5.702 0.017
Iraq 223 3.8894 .93947
PV Saudi Arabia 246 3.6436 .90897 1, 467 3.234 0.073
Iraq 223 3.7818 .73467
Ts Saudi Arabia 246 3.9350 .80549 1, 467 30.972 <0.001
Iraq 223 3.5392 .72665
BI: Behavioral Intention, EE: Effort Expectancy, HM: Hedonic Motivation, PE: Performance Expectancy, PV: Price Value, SI: Social
Influence, Ts: Trust

5.3 Psychometric Properties of the Research Questionnaire

An important step to implement before investigating the proposed hypotheses was to check the validity and
reliability of the research questionnaire. Psychometric validity is “the degree to which a scale measures what it
intends to measure” [54]. This can be measured based on Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, where the acceptable
threshold should be larger or equal to 0.7. According to this threshold, the construct validity of the research
questionnaire was supported, as it ranged from 0.838 to 0.926. The Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was also
supported for all factors, based on the two samples (from Saudi Arabia and Iraq). Furthermore, convergent and
discriminant validity was also measured. The former would be confirmed if the average variance extracted
(AVE) and composite reliability (CR) exceeded 0.5 and 0.7, respectively, for both measurements [55].
Discriminant validity is supported if the variance shared between one factor and another is less than the variance
shared by a construct with its own variables [56]. The findings reported in Table 5 confirm the convergent and
discriminant validity of the current research survey. Here, the cause and effect relationship between the
proposed Model constructs can be measured.

Table 5: Convergent and discriminant validity of the research Model variables

The Complete Model (N=469)

AVE CR Cronbach's BI EE HM PE PV SI Ts
(>0.5) (>0.7) alpha (>0.7)
BI 0.759 0.926 0.894 0.871
EE 0.688 0.898 0.849 0.546 0.830
HM 0.871 0.953 0.926 0.543 0.531 0.933
PE 0.633 0.873 0.807 0.647 0.595 0.498 0.795
PV 0.755 0.902 0.838 0.463 0.552 0.478 0.445 0.869
SI 0.801 0.923 0.876 0.452 0.404 0.255 0.487 0.390 0.895
Ts 0.690 0.899 0.851 0.569 0.581 0.507 0.580 0.569 0.522 0.831
The Saudi Model (N=246)
AVE CR Cronbach's BI EE HM PE PV SI Ts
(>0.5) (>0.7) alpha (>0.7)
BI 0.768 0.930 0.899 0.876
EE 0.703 0.904 0.860 0.600 0.839
HM 0.883 0.958 0.934 0.564 0.591 0.939
PE 0.638 0.876 0.812 0.664 0.634 0.485 0.799
PV 0.786 0.917 0.864 0.460 0.599 0.457 0.533 0.886
SI 0.811 0.928 0.884 0.506 0.486 0.289 0.573 0.451 0.901
Ts 0.708 0.907 0.863 0.608 0.611 0.530 0.657 0.658 0.521 0.842
The Iraqi Model (N=223)
AVE CR Cronbach's BI EE HM PE PV SI Ts
(>0.5) (>0.7) alpha (>0.7)
BI 0.747 0.922 0.887 0.864
EE 0.654 0.883 0.824 0.482 0.809
HM 0.856 0.947 0.916 0.515 0.454 0.925
PE 0.609 0.861 0.786 0.628 0.516 0.497 0.780
PV 0.710 0.880 0.797 0.496 0.571 0.547 0.386 0.843
SI 0.787 0.917 0.866 0.381 0.307 0.215 0.382 0.318 0.887
Ts 0.642 0.877 0.815 0.518 0.500 0.462 0.440 0.540 0.537 0.801
BI: Behavioral Intention, EE: Effort Expectancy, HM: Hedonic Motivation, PE: Performance Expectancy, PV: Price Value, SI: Social
Influence, Ts: Trust

