Toward better intelligent learning (iLearning) performance: what makes iLearning work for students in a university setting?

Figures & data

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

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

Notes: 1. ⁺: C6 was deleted after the pretest analysis; 2. *: A1, A6, C3, C4, C11, C12, and D2 were deleted after factor analysis.

Figure 1. Research procedure and strategy.

Table 2. Profiles of the respondents in the first-stage surveys.

Characteristic	Category	Pilot Study Frequency (%)	Actual Study Frequency (%)
Gender	Male	22 (44)	140 (39)
	Female	28 (56)	215 (61)
College	Engineering	7 (14)	28 (8)
	Literature	9 (18)	54 (15)
	Medicine	3 (6)	43 (12)
	Agriculture	2 (4)	35 (10)
	Business & Management	23 (46)	148 (42)
	Education	3 (6)	6 (2)
	Law	-	32 (9)
	Science	-	9 (2)
	Other	3 (6)	-
Frequency of using iLearning on campus per week	Less than 1 h	25 (50)	155 (44)
	1–5 h	15 (30)	161 (45)
	5–15 h	4 (8)	29 (8)
	More than 15 h	6 (12)	10 (3)
Frequency of using the Internet to study per week	Less than 1 h	25 (50)	98 (28)
	1–5 h	15 (30)	170 (48)
	5–15 h	4 (8)	65 (18)
	More than 15 h	6 (12)	22 (6)

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	⩽ 3 y
	Instructor	Computer company	5–10 y
	Engineer	International company	⩽ 3 y
	Sales representative	International company	5–10 y
	Sales representative	International company	⩽ 3 y
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

Figure 2. Hierarchical structure of the critical factors for iLearning.

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

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

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.

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Aini, Q., U. Rahardja, and T. Hariguna. 2019. “The Antecedent of Perceived Value to Determine of Student Continuance Intention and Student Participate Adoption of ILearning.” Procedia Computer Science 161: 242–249. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.120.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shukla, S. 2021. “M-learning Adoption of Management Students’: A Case of India.” Education and Information Technologies 26 (1): 279–310.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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/.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Aini, Q., I. Dhaniarti, and A. Khoirunisa. 2019. “Effects of ILearning Media on Student Learning Motivation.” Aptisi Transactions on Managemen 3 (1): 1–12.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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 convention on Information and Communication Technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO), 738-743. doi:10.23919/MIPRO.2018.8400137.

 Google Scholar

Kacetl, J., and B. Klímová. 2019. “Use of Smartphone Applications in English Language Learning—A Challenge for Foreign Language Education.” Education Sciences 9 (3): 179. doi:10.3390/educsci9030179.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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).

 Google Scholar

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).

 Google Scholar

Kose, U., and O. Deperlioglu. 2012. Intelligent learning environments within blended learning for ensuring effective C programming course. arXiv preprint arXiv:1205.2670. doi:10.5121/ijaia.2012.3109.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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 environments (pp. 332-337). IEEE. doi:10.1109/IE.2010.68.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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 computing (pp. 213-229). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33229-7_19.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

Zakariaa, M. I., S. M. Maatb, and F. Khalidc. 2019. “A Systematic Review of M-Learning in Formal Education.” People 7 (11): 1–24.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cavus, N. 2020. “Evaluation of MobLrN m-Learning System: Participants’ Attitudes and Opinions.” World Journal on Educational Technology: Current Issues 12 (3): 150–164.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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.

 Google Scholar

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).

 Google Scholar