Al Emran2018

Accepted Manuscript
Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning context: A systematic review
Mostafa Al-Emran, Vitaliy Mezhuyev, Adzhar Kamaludin
PII: S0360-1315(18)30151-9
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.008
Reference: CAE 3372
To appear in: Computers & Education
Received Date: 26 August 2017

Revised Date: 6 June 2018
Accepted Date: 8 June 2018
Please cite this article as: Al-Emran M., Mezhuyev V. & Kamaludin A., Technology Acceptance
Model in M-learning context: A systematic review, Computers & Education (2018), doi: 10.1016/
j.compedu.2018.06.008.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning Context: A Systematic Review
Mostafa Al-Emran (Corresponding Author)

Faculty of Computer Systems and Software Engineering,
Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
Malaysia
PT
malemran@buc.edu.om
Vitaliy Mezhuyev
RI
SC
Malaysia
vitaliy@ump.edu.my
U
Adzhar Kamaludin
AN
Malaysia
adzhar@ump.edu.my
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning Context: A Systematic

Review
Abstract
Various review studies were conducted to provide valuable insights into the current
PT
research trend of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Nevertheless, this issue still
needs to be investigated from further directions. It has been noticed that research
overlooks the investigation of TAM with regard to Mobile learning (M-learning) studies
RI
from the standpoint of different perspectives. The present study systematically reviews
and synthesizes the TAM studies related to M-learning aiming to provide a
comprehensive analysis of 87 research articles from 2006 to 2018. The main findings
SC
include that most of the TAM studies involving M-learning focused on extending the
TAM with external variables, followed by the studies that extended the model by factors
from other theories/models. In addition, the main research problem that was frequently
U
tackled among all the analyzed studies was to examine the acceptance of M-learning
among students. Moreover, questionnaire surveys were the primarily relied research
AN
methods for data collection. Additionally, most of the analyzed studies were undertaken
in Taiwan, this is followed by Spain, China, and Malaysia, respectively among the other
countries. Besides, most of the analyzed studies were frequently conducted in humanities
M
and educational context, followed by IT and computer science context, respectively

among the other contexts. Most of the analyzed studies were carried out in the higher
educational settings. To that end, the findings of this review study provide an insight into
D
the current trend of TAM research involving M-learning studies and form an essential
reference for scholars in the M-learning context.
TE
Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model; Mobile Learning; Systematic Literature

Review.
EP
1. Introduction
Mobile learning (M-learning) has become an attractive trend such that many researchers
C
are willing to investigate its features and to examine its acceptance by learners and
educators. Empirical evidence indicates that M-learning can support students in learning
AC
across many subjects, including education (Y. Liu, Li, & Carlsson, 2010), business (K
Mac Callum & Jeffrey, 2013), and information technology (Hamidi & Chavoshi, 2017).
With the increase in the affordances offered by M-learning systems, there has been a
growing interest in examining the purpose of M-learning in education at one hand
(Laurillard, 2007) and the factors that affect its acceptance on the other hand (Al-Emran,
Mezhuyev, & Kamaludin, 2018b; Althunibat, 2015).
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
The implementation of any Information System (IS) is costly in addition to the required
time and efforts for its deployment. IS scholars are always striving to identify the factors
that affect the acceptance of any system in order to ensure its successfulness. Those
factors are usually banded together in one model for efficiently analyzing the usage and
acceptance of such systems. Many IS models were evolved for accomplishing this aim.
One of such models is the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that was developed by
PT
(Davis, 1989). According to (King & He, 2006), it is reported that due to adaptability,
simplicity, and soundness of TAM, it became one of the most commonly used models for
measuring the IS acceptance so far. In terms of M-learning, TAM has witnessed a lot of
RI
modifications and enhancements which in turn contribute to enhance the M-learning
acceptance.
SC
The growing body of research has concentrated on various perspectives with regard to the
TAM development. Several review studies were carried out to provide a substantial
understanding of the TAM (King & He, 2006; Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003;
U
Marangunić & Granić, 2015; Mortenson & Vidgen, 2016). We believe that each of those
reviews affords a constructive synthesis of TAM, but further investigation is required
AN
based on various research perspectives. The existing literature reviews overlooked the
investigation of TAM with regard to M-learning studies in general, and to classify those
studies from the standpoint of research purpose, research methods, country distribution,
M
disciplines/contexts, educational levels, and TAM studies distribution across their year of
publication in specific.
D
The present systematic literature review finds out that those issues are highly important to
understand the research trend of TAM with reference to M-learning studies. Moreover,
TE
due to the reason that research indicated that the determinants of M-learning acceptance
are still not clear and one of the ongoing and critical issues by IS scholars (Almaiah, Jalil,
& Man, 2016; Althunibat, 2015; Y. Huang, 2014; Mohammadi, 2015), this study tries to
EP
analyse the collected studies by shedding the light on the factors that affect the
acceptance of M-learning systems. Understanding the factors that influence the M-
learning acceptance in the collected studies will assist the M-learning researchers to plan
C
forward to investigate the impact of other factors that were missed in the existing body of
literature. Overall, this study systematically reviews and synthesizes the TAM studies
AC
related to M-learning in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the collected