5.4 Analyzing the Proposed Model

Table 6 and Figures 5 and 6 present the path coefficient among the proposed Model constructs for the two
countries investigated. Generally, hypothesis H1, which suggests a relationship between effort expectancy and
behavioral intention (βIraq=0.039, P-value=0.533; βSaudi Arabia=0.133, P-value=0.085) and hypothesis H6, which
assumes a cause and effect association between social influence and hedonic motivation (βIraq=-0.126, P-
value=0.076; βSaudi Arabia=-0.119, P-value=0.048) were rejected for both countries. In contrast, hypothesis H3
(βIraq=0.393, P-value<0.001; βSaudi Arabia=0.309, P-value<=0.001), H9 (βIraq=0.148, P-value=0.033; βSaudi
Arabia=0.172, P-value=0.029), H10 (βIraq=0.188, P-value=0.011; βSaudi Arabia=0.236, P-value=0.016), and
hypothesis H11 (βIraq=0.141, P-value=0.016; βSaudi Arabia=0.235, P-value<0.001) were confirmed for the two
groups (see Table 6).

With respect to the application of the research Model in Saudi Arabia, hypotheses H2 (βSaudi Arabia=0.397, P-
value<0.001) and H5 (βSaudi Arabia=0.137, P-value=0.015) were confirmed, whereas hypotheses H4 (βSaudi
Arabia=0.118, P-value=0.168), H7 (βSaudi Arabia=-0.067, P-value=0.341), and H8 (βSaudi Arabia=0.056, P-value=0.470)
were unsupported.

On the contrary, in Iraq, hypotheses H2 (βIraq=0.046, P-value=0.602) and H5 (βIraq=0.063, P-value=0.342) were
rejected, whereas hypotheses H4 (βIraq=0.307, P-value<0.001), H7 (βIraq=0.146, P-value=0.026), and H8
(βIraq=0.340, P-value<0.001) were supported.

Overall, the proposed research Model accounted for 56.1% and 40.7% of the variance of behavioral intention
and hedonic motivation, respectively, in Saudi Arabia, and explained 51.1% and 41.9% of the variance of
behavioral intention and hedonic motivation, respectively, in Iraq. This indicates that the cause and effect
relationships between the Models’ factors were stronger for the Saudi students than for the Iraqi students.

Table 6: Research findings for the two countries, Saudi Arabia and Iraq

Iraq (N=223) Saudi Arabia (N=246)

Relation β T- P- Results β T- P- Results
value values value value
H1: EE BI 0.039 0.623 0.533 Rejected 0.133 1.725 0.085 Rejected
H2: EE HM 0.046 0.522 0.602 Rejected 0.397 4.828 0.000 Supported
H3: PE BI 0.393 6.245 0.000 Supported 0.309 3.989 0.000 Supported
H4: PE HM 0.307 4.898 0.000 Supported 0.118 1.381 0.168 Rejected
H5: SI BI 0.063 0.952 0.342 Rejected 0.137 2.448 0.015 Supported
H6: SI HM -0.126 1.779 0.076 Rejected -0.119 1.984 0.048 Rejected
H7: PV BI 0.146 2.230 0.026 Supported -0.067 0.952 0.341 Rejected
H8: PV HM 0.340 4.396 0.000 Supported 0.056 0.723 0.470 Rejected
H9: Ts BI 0.148 2.140 0.033 Supported 0.172 2.194 0.029 Supported
H10: Ts HM 0.188 2.539 0.011 Supported 0.236 2.424 0.016 Supported
H11: HM BI 0.141 2.416 0.016 Supported 0.235 3.851 0.000 Supported
BI: Behavioral Intention, EE: Effort Expectancy, HM: Hedonic Motivation, PE: Performance Expectancy, PV: Price Value, SI: Social
Influence, Ts: Trust
Figure 5: The Iraqi Model
 Figure 6: The Saudi Model

6. Discussion
This research modified UTAUT2 by incorporating trust and using the same variables to predict behavioral
intention and hedonic motivation. It also sought to highlight the possible differences and similarities between
the Model constructs for the sampled Saudi and Iraqi higher education students. As confirmed in previous
research [57][58], our findings provide theoretical and empirical support for the application of UTAUT2, as a
useful framework to provide a better understanding of learners' adoption of mobile learning technology and
hedonic motivation. Overall, the Saudi and Iraqi samples expressed positive perceptions of the research
constructs that were integrated into the proposed Model. This indicates that Middle Eastern higher education
students have a high degree of willingness to embrace mobile learning in formal educational settings. However,
the results also suggest that some of the variables that were significant for predicting behavioral intention and
hedonic motivation in the Saudi sample were not significant for the Iraqi sample, and vice versa.

