Mobile learning is one of the pivotal advances in the 21st century education. However, other than its performance and function, its acceptance by the students is a very important factor in successful implementation of mobile learning. The present study was an attempt to determine the effective factors in acceptance of m-learning and determine the type of relationship among the factors in the undergraduate healthcare professional students based on technology acceptance model (TAM). This survey study was carried out as a descriptive-analytical work. A total of 310 students in Saveh University of Medical Sciences in Iran were selected in 2018. Data gathering tool was a researcher designed questionnaire designed based on technology acceptance model of which validity and reliability were supported beforehand. Data analyses were carried out through structural equation modeling and confirmatory path analysis in LISREL. The mean score of all variables (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude and intention to use, and actual use) except the external factors were higher than base mean score (m ≥ 3), which indicates good acceptance of mobile learning among the students. The lowest mean score was obtained by teacher’s support of using mobile for learning purposes (an external factor). There was a significant correlation among the external factors, perceived usefulness, attitude and intention to use, and actual use (p < 0.05).The results supported effectiveness of the constructs of technology acceptance method and its ability to predict acceptance of mobile learning. TAM factors were significant determinants of mobile learning acceptance.
Khanh. FACTORS INFLUENCING MOBILE-LEARNING ADOPTION INTENTION: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION IN HIGH EDUCATION. Journal of Social Sciences. 2014;10(2):51–62.
2.
Rahimi B, Nadri H, Lotfnezhad Afshar H, Timpka T. A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model in Health Informatics. Applied Clinical Informatics. 2018;09(03):604–34.
3.
Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science. 1989;35(8):982–1003.
4.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2015.
5.
Mehdipour Y, Khammarnia M, Karimi A. Effective Factors in Acceptance of Mobile Health from Physicians’ Point of View. J Mod Med Info Sci. 2017;3(1):32–9.
6.
Ashktorab T, Baghcheghi N, Seyedfatemi N, et al. Psychometric parameters of the Persian version of the Brief COPE among wives of patients under hemodialysis. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic Of Iran. 31(1):113–8.
7.
Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling With Lisrel, Prelis, and Simplis.
8.
Briz-Ponce L, Pereira A, Carvalho L, Juanes-Méndez JA, García-Peñalvo FJ. Learning with mobile technologies – Students’ behavior. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;72:612–20.
9.
Adedoja G, Adelore O, Egbokhare F, Oluleye A. Learners’ acceptance of the use of mobile phones to deliver tutorials in a distance learning context: A case study at the University of Ibadan. AJIS. 2013;5(3).
10.
Joo YJ, Kim N, Kim NH. Factors predicting online university students’ use of a mobile learning management system (m-LMS). Educational Technology Research and Development. 2016;64(4):611–30.
11.
Al-Adwan A, Al-Adwan A, Smedley J. Exploring students acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. Int J Educ Dev Using Inf Commun Technol. 2013;9(2).
12.
Beland LP, Murphy R. Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance. Labour Economics. 2016;41:61–76.
13.
Dahlstrom E, Walker J, Dziuban C. ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. 2013.
14.
McCoy BR. Digital distractions in the classroom phase II: Student classroom use of digital devices for non-class related purposes. JoME. 2016;7(1):5–32.
15.
Koohestani HR, Soltani Arabshahi SK, Ahmadi F. The Paradox of Acceptance and Rejection: the Perception of Healthcare Professional Students about Mobile Learning Acceptance in Iran University of Medical Sciences. Qualitative Research in Education. 7(2):144.
16.
Koohestani HR, Baghcheghi N. The effects of team-based learning techniques on nursing students’ perception of the psycho-social climate of the classroom. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016;30(437).
17.
Nejat N, Kouhestani H, Rezaei K. Effect of Concept Mapping on Approach to Learning among Nursing Students. Hayat. 2011;17(2).
18.
Patil RN. Attitudes and Perceptions of Medical Undergraduates Towards Mobile Learning (M-learning). JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH.
19.
Xiao Q, Zhang Q, Wang L. Mobile Learning in Nursing Undergraduates in China: Current Status, Attitudes and Barriers. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245(1314).