studies. More specifically, this review study poses the following six research questions:
RQ1: What are the main research purposes of the selected studies?
RQ2: What are the main research methods of the selected studies?
RQ3: What are the active countries in the context of the selected studies?
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RQ4: What are the main disciplines/contexts of the selected studies?
RQ5: What are the main educational levels of the selected studies?
RQ6: In terms of TAM progress, how the M-learning studies are distributed across their
year of publication?
PT
2. Literature Review
Mobile services could serve as effective learning gadgets through the third generation
RI
(3G) technology (J. Huang, Lin, & Chuang, 2007). Besides, (Al-Emran, Elsherif, &
Shaalan, 2016) stated that with the existence of internet and technology evolvement, M-
learning facilitates the learning process, sharing of ideas, and allows collaboration among
SC
the learners. (Kukulska-Hulme, 2005) defined M-learning as the learning that is involved
with the mobility of the learner where s/he can be engaged in the learning process
without any restrictions to time and location.
U
The acceptance and use of an IS by its end users is the only way that the system will
AN
reach its successfulness. Understanding the acceptance of M-learning by students and
faculties is a prior step to the successful delivery of the academic and instructional
knowledge (Y. Huang, 2014). Moreover, the investment in any new technology is
M
expensive and requires a lot of time and efforts (Birch & Burnett, 2009; Traxler,
Attewell, & Savill-Smith, 2004). The resistance of new technology by students and
educators will raise the institution loss of efforts, time, and cost that the institution paid
D
for the technology implementation, which in turn, leads to the failure of gaining the
benefits of that technology (Birch & Burnett, 2009; Davis, 1989; Davis & Venkatesh,
TE
1996; Verhoeven, Heerwegh, & De Wit, 2010). Accordingly, it is crucial for the
educational institutions to understand the factors that affect the students’ acceptance of a
particular IS as a prior step before investing a lot of funds for developing or purchasing
EP
such systems. Higher educational institutions stakeholders need to understand the

students’ actual use of M-learning and the factors that leverage their utilization and
acceptance in order to plan forward for the development and implementation of M-
C
learning systems (Abu-Al-Aish, 2014; Akour, 2011; Donaldson, 2010; Y. Huang, 2014).
AC
Many IS theories/models were evolved for understanding the ISs acceptance. Such
theories may include "Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)" (Davis, 1989),
"Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT)" (Rogers, 1983), and "The Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)" (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis,
2003). Among all these theories/models, (King & He, 2006) reported, that due to
adaptability, simplicity, and soundness of TAM (Figure 1), it became one of the most
commonly used models for measuring the IS acceptance so far.
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PT
RI
Figure 1. TAM model (Davis, Fred D.Bagozzi, Richard P.Warshaw, 1989).
Various reviews were conducted during the last years, each contributing crucial
SC
information for researchers to well understand the TAM and its usage with different ISs.
(Legris et al., 2003) conducted a critical review on TAM aiming to provide a critical
analysis of the main methods, address the results convergence, and to find out the TAM
U
added value in predicting the system usage for IS studies that were published between
1980 and 2001. (Legris et al., 2003) concluded that TAM is a useful model; however,
AN
more variables need to be added for extending the model value. Besides, (King & He,
2006) conducted a meta-analysis of TAM aiming to provide a sufficient and credible
information for IS scholars for 88 published articles between 1998 and 2003. Moreover,
M
(Marangunić & Granić, 2015) conducted another review on TAM attempting to provide a
well-researched source of the model and to suggest possible implications for further
research through the review of 85 published articles between 1986 and 2003.
D
Furthermore, (Mortenson & Vidgen, 2016) conducted a computational literature review

TE
about TAM to automate the analysis of research articles abstracts. (Mortenson & Vidgen,
2016) attempted to analyze the research articles in terms of the research domain, journals’
ranking, individual researchers’ ranking, and research teams ranking.
EP
The previous reviews provided an important research synthesis on TAM through the
analysis of various IS research articles. It has been observed that research has overlooked
the review of TAM model in the context of M-learning. That is the reason that motivated
C
us to conduct this systematic literature review. This review study attempts to add value to
the existing reviews by including an up-to-date synthesis of M-learning research articles
AC
that were mainly based on TAM.

