Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Toward better intelligent learning (iLearning)

performance: what makes iLearning work for
students in a university setting?

Hung-Yi Wu, Hung-Shu Wu, I.-Shuo Chen & Yu-Pei Su

To cite this article: Hung-Yi Wu, Hung-Shu Wu, I.-Shuo Chen & Yu-Pei Su (2023) Toward
better intelligent learning (iLearning) performance: what makes iLearning work for
students in a university setting?, Behaviour & Information Technology, 42:1, 60-76, DOI:
10.1080/0144929X.2021.2014967

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.2014967

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 31 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1113

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2023, VOL. 42, NO. 1, 60–76
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.2014967

Toward better intelligent learning (iLearning) performance: what makes

iLearning work for students in a university setting?
Hung-Yi Wua, Hung-Shu Wub, I.-Shuo Chenc and Yu-Pei Sua
a
Department of Business Administration, National Chiayi University, Taiwan (R.O.C); bDepartment of Smart Living Technology, Huafan
University, Taiwan (R.O.C); cSchool of Management, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

We explored the critical factors associated with iLearning that impact students’ learning Received 9 November 2020
performance and identified the factors with a notable influence to help managers in higher Accepted 1 December 2021
education institutions increase the effectiveness of iLearning for students. We initially synthesised
KEYWORDS
4 main dimensions (including 26 criteria): performance expectancy, lecturers’ influence, quality of Intelligent learning
service, and personal innovativeness. Subsequently, we conducted surveys in two stages. First, by (iLearning); higher
studying a group of students with experience using iLearning at Taiwanese universities, we education; university; factor
extracted 5 critical dimensions (including 18 criteria) through a factor analysis. Second, by analysis (FA); analytic
studying a group of senior educators and practitioners in Taiwan, we prioritised the dimensions hierarchy process (AHP)
and criteria through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). We found that performance expectancy
is the top critical dimension, and the top five critical criteria pertain to enhancing the learning
performance, increasing the learning participation, altering learning habits, ensuring access at all
times, and enabling prompt use of learning resources. Moreover, we recommend several
suggestions for the relevant managers to enhance the students’ iLearning performance.

1. Introduction additionally, systems to monitor the learning processes

Technological advancement has significantly changed
the way in which students learn and has challenged tra-
ditional pedagogy in higher education (Rossing et al.
2012; Thongsri, Shen, and Bao 2019). To learn, students
in the past had to attend face-to-face classes or read
books (Summers, Waigandt, and Whittaker 2005).
However, in recent years, an increasing number of
different ways to learn have emerged, for example
using Facebook, iTunes, and podcasts, or registering
for courses provided by online course venders such as
Coursera and Udemy. In other words, students can
learn using portable devices such as mobile phones
and laptops (i.e. mLearning; e.g. Al-Emran, Arpaci,
and Salloum 2020; Irwin et al. 2012; McGarr 2009;
McKinney, Dyck, and Luber 2009). Many studies have
found that at universities, mLearning is a key way to
learn and teach, and this mode contributes to the stu-
dents’ learning motivation and performance (e.g.
Crompton, Burke, and Gregory 2017; Major, Haßler,
and Hennessy 2017; Miller and Cuevas 2017). However,
mLearning has been criticised in terms of several
aspects. For example, mLearning creates a sense of iso-
lation for students and a sense of being out of the loop
for both teachers and students (e.g. Rahman 2020);
and performance in real time are lacking (e.g. Corbeil
and Valdes-Corbeil 2007). Therefore, intelligent learn-
ing (iLearning) has emerged as another mainstream
way to enable learning and teaching in higher education
frameworks because it addresses many of the existing
drawbacks of mLearning and provides additional
benefits for learning and teaching.
iLearning refers to a smart campus that enables intel-
ligent learning and teaching; related applications, such
as interactive learning systems, smart classrooms, syn-
chronous distance teaching and learning, virtual learn-
ing communities, and gaming competitions; and
collaborative learning across classrooms (e.g. Aini,
Rahardja, and Hariguna 2019; Aini, Dhaniarti, and
Khoirunisa 2019; Abbasy and Quesada 2017; Araya
et al. 2016; AjazMoharkan et al. 2017; Marquez et al.
2016; Muhamad et al. 2017). In the iLearning environ-
ment, instructors/lecturers and students are involved
in the learning processes in a real-time manner.
Although recent studies have indicated that iLearning
may contribute to the students’ learning performance
(e.g. Nik-Mohammadi and Barekat 2015; Yarmatov, &
Ahmedova, 2020), the factors associated with iLearning
platforms that influence the students’ learning

CONTACT I-Shuo Chen i-shuo.chen@aru.ac.uk School of Management, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK
This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

performance and the relevant factors that must be con-
sidered by university managers to enhance the effective-
ness of iLearning for students remain unclear.
Addressing these gaps in the literature is crucial for uni-
versities to effectively improve the overall quality of
education and, in turn, their competitive advantages
in the long run. The reason is that the resources in
any organisation may be limited; hence, it is important
for universities to invest their limited resources in
addressing the factors that may have a greater impact
on the students’ learning performance by adopting
iLearning.
Considering these aspects, we aimed to explore the
critical factors associated with iLearning platforms
that may influence the students’ learning performance
and identify the factors with the most notable influence.
First, we extracted the factors pertaining to iLearning
platforms that have been found to influence the stu-
dents’ learning performance based on an extensive lit-
erature review. Using these factors, we conducted a
student survey to identify the key factors for iLearning
and prioritise these factors based on an expert survey
of other stakeholders (academic staff and practitioners
from different industries and the government) to ident-
ify the factors that significantly influence the students’
learning performance. We contribute to the literature
in the following way: we present novel insights regard-
ing iLearning by specifying the elements derived from
iLearning platforms that affect the students’ learning
performance, thereby also contributing to the literature
related to higher education by demonstrating an
efficient technique to increase the effectiveness of
iLearning for students. Specifically, although iLearning
has gained importance in recent years, few studies
have attempted to explore the critical elements (e.g.
dimensions and criteria) that may influence students’
iLearning performance. We believe that by focusing
on enhancing the key elements, managers of higher edu-
cation institutions can effectively optimise the students’
iLearning performance in an efficient and effective
manner.
2. Key factors derived from ilearning
platforms that influence iLearning for
students
Learning is a personal act, and learning performance
may be affected by the conditions of the learning
environment (Milošević et al. 2015). Technological
advancements alone may not ensure a student’s learning
performance because specific strategies, tools, and
resources are necessary to support different types of
learning (Milošević et al. 2015). Venkatesh and
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 61
collaborators (2003) introduced four dimensions that
may influence individuals’ use of new technology: per-
formance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influ-
ences, and facilitating conditions. These dimensions
have been tested in existing studies (e.g. Wang et al.
2020; Wang, Wu, and Wang 2009), and several
researchers have demonstrated that the performance
expectancy should be particularly emphasised com-
pared to effort expectancy (e.g. Oh, Lehto, and Park
2009). Additionally, the use of new technology may be
impacted by not only how effectively and efficiently
individuals receive support but also the overall experi-
ence of service that the technology delivers (Choi et al.
2020). Moreover, recent studies have highlighted that
individual differences such as personal innovativeness
may influence the effective use of new technology (e.g.
Patil et al. 2020). Considering these aspects, we adopted
performance expectancy, lecturers’ influence, quality of
service, and personal innovativeness as the measure-
ment dimensions in our research. Notably, due to the
nature of our study, rather than focusing on social influ-
ence in general, we particularly focused on the lecturers’
influence since lecturers frequently interact with stu-
dents during the iLearning journey and are therefore
more likely to influence students through teacher – stu-
dent interactions.
‘Performance expectancy’ concerns the degree to
which individuals believe that adopting an information
platform/system will facilitate them in functioning
effectively in a given environment or in achieving a
given outcome (Venkatesh et al. 2003). When individ-
uals perceive that the use of a specific information plat-
form/system will help them achieve the desired
outcome, they may be more likely to use it (Do Nam
Hung, Azam, and Khatibi 2019). Empirical studies
have supported this observation by demonstrating that
enhancing the individuals’ performance expectancy
may significantly alter their attitude toward a given
information platform/system as well as their behav-
ioural intent (e.g. Lowenthal, 2010; Purwanto and
Loisa 2020). Similar findings have been obtained in
learning-related studies. In an iLearning context, the
performance expectancy may be viewed as the students’
perception of whether the use of a specific learning plat-
form/system (e.g. an iLearning platform) will benefit
their learning performance. Wang, Wu, and Wang
(2009) and Chaka and Govender (2017) found that as
part of learning in a digital and intelligent manner, per-
formance expectancy was a strong determinant that
motivated students to adopt this mode of learning.
Recent studies have indicated that intelligent and digital
learning may enrich students’ learning performance by
providing new learning experiences, increasing learning
62 H.-Y. WU ET AL.
participation (e.g. Chen 2011; Yarmatov & Ahmedova,
2020), and facilitating collaborative learning (e.g. Hirsch
and Ng 2011; Abbasy and Quesada 2017) in an inte-
grated environment. Additionally, iLearning may help
students strengthen their learning efficiency, enhance
their learning performance (e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and
Love 2013; Wang, Wu, and Wang 2009), and further
extend their learning effect across different domains
(e.g. Karimi 2016). Therefore, it is conceivable that
these elements may help enhance the students’ iLearn-
ing performance expectancy.
‘Lecturers’ influence’ originates from social influence
(Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013). Social influence concerns
the degree to which individuals perceive others’ expec-
tations regarding the use of an information platform/sys-
tem (Sung et al. 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2003). In other
words, if individuals strongly perceive that other indi-
viduals expect them to use a specific information plat-
form/system, the individuals are more likely to be
motivated to use it (Alshurideh et al. 2020; Liu and Li
2010; Lu and Viehland 2008; Nassuora 2012; Venkatesh
and Morris 2000). Existing studies have revealed that
social influence, similar to performance expectancy, is
a key element that can significantly influence the indi-
viduals’ behavioural intent to adopt new technology
(e.g. Alshurideh et al. 2020; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000;
Venkatesh, Morris, and Ackerman 2000). The concept
of social influence has been widely extended to the edu-
cation and learning literature (e.g. Chen 2011; Fagan
2019; Iqbal and Qureshi 2012; Sabah 2016; Vrana 2018).
In a learning context, the ‘lecturers’ influence’ is
defined as the degree to which instructors/lecturers
encourage, support, and motivate students to adopt a
specific learning platform/system for learning (Abu-Al-
Aish and Love 2013). Existing studies have reported
findings that support this aspect (e.g. Badwelan, Drew,
and Bahaddad 2016; Izkair, Lakulu, and Mussa 2020;
Milošević et al. 2015). For example, in their study
based on a Chinese university, Hao, Dennen, and Mei
(2017) discovered that the lecturers’ influence may
motivate the students in using a new learning platform
for digital learning. Similarly, Nassuora (2012) indicated
that lecturers’ positive word of mouth may enhance the
students’ willingness to learn through a digital learning
platform. Other studies have claimed that to effectively
motivate and support students in adopting a digital
learning platform (e.g. an iLearning platform), instruc-
tors/lecturers may alter their teaching methods from a
traditionally physical method to a method that is both
intelligent and digital, thereby providing students with
a higher learning quality through the digital learning
platform, enabling them to experience mobile learning
in which they can learn at any location, and increasing
real-time discussions between instructors and their stu-
dents via the platform (e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013;
Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad 2016; Chen 2011; Milo-
šević et al. 2015; Iqbal and Qureshi 2012; Sabah 2016;
Vrana 2018). Specifically, iLearning platforms allow a
teacher to teach in real time, and the students have
opportunities to have face-to-face interactions and dis-
cussions with the teacher (e.g. Kose and Deperlioglu
2012). Such frameworks also allow the teacher to
teach students to use the platform to learn more
promptly and effectively. Therefore, these elements
may enhance the lecturers’ influence on the students’
iLearning.
The ‘quality of service’ in the information system and
human–computer interaction fields is not the same as
that in service industry management (Ameen et al.
2019; Kuan, Bock, and Vathanophas 2008). The former
type concerns individuals’ assessment of the reliability
and response, content quality, and security of an infor-
mation platform/system, and the latter type refers to
the expectation and satisfaction of customers with
regard to the services being provided (Abu-Al-Aish
and Love 2013; Celesti et al. 2019; Rai, Lang, and Welker
2002; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Existing studies have
found that when a service is provided in a satisfactory
manner, individuals are more likely to adopt new tech-
nology (Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013); however, a low
quality of service (e.g. inferior facilitating conditions)
may impede the adoption of new technology (Lim and
Khine 2006). In a learning context, Lee showed that stu-
dents’ perception of the quality of service of a digital
learning platform may significantly affect their willing-
ness to use the platform for learning. Similarly, Abu-
Al-Aish and Love (2013) indicated that in a digital
learning environment, the quality of service plays a cru-
cial role in predicting the students’ acceptance and
adoption of the learning platform in the environment.
To enhance the quality of service of iLearning plat-
forms, recent studies have suggested that instructors
should provide ample learning resources (Shukla 2021;
Swanson 2020), enhance their teaching quality (Zakar-
iaa, Maatb, and Khalidc 2019), promote a pleasant intel-
ligent campus experience (Lin and Su 2020; Wu, Wu,
and Su 2019), and improve traditional learning methods
for students (Ehsanpur and Razavi 2020). Moreover,
researchers have suggested that learning platform provi-
ders should not only ensure the students’ privacy and
safety but also assist them in using learning resources
efficiently and in logging onto the platform at any
time. Additionally, it has been noted that encouraging
students to learn via cloud computing technology,
increasing the efficiency with which messages are trans-
ferred between instructors/lecturers and students,