Looking at the results of the one-way ANOVA test in Table 4 could reveal significant differences in learners'
perceptions. The Saudi students demonstrated higher perceptions of performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
hedonic motivation, and trust. A possible reason for this could be associated with the earlier adoption of mobile
technology in Saudi society, compared to Iraq. Accordingly, the Saudi population has high perceptions of the
usefulness of this technology. They also have extensive experience and knowledge of accessing various mobile
services and applications. The evident benefits of such applications can lead to technology being perceived as
enjoyable and fun to use. Because the Saudi public has not faced any real issues with mobile use, they also have
high perceptions of its trustworthiness. These findings are further explained in the structural equation model.

Unlike the findings for the original UTAUT2 [30], the current research shows that effort expectancy was not a
determinant of behavioral intention for either sample. This means that the students were prepared to use mobile
learning technology, regardless of the individual effort that it would require. Another possible explanation is that
being part of the youth, the students were used to using such technologies in their daily lives, so they had a great
deal of experience of them. This result is in agreement with previous research that suggests that effort
expectancy does not influence mobile learning technology use [41][57]. Effort expectancy also appeared to have
an insignificant effect on hedonic motivation among the Iraqi participants, indicating that this sample was highly
motivated to use the technology in education, irrespective of their individual experience and effort. Conversely,
the enjoyment and fun experienced by the Saudi participants related to their perception of the effort required to
use this technology effectively.

Meanwhile, performance expectancy was found to contribute most to the behavioral intention to use mobile
learning in both samples, supporting previous studies [31][41][57]. The effect of this factor on behavioral
intention should be evident, because learners seek technologies that can enhance their learning outcomes.
Learners who find technology useful for enhancing their learning are more likely to accept it. This means that in
order to attract more students to use mobile learning, lecturers need to improve the quality of their course
content and keep their learning materials up to date. Performance expectancy was also a significant predictor of
hedonic motivation in the Iraqi sample, but not amongst the Saudi students. This may be because the latter cared
more about ease of use and technology complexity to be motivated towards mobile learning, so the effect of this
factor could have reduced the influence of performance expectancy. As such, to improve mobile learning
adoption, informative training courses and workshops should be organized by higher education institutions to
educate both students and teachers about the potential benefits and advantages of mobile learning.

Conversely, social influence was not a predictor of hedonic motivation for either sample. It also had an
insignificant effect on behavioral intention amongst the Iraqi students. This corresponds to a research study
carried out by Ameen and Willis [5], where the Iraqi students sampled had fewer concerns about the effect of
social influence on their intention towards a particular behavior. However, social influence was found to be a
determinant of Saudi students' mobile learning adoption. Furthermore, this finding is aligned with other studies
of the effect of social influence on the intention of higher education students to accept mobile learning in Saudi
Arabia [6][26]. Because social influence comes from students' environments, it might suggest that formal
educational institutions in Saudi Arabia need to provide more supportive learning settings to encourage
students’ use of mobile learning technology.

Regarding the effect of price value, this construct was only a significant predictor of behavioral intention and
hedonic motivation for the Iraqi students in this study, which was a noteworthy finding. In contrast, the Saudi
students did not care about the price value of mobile learning technology. The overall rate of poverty in Iraq
compared to Saudi Arabia may provide a rational explanation for this. Although Iraq is an oil-rich country, the
prevalence of poverty remains high [59]. According to a report compiled by the Iraqi Government [60]:

The poverty rate in Iraq was 22.9 in 2007, reduced by the efforts of the government and partners to
18.9 in 2012…, but the double crisis led to a rise in poverty in 2014 to about 22.5%... This rate fell
in 2018 to 20.5% as a result of improved economic and security conditions.

To illustrate this further, Thelwell [61] reported in 2017 that the lowest poverty rate reported in the Middle East
was for Saudi Arabia, at 12.7%. The effect of price value on mobile learning has been confirmed in previous
work [41], suggesting that mobile learning providers and/or educators need to offer students a cost management
package, in order to enhance their perception of the price value of mobile learning adoption.