3. Method
A rigorous literature review is an essential step before carrying out any research study. It
builds the foundation for knowledge accumulation, which in turn facilitates the theories’
expansions and improvements, closes gaps existing in research, and uncovers areas where
previous research has missed (Marangunić & Granić, 2015). The procedure of this review
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
study was carried out based on the established guidelines for conducting a systematic
review (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007), and based on the systematic reviews conducted
in the context of M-learning (Sung, Chang, & Liu, 2016; Wu et al., 2012). In that, the
review was undertaken in distinct stages: the identification of inclusion and exclusion
criteria, data sources and search strategies, quality assessment, and data coding and
analysis. The details of these stages are described in the following sub-sections.
PT
3.1 Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
The articles that will be critically analyzed in this review study should meet the inclusion
RI
and exclusion criteria described in Table 1.
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
SC
Should involve TAM and Mobile TAM that is not used with Mobile Learning.
learning.
Should involve learning or teaching. TAM that is used in contexts other than
U
learning.
Should be written in English language. TAM that is used in contexts with learning in
AN
general, but does not Mobile learning.
Should be published between 2006 and Papers that use languages other than English.
2018.
Table 1: Inclusion and exclusion criteria for mobile learning and TAM studies.
M
3.2 Data sources and search strategies

D
The studies included in this systematic literature review were collected through a broad
search of available studies in May 2018 through the following databases: ACM Digital
TE
Library, ScienceDirect, Emerald, Wiley, Springer, IEEE, and Google Scholar. The search
terms include the keywords (“Technology Acceptance Model” AND “Mobile Learning”)
and (“TAM” AND “Mobile Learning”). Our search results found 922 articles using the
EP
aforementioned keywords. We filtered out 123 articles that we found as duplicated. Thus,
the total number of the collected papers becomes 799 and their distribution according to
databases they belong to is presented in Table 2. For each study, the researchers
C
confirmed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 87 research articles met the
inclusion criteria and have been used in the analysis process. Figure 2 illustrates the
AC
systematic review process and the number of articles determined at each stage.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Database Frequency
IEEE 83
Emerald 132
ACM Digital Library 132
ScienceDirect 238
Springer 86
Wiley 44
PT
Google Scholar 84
Total 799
Table 2: Total number of articles after removing the duplicates.
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
Figure 2. Systematic review process.

EP
3.3 Quality Assessment
The quality assessment of the selected articles is another factor that can be used along
C
with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A quality assessment checklist with 9 criteria
AC
was identified to provide a means for evaluating the quality of the studies that were
retained for further analysis (N=87). The checklist was not meant to be a form of
criticism of any scholars’ work (Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). The quality assessment
checklist is demonstrated in Table 3. The checklist was adapted from those proposed by
(Kitchenham & Charters, 2007). Each question was scored according to the three-point
scale, with a “Yes” being worth 1 point, “No” being worth 0 point, and “Partially” being
worth 0.5 point. Thus, each study could score between 0 and 9, with the higher the total
score a study attains, the higher the degree to which this study addresses the research
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
questions. Table 4 shows the quality assessment results for all the 87 studies. In that, it is
obvious that all the studies have passed the quality assessment, which in turn, indicates
that all the studies are qualified to be used for further analysis.
# Question
1 Are the research aims clearly specified?
PT
2 Was the study designed to achieve these aims?
3 Are the variables considered by the study clearly specified?
4 Is the study context/discipline clearly specified?
RI
5 Are the data collection methods adequately detailed?
6 Does the study explain the reliability/validity of the measures?
7 Are the statistical techniques used to analyze the data adequately described?
SC
8 Do the results add to the literature?
9 Does the study add to your knowledge or understanding?
Table 3: Quality assessment checklist.
Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5
UQ6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Total Percentage
AN
S1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S2 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 5 56%
S3 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 6 67%
S4 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 6 67%
M
S5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%

S6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S8 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 6 67%
D
S9 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 5.5 61%

S10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
TE
S11 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 7.5 83%

S12 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0 6 67%
S13 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 8.5 94%
S14 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8 89%
EP
S15 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 7 78%

S16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S18 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
C
S19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%

S20 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%
S21 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 7.5 83%
AC
S22 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 6 67%