enhancing the operational stability of the learning plat-
form, increasing the number of campus receivers, and
making the platform simple and easy to use are critical
to advance the quality of service of the learning platform
(e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013; Badwelan, Drew, and
Bahaddad 2016; Hassanzadeh, Kanaani, and Elahi 2012;
Kim and Ong 2005; Kim et al. 2012; Lee 2006; Liu, Han,
and Li 2010; Milošević et al. 2015; Ng et al. 2010;
Mohammadi 2015; Salloum et al. 2019). These findings
may be viewed as elements that may enhance the quality
of service of iLearning for students.
‘Personal innovativeness’ concerns the degree to
which individuals are willing to try and use a new infor-
mation platform/system (Agarwal and Prasad 1998;
Rogers 2003). Compared to their counterparts, individ-
uals with a high degree of personal innovativeness are
more likely to adopt and deal with the uncertainty
associated with a new information platform/system
(Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013; Lu, Yao, and Yu 2005).
Existing studies have reported supportive evidence
that indicates that personal innovativeness can motivate
an individual to use new technology (e.g. Agarwal and
Prasad 1998; Agarwal and Karahanna 2000; Fang,
Shao, and Lan 2009; Hung and Chang 2005; Lassar,
Manolis, and Lassar 2005; Lewis, Agarwal, and Samba-
murthy 2003; Lu, Yao, and Yu 2005; Lian and Lin
2008; Matute-Vallejo and Melero-Polo 2019; Yi et al.
2006). Although personal innovativeness has been
widely investigated in different fields, such as online
shopping and blogs (e.g. Bhagat and Sambargi 2019;
Bigne-Alcaniz et al. 2008; Wang, Chou, and Chang
2010), it is particularly crucial in a digital and intelligent
learning context (Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013; Agarwal
and Prasad 1998; Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad 2016;
Handoko 2019; Joo, Lee, and Ham 2014; Fagan, Kilmon,
and Pandey 2012; Liu, Li, and Carlsson 2010; Milošević
et al. 2015; Shorfuzzaman et al. 2019; Salloum et al.
2019).
For example, Fagan, Kilmon, and Pandey (2012) dis-
covered that students with a high level of personal inno-
vativeness are more willing to learn by adopting virtual
reality simulations. Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013) and
Karimi (2016) indicated that personal innovativeness
is crucial in any learning environment involving infor-
mation technology. To effectively support students’ per-
sonal innovativeness, existing studies have highlighted
the importance of altering students’ learning habits
and strengthening their courage to try and enhance
their self-efficacy in learning with a new learning plat-
form (e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013; Badwelan,
Drew, and Bahaddad 2016; Joo, Lee, and Ham 2014;
Karimi 2016; Milošević et al. 2015; Shorfuzzaman
et al. 2019; Salloum et al. 2019). Notably, these
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 63
suggestions may be elements that can enhance the stu-
dents’ personal innovativeness with regard to iLearning.
In conclusion, through a literature analysis sum-
marising the most referenced and commonly used fac-
tors in the relevant studies, we propose four
dimensions with 26 criteria (i.e. elements that may
help enhance the dimensions) for iLearning. Table 1
summarises the proposed dimensions and sources of
the proposed criteria.
3. Research methods
3.1. Research procedure and strategy
The research procedure of this study is presented in
Figure 1. We aimed to explore the critical factors that
may affect students’ iLearning on campus at a university
and identify the factors that have a more notable influ-
ence by calculating the relative importance of the critical
dimensions and criteria (i.e. factors). To develop an
iLearning research framework, we used keywords such
as mLearning, eLearning, iLearning, acceptance and
use of new technology, and teaching and learning in a
high education context to seek the articles necessary
for an extensive literature review. The reviewed and
considered studies are summarised in Table 1. Based
on the extensive literature review, we developed an
iLearning research framework that encompasses four
critical dimensions with 26 critical criteria. These
dimensions and criteria were used to develop a ques-
tionnaire. The study was performed in two stages. In
the first stage, questionnaire surveys were distributed,
through convenience sampling, to respondents (i.e. stu-
dents who have used iLearning on campus at a univer-
sity) physically by the researchers. The survey required
approximately one month to complete. Subsequently,
we performed factor analysis (FA) to extract the critical
factors, which were employed to construct the hierarch-
ical evaluation structure of the second-stage question-
naire. In the second stage, the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) was adopted to obtain a consensus
based on domain expert opinions. Using the judgment
sampling method, the researchers consulted the experts
personally across three different sectors (e.g. industry,
government, and academia). Next, we analyzed the rela-
tive importance of and prioritised each critical dimen-
sion and criterion. Based on the analysis results, we
formulated managerial and educational recommen-
dations, with this study’s findings serving as a valuable
reference for university managers to enhance the effec-
tiveness of iLearning for students. In the following sec-
tions, we briefly introduce the relevant data analysis
methods (including FA and AHP) used in this study.
64 H.-Y. WU ET AL.

Table 1. Dimensions and criteria that influence iLearning of students.