Another significant finding of this research was the influence of trust on behavioral intention and hedonic
motivation for both samples. This is consistent with our assumption that the Saudi and Iraqi people are sensitive
to privacy issues, particularly when using mobile internet services that require the entry of significant personal
information. The students' concerns about the degree of privacy and security in mobile learning were
consequently found to be a strong and significant predictor of mobile learning adoption which supports the
assumption made by Hauer et al. [45], concerning the importance of building trust in learning contexts. It could
lead to learning tasks being performed with a high degree of protection of students' information from illegal
access. In agreement with our findings, Alalwan, Dwivedi, and Rana [32] reported that trust was a significant
predictor of behavioral intention towards technology acceptance. The role of trust in shaping students'
behavioral intention towards mobile learning means that they are more likely to be willing to use the
technology, if they perceive it to be benign, trustworthy, and capable of enhancing their learning. However,
according to Alalwan et al. [2], the absence of human interaction when using mobile technology could add to
users’ concerns and fears.

The influence of hedonic motivation on the behavioral intention to adopt mobile learning was greater for the
Saudi participants than for the Iraqi students, although it was a significant predictor for both samples. In fact,
this result is aligned with earlier research [41][57], highlighting the significance of hedonic motivation in
predicting undergraduate students' behavioral intention to accept mobile learning. This has rarely been
considered by educators and decision-makers, particularly in developing countries. Further attention to
strategies and activities that could motivate students to use learning technologies should be a key priority,
helping to ensure that learners use such technologies effectively and with a sense of fun and enjoyment.

7. Conclusion
This research has sought to achieve two key aims. It modified UTAUT2 to predict mobile learning acceptance
and students' hedonic motivation, as well as comparing learners' perceptions of mobile learning in two Middle
Eastern countries, namely Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Although the proposed Model explained good variance of
behavioral intention and hedonic motivation in both these countries, this study was subject to certain limitations
that could invite further research. First, the perceptions of higher education students were examined from a
single university in each country, targeting Computer Science students only. As a result, caution should be
exercised when attempting to generalize the research findings. Second, the inclusion of other constructs when
explaining mobile acceptance could help enhance the overall variance explained here. Finally, the use of self-
reported items in the measurement of the research constructs is not considered to be the best means of
understanding users' perceptions.

Nevertheless, irrespective of the limitations mentioned above, the research findings show that adopting the
modified UTAUT2 framework as a theoretical model can promote a better understanding of mobile learning
implementation amongst decision-makers, researchers, and practitioners, particularly in the Middle East. By
taking into consideration the research findings, existing mobile learning theories could be further developed. In
this light, the key contributions of this study comprise the following:

1- UTAUT2 was modified for mobile learning technology, whereby its effectiveness was supported,
regardless of differences in culture or technology.
2- Although Saudi Arabia and Iraq have many similarities in their overall culture, the findings suggest that
students from different nations may have different concerns and perceptions when adopting mobile
learning technology.
3- The high variance explained by the proposed Model, specifically of the variables associated with mobile
technology acceptance, shows the viability of the research framework for decision-makers, researchers,
and practitioners. Thus, we can recommend that they pay further consideration to the proposed variables,
in order to provide more pedagogical enrichment in the context of educational institutes.
4- This research proposes new relationships in explaining students' hedonic motivation for mobile learning
in which many of the proposed associations were found to have a significant and positive effect on
hedonic motivation.
5- The results show that effort expectancy did not influence mobile learning acceptance, regardless of
cultural similarities or differences between the two countries.
 6- Price value had a significant effect on behavioral intention and hedonic motivation amongst the Iraqi
students, whereas this was not an issue for the Saudi participants.
7- Social influence was found to be a determinant of mobile learning adoption in Saudi higher education,
while this was not the case in Iraq.
8- Performance expectancy was the strongest predictor of mobile learning acceptance for both groups. It
was also the strongest determinant of hedonic motivation in Iraq, but not a significant predictor of
hedonic motivation in Saudi Arabia.
9- The findings also demonstrate that trust affected behavioral intention and hedonic motivation in both
Saudi Arabia and Iraq, confirming that mobile learning users should be free of any threat to their security
and privacy.
10- Hedonic motivation was found to be a strong predictor of behavioral intention to use mobile learning in
both samples.