S23 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%
S24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 7.5 83%
S26 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 5 56%
S27 1 0.5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0.5 5 56%
S28 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7.5 83%
S29 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 8 89%
S30 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%
S31 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 8 89%
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
S32 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S33 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S34 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 6.5 72%
S35 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4.5 50%
S36 1 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 0.5 0 5 56%
S37 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 5.5 61%
S38 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S39 1 0 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 5.5 61%
PT
S40 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 6.5 72%
S41 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%
S42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S43 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 7.5 83%
RI
S44 1 0.5 1 0 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 5.5 61%
S45 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 7.5 83%
S46 1 0.5 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4.5 50%
SC
S47 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 6 67%
S48 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 6 67%
S49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
U
S51 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 5 56%
S52 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S53 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
AN
S54 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%
S55 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S56 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 6.5 72%
S57 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
M
S58 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S59 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 8 89%
S60 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
D
S61 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 6.5 72%

S62 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S63 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
TE
S64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 7.5 83%

S65 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8 89%
S66 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 6 67%
S67 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
EP
S68 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%

S69 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S70 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 7.5 83%
C
S72 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 6.5 72%

S73 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
AC
S74 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 7 78%

S75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S76 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0.5 5.5 61%
S77 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
S78 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S79 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S80 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
S81 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 0.5 1 1 7 78%
S82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 7.5 83%
S83 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.5 72%
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
S84 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 6 67%