Dimension References Criteria
Performance Abbasy and Quesada (2017); Abu-Al-Aish and Love Providing new learning
Expectancy (A) (2013); Almahri, Bell, and Merhi (2020); Aini, Rahardja, experiences* (A1)
and Hariguna (2019); Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad Increasing the learning
(2016); Chen (2011); Fagan (2019); Hirsch and Ng participation (A2)
(2011); Kumar and Bervell (2019); Karimi (2016); Latip Extending the learning effect
et al. (2020); Milošević et al. (2015); Shukla (2021); (A3)
Wang et al (2009) Increasing the learning
efficiency (A4)
Enhancing the learning
performance (A5)
Facilitating collaborative
learning* (A6)
Lecturers’ Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013); Almahri, Bell, and Merhi Altering teaching methods
Influence (B) (2020); Aini, Dhaniarti, and Khoirunisa (2019); (B1)
Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad (2016); Chen (2011); Teachers’ encouragement
Kumar and Bervell (2019); Iqbal and Qureshi (2012); (B2)
Latip et al. (2020); Milošević et al. (2015); Sabah (2016); Higher learning quality (B3)
Shukla (2021); Vrana (2018); Wang, Wu, and Wang Enabling mobile teaching
(2009) (B4)
Fostering discussions
between teachers and
students (B5)
Quality of Service Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013); Almaiah and Alismaiel Additional learning resources
(C) (2019); Almaiah and Al Mulhem (2019); Alshurideh et al. (C1)
(2019); Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad (2016); Privacy and safety (C2)
Hassanzadeh, Kanaani, and Elahi (2012); Kim and Ong
(2005); Kim et al. (2012); Lee (2006); Liu et al (2010); Learning through cloud
Milošević et al. (2015); Ng et al. (2010); Mohammadi computing technology*
(2015); Salloum et al. (2019) (C3)
Transferring messages
promptly* (C4)
Higher teaching quality
(without the limitation of
space) (C5)
Numerous campus receivers+
(C6)
Creating a pleasant campus
experience (C7)
Improving traditional
learning methods (C8)
Access at all times (C9)
Prompt usage of learning
resources (C10)
Easy to use* (C11)
Operational stability* (C12)
Personal Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013); Badwelan, Drew, and Altering learning habits (D1)
Innovativeness Bahaddad (2016); Joo, Lee, and Ham (2014); Karimi Promotion of self-efficacy*
(D) (2016); Li (2020); Liu et al. (2010); Milošević et al. (2015); (D2)
Patil et al. (2020); Shorfuzzaman et al. (2019); Salloum
et al. (2019); Sidik and Syafar (2020) Having the courage to try
(D3)
Notes: 1. +: C6 was deleted after the pretest analysis; 2. *: A1, A6, C3, C4, C11, C12, and D2 were deleted after factor analysis.
References
Bai (2019); Darmaji et al. (2019); Kumar and
Chand (2019)
Chen (2011); Johnson et al. (2015)
Karimi (2016)
Abu-Al-Aish and Love (2013); Wang, Wu,
and Wang (2009)
Nik-Mohammadi and Barekat (2015)
Aini, Rahardja, and Hariguna (2019); Aini,
Dhaniarti, and Khoirunisa (2019); Abbasy
and Quesada (2017)
Sabah (2016); Vrana (2018)
Kacetl and Klímová (2019)
Almaiah and Alismaiel (2019)
Aremu (2019); Wu, Wu, and Su (2019)
Kose and Deperlioglu (2012)
Shukla (2021); Swanson (2020)
Palalas and Wark (2020); Thomas and
Hajiyev (2020)
Okai-Ugbaje et al. (2020); Sekaran et al.
(2019)
Gonzalez, Gonzalez, and Huidobro (2019);
Nyembe and Howard (2019)
Zakariaa, Maatb, and Khalidc (2019)
Ichaba, Musau, and Mwendia (2020)
Lin and Su (2020); Wu, Wu, and Su (2019)
Ehsanpur and Razavi (2020)
Alshurideh et al. (2020); Cavus (2020)
Nielit and Thanuskodi (2020); Okai-Ugbaje
et al. (2020)
Alam and Aljohani (2020); Malik et al.
(2020)
Seralidou, Douligeris, and Gralista (2019);
Wu, Wu, and Su (2019)
Wu, Wu, and Su (2019)
Buabeng-Andoh (2021); Senaratne,
Samarasinghe, and Jayewardenepura
(2019)
Joseph et al. (2019); Wu, Wu, and Su (2019)

3.2. FA
FA is a multivariate technique applied to address the
problem of interdependence between variables. Factor
loadings can be used to extract the main factors based
on the explained maximum variance for all variables.
The main purpose/advantage of FA is to reduce the
number of variables without losing the representative-
ness of the original data by identifying the hidden
dimensions that may/may not be directly apparent
from the analyses. However, FA results may be
controversial. The interpretations of the results may
be debatable since different interpretations may be
derived from the same factors. Therefore, naming or
renaming factors would require researchers to have
specialised knowledge (Navlani 2019). This study used
principal component analysis with varimax rotation
for factor extraction in the first stage to confirm that
no correlations existed among the factors and to satisfy
the requirement of independence among the elements
of the hierarchical structure in the second-stage AHP

Figure 1. Research procedure and strategy.
analysis. Based on these results, we examined the
reliability of the extracted dimensions based on the rel-
evant criteria.
3.3. AHP
The AHP, which was first proposed by Saaty in 1971, is a
systematic and hierarchical analysis tool that combines
qualitative and quantitative methods (Saaty 1980).
This approach can practically and effectively solve com-
plex decision-making problems by dividing the complex
decision-making situations into small components.
These small components are organised in a tree-like
hierarchy, and expert opinions are collected to evaluate
the relative importance of each component (i.e. dimen-
sion/criterion) on a scale ranging from 1 to 9. Specifi-
cally, pairwise comparisons are performed between the
evaluation factors; next, comparison matrixes are estab-
lished to reflect the decision makers’ subjective prefer-
ences. The eigenvectors and eigenvalues are calculated,
and the eigenvectors determine the relative weights
between the criteria, representing the priority of each
component (i.e. dimension/criterion) at each level,
which can provide decision makers with sufficient
decision information, help define the relevant criteria
and selected weights, and reduce the risk of decision
errors.
In summary, the AHP helps simplify complex pro-
blems into hierarchies, thereby facilitating the compari-
son of factors in a pairwise manner, and it represents a
useful tool for addressing the ambiguity and complexity
in decision problems (Ramanathan 2001). Existing
studies have highlighted several advantages of the
AHP. For example, Macharis and collaborators (2004)
proposed that the AHP allows a decision problem to
be decomposed into constitutive parts that allow the
development of hierarchies of the dimensions and cri-
teria, thereby clarifying the level of importance pertain-
ing to each dimension and criterion. Zahir (1999)
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 65
claimed that the AHP enables group decision-making
via group consensus. Millet and Wedley (2002) indi-
cated that the AHP is beneficial in situations that are
uncertain or risky because it allows researchers or prac-
titioners to develop scales in cases in which ordinary
evaluations cannot be applied. Another advantage of
using the AHP is that a large sample size is not required
to achieve statistically robust results, and in several
cases, the results derived from even a single qualified
expert may be sufficiently representative since the
AHP is based on judgments of field/specialised experts
(e.g. Darko et al. 2019; Tavares, Tavares, and Parry-
Jones 2008). The sample size used in many AHP studies
normally ranges from 4–9 (e.g. Pan, Dainty, and Gibb
2012; Akadiri, Olomolaiye, and Chinyio 2013; Chou,
Pham, and Wang 2013), although a few studies have
been known to adopt a sample size larger than 30 (e.g.
Ali and Al Nsairat 2009; El-Sayegh 2009). In other
words, sample selection is more important than the
sample size for an AHP study. This common practice
also justifies the appropriateness of the sample size of
this study. One of the most criticised aspects of the
AHP, however, is that it does not consider the inter-
relationship between the dimensions and criteria. In
this study, the AHP was used as an analytical framework
for establishing an evaluation model to determine the
order of importance of the critical factors derived
from iLearning platforms that may influence students’
iLearning at a university.
Consistency analysis is the main approach that has
been used to test the reliability of the experts’ judgments
obtained in AHP studies (e.g. Saaty 1980; Saaty and Var-
gas 2013). This approach has also been used to support
the fact that although the data collected are subjective
judgments, the AHP can reduce bias and ensure that
the judgments are reliable (Abudayyeh et al. 2007; Hsu,
Wu, and Li 2008). In this research, based on the results
of the AHP, we further adopted consistency analysis
with the threshold of consistency (value <1) suggested
66 H.-Y. WU ET AL.

by Saaty (1980) on the studied dimensions and the overall in fields related to iLearning. A total of 17 valid responses
research framework to test their reliability. were obtained from experts, including 5, 5, and 7 experts
from the industry, government, and academia, respect-
ively. Table 3 details the backgrounds of the responding
4. Data analysis and results experts. Approximately half of the experts had 10 or
4.1. Respondents’ demographics more years of relevant work experience.

The study adopted questionnaire surveys that were

administered in two stages. In the first stage, FA was 4.2. Critical factors extracted using FA
performed to analyze the data collected by convenience
During the first stage, the questionnaire (4 dimensions
sampling from university students with experience
and 26 criteria) was designed based on the related impor-
using iLearning. For both the pretest (50 valid responses
tant factors that may affect students’ iLearning with refer-
received) and actual study (355 valid responses
ence to the criteria shown in Table 1. The participants
received), the participants’ characteristics are summar-
were asked to make their evaluations through a 5-point
ised in Table 2.
Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ (5) to ‘strongly
In the second stage, the AHP was employed to deter-
disagree’ (1). After the pretest, one item (numerous cam-
mine the priorities of the dimensions and criteria based
pus receivers [C6]) was deleted. In the actual survey,
on expert consensus. Judgment sampling was used to
using principal component analysis (PCA) with iter-
solicit feedback from experts who had work experience
ations and varimax rotation, the factors (5 dimensions
and 18 criteria) were extracted after eliminating all cri-
Table 2. Profiles of the respondents in the first-stage surveys. teria with factor loadings less than 0.5. The five dimen-
Characteristic Category
Pilot Study
Frequency (%)
Actual Study
Frequency (%)
sions were renamed ‘performance expectancy’ (PE) (4
Gender Male 22 (44) 140 (39)
criteria), ‘quality of service’ (QS) (4 criteria), ‘personal
Female 28 (56) 215 (61) innovativeness’ (PI) (3 criteria), ‘convenience of use’
College Engineering 7 (14) 28 (8) (CU) (3 criteria), and ‘lecturers’ influence’ (LI) (4 cri-
Literature 9 (18) 54 (15)
Medicine 3 (6) 43 (12) teria), which accounted for 64.65% of the total variance.
Agriculture 2 (4) 35 (10) The data regarding the factor loadings of each criterion,
Business & 23 (46) 148 (42)
Management Cronbach’s α values and variance explained by the factors
Education 3 (6) 6 (2) (dimensions), are summarised in Table 4. The extracted
Law - 32 (9)
Science - 9 (2) critical factors (5 dimensions and 18 criteria) were used
Other 3 (6) - to construct a hierarchical structure (Figure 2).
Frequency of using Less than 1 h 25 (50) 155 (44)
iLearning on 1–5 h 15 (30) 161 (45)
campus per week 5–15 h 4 (8) 29 (8)
More than 15 h 6 (12) 10 (3) 4.3. Relative weights of the critical factors
Frequency of using Less than 1 h 25 (50) 98 (28) examined in the AHP
the Internet to 1–5 h 15 (30) 170 (48)
study per week 5–15 h 4 (8) 65 (18) In the second stage, as shown in Figure 2, the AHP was
More than 15 h 6 (12) 22 (6)
employed to prioritise the factors, i.e. the dimensions

Table 3. Profiles of the responding experts in the second-stage AHP survey.