Based on the overall research outcomes, several practical implications can be deduced. Since performance
expectancy is significant for the uptake of mobile learning, it is necessary to design blended and/or online
courses, as well as learning activities, in a way that promotes students' perceptions of technology usefulness.
The implementation of different motivational activities is also necessary, since the perception of fun and
engagement can enhance students' willingness to accept technology. Accordingly, different engagement
strategies could be applied such as notifying of upcoming activities, designing a competitive activity, and
stimulating direct interaction. Moreover, interface design, learning content, exercises, and other learning
activities should have fun content, embedded in mobile learning technology. This is because the promotion of
hedonic motivation towards mobile learning can elicit positive behavior towards the use of this technology.
Besides, to ensure that students use mobile learning, educational institutions should financially support students
or provide a cost management scheme. They should also seek to implement trustworthy learning technologies
that store learners' personal information safely. In turn, this will encourage their behavior towards mobile
learning acceptance and lead to the development of positive motivation.

References
[1] A. Holst, “Forecast number of mobile users worldwide 2019-2023,” Statista, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/218984/number-of-global-mobile-users-since-2010/. [Accessed: 25-
Feb-2020].

[2] A. A. Alalwan, A. M. Baabdullah, N. P. Rana, K. Tamilmani, and Y. K. Dwivedi, “Examining adoption

of mobile internet in Saudi Arabia: Extending TAM with perceived enjoyment, innovativeness and
trust,” Technol. Soc., vol. 55, pp. 100–110, 2018.

[3] B. A. Kumar and S. S. Chand, “Mobile learning adoption: A systematic review,” Educ. Inf. Technol.,
vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 471–487, 2019.

[4] S. S. Thakre and S. B. Thakre, “Perception of medical students for utility of mobile technology use in
medical education,” Int. J. Med. Public Heal., vol. 5, no. 4, p. 305, 2015.

[5] N. Ameen and R. Willis, “Towards closing the gender gap in Iraq: understanding gender differences in
smartphone adoption and use,” Inf. Technol. Dev., pp. 1–26, 2018.

[6] T. Alasmari and K. Zhang, “Mobile learning technology acceptance in Saudi Arabian higher education:
an extended framework and A mixed-method study,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2127–2144,
2019.

[7] S. A. Nikou and A. A. Economides, “Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the factors that influence
behavioral intention to use,” Comput. Educ., vol. 109, pp. 56–73, 2017.

[8] M. Al-Emran, I. Arpaci, and S. A. Salloum, “An empirical examination of continuous intention to use
m-learning: An integrated model,” Educ. Inf. Technol., 2020.

[9] A. Al-Azawei, P. Parslow, and K. Lundqvist, “Barriers and opportunities of e-learning implementation
 in Iraq: A case of public universities,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 126–146,
2016.

[10] A. Rabaah, D. Doaa, and A. Asma, “Early Childhood Education in Saudi Arabia: Report,” World J.
Educ., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1–8, 2016.

[11] R. Adham, P. Parslow, Y. Dimitriadi, and K. Ø. Lundqvist, “The use of avatars in gender segregated
online learning within MOOCs in Saudi Arabia - A Rwaq case study,” Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance
Learn., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 202–220, 2018.

[12] A. Al-Azawei, “The Moderating Effect of Gender Differences on Learning Management System
Acceptance: A Multi-Group Analysis,” Ital. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 257–278, 2019.

[13] R. Kaliisa, E. Palmer, and J. Miller, “Mobile learning in higher education: A comparative analysis of
developed and developing country contexts,” Br. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 546–561, 2019.

[14] A. Holst, “Number of smartphone users worldwide from 2016 to 2021,” Statista, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/330695/number-of-smartphone-users-worldwide/.
[Accessed: 18-Feb-2020].

[15] S. S. O. M. Nour, “ICT opportunities and challenges for development in the Arab World,” WIDER
Discuss. Pap. Inst. Dev. Econ., 2002.