S85 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 0 6 67%
S86 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 8 89%
S87 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0.5 7.5 83%
Table 4: Quality assessment results.
3.4 Data coding and analysis
PT
The characteristics correlated to the research methodology quality were coded including
(a) research purpose, (b) methods (e.g., survey, interviews, experiment, etc.), (c) country,
(d) discipline/context (e.g., engineering, humanities and education, IT & computer
RI
science, business & management, etc.), and (e) educational levels (e.g., higher education,
secondary school, elementary school, mixed education). During the data analysis process,
SC
the studies that did not depict clearly the TAM model and its development or extension
were excluded from the synthesis.
In order for the collected studies to be appropriately and critically analyzed, we will
U
follow the TAM’s four groups of modifications as per (King & He, 2006) (Figure 3). The
four groups are: 1) prior factors (external factors): these are the factors used for
AN
predicting the two main constructs of TAM (“perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease
of use”), 2) Factors from other theories/ models: these are the factors or components from
other models or theories in various contexts and their integration with TAM, 3)
M
Contextual factors: these are the factors that can have a controlling or moderating impact,
and 4) Consequent Factors: these include the M-learning attitudes and usage. In this
D
study, these four groups of modifications are followed with a slight change to the fourth
group, in which instead of using the “consequent factors”, we used the “usage measures”.
TE
Usage measures in this study refer to the studies that used the original TAM model
without any further enhancement or modification.
C EP
AC
Figure 3. TAM’s four groups of modifications (King & He, 2006).
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4. Results and Discussion
Based on the 87 research articles published on the TAM model in the mobile learning
context from 2006 to 2018, we reported the results of this systematic review according to
the six research questions.
4.1 RQ1: distribution of research purposes
PT
In order for the collected studies to be appropriately and critically analyzed, we followed
the TAM’s four groups of modifications as per (King & He, 2006) (Figure 3) in order to
RI
categorize the collected articles according to their research purposes. In that, each paper
(out of the 87 collected articles) was categorized into one of these four modifications
(external variables, factors from other theories/ models, contextual factors, and usage
SC
measures).
As described in (Figure 4), we can notice that around 55% of the collected papers was
U
extended by other external variables (N=48). Additionally, around 22% of those articles
were extended by factors from other theories/models (N=19). Moreover, the third highest
AN
category (N=15) represents the articles that used the TAM as a measurement model for
predicting and examining the acceptance and adoption of M-learning without any
modifications to the original model. Furthermore, the fourth category shows the studies
M
(N=5) that extended the TAM with other contextual factors. From the M-learning studies
perspective, this is considered a new finding which was not raised in the previous
literature. Moreover, these modifications and enhancements come in line with the results
D
of an existing review study conducted by (Legris et al., 2003) in which more variables
need to be added to the TAM in order to extend its explanatory power.
TE
C EP
AC
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
60
50
Number of articles
40
PT
30
48
RI
20
10
SC
19
15
5
0
Contextual factors External variables Factors from other Usage measures
U
theories/ models
AN
Figure 4. Distribution of studies based on research purpose.
Table 5 illustrates the TAM studies in the context of Mobile learning that were extended
M
by adding other external variables. We can observe that scholars have extended TAM
with different factors from various perspectives for the purpose of enhancing the model
to further examine and analyze the influence of these factors on M-learning acceptance
D
and adoption. Furthermore, the main research problem that was frequently addressed
among all these studies was to examine the acceptance of M-learning among students; the
TE
studies that measure the students’ acceptance of M-learning after its implementation as an
information system. The second research problem that frequently tackled by those studies
was to investigate the adoption of M-learning among students; the studies that measure
EP
the students’ adoption of M-learning preceding to its implementation in the future.
Table 6 demonstrates the TAM studies in the context of M-learning that were extended
by adding other factors from other theories/models. Similarly to the previous category of
C
the external variables, we can perceive that researchers have extended TAM with
AC
different factors from various theories/models for the purpose of improving the model to
further examine and analyze the impact of these factors on M-learning acceptance and
adoption. Most of these factors were adopted from the IS theories. These theories include,
"DeLone and McLean information system success model (DL&ML)", "Expectation-
confirmation model (ECM)", "The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT)", "Task-Technology Fit", and "Innovation Diffusion Theory". Other factors
were adopted from other theories/models, namely "Cognitive Load Theory (CLT)", "Self-
Determination Theory (SDT)", "Theory of planned behavior (TPB)", “Value-based
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
adoption model (VAM)”, “Social influence model (SI)”, "The Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA)", and others. Furthermore, the main research problem that was frequently
addressed among all these studies was to examine the acceptance of M-learning among
students; the studies that measure the students' acceptance of M-learning after its
implementation as an information system.
PT
Table 7 shows the TAM studies in the context of M-learning that were extended by
adding other contextual factors. We can notice that the main research problems that were
addressed in all these studies, was to examine the acceptance of M-learning among
RI
students and to investigate the attitudes toward the usage of M-learning applications and
devices in the educational process.
SC
In terms of the studies that used TAM as a usage measure, the following will provide a
brief detail about each study. (El-gayar & Moran, 2007) have used TAM as a theoretical
model for examining the students’ acceptance of the “tablet personal computer” as a
U
medium for forecasting, explaining, and developing usage paradigm. (Abatan & Maharaj,
2015) have used TAM for analyzing the usage of mobile telecommunication services by
AN
undergraduate IT students in South Africa. (Soleimani, Ismail, & Mustaffa, 2014) were
used TAM for investigating the ESL postgraduates’ acceptance of “Mobile Assisted
Language Learning (MALL)” in Malaysia. (Gelderblom, Dyk, & Biljon, 2010) studied
M
the mobile phones adoption by older adults and identified the suitable adoption models
that capture the mobile phone adoption by this group of users in the context of South
Africa. (Scholtz & Kapeso, 2014) used TAM to evaluate the acceptance of two systems,
D
namely “openSAP” and “SAP Learn Now” where the former represents an e-learning
system and the latter represents an M-learning system in an ERP system course through
TE
the use of a questionnaire survey in South African higher educational context. (Sun,
Chang, & Chen, 2015) used the TAM for investigating the students’ attitudes toward the
GPS-based mobile context-aware learning through the use of questionnaire surveys in
EP
Taiwanese higher educational institutions.
(Ramayah & Suki, 2006) used the TAM to predict the Masters of Business
Administration (MBA) students’ attitudes toward the utilization of the mobile personal
C
computer in a public university in Malaysia. (Tlili, Essalmi, & Jemni, 2016) used the
AC
TAM questionnaire for evaluating the developed mobile educational game for improving
the learning of computer science students in studying the computer architecture course.
(Hsu, Hwang, & Chang, 2013) used the TAM for evaluating the efficiency of the
proposed recommendation-based mobile language learning system for the purpose of
assisting the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students in understanding the learning
content using an experiment and questionnaire surveys in a high school in Taiwan. (C. C.
Lin, 2014) used the TAM for examining the impact of mobile tablet PCs vs. desktop PCs
usage in an "Online ERP" on high school English learners in an online comprehensive
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
reading schema by questionnaire surveys in Taiwan. (Sek, Lau, Teoh, Law, & Parumo,
2010) used the TAM for predicting the IT students' adoption and acceptance of
smartphone as a mobile communication gadget for learning purposes through the usage
of questionnaire surveys.
(Harchay, Cheniti-belcadhi, & BRAHAM, 2017) used the TAM to evaluate the computer
PT
science students’ acceptance of mobile-based assessment that was developed through the
usage of semantic web technologies in Tunisia using a questionnaire survey. In addition,
(Wai, Ng, Chiu, Ho, & Lo, 2018) used the TAM to study the undergraduate students’
RI
perceptions towards the use of M-learning in three different faculties (engineering,
business, and education) in China through the usage of both quantitative and qualitative
methods. Moreover, (Mota, Ruiz-Rube, Dodero, & Arnedillo-Sánchez, 2018) used the
SC
TAM to evaluate the educators’ usage of “visual environment for designing interactive
learning scenarios (VEDILS)” as a tool for designing and creating mobile augmented
reality learning applications for students through the usage of a questionnaire survey.
U
Furthermore, (Buabeng-Andoh, 2018) used the TAM to examine the nursing
undergraduate students’ acceptance of M-learning in three different universities in Ghana
AN
through the use of questionnaire survey.
4.2 RQ2: distribution of research methods