Sector Position Institution Tenure (Relevant experience)
Industry (5 experts) Executive assistant High-technology company ⩽3y
Instructor Computer company 5–10 y
Engineer International company ⩽3y
Sales representative International company 5–10 y
Sales representative International company ⩽3y
Government (5 experts) President Department of Education (Secondment from elementary school) 10–15 y
Division chief Department of Education 10–15 y
Officer Department of Education 3–5 y
Officer Department of Education 10–15 y
Division chief Department of Education (Secondment from junior high school) 10–15 y
Academia (7 experts) Professor Public university 15–20 y
Assistant professor Public university 10–15 y
Professor Public university ⩾ 20 y
Assistant professor Public science and technology university 5–10 y
Assistant professor Private college ⩾ 20 y
Associate professor Private science and technology university 15–20 y
Assistant professor Private university 10–15 y
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 67

Table 4. Results of the extracted critical dimensions and criteria of iLearning.

Factor Corrected Item- Cronbach’s Variance Cumulative
Dimensions Criteria Loading Communality Total Correlation α (%) (%)
Performance Enhancing the learning .782 .748 .719 .823 38.183 38.183
expectancy (PE) performance (PE1)
Increasing the learning .713 .652 .626
participation (PE2)
Increasing the learning efficiency .707 .645 .634
(PE3)
Extending the learning effect (PE4) .694 .656 .611
Quality of service Creating a pleasant campus .731 .661 .633 .791 7.606 45.789
(QS) experience (QS1)
Improving traditional learning .643 .668 .558
methods (QS2)
Higher teaching quality (without .622 .567 .591
the limitation of space) (QS3)
Higher learning quality (QS4) .513 .653 .618
Personal Altering learning habits (PI1) .729 .693 .559 .700 7.103 52.892
innovativeness (PI) Having the courage to try (PI2) .691 .643 .571
Teachers’ encouragement (PI3) .642 .630 .432
Convenience of use Access at all times (CU1) .799 .712 .547 .659 6.174 59.066
(CU) Prompt usage of learning resources .654 .684 .510
(CU2)
Enabling mobile teaching (CU3) .573 .631 .364
Lecturers’ influence Privacy and safety (LI1) .733 .615 .460 .699 5.583 64.649
(LI) Fostering discussions between .641 .543 .485
teachers and students (LI2)
Additional learning resources (LI3) .547 .609 .512
Altering teaching methods (LI4) .502 .626 .483

and criteria. Pairwise comparisons among the factors
were performed by experts with work experience and
knowledge regarding iLearning. The opinions (assess-
ments) of the 17 experts were averaged to obtain expert
consensus. The consistency ratio (C.R.) values of the 5
dimensions, i.e. PE, QS, PI, CU, and LI, were 0.000,
0.076, 0.080, 0.091, and 0.059, respectively, which were
less than 0.1 and thus satisfied the threshold of consist-
ency suggested by Saaty (1980). The C.R. for the whole
hierarchy (0.062) was also less than 0.1. Therefore, the
experts’ opinions were considered consistent. In other
words, the AHP analysis results were reliable. Table 5
presents the relative weights (importance) and rankings
of the dimensions and criteria. The most critical
dimension that affected students’ iLearning was PE
(weight=0.349), followed by CU (0.185), PI (0.169),
QS (0.168), and LI (0.130). Additionally, the top five
critical criteria were enhancing the learning performance
(PE1) (0.140), increasing the learning participation (PE2)
(0.110), altering learning habits (PI1) (0.092), ensuring
access at all times (CU1) (0.075), and enabling prompt
usage of learning resources (CU2) (0.067).
5. Discussion
This study was aimed at exploring the critical factors
associated with iLearning platforms that may impact
students’ learning performance and identifying the cri-
teria with a more notable impact to enable university
managers to enhance the effectiveness of iLearning for
students. First, through an extensive literature review,
we synthesised four critical dimensions (e.g. perform-
ance expectancy, lecturers’ influence, quality of service,
and personal innovativeness) and 26 critical criteria.
Subsequently, we extracted five critical dimensions
(prompt usage of learning resources is a new dimension
extracted based on the FA result) with 18 critical criteria
by studying a group of students from universities in Tai-
wan. We further prioritised these criteria by surveying a
group of senior educators and practitioners in Taiwan.
Our results indicated that enhancing the learning per-
formance, increasing the learning participation, altering
learning habits, ensuring access at all times, and
enabling prompt usage of learning resources are the
criteria that university managers must emphasise to
enhance the effectiveness of iLearning for students.
In terms of the dimensions, our results indicated that
PE is the most crucial dimension that may motivate stu-
dents to adopt iLearning, which aligns with existing
related findings (e.g. Chaka and Govender 2017; Low-
enthal 2010; Wang, Wu, and Wang 2009). In other
words, to successfully implement iLearning in a univer-
sity, it is crucial for the managers of the university to
place emphasis on helping students perceive that they
can make progress in their learning performance through
iLearning, which in turn may stimulate the students to be
more willing to learn by adopting iLearning. In addition,
our results indicated that enhancing the learning per-
formance and increasing learning participation are two
key factors that strengthen the students’ iLearning PE,
68 H.-Y. WU ET AL.
Figure 2. Hierarchical structure of the critical factors for iLearning.
which is in line with the findings of many existing studies
(e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013; Chen 2011; Wang, Wu,
and Wang 2009). This finding implies that to effectively
help students perceive that they can enhance their learn-
ing performance with iLearning, the design of iLearning
may need to be goal oriented. For example, a clear yet
challenging learning goal may be needed to ensure that
the extent to which the students’ learning performance
is enhanced can be measured by instructors/lecturers
and perceived by the students.
Furthermore, this finding indicates that it may be
necessary to focus on designing iLearning that can effec-
tively stimulate students to proactively participate
during their learning journey to strengthen the cogni-
tive connection between the use of iLearning and sub-
sequent learning performance. Empirical studies have
shown that when students are engaged in learning,
they are more likely to perceive an improved learning
outcome (e.g. Blasco-Arcas et al. 2013; McLaughlin
et al. 2013). However, the learning participation and
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 69

Table 5. Results of the prioritised critical factors for iLearning.

Dimensions Weight Criteria Local Weight Global Weight
Performance expectancy (PE) C.R. = 0.00<0.1 0.349 (1) Enhancing the learning performance (PE1) 0.402 0.140 (1)
Increasing the learning participation (PE2) 0.316 0.110 (2)
Increasing the learning efficiency (PE3) 0.154 0.054 (6)
Extending the learning effect (PE4) 0.127 0.044 (10)
Quality of service (QS) C.R. = 0.076<0.1 0.168 (4) Creating a pleasant campus experience (QS1) 0.303 0.051 (7)
Improving traditional learning methods (QS2) 0.263 0.044 (11)
Higher teaching quality (without the limitation of space) (QS3) 0.259 0.044 (12)
Higher learning quality (QS4) 0.175 0.029 (15)
Personal innovativeness (PI) C.R. = 0.080<0.1 0.169 (3) Altering learning habits (PI1) 0.547 0.092 (3)
Having the courage to try (PI2) 0.298 0.050 (8)
Teachers’ encouragement (PI3) 0.155 0.026 (17)
Convenience of use (CU) C.R. = 0.091<0.1 0.185 (2) Access at all times (CU1) 0.405 0.075 (4)
Prompt usage of learning resources (CU2) 0.362 0.067 (5)
Enabling mobile teaching (CU3) 0.233 0.043 (13)
Lecturers’ influence (LI) C.R. = 0.059<0.1 0.130 (5) Privacy and safety (LI1) 0.349 0.045 (9)
Fostering discussions between teachers and students (LI2) 0.299 0.039 (14)
Additional learning resources (LI3) 0.206 0.027 (16)
Altering teaching methods (LI4) 0.146 0.019 (18)
Notes: 1. C.R.H. = 0.062 < 0.1; 2. (): Ranking of dimensions/criteria.