[16] G. A. Jarad, “The Potential of developing Iraq smatphone market as an emarging and lucrative market,”
Br. J. Mark. Stud., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 37–42, 2014.

[17] A. Holst, “Number of mobile cellular subscriptions in Iraq from 2002 to 2018,” Statista, 2018. [Online].
Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/498374/number-of-mobile-cellular-subscriptions-in-iraq/.
[Accessed: 19-Feb-2020].

[18] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User Acceptance of Information

Technology: Toward a Unified View,” Source MIS Q., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003.

[19] H. H. M. Jawad and Z. Bin Hassan, “Applying UTAUT to evaluate the acceptance of mobile learning in
higher education in Iraq,” Int. J. Sci. Res., vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 2013–2015, 2015.

[20] J. Alterman, “The Evolution of Mobile Phones in Saudi Arabia (The Past),” Trading Media, 2010.
[Online]. Available: https://bayazidt.wordpress.com/com-546-papers/the-evolution-of-mobile-phones-
in-saudi-arabia-the-past/. [Accessed: 19-Feb-2020].

[21] BuddeComm, “Saudi Arabia - Telecoms, Mobile and Broadband - Statistics and Analyses,” 2019.
[Online]. Available: https://www.budde.com.au/Research/Saudi-Arabia-Telecoms-Mobile-and-
Broadband-Statistics-and-Analyses.

[22] A. Holst, “Number of cellular subscriptions Saudi Arabia 2000-2018,” Statista, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/501087/number-of-mobile-cellular-subscriptions-in-saudi-
arabia/. [Accessed: 21-Feb-2020].

[23] A. Puri-Mirza, “Saudi Arabia: mobile phone internet users 2017-2023,” Statista, 2019. [Online].
Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/558821/number-of-mobile-internet-user-in-saudi-arabia/.

[24] F. D. Davis, “A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems:
Theory and results,” Doctoral Dessertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA, 1986.

[25] M. Seliaman and M. Al-Turki, “Mobile learning adoption in Saudi Arabia,” World Acad. Sci. Eng.
Technol., vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 346–348, 2012.

[26] A. Nassuora, “Students Acceptance of Mobile Learning for Higher Education in Saudi Arabia,” Int. J.
Learn. Manag. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2013.

[27] I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, 1980.
[28] A. Al-Azawei, “Predicting the Adoption of Social Media: An Integrated Model and Empirical Study on
Facebook Usage,” Interdiscip. J. Information, Knowledge, Manag., vol. 13, pp. 233–238, 2018.

[29] S. Taylor and P. A. Todd, “Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models,”
Inf. Syst. Res., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 144–176, 1995.

[30] V. Venkatesh, J. Y. L. Thong, and X. Xu, “Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology:
Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,” MIS Q., vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 157–
178, 2012.

[31] J. A. Kumar and B. Bervell, “Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the
initial perceptions of students,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 1793–1817, 2019.

[32] A. A. Alalwan, Y. K. Dwivedi, and N. P. Rana, “Factors influencing adoption of mobile banking by
Jordanian bank customers: Extending UTAUT2 with trust,” Int. J. Inf. Manage., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 99–
110, 2017.

[33] F. D. Davis, R. Bagozzi, and P. R. Warshaw, “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison
of two theoretical models,” Manage. Sci., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 982–1003, 1989.

[34] A. Al-azawei, P. Parslow, and K. Lundqvist, “Investigating the effect of learning styles in a blended e-
learning system: An extension of the technology acceptance model ( TAM ),” Australas. J. Educ.
Technol., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2017.

[35] F. D. Davis, “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology,” vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 319–340, 1989.

[36] D. Gefen and D. W. Straub, “The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in IS Adoption: A
Study of E-Commerce Adoption,” J. Assoc. Inf. Syst., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–28, 2000.

[37] C. Weng, C. Tsai, and A. Weng, “Social support as a neglected e-learning motivator affecting trainee’s
decisions of continuous intentions of usage,” Australas. J. Educ. Technol., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 177–192,
2015.

[38] Á. M. Aliaño, A. M. D. Hueros, M. D. G. Franco, and I. Aguaded, “Mobile learning in university

contexts based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT),” J. New
Approaches Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 7–17, 2019.