M
With regard to research purpose, we classified the research method of each study
according to their research purpose. In that, Table 5 shows that TAM research articles
D
that were extended by external variables revealed that the primary used method for data
collection is the questionnaire survey. According to Table 6, TAM research articles that
TE
were extended by adding factors from other theories/models indicated that the main used
method for data collection is the questionnaire survey, followed by both (questionnaire
surveys and experiments together). Additionally, Table 7 indicates that TAM research
articles that were extended by contextual variables showed that the main used method for
EP
data collection is the questionnaire survey, followed by other mixed methods.
Overall, Figure 5 revealed that scholars of all the collected M-learning with TAM studies
C
were primarily relied on questionnaire surveys (N=77) for data collection, followed by
both (experiments & surveys) and mixed methods (e.g. interviews, observation) with 4
AC
studies each. These results are consistent with the extant review studies conducted by
(Crompton, Burke, & Gregory, 2017; Wu et al., 2012) who indicated that questionnaire
surveys were the dominant methodology for data collection. This is a new finding in the
M-learning studies that involves TAM as the acceptance model. In addition, this finding
could be attributed to the reason that questionnaire surveys are regarded as the
appropriate methods to determine the relationship among the factors in the conceptual
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
model (Malhotra & Grover, 1998), and to analyze the respondents’ perceptions
efficiently (Al-Emran, Mezhuyev, & Kamaludin, 2018a).
4
4
PT
2
RI
SC
77
U
AN
Experiment + Survey Mixed Methods None Survey
M
Figure 5: Distribution of studies in terms of research methods.
4.3 RQ3: distribution of countries

D
With regard to research purpose, we distributed the collected articles across the countries
TE
that these studies were conducted. Table 5 shows that TAM research articles that were
extended by external variables were frequently carried out in Spain, followed by Taiwan,
China, Malaysia, Pakistan, New Zealand, Singapore, Korea, Iran, Jordan, and others.
EP
According to Table 6, TAM research articles that were extended by adding factors from
other theories/models were frequently conducted in Taiwan, followed by Spain, and
many other countries that are clearly shown in the table. Additionally, Table 7 indicates
that TAM research articles that were extended by contextual variables were conducted in
C
different countries like Germany, Spain, Malaysia, Korea, and Saudi Arabia.
AC
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the entire collected articles across the countries that
these studies were conducted. It is clearly shown that most of the M-learning with TAM
studies (N=14) were undertaken in Taiwan, followed by Spain (N=12), China (N=8),
Malaysia (N=7), respectively among the other countries. Our results are very consistent
with the previous review studies conducted by (Crompton et al., 2017; Hwang & Tsai,
2011) who reported that Taiwan was ranked at the top as compared with other countries
involving studies related to M-learning. This finding could be attributed to the reason that
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
scholars in Taiwan are highly interested to conduct studies related to M-learning rather
than other research areas. Moreover, the M-learning infrastructure in Taiwan might be
highly reliable as compared to other countries. This could explain the preponderance of
M-leaning research studies carried out in Taiwan as compared with other countries.
Taiwan 14
PT
Spain 12
Not Specified 8
China 8
Malaysia 7
RI
South Africa 4
Korea 4
Pakistan 3
Jordan 3
SC
Europe 3
Singapore 2
New Zealand 2
Iran 2
Greece 2
U
USA 1
Turkey 1
AN
Tunisia 1
Saudi Arabia 1
Portugal 1
Palestine 1
Oman 1
M
Nigeria 1
Multiple Countries 1
Laos 1
Ghana 1
D
Germany 1
Bangladesh 1
TE
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Figure 6: Distribution of studies in terms of country.