learning performance may not always be proportional.
Therefore, with respect to managerial implications, the
relevant units of iLearning management should not
only focus on the students’ learning performance but
also consider whether the students’ involvement and
inputs in learning can be enhanced through iLearning.
Existing studies have indicated that if students find
that their inputs are polished or advanced, they are
more likely to perceive better learning outcomes (e.g.
Chemosit 2012). Among the relevant factors, enhancing
the learning performance and increasing the learning
participation represent the most crucial factors that
must be considered the main goals while implementing
iLearning in a university settings.
According to our results, CU is the second most
important dimension, which is in line with existing
findings regarding the importance of the efficiency of
using an information platform/system in a digital and
intelligent learning context (e.g. Abu-Al-Aish and
Love 2013; Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad 2016; Has-
sanzadeh, Kanaani, and Elahi 2012; Kim and Ong
2005; Kim et al. 2012; Lee 2006; Liu et al., 2010; Miloše-
vić et al. 2015; Ng et al. 2010; Mohammadi 2015; Sal-
loum et al. 2019). This finding implies that the ease of
use of iLearning can enhance the students’ willingness
to use and continue to use iLearning. Our results also
indicate that ensuring access at all times and enabling
the prompt use of learning resources are critical to
increase the students’ efficiency in using iLearning plat-
forms. This finding reflects that it may be crucial for
university managers to allow students to learn at their
own pace. Different students have a different pace of
learning, and thus, students may be more likely to
learn effectively and successfully when learning at
their own pace (Chou and Liu 2005; Vermunt 2005).
Other studies based on the iLearning platform infra-
structure have suggested investing in smart campuses
(e.g. Hirsch and Ng 2011), ensuring seamless connec-
tivity, and supporting integrated learning across various
devices (laptops, tablets and smartphones) for ubiqui-
tous learning (e.g. Atif, Mathew, and Lakas 2015).
Additionally, our findings reflect the need for
instructors/lecturers to upload learning resources in a
timely manner and to ensure the fit and consistency
between teaching contents and learning resources to
ensure that students can use the learning resources
efficiently when needed. Supporting this point, existing
studies have highlighted the importance of the timely
provision of learning resources and usefulness of learn-
ing from/with these resources, especially in a digital and
intelligent learning environment (e.g. Ma et al. 2010;
Otieno 2010; Ross and Grinder 2002). Certain studies
also emphasised the need to ensure that iLearning plat-
forms allow students to use learning resources from any
device (e.g. Atif, Mathew, and Lakas 2015; Hirsch and
Ng 2011). Notably, ensuring access at all times and
enabling prompt usage of learning resources should be
considered the main goals to be fulfilled while perform-
ing iLearning in a university setting, and these aspects
represent two of the top five factors.
PI is ranked as one of the top three dimensions in this
study, echoing existing studies that highlight its impor-
tance in a digital and intelligent learning environment
(Abu-Al-Aish and Love 2013; Agarwal and Prasad
1998; Badwelan, Drew, and Bahaddad 2016; Joo, Lee,
and Ham 2014; Fagan, Kilmon, and Pandey 2012; Liu
et al., 2010; Milošević et al. 2015; Shorfuzzaman et al.
2019; Salloum et al. 2019). This finding implies that to
effectively implement iLearning, university managers
may need to develop students’ interest in trying and
70 H.-Y. WU ET AL.
adopting iLearning. Our results further indicate that
altering the learning habits of students is crucial in
assisting managers with this task. Recent studies have
suggested that iLearning must be designed to provide
opportunities for students to frequently interact with
learning since an interactive design and application in
a digital and intelligent learning environment is ben-
eficial in changing students’ behaviour in specific ways
(e.g. Ibrahim, Halim, and Ibrahim 2012).
In general, among the 18 criteria, the accumulated
importance weight (0.538) of the top six criteria, i.e.
enhancing the learning performance, increasing the
learning participation, altering learning habits, ensuring
access at all times, enabling prompt usage of learning
resources, and increasing the learning efficiency, accounts
for more than half of the overall importance weight.
These results indicate that except for the criterion of
altering learning habits, which ranks third, all five of
the remaining criteria belong to the PE and CU dimen-
sions. This result is consistent with the finding of Milo-
šević et al. (2015), who have showed that, especially for
higher-level education, iLearning should be an integral
mode way of learning that provides prompt access to
learning resources to enhance the learning performance.
In higher education institutions, investments regarding
technologies and specialists in iLearning to enhance the
learning performance are a notable concern. The impor-
tance of iLearning design in changing students’ learning
habits and increasing learning participation should be
emphasised. The implication may be that university stu-
dents are no longer satisfied with traditional ways of
learning.
Interestingly, the LI dimension has a relatively low
impact on students’ iLearning. This result may be
explained by the fact that most students are older than
18 and have their own thoughts and opinions. The stu-
dents likely adopt iLearning because they perceive that
their learning performance is enhanced by iLearning
in addition to lectures. Notably, however, although
this dimension is the least important compared to the
others and corresponds to the lowest ranking criterion,
altering teaching methods, in practical applications, the
teaching methods of instructors/lecturers still influence
the students to a certain extent since students may not
proactively adopt this mode of learning without the
cooperation of instructors/lecturers. Therefore, instruc-
tors/lecturers should be encouraged to adopt new teach-
ing methods related to iLearning-related application
systems to facilitate the students’ use of iLearning.
Implementing this aspect through the CU dimension,
which ranks second and consists of both the fourth
and fifth highest ranking criteria (i.e. access at all
times and prompt usage of learning resources),
instructors/lecturers can successfully alter students’
learning habits, which is the third most important
criterion.
6. Research Limitations and future
recommendations
Although this study strived to be sufficiently rigorous,
it involves certain limitations. The recommendations
for future follow-up research are as follows. First,
because iLearning is still under development despite
its increased global application and technological
advancement, more dimensions and criteria may be
explored or developed in research and practice in the
immediate future. Therefore, we suggest that future
research should expand our framework by integrating
more relevant dimensions and criteria into the frame-
work for assessment. Through this aspect, the research
results can be rendered more practical and applicable.
Second, future research may be aimed at having stu-
dent respondents prioritise the dimensions and criteria
and compare the results with those obtained in this
study. It is likely that the viewpoints of senior educa-
tors and practitioners and those of students are not
identical. Since the primary users of iLearning plat-
forms are students, implementing iLearning in univer-
sities may be more effective and efficient if the critical
factors were identified by incorporating the opinions of
students.
Third, while prioritising the dimensions and criteria
for iLearning, we did not consider the interrelationships
between the dimensions and criteria in our framework.
A change in one factor may influence other factors. In
this regard, we suggest that future research should
adopt the analytic network process (ANP) for prioritisa-
tion. The ANP can more effectively address multicriteria
decision-making issues, such as those investigated in
this study, in which the dimensions and/or criteria
may be interdependent (Liao et al. 2018). Fourth, the
generalizability of this study may be enhanced. In this
study, due to limited resources and time, we focused
only on students and experts in Taiwan. Hence, future
research may diversify the respondents by studying stu-
dents and experts from different countries to enhance
the generalizability of our results. Fifth, the dimensions
and criteria used in this study may be consolidated by
using other techniques to determine the significance
among the dimensions and criteria, which may be
another avenue for future research before our study fra-
mework is retested. Finally, subsequent research may be
supplemented by case studies, interviews, and other
qualitative analyses to more clearly understand and
implement iLearning on campus.