[39] L. Briz-Ponce, A. Pereira, L. Carvalho, J. A. Juanes-Méndez, and F. J. García-Peñalvo, “Learning with

mobile technologies – Students’ behavior,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 72, pp. 612–620, 2017.

[40] S. Hao, V. P. Dennen, and L. Mei, “Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese
users,” Educ. Technol. Res. Dev., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 101–123, 2017.

[41] S. Yang, “Understanding Undergraduate Students’ Adoption of Mobile Learning Model: A Perspective
of the Extended UTAUT2,” J. Converg. Inf. Technol., vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 969–979, 2013.

[42] C. S. Ong, J. Y. Lai, and Y. S. Wang, “Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-
learning systems in high-tech companies,” Inf. Manag., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 795–804, 2004.

[43] A. Tarhini, M. El-Masri, M. Ali, and A. Serrano, “Extending the UTAUT model to understand the
customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon: A structural equation modeling
approach,” Inf. Technol. People, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 830–849, 2016.

[44] R. F. Malaquias and Y. Hwang, “An empirical study on trust in mobile banking: A developing country
perspective,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 54, pp. 453–461, 2016.

[45] K. E. Hauer, O. ten Cate, C. Boscardin, D. M. Irby, W. Iobst, and P. S. O’Sullivan, “Understanding trust
as an essential element of trainee supervision and learning in the workplace,” Adv. Heal. Sci. Educ., vol.
19, no. 3, pp. 435–456, 2014.

[46] E. Sharples, “Big Issues in Mobile Learning: Report of a workshop by the Kaleidoscope Network of
Excellence,” Learn. Sci. Res. Inst., p. 36, 2007.
[47] A. H. S. Al-Azawei, “Modelling E-Learning Adoption: The Influence of Learning Style and Universal
Learning Theories,” Doctoral Dessertation, University of Reading, UK, 2017.

[48] A. Y. Al-Sabawy, “Measuring E-Learning Systems Success,” Doctoral Dessertation, University of

Southern Queensland, Austuralia, 2013.

[49] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, and D. W. Straub, “Trust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated
Model,” MIS Q., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 51–90, 2003.

[50] P. D. Leedy and J. E. Ormrod, Practical research: Planning and design, Eighth Ed. New Jersey, USA:
Pearson: Merrill Prentice-Hall, 2005.

[51] C. M. Ringle, S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker, “SmartPLS 3 Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH.” 2015.

[52] J. Pallant, SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS, 5th ed.
Maidenhead, UK: McGraw- Hill Education, Open University Press: McGrawHill, 2013.

[53] J. K. Peat and B. Barton, Medical statistics: A guide to data analysis and critical appraisal, First. UK:
Blackwell, 2005.

[54] M. S. Garver and J. T. Mentzer, “Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling
to test for construct validity,” J. Bus. Logist., vol. 20, no. 1, p. 33, 1999.

[55] J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham, Multivariate data analysis, Six.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.

[56] C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.,” J. Mark. Res. (JMR). Feb1981, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39-50. 12p. 1 Diagram, 1981.

[57] A. A. Arain, Z. Hussain, W. H. Rizvi, and M. S. Vighio, “Extending UTAUT2 toward acceptance of
mobile learning in the context of higher education,” Univers. Access Inf. Soc., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 659–
673, 2019.

[58] A. Ameri, R. Khajouei, A. Ameri, and Y. Jahani, “Acceptance of a mobile-based educational application
(LabSafety) by pharmacy students: An application of the UTAUT2 model,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 25,
no. 1, pp. 419–435, 2020.