EP
4.4 RQ4: distribution of studies by disciplines/contexts
In terms of the research purpose, we distributed the collected articles across the
disciplines/contexts that these studies were conducted. Table 5 shows that TAM research
C
articles that were extended by external variables were applied in the context of
humanities and education, followed by mixed disciplines, IT & Computer Science,
AC
business & management, and medical education among other disciplines. According to
Table 6, TAM research articles that were extended by adding factors from other
theories/models were applied in the context of IT & Computer Science, followed by
humanities & education, medical education, business & management, and other mixed
disciplines. Additionally, Table 7 indicates that TAM research articles that were extended
by contextual variables were applied in various disciplines such as IT & Computer
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Science, Humanities and Education, and the Foundation Program (i.e., teaching the basics
of English for newly admitted students before promoting to the academic departments).
Context/discipline is a study field that is taught and researched in an educational level

(Wu et al., 2012). In the present study, we grouped the relevant disciplines into a main
category in order to facilitate the distribution of the collected articles among that
PT
category. In that, disciplines like (Informatics, technology, communication, information
technology, and computer science) were categorized under one category, namely (IT &
Computer Science). Additionally, disciplines like (English learning, EFL, English
RI
language, education, environmental education, educational technology, and language
learning) were categorized under one category that is (Humanities & Education).
Moreover, the studies that were conducted in more than one discipline were classified as
SC
(mixed context).
Figure 7 depicts the distribution of the entire collected articles across the
U
context/discipline that these studies were conducted. We can notice that most of the M-
learning with TAM studies (N=34) did not indicate the discipline of the study. At the
AN
same time, it is clearly demonstrated that the remaining number of studies were highly
focused on humanities and education (N=19), followed by IT & computer science
(N=13), mixed context (N=7), respectively among the other disciplines. Our results are
M
very consistent with (Hwang & Tsai, 2011) who pointed out that engineering context
(including IT & computer science) and humanities context (including language and arts)
were at the top as compared with other contexts involving studies related to mobile and
D
ubiquitous learning. Additionally, these results are almost similar to the review study
carried out by (Wu et al., 2012) who aimed to categorize the M-learning studies for
TE
pedagogical purposes among academic disciplines. (Wu et al., 2012) found that most of
M-learning studies were focused on applied sciences disciplines, followed by humanities,
and formal sciences, respectively. However, our findings contradict with a recent review
EP
study conducted by (Crompton et al., 2017) who indicated that science discipline was the
most often researched domain involving studies related to M-learning and PK-12 (Pre-
Kindergarten) settings. As a result, we suggest that M-learning could be applied to other
C
disciplines, and scholars from other contexts can collaborate to develop appropriate
applications for under-researched fields.
AC
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11 2
5
5
34 7
PT
RI
13
19
U SC
Foundation Program Geography Engineering
Business & Management Medical Mixed Context
AN
IT & Computer Science Humanities and Education Not Specified
Figure 7: Distribution of studies in terms of context/discipline.

M
4.5 RQ5: distribution of studies by educational levels
In terms of research purpose, we classified the collected articles across the educational
D
level that these studies were conducted. According to the Tables 5, 6, and 7, TAM
TE
research articles that were extended by external variables, adding factors from other
theories/models, and contextual variables, respectively were conducted in the higher
educational settings, followed by K12.
EP
Overall, Figure 8 shows the distribution of the entire collected articles across the
educational level that these studies were conducted. It is clearly shown that most of the
surveyed M-learning with TAM studies were conducted in the higher educational settings
C
(N=66), followed by both secondary school (N=8) and primary school (N=5), and other
mixed educational level (N=2), respectively. These results are consistent with the
AC
previous review studies (Hwang & Tsai, 2011; Wu et al., 2012) who reported that higher
education was the dominant venue for M-learning with TAM studies in the formal
educational settings. This result could also reflect that M-learning is more active and
experiential in higher education settings than other educational levels.
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2 5
6
PT
RI
66
SC
Mixed Education Level Primary School None
U
Secondary School Higher Education
AN
Figure 8: Distribution of studies in terms of educational level.
4.6 RQ6: distribution of studies by year of publication

M
In terms of publication year, Figure 9 illustrates the distribution of studies that

investigated the TAM in the mobile learning context across their publication year. As
shown, the studies are ranged from 2006 to 2018. The number of studies increased
D
from one study in 2006 to 4 studies in 2010, and from 6 studies in 2012 and 2013 to
an average of 14 studies in the last 4 years (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017). The
TE
remarkable increase in 2014 could be attributed to the popularity of using mobile