7. Conclusion
Technology has significantly changed our way of life,
including the way in which individuals gain knowledge.
In recent years, students at many universities have
ceased relying on conventional ways of learning.
Instead, students have increasingly adopted iLearning
on campus. While the importance of iLearning has
been highlighted in research and practice, little is
known regarding the influence of factors derived from
iLearning on the students’ learning performance at a
university and the factors that must be focused on by
relevant management to enhance the effectiveness of
iLearning for students. Considering these aspects, we
initially proposed a framework encompassing four criti-
cal dimensions with 26 critical criteria based on an
extensive literature review. Moreover, by conducting
questionnaire surveys in two stages, we advanced the
framework and prioritised the critical dimensions and
criteria for iLearning. The research results may provide
university managers with valuable reference to not only
promote the use of iLearning on campus but also
enhance the effectiveness of iLearning for students.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Abbasy, M. B., and E. V. Quesada. 2017. “Predictable
Influence of IoT (Internet of Things) in the Higher
Education.” International Journal of Information and
Education Technology 7 (12): 914–920.
Abu-Al-Aish, A., and S. Love. 2013. “Factors Influencing
Students’ Acceptance of m-Learning: An Investigation in
Higher Education.” The International Review of Research
in Open and Distance Learning 14 (5): 86–111. doi:10.
19173/irrodl.v14i5.1631.
Abudayyeh, O., S. J. Zidan, S. Yehia, and D. Randolph. 2007.
“Hybrid Prequalification-Based, Innovative Contracting
Model Using AHP.” Journal of Management in
Engineering 23 (2): 88–96. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X
(2007)23:2(88).
Agarwal, R., and E. Karahanna. 2000. “Time Flies When
You’re Having fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs
About Information Technology Usage.” MIS Quarterly,
665–694. doi:10.2307/3250951.
Agarwal, R., and J. Prasad. 1998. “A Conceptual and
Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the
Domain of Information Technology.” Information
Systems Research 9 (2): 204–215. doi:10.1287/isre.9.2.204.
Aini, Q., I. Dhaniarti, and A. Khoirunisa. 2019. “Effects of
ILearning Media on Student Learning Motivation.” Aptisi
Transactions on Managemen 3 (1): 1–12.
Aini, Q., U. Rahardja, and T. Hariguna. 2019. “The
Antecedent of Perceived Value to Determine of Student
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 71
Continuance Intention and Student Participate Adoption
of ILearning.” Procedia Computer Science 161: 242–249.
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.120.
AjazMoharkan, Z., T. Choudhury, S. C. Gupta, and G. Raj.
2017, February. “Internet of Things and its Applications
in E-Learning.” In 2017 3rd International Conference on
computational intelligence & Communication
Technology (CICT) (pp. 1-5). IEEE. doi:10.1109/CIACT.
2017.7977333.
Akadiri, P. O., P. O. Olomolaiye, and E. A. Chinyio. 2013.
“Multi-criteria Evaluation Model for the Selection of
Sustainable Materials for Building Projects.” Automation
In Construction 30: 113–125. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2012.
10.004.
Al-Emran, M., I. Arpaci, and S. A. Salloum. 2020. “An
Empirical Examination of Continuous Intention to use
m-Learning: An Integrated Model.” Education and
Information Technologies 25 (4): 2899–2918. doi:10.1007/
s10639-019-10094-2.
Alam, T., and M. Aljohani. 2020. “M-Learning: Positioning
the Academics to the Smart Devices in the Connected
Future.” International Journal on Informatics
Visualization 4 (2): 76–79. doi:10.30630/joiv.4.2.347.
Ali, H. H., and S. F. Al Nsairat. 2009. “Developing a Green
Building Assessment Tool for Developing Countries–Case
of Jordan.” Building and Environment 44 (5): 1053–1064.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.015.
Almahri, F. A. J., D. Bell, and M. Merhi. 2020. “Understanding
Student Acceptance and Use of Chatbots in the United
Kingdom Universities: A Structural Equation Modelling
Approach.” In 2020 6th International Conference on
Information Management (ICIM) (pp. 284-288). IEEE.
doi:10.1109/ICIM49319.2020.244712.
Almaiah, M. A., and A. Al Mulhem. 2019. “Analysis of the
Essential Factors Affecting of Intention to use of Mobile
Learning Applications: A Comparison Between
Universities Adopters and non-Adopters.” Education and
Information Technologies 24 (2): 1433–1468. doi:10.1007/
s10639-018-9840-1.
Almaiah, M. A., and O. A. Alismaiel. 2019. “Examination of
Factors Influencing the use of Mobile Learning System: An
Empirical Study.” Education and Information Technologies
24 (1): 885–909. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-9810-7.
Alshurideh, M., B. Al Kurdi, S. A. Salloum, I. Arpaci, and M.
Al-Emran. 2020. “Predicting the Actual use of m-Learning
Systems: a Comparative Approach Using PLS-SEM and
Machine Learning Algorithms.” Interactive Learning
Environments, 1–15. doi:10.1080/10494820.2020.1826982.
Alshurideh, M., S. A. Salloum, B. Al Kurdi, A. A. Monem, and
K. Shaalan. 2019. “Understanding the Quality Determinants
That Influence the Intention to use the Mobile Learning
Platforms: A Practical Study.” International Journal of
Interactive Mobile Technologies 13 (11): 157–183.
Ameen, A., K. Alfalasi, N. A. Gazem, and O. Isaac. 2019,
December. “Impact of System Quality, Information
Quality, and Service Quality on Actual Usage of Smart
Government.” In 2019 first International Conference of
intelligent Computing and Engineering (ICOICE) (pp. 1-
6). IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICOICE48418.2019.9035144.
Araya, R., C. Aguirre, M. Bahamondez, P. Calfucura, and P.
Jaure. 2016, September. “Social Facilitation due to Online
Inter-Classrooms Tournaments.” In European Conference
72 H.-Y. WU ET AL.
on Technology Enhanced learning (pp. 16-29). Springer,
Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45153-4_2.
Aremu, B. V. 2019. “Availability and Utilization of M-
Learning Devices for Mathematics at the Universities in
Southwest, Nigeria.” FUOYE Journal of Education 2 (2).
Atif, Y., S. S. Mathew, and A. Lakas. 2015. “Building a Smart
Campus to Support Ubiquitous Learning.” Journal of
Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 6 (2):
223–238. doi:10.1007/s12652-014-0226-y.
Badwelan, A., S. Drew, and A. A. Bahaddad. 2016. “Towards
Acceptance m-Learning Approach in Higher Education
in Saudi Arabia.” International Journal of Business and
Management 11 (8): 12–30. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v11n8p12.
Bai, H. 2019. “Pedagogical Practices of Mobile Learning in K-
12 and Higher Education Settings.” TechTrends 63 (5):
611–620. doi:10.1007/s11528-019-00419-w.
Bhagat, R., and S. Sambargi. 2019. “Evaluation of Personal
Innovativeness and Perceived Expertise on Digital
Marketing Adoption by Women Entrepreneurs of Micro
and Small Enterprises.” International Journal of Research
and Analytical Reviews 6 (1): 338–351.
Bigne-Alcaniz, E., C. Ruiz-Mafé, J. Aldás-Manzano, and S.
Sanz-Blas. 2008. “Influence of Online Shopping
Information Dependency and Innovativeness on Internet
Shopping Adoption.” Online Information Review 32 (5):
648–667. doi:10.1108/14684520810914025.
Blasco-Arcas, L., I. Buil, B. Hernández-Ortega, and F. J. Sese.
2013. “Using Clickers in Class. The Role of Interactivity,
Active Collaborative Learning and Engagement in
Learning Performance.” Computers & Education 62: 102–
110. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.019.
Buabeng-Andoh, C. 2021. “Exploring University Students’
Intention to use Mobile Learning: A Research Model
Approach.” Education and Information Technologies 26
(1): 241–256. doi:10.1007/s10639-020-10267-4.
Cavus, N. 2020. “Evaluation of MobLrN m-Learning System:
Participants’ Attitudes and Opinions.” World Journal on
Educational Technology: Current Issues 12 (3): 150–164.
Celesti, A., D. Mulfari, A. Galletta, M. Fazio, L. Carnevale, and
M. Villari. 2019. “A Study on Container Virtualization for
Guarantee Quality of Service in Cloud-of-Things.” Future
Generation Computer Systems 99: 356–364. doi:10.1016/j.
future.2019.03.055.
Chaka, J. G., and I. Govender. 2017. “Students’ Perceptions
and Readiness Towards Mobile Learning in Colleges of
Education: A Nigerian Perspective.” South African
Journal of Education 37 (1): 1–12. doi:10.15700/saje.
v37n1a1282.
Chemosit, C. C. 2012. College Experiences and Student Inputs:
Factors That Promote the Development of Skills and
Attributes That Enhance Learning among College
Students. Ann Arbor: Illinois State University.
Chen, J. L. 2011. “The Effects of Education Compatibility and
Technological Expectancy on e-Learning Acceptance.”
Computers & Education 57 (2): 1501–1511. doi:10.1016/j.
compedu.2011.02.009.
Choi, Y., M. Choi, M. Oh, and S. Kim. 2020. “Service Robots
in Hotels: Understanding the Service Quality Perceptions
of Human-Robot Interaction.” Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 29 (6): 613–635. doi:10.1080/
19368623.2020.1703871.
Chou, S. W., and C. H. Liu. 2005. “Learning Effectiveness in a
Web-Based Virtual Learning Environment: a Learner
Control Perspective.” Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning 21 (1): 65–76. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.
00114.x.
Chou, J. S., A. D. Pham, and H. Wang. 2013. “Bidding Strategy
to Support Decision-Making by Integrating Fuzzy AHP
and Regression-Based Simulation.” Automation in
Construction 35: 517–527. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2013.06.
007.
Corbeil, J. R., and M. E. Valdes-Corbeil. 2007. “Are you Ready
for Mobile Learning?” Educause Quarterly 30 (2): 51.
Crompton, H., D. Burke, and K. H. Gregory. 2017. “The use of
Mobile Learning in PK-12 Education: A Systematic
Review.” Computers & Education 110: 51–63. doi:10.
1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013.
Darko, A., A. P. C. Chan, E. E. Ameyaw, E. K. Owusu, E. Pärn,
and D. J. Edwards. 2019. “Review of Application of Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) in Construction.” International
Journal of Construction Management 19 (5): 436–452.
doi:10.1080/15623599.2018.1452098.
Darmaji, D., D. Kurniawan, A. Astalini, A. Lumbantoruan,
and S. Samosir. 2019. “Mobile learning in higher education
for the industrial revolution 4.0: Perception and response of
physics practicum.” International Association of Online
Engineering. Retrieved March 14, 2021 from https://www.
learntechlib.org/p/216574/.
Do Nam Hung, J. T., S. F. Azam, and A. A. Khatibi. 2019. “An
Empirical Analysis of Perceived Transaction Convenience,
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Behavior
Intention to Mobile Payment of Cambodian Users.”
International Journal of Marketing Studies 11 (4): 77–90.
doi:10.5539/ijms.v11n4p77.
Ehsanpur, S., and M. R. Razavi. 2020. “A Comparative
Analysis of Learning, Retention, Learning and Study
Strategies in the Traditional and M-Learning Systems.”
European Review of Applied Psychology 70 (6): 100605.
doi:10.1016/j.erap.2020.100605.
El-Sayegh, S. M. 2009. “Multi-Criteria Decision Support
Model for Selecting the Appropriate Construction
Management at Risk Firm.” Construction Management
and Economics 27 (4): 385–398.
Fagan, M. H. 2019. “Factors Influencing Student Acceptance
of Mobile Learning in Higher Education.” Computers in
the Schools 36 (2): 105–121. doi:10.1080/07380569.2019.
1603051.
Fagan, M., C. Kilmon, and V. Pandey. 2012. “Exploring the
Adoption of a Virtual Reality Simulation: The Role of
Perceived Ease of use, Perceived Usefulness and
Personal Innovativeness.” Campus-Wide Information
Systems 29 (2): 117–127. doi:10.1108/
10650741211212368.
Fang, J., P. Shao, and G. Lan. 2009. “Effects of Innovativeness
and Trust on web Survey Participation.” Computers in
Human Behavior 25 (1): 144–152. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.
08.002.
Gonzalez, D. C. B., C. L. B. Gonzalez, and C. B. Huidobro.
2019. “Intelligent Learning Ecosystem in M-Learning
Systems.” In International Congress of telematics and com-
puting (pp. 213-229). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-
030-33229-7_19.