[59] B. Rohwerder, “Poverty eradication in Iraq,” 2015. Available: www.gsdrc.org [Accessed: 25-Feb-2020]

[60] Government of Iraq, “Iraq First National Voluntary Review on Sustainable Development Goals 2019,”
2019. Available:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/23789Iraq_VNR_2019_final_EN_HS.pdf
[Accessed: 4-Feb-2020]

[61] K. Thelwell, “Poverty in Saudi Arabia,” BorgenProject, 2018. [Online]. Available:

https://borgenproject.org/tag/poverty-in-saudi-arabia/. [Accessed: 27-Feb-2020].
Appendix: The Research Survey
Code Item Outer Loadings
weights
Performance Expectancy
PE1 I find Mobile-learning Technology useful in my daily study. 0.324 0.787
PE2 Using Mobile-learning Technology increases my chances of
achieving tasks that are important to me in my study. 0.313 0.803
PE3 Using Mobile-learning Technology helps me accomplish tasks
0.283 0.774
more quickly.
PE4 Using Mobile-learning Technology increases my productivity in
0.336 0.817
my study.
Effort Expectancy
EE1 Learning how to use Mobile-learning Technology is easy for me. 0.271 0.841
EE2 My interaction with Mobile-learning Technology is clear and
0.340 0.848
easy to understand.
EE3 I find Mobile-learning Technology easy to use. 0.308 0.832
EE4 It is easy for me to become skillful at using Mobile-learning
0.286 0.797
Technology.
Social Influence
SI1 People who are important to me think that I should use Mobile-
0.363 0.905
learning Technology
SI2 People who influence my behavior think that I should use
0.371 0.904
Mobile-learning Technology.
SI3 People whose opinions I value prefer me to use Mobile-learning
0.384 0.875
Technology.
Hedonic Motivation
HM1 Using Mobile-learning Technology is fun. 0.347 0.935
HM2 Using Mobile-learning Technology is enjoyable. 0.371 0.943
HM3 Using Mobile-learning Technology is entertaining. 0.353 0.921
Price Value
PV1 Mobile-learning Technology is reasonably priced. 0.371 0.871
PV2 Mobile-learning Technology is good value for money. 0.363 0.878
PV3 At the current price, Mobile-learning Technology provides good
0.417 0.858
value.
Trust
Ts1 I believe that Mobile-learning Technology is trustworthy. 0.285 0.844
Ts2 I trust in Mobile-learning Technology. 0.344 0.877
Ts3 I feel assured that legal and technological structures adequately
0.243 0.786
protect me from problems with Mobile-learning Technology.
Ts4 Mobile-learning Technology can fulfill its task. 0.327 0.814
Behavioral Intention
BI1 I intend to use Mobile-learning Technology in the future. 0.271 0.876
BI2 I will always try to use Mobile-learning Technology in my daily
0.304 0.859
study.
BI3 I plan to use Mobile-learning Technology in the future. 0.277 0.898
BI4 I will recommend other students to use Mobile-learning
0.297 0.851
Technology.
Predicting the Intention to Use and Hedonic Motivation of Mobile
Learning: A Comparative Study in Two Middle Eastern
Countries

Highlights

1- Mobile learning has received less consideration in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
2- The variables associated with the acceptance of mobile learning show the
viability of the research framework for decision-makers and practitioners.
3- New relationships have been confirmed to explain students' hedonic
motivation for mobile learning.
4- Price value was found to have a significant effect on behavioral intention
and hedonic motivation amongst Iraqi students, whereas this was not an
issue for the participants from Saudi Arabia.
5- Trust significantly affected behavioral intention and hedonic motivation in
both countries.
 Authors' Statement
Title: Predicting the Intention to Use and Hedonic Motivation for Mobile
Learning: A Comparative Study in Two Middle Eastern Countries

First Author: Ahmed Al-Azawei*,

Department of Software, College of Information Technology, University of Babylon,

Hillah-Al-Najaf Street, Hillah, Babil, Iraq email:
ahmedhabeeb@itnet.uobabylon.edu.iq

Second Author: Ali Alowayr

Information Technology Department, Albaha University, Saudi Arabia, email:
Aalowayr@bu.edu.sa

Ahmed Al-Azawei and Ali Alowayr: Conceptualizating the research idea, developing
the conceptual model, preparing the first draft of the research survey, and collecting
its data as Ahmed collected the Iraqi sample data, whereas Ali collected the Saudi
sample data. Ahmed Al-Azawei: Data preparation and annotation, implementing the
SmatPLS and SPSS software, and writing the Methodology, Results, and Discussion.
Ali Alowayr: writing the Introduction and parts of the background information.
Ahmed Al-Azawei and Ali Alowayr: contributed to the final draft of the research
paper by reviewing and editing it.