devices (smartphone and tablets) for educational purposes. Besides, M-learning has
witnessed an enormous attraction in the last 4 years (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017)
EP
from many IS scholars who contributed to the enhancement of TAM in the mobile
learning context. It is worthwhile that the number of these studies in 2018 is 5 and
this could be attributed to the fact that the search space of this study was in May 2018
C
and there are a lot of articles that still in progress and not yet published.
AC
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
16
14 14
14
12
12
PT
10
8
6 6
RI
6 5
4
4 3 3
SC
2
2 1 1
U
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
AN 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Figure 9: Distribution of studies in terms of publication year
For further investigation, we categorized the studies by their research purpose across their
publication year as per (Figure 10). We can notice that the studies that extended TAM
M
with external variables were ranged between 2007 and 2015 with a noticeable peak in
2017, and this represents the highest category of the total studies. The second highest
D
category represents those studies that extended TAM with factors from other
theories/models and that ranged between 2009 and 2016 with a remarkable increment
TE
across these years. Moreover, the studies that extended TAM with contextual variables
were ranged between (2012 and 2016) with a noticeable increase in 2016. Overall, Figure
10 can draw our attention that the number of M-learning with TAM studies is getting
EP
increased year by year, and this increase could be clearly noticed in 2017 where most of
the studies tend to extend the TAM with external factors in order to understand the
potential effect of these factors on the students’ acceptance.
C
AC
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14 13
12
10
PT
8 7
6 5 55
4 44 4
RI
4 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1
SC
0 00 0 0 000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Contextual factors Usage measures Factors from other theories/ models External variables
U
Figure 10: Distribution of studies by research purpose and publication year.
AN
5. Conclusion
Previous TAM-based literature reviews provided a valuable insight into the research
M
trend of the model. However, these review studies overlooked the investigation of TAM
with regard to M-learning studies from the standpoint of research purpose, research
methods, country distribution, disciplines/contexts, educational levels, and TAM studies
D
distribution across their year of publication. In the present study, we conducted a

TE
systematic literature review for TAM related to M-learning studies aiming to provide a
comprehensive analysis of the existing studies and to discuss the implications of analysis
results.
EP
The present review study points out 7 new findings. First, the research purpose of most
TAM studies involving M-learning focused on extending the TAM with external
variables, followed by the studies that extended the model by factors from other
C
theories/models. Second, the main research problem that was frequently addressed among
the analyzed studies was to examine the acceptance of M-learning among students; the
AC
studies that measure the students' acceptance of M-learning after its implementation as an
information system. The second research problem that was frequently tackled by those
studies was to investigate the adoption of M-learning among students; the studies that
measure the students' adoption of M-learning preceding to its implementation in the
future. Third, questionnaire surveys were the primarily relied research methods for data
collection, regardless of research purpose. Fourth, most of the studies were undertaken in
Taiwan, this is followed by Spain, China, Malaysia, respectively among the other
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
countries. Fifth, most of the studies were frequently conducted in the humanities and
educational context, followed by the IT and computer science context, respectively
among the other contexts. Sixth, most of the mobile learning studies involving TAM
were conducted in the higher educational settings. Seventh, with regard to year of
publication, M-learning studies have witnessed an enormous attraction in the last four
years (2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017) from many IS scholars who contributed to the
PT
enhancement of TAM in the mobile learning context. Additionally, the studies that
extended TAM with external variables were ranged between 2007 and 2015 with a
noticeable peak in 2017, and this represents the highest category of the total studies.
RI
To that end, we believe that many other factors still need to be examined to verify their
effectiveness as external variables to the TAM. Moreover, extending TAM with factors
SC
from other theories/models is still an open door for IS scholars to further investigate the
M-learning acceptance and adoption. To conclude, the findings of this review study
provide an insight into the current trend of TAM research involving M-learning studies
U
and form an important reference for future studies in M-learning studies involving TAM.
AN
As a limitation, this systematic review has focused on particular databases for collecting
the articles (i.e., ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect, Emerald, Wiley, Springer, IEEE,
and Google Scholar). In that, these databases may not provide a representation of all
M
studies published on M-learning with TAM. Further research could expand the current
study by including studies from other databases such as: ERIC, Sage, Scopus, Web of
Science among many others.
D
TE
C EP
AC
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Appendix A
Source External Variables Research Problem Methods Country Discipline/context Education
PT
Level
(Ponce, (“Performance expectancy”, “effort Examining the students’ acceptance of Spain Medical Education
Méndez, & expectancy”, “social influence”, “self- mobile technologies.
RI
García- efficacy”, and “anxiety”).
Peñalvo,
2014)
SC
(Y. Liu et al., (“Perceived long-term usefulness” and Investigating students’ acceptance of Language
2010) “personal innovativeness”). mobile learning. Learning
U
(Ye, Li, & (“Quality of service”, “mobile Predicting the factors that affect China