Handoko, B. L. 2019. “Technology Acceptance Model in
Higher Education Online Business.” Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education 22 (5): 1–9.
Hao, S., V. P. Dennen, and L. Mei. 2017. “Influential Factors
for Mobile Learning Acceptance among Chinese Users.”
Educational Technology Research and Development 65 (1):
101–123. doi:10.1007/s11423-016-9465-2.
Hassanzadeh, A., F. Kanaani, and S. Elahi. 2012. “A Model for
Measuring e-Learning Systems Success in Universities.”
Expert Systems with Applications 39 (12): 10959–10966.
doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028.
Hirsch, B., and J. W. P. Ng. 2011. “Education Beyond the
Cloud: Anytime-Anywhere Learning in a Smart Campus
Environment.” International Conference for Internet
Technology and secured transactions, Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates, 718-723.
Hsu, P. F., C. R. Wu, and Z. R. Li. 2008. “Optimizing
Resource-Based Allocation for Senior Citizen Housing to
Ensure a Competitive Advantage Using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process.” Building and Environment 43 (1): 90–
97. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.11.028.
Hung, S. Y., and C. M. Chang. 2005. “User Acceptance of wap
Services: Test of Competing Theories.” Computer
Standards & Interfaces 28: 359–370. doi:10.1016/j.csi.
2004.10.004.
Ibrahim, N., S. A. Halim, and N. Ibrahim. 2012. “The Design
of Persuasive Learning Pills for m-Learning Application to
Induce Enthusiastic Learning Habits among Learners.” In
2012 4th International Congress on Engineering education
(pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Ichaba, M., F. Musau, and S. Mwendia. 2020. “An Empirical
Approach to Mobile Learning on Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks (MANETs).” In 2020 IST-Africa Conference
(IST-Africa) (pp. 1-14). IEEE.
Iqbal, S., and I. A. Qureshi. 2012. “M-learning Adoption:
A Perspective from a Developing Country.” The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning 13 (3): 147–164. doi:10.19173/irrodl.v13i3.1152.
Irwin, C., L. Ball, B. Desbrow, and M. Leveritt. 2012. “Students’
Perceptions of Using Facebook as an Interactive Learning
Resource at University.” Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology 28: 7. doi:10.14742/ajet.798.
Izkair, A. S., M. M. Lakulu, and I. H. Mussa. 2020. “Intention
to Use Mobile Learning in Higher Education Institutions.”
International Journal of Education, Science, Technology,
and Engineering 3 (2): 78–84.
Johnson, L., Becker, S. A., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015).
NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Library Edition (pp. 1-54).
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Joo, Y. J., H. W. Lee, and Y. Ham. 2014. “Integrating User
Interface and Personal Innovativeness Into the TAM for
Mobile Learning in Cyber University.” Journal of
Computing in Higher Education 26 (2): 143–158. doi:10.
1007/s12528-014-9081-2.
Joseph, A. F., O. S. Sunday, S. Jarkko, and T. Markku. 2019.
“Smart Learning Environment for Computing Education:
Readiness for Implementation in Nigeria.” In EdMedia+
Innovate Learning, edited by J. Theo Bastiaens, 1382–
1391. Amsterdam: Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Kacetl, J., and B. Klímová. 2019. “Use of Smartphone
Applications in English Language Learning—A Challenge
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 73
for Foreign Language Education.” Education Sciences 9
(3): 179. doi:10.3390/educsci9030179.
Karimi, S. 2016. “Do Learners’ Characteristics Matter? An
Exploration of Mobile-Learning Adoption in Self-
Directed Learning.” Computers in Human Behavior 63:
769–776. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.014.
Kim, G. M., and S. M. Ong. 2005. “An Exploratory Study of
Factors Influencing m-Learning Success.” Journal of
Computer Information Systems 46 (1): 92–97.
Kim, K., S. Trimi, H. Park, and S. Rhee. 2012. “The Impact of
CMS Quality on the Outcomes of e-Learning Systems in
Higher Education: An Empirical Study.” Decision Sciences
Journal of Innovative Education 10 (4): 575–587. doi:10.
1111/j.1540-4609.2012.00360.x.
Kose, U., and O. Deperlioglu. 2012. Intelligent learning
environments within blended learning for ensuring effec-
tive C programming course. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1205.2670. doi:10.5121/ijaia.2012.3109.
Kuan, H. H., G. W. Bock, and V. Vathanophas. 2008.
“Comparing the Effects of Website Quality on Customer
Initial Purchase and Continued Purchase at e-Commerce
Websites.” Behaviour & Information Technology 27 (1):
3–16. doi:10.1080/01449290600801959.
Kumar, J. A., and B. Bervell. 2019. “Google Classroom for
Mobile Learning in Higher Education: Modelling the
Initial Perceptions of Students.” Education and
Information Technologies 24 (2): 1793–1817. doi:10.1007/
s10639-018-09858-z.
Kumar, B. A., and S. S. Chand. 2019. “Mobile Learning
Adoption: A Systematic Review.” Education and
Information Technologies 24 (1): 471–487. doi:10.1007/
s10639-018-9783-6.
Lassar, W. M., C. Manolis, and S. S. Lassar. 2005. “The
Relationship Between Consumer Innovativeness, Personal
Characteristics, and Online Banking Adoption.”
International Journal of Bank Marketing 23 (2): 176–199.
doi:10.1108/02652320510584403.
Latip, M. S. A., I. Noh, M. Tamrin, and S. N. N. A. Latip. 2020.
“Students’ Acceptance for e-Learning and the Effects of
Self-Efficacy in Malaysia.” International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences 10 (5):
658–674. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i5/7239.
Lee, Y. C. 2006. “An Empirical Investigation Into Factors
Influencing the Adoption of an e-Learning System.”
Online Information Review 30 (5): 517–541. doi:10.1108/
14684520610706406.
Lewis, W., R. Agarwal, and V. Sambamurthy. 2003. “Sources
of Influence on Beliefs About Information Technology
use: an Empirical Study of Knowledge Workers.” MIS
Quarterly 27: 657–678. doi:10.2307/30036552.
Li, X. 2020. “Students’ Acceptance of Mobile Learning: An
Empirical Study Based on Blackboard Mobile Learn.” In
Mobile Devices in Education: Breakthroughs in Research
and Practice, 354–373. IGI Global. doi:10.4018/978-1-
7998-1757-4.ch022.
Lian, J., and T. Lin. 2008. “Effects of Consumer
Characteristics on Their Acceptance of Online
Shopping: Comparisons among Different Product
Types.” Computers in Human Behavior 24 (1): 48–65.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.002.
Liao, H., X. Mi, Z. Xu, J. Xu, and F. Herrera. 2018.
“Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Network Process.” IEEE
74 H.-Y. WU ET AL.
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 26 (5): 2578–2590. doi:10.
1109/TFUZZ.2017.2788881.
Lim, C. P., and M. Khine. 2006. “Managing Teachers’ Barriers
to ICT Integration in Singapore Schools.” Journal of
Technology and Teacher Education 14 (1): 97–125.
Lin, X., and S. Su. 2020. “Chinese College Students’ Attitude
and Intention of Adopting Mobile Learning.” International
Journal of Education and Development Using Information
and Communication Technology 16 (2): 6–21.
Liu, Y., S. Han, and H. Li. 2010. “Understanding the Factors
Driving m-Learning Adoption: A Literature Review.”
Campus-Wide Information Systems 27 (4): 210–226.
doi:10.1108/10650741011073761.
Liu, Y., and H. Li. 2010. “Mobile Internet Diffusion in China: An
Empirical Study.” Industrial Management & Data Systems
110 (3): 309–324. doi:10.1108/02635571011030006.
Liu, Y., H. Li, and C. Carlsson. 2010. “Factors Driving the
Adoption of m-Learning: An Empirical Study.”
Computers & Education 55 (3): 1211–1219. doi:10.1016 /j.
compedu.2010.05.018.
Lowenthal, J. 2010. “Using Mobile Learning: Determinates
Impacting Behavioral Intention.” The American Journal of
Distance Education 24 (4): 195–206. doi:10.1080/
08923647.2010.519947.
Lowenthal, P. R. 2010. “The Evolution and Influence of Social
Presence Theory on Online Learning.” In Social computing:
Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 113–128.
IGI Global.
Lu, X., and D. Viehland. 2008. “Factors influencing the adop-
tion of mobile learning.” ACIS 2008 proceedings, 56.
Lu, J., J. E. Yao, and C. S. Yu. 2005. “Personal Innovativeness,
Social Influences and Adoption of Wireless Internet
Services via Mobile Technology.” Journal of Strategic
Information Systems 14 (3): 245–268. doi:10.1016/j.jsis.
2005.07.003.
Ma, H., Z. Zheng, F. Ye, and S. Tong. 2010, November. “The
Applied Research of Cloud Computing in the Construction
of Collaborative Learning Platform Under e-Learning
Environment.” In 2010 International Conference on
System science, Engineering design and manufacturing
informatization Vol. 1, (pp. 190-192). IEEE. doi:10.1109/
ICSEM.2010.58.
Macharis, C., J. Springael, K. De Brucker, and A. Verbeke. 2004.
“Promethee and AHP: The Design of Operational Synergies
in Multicriteria Analysis. Strengthening Promethee with
Ideas of AHP.” European Journal of Operational Research
153: 307–317. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00153-X.
Major, L., B. Haßler, and S. Hennessy. 2017. “Tablet use in
Schools: Impact, Affordances and Considerations.” In
Handbook on Digital Learning for K-12 Schools, 115–128.
Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33808-8_8.
Malik, S., M. Al-Emran, R. Mathew, R. Tawafak, and G.
AlFarsi. 2020. “Comparison of E-Learning, M-Learning
and Game-Based Learning in Programming Education–A
Gendered Analysis.” International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning 15 (15): 133–146.
Marquez, J., J. Villanueva, Z. Solarte, and A. Garcia. 2016.
“IoT in Education: Integration of Objects with Virtual
Academic Communities.” In New Advances in
Information Systems and Technologies, 201–212. Springer,
Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31232-3_19.
Matute-Vallejo, J., and I. Melero-Polo. 2019. “Understanding
Online Business Simulation Games: The Role of Flow
Experience, Perceived Enjoyment and Personal
Innovativeness.” Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology 35 (3): 71–85. doi:10.14742/ajet.3862.
McGarr, O. 2009. “A Review of Podcasting in Higher
Education: Its Influence on the Traditional Lecture.”
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25 (3),
doi:10.14742/ajet.1136.
McKinney, D., J. L. Dyck, and E. S. Luber. 2009. “iTunes
University and the Classroom: Can Podcasts Replace
Professors?” Computers & Education 52 (3): 617–623.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.004.
McLaughlin, J. E., L. M. Griffin, D. A. Esserman, C. A.
Davidson, D. M. Glatt, M. T. Roth, N. Gharkholonarehe,
and R. J. Mumper. 2013. “Pharmacy Student Engagement,
Performance, and Perception in a Flipped Satellite
Classroom.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical
Education 77 (9): 196. doi:10.5688/ajpe779196.
Miller, H. B., and J. A. Cuevas. 2017. “Mobile Learning and its
Effects on Academic Achievement and Student Motivation
in Middle Grades Students.” International Journal for the
Scholarship of Technology Enhanced Learning 1 (2): 91–110.
Millet, I., and W. C. Wedley. 2002. “Modelling Risk and
Uncertainty with the Analytic Hierarchy Process.” Journal
of Multi−Criteria Decision Analysis 11: 97–107.
Milošević, I., D. Živković, D. Manasijević, and D. Nikolić.
2015. “The Effects of the Intended Behavior of Students
in the use of M-Learning.” Computers in Human
Behavior 51: 207–215. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.041.
Mohammadi, H. 2015. “Investigating Users’ Perspectives on
e-Learning: An Integration of TAM and IS Success
Model.” Computers in Human Behavior 45: 359–374.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044.
Muhamad, W., N. B. Kurniawan, S. Suhardi, and S. Yazid.
2017. “Smart Campus Features, Technologies, and
Applications: A Systematic Literature Review.” 2017
International Conference on Information Technology
Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), 384-391. doi:10.1109/
ICITSI.2017.8267975.
Nassuora, A. B. 2012. “Students Acceptance of Mobile
Learning for Higher Education in Saudi Arabia.”
American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal 4 (2):
24–30.
Navlani, A. 2019. Introduction to Factor Analysis in Python.
Accessed in March 2021 at https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=
8&ved=2ahUKEwigg8W_pJ_vAhXBoFwKHXiXAtcQFjAA
egQIAxAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.datacamp.com%
2Fcommunity%2Ftutorials%2Fintroduction-factor-analysis
&usg=AOvVaw3BHduLbDErkH1EWARHRqyE.
Ng, J. W., N. Azarmi, M. Leida, F. Saffre, A. Afzal, and P. D.
Yoo. 2010. “The Intelligent Campus (ICampus): End-to-
end Learning Lifecycle of a Knowledge Ecosystem.” In
2010 sixth International Conference on intelligent environ-
ments (pp. 332-337). IEEE. doi:10.1109/IE.2010.68.
Nielit, S. G., and S. Thanuskodi. 2020. “E-discovery
Components of E-Teaching and M-Learning: An
Overview.” Mobile Devices in education: Breakthroughs
in research and practice, 928-936. doi:10.4018/978-1-
7998-1757-4.ch053.