20.
Sohrabi Z, Koohestani HR, Baghcheghi N, Delavari S, Rezaei Shahsavarloo Z. The effects of group blogging on the attitude towards virtual education in nursing students. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 31(1):877–81.
21.
van Schaik S, Plant J, O’Sullivan P. Promoting self-directed learning through portfolios in undergraduate medical education: The mentors’ perspective. Medical Teacher. 2013;35(2):139–44.
22.
Koohestani HR, Soltani Arabshahi SK, Ahmadi F, Baghcheghi N. The Experiences of Healthcare Professional Students about the Educational Impacts of Mobile Learning. The Qualitative Report.
23.
Al-Jundi W, Kayssi A, Papia G, Dueck A. Smart(phone) Learning Experience Among Vascular Trainees Using a Response System Application. Journal of Surgical Education. 2017;74(4):638–43.
24.
Barzegar R. From Electronic Learning To Mobile Learning: Theoretical Principles MEDIA. 2012;3(2):35–41.
25.
Iqbal S, Qureshi IA. M-learning adoption: A perspective from a developing country. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 13(3):147.
26.
Koohestani HR, Karimy M, Hemmat M, Shamsizadeh M. Lived experiences of nursing students about ethical concerns regarding mobile learning in educational and clinical contexts. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine.
27.
Lee LA, Wang SL, Chao YP, Tsai MS, Hsin LJ, Kang CJ, et al. Mobile Technology in E-Learning for Undergraduate Medical Education on Emergent Otorhinolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Disorders: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. JMIR Medical Education. 4(1):e8.
28.
Koohestani HR, Soltani Arabshahi SK, Fata L, Ahmadi F. The educational effects of mobile learning on students of medical sciences: A systematic review in experimental studies. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2018;6(2):58–69.
29.
Liu R, Wang F, Yen H, Sun P, Yang C. A new mobile learning module using smartphone wallpapers in identification of medical fungi for medical students and residents. International Journal of Dermatology. 2018;57(4):458–62.
30.
Golenhofen N, Heindl F, Grab‐Kroll C, Messerer DAC, Böckers TM, Böckers A. The Use of a Mobile Learning Tool by Medical Students in Undergraduate Anatomy and its Effects on Assessment Outcomes. Anatomical Sciences Education. 2020;13(1):8–18.
31.
Dent J, Harden RM. A practical guide for medical teachers. 2013.
Masika MM, Omondi GB, Natembeya DS, Mugane EM, Bosire KO, Kibwage IO. Use of mobile learning technology among final year medical students in Kenya. Pan African Medical Journal. 21.
34.
Johansson PE, Petersson GI, Nilsson GC. Nursing students’ experience of using a personal digital assistant (PDA) in clinical practice — An intervention study. Nurse Education Today. 2013;33(10):1246–51.
35.
Johansson P, Petersson G, Saveman BI, Nilsson G. Experience of Mobile Devices in Nursing Practice. Nordic Journal of Nursing Research. 2012;32(4):50–4.
36.
Mather C, Cummings E, Allen P. Nurses’ Use of Mobile Devices to Access Information in Health Care Environments in Australia: A Survey of Undergraduate Students. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2(4):e56.
37.
Sheikhtaheri A, Hashemi N, Hashemi NA. Benefits of Using Mobile Technologies in Education from the Viewpoints of Medical and Nursing Students. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2018;251:289–92.
38.
Mohamadirizi S, Yazdannik A, Dsatjerdi E. Utilizing mobile health method to emergency nurses’ knowledge about Emergency Severity Index triage. Journal of Education and Health Promotion. 2018;7(1):10.
39.
Marco LD, Venot A, Gillois P. Does the acceptance of hybrid learning affect learning approaches in France? Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. 14:24.
40.
Curran V, Fleet L, Simmons K, Lannon H, Gustafson DL, Wang C, et al. Adoption and Use of Mobile Learning in Continuing Professional Development by Health and Human Services Professionals. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. 2019;39(2):76–85.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