Nik-Mohammadi, F., and Q. H. Barekat. 2015. “Evaluating the
Effect of Creating Smart Schools with Educational
Performance of Teachers at Elementary Schools in Dezful
City.” International Journal on New Trends in Education
and Literature 7 (1): 37–50.
Nyembe, B. Z. M., and G. R. Howard. 2019, August. “The
Utilities of Prominent Learning Theories for Mobile
Collaborative Learning (MCL) with Reference to
WhatsApp and m-Learning.” In 2019 International
Conference on Advances in Big data, Computing and
data Communication Systems (icABCD) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
doi:10.1109/ICABCD.2019.8851042.
Oh, S., X. Y. Lehto, and J. Park. 2009. “Travelers’ Intent to use
Mobile Technologies as a Function of Effort and
Performance Expectancy.” Journal of Hospitality
Marketing & Management 18 (8): 765–781. doi:10.1080/
19368620903235795.
Okai-Ugbaje, S., K. Ardzejewska, A. Imran, A. Yakubu, and
M. Yakubu. 2020. “Cloud-Based M-Learning: A
Pedagogical Tool to Manage Infrastructural Limitations
and Enhance Learning.” International Journal of
Education and Development Using Information and
Communication Technology 16 (2): 48–67.
Otieno, K. O. 2010. “Teaching/Learning Resources and
Academic Performance in Mathematics in Secondary
Schools in Bondo District of Kenya.” Asian Social Science
6 (12): 126.
Palalas, A., and N. Wark. 2020. “The Relationship Between
Mobile Learning and Self-Regulated Learning: A
Systematic Review.” Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology 36 (4): 151–172. doi:10.14742/ajet.5650.
Pan, W., A. R. Dainty, and A. G. Gibb. 2012. “Establishing and
Weighting Decision Criteria for Building System Selection
in Housing Construction.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 138 (11): 1239–1250.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000543.
Patil, P., K. Tamilmani, N. P. Rana, and V. Raghavan. 2020.
“Understanding Consumer Adoption of Mobile Payment
in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT Model with Personal
Innovativeness, Anxiety, Trust, and Grievance Redressal.”
International Journal of Information Management 54:
102144. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102144.
Purwanto, E., and J. Loisa. 2020. “The Intention and use
Behaviour of the Mobile Banking System in Indonesia:
UTAUT Model.” Technology Reports of Kansai University
62 (06): 2757–2767.
Rahman, M. M. 2020. “EFL Learners’ Perceptions About the
Use of Mobile Learning During COVID-19.” Journal of
Southwest Jiaotong University 55 (5): 1–7. doi:10.35741/
issn.0258-2724.55.5.10.
Rai, A., S. S. Lang, and R. B. Welker. 2002. “Assessing the
Validity of IS Success Models: An Empirical Test and
Theoretical Analysis.” Information Systems Research 13
(1): 50–69. doi:10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96.
Ramanathan, R. 2001. “A Note on the use of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process for Environmental Impact
Assessment.” Journal of Environmental Management 63:
27–35. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0455.
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The
Free Press.
Ross, R. J., and M. T. Grinder. 2002. “Hypertextbooks:
Animated, Active Learning, Comprehensive Teaching and
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 75
Learning Resources for the web.” In Software
Visualization, edited by S. Diehl, 269–283. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Rossing, J. P., W. M. Miller, A. K. Cecil, and S. E. Stamper.
2012. “iLearning: The Future of Higher Education?
Student Perceptions on Learning with Mobile Tablets.”
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 12
(2): 1–26.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. L., and L. G. Vargas. 2013. The Logic of Priorities:
Applications of Business, Energy, Health and
Transportation. New York: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Sabah, N. M. 2016. “Exploring Students’ Awareness and
Perceptions: Influencing Factors and Individual Differences
Driving m-Learning Adoption.” Computers in Human
Behavior 65: 522–533. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.009.
Salloum, S. A., M. Al-Emran, K. Shaalan, and A. Tarhini.
2019. “Factors Affecting the E-Learning Acceptance: A
Case Study from UAE.” Education and Information
Technologies 24 (1): 509–530. doi:10.1007/s10639-018-
9786-3.
Sekaran, K., M. S. Khan, R. Patan, A. H. Gandomi, P. V.
Krishna, and S. Kallam. 2019. “Improving the Response
Time of m-Learning and Cloud Computing Environments
Using a Dominant Firefly Approach.” IEEE Access 7:
30203–30212. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2896253.
Senaratne, S. I., S. M. Samarasinghe, and G. Jayewardenepura.
2019. “Factors Affecting the Intention to Adopt m-
Learning.” International Business Research 12 (2): 150–
164. doi:10.5539/ibr.v12n2p150.
Seralidou, E., C. Douligeris, and C. Gralista. 2019. “EduApp: A
Collaborative Application for Mobile Devices to Support
the Educational Process in Greek Secondary Education.”
In 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference
(EDUCON) (pp. 189-198). IEEE. doi:10.1109/EDUCON.
2019.8725175.
Shorfuzzaman, M., M. S. Hossain, A. Nazir, G. Muhammad,
and A. Alamri. 2019. “Harnessing the Power of big Data
Analytics in the Cloud to Support Learning Analytics in
Mobile Learning Environment.” Computers in Human
Behavior 92: 578–588. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.002.
Shukla, S. 2021. “M-learning Adoption of Management
Students’: A Case of India.” Education and Information
Technologies 26 (1): 279–310.
Sidik, D., and F. Syafar. 2020. “Exploring the Factors
Influencing Student’s Intention to use Mobile Learning in
Indonesia Higher Education.” Education and Information
Technologies 25 (6): 4781–4796. doi:10.1007/s10639-020-
10271-8.
Summers, J. J., A. Waigandt, and T. A. Whittaker. 2005. “A
Comparison of Student Achievement and Satisfaction in
an Online Versus a Traditional Face-to-Face Statistics
Class.” Innovative Higher Education 29 (3): 233–250.
doi:10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x.
Sung, H., D. Jeong, Y. S. Jeong, and J. I. Shin. 2015. “The
Relationship among Self-Efficacy, Social Influence,
Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and
Behavioral Intention in Mobile Learning Service.”
International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and
Technology 8 (9): 197–206. doi:10.14257/ijunesst.2015.8.9.21.
76 H.-Y. WU ET AL.
Swanson, J. A. 2020. “Assessing the Effectiveness of the use of
Mobile Technology in a Collegiate Course: A Case Study in
M-Learning.” Technology, Knowledge and Learning 25 (2):
389–408. doi:10.1007/s10758-018-9372-1.
Tavares, R. M., J. L. Tavares, and S. L. Parry-Jones. 2008. “The
use of a Mathematical Multicriteria Decision-Making
Model for Selecting the Fire Origin Room.” Building and
Environment 43 (12): 2090–2100. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.
2007.12.010.
Thomas, B. J., and J. Hajiyev. 2020. “The Direct and Indirect
Effects of Personality on Data Breach in Education
Through the Task-Related Compulsive Technology use:
M-Learning Perspective.” International Journal of
Computing and Digital Systems 9 (03): 459–469. doi:10.
12785/ijcds/090310.
Thongsri, N., L. Shen, and Y. Bao. 2019. “Investigating Factors
Affecting Learner’s Perception Toward Online Learning:
Evidence from ClassStart Application in Thailand.”
Behaviour & Information Technology 38 (12): 1243–1258.
doi:10.1080/0144929X.2019.1581259.
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical
Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four
Longitudinal Field Studies.” Management Science 46 (2):
186–204.
Venkatesh, V., and M. G. Morris. 2000. “Why Don’t men Ever
Stop to ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influences, and
Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage
Behavior.” MIS Quarterly 24 (1): 115–139. doi:10.2307/
3250981.
Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, and P. L. Ackerman. 2000. “A
Longitudinal Field Investigation of Gender Differences in
Individual Technology Adoption Decision Making
Processes.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 83 (1): 33–60. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2896.
Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis.
2003. “User Acceptance of Information Technology:
Toward a Unified View.” MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425–478.
doi:10.2307/30036540.
Vermunt, J. D. 2005. “Relations Between Student Learning
Patterns and Personal and Contextual Factors and
Academic Performance.” Higher Education 49 (3): 205–
234. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-6664-2.
Vrana, R. 2018. “Acceptance of Mobile Technologies and m-
Learning in Higher Education Learning: An Explorative
Study at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Science. at
the University of Zagreb.” 2018 41st International conven-
tion on Information and Communication Technology,
electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO), 738-743.
doi:10.23919/MIPRO.2018.8400137.
Wang, C. Y., S. C. T. Chou, and H. C. Chang. 2010. Exploring
an Individual’s intention to use blogs: The roles of social,
motivational and individual factors. In PACIS (p. 161).
Wang, H., D. Tao, N. Yu, and X. Qu. 2020. “Understanding
Consumer Acceptance of Healthcare Wearable Devices:
An Integrated Model of UTAUT and TTF.” International
Journal of Medical Informatics 139: 104156. doi:10.1016/j.
ijmedinf.2020.104156.
Wang, Y., M. Wu, and H. Wang. 2009. “Investigating the
Determinants and age and Gender Differences in the
Acceptance of Mobile Learning.” British Journal of
Educational Technology 40 (1): 92–118. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8535.2007.00809.x.
Wu, H. Y., H. S. Wu, and Y. P. Su. 2019, June. “Exploring the
Critical Factors Affecting College Students’ Intelligent
Learning.” In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning, edited by J.
Theo Bastiaens, 806–817. Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Association for the Advancement of Computing in
Education (AACE).
Yarmatov, R., and M. Ahmedova. 2020. “The Formation of
Positive Motivation through Intellectual Games in
Teaching English in Continuous Education.” Архив
Научных Публикаций JSPI, 1-7.
Yi, M. Y., J. D. Jackson, J. S. Park, and J. C. Probst. 2006.
“Understanding Information Technology Acceptance by
Individual Professionals: Toward an Integrative View.”
Information & Management 43 (3): 350–363. doi:10.1016/
j.im.2005.08.006.
Zahir, S. 1999. “Clusters in Group: Decision Making in the
Vector Space Formulation of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process.” European Journal of Operational Research 112:
620–634. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00021-6.
Zakariaa, M. I., S. M. Maatb, and F. Khalidc. 2019. “A
Systematic Review of M-Learning in Formal Education.”
People 7 (11): 1–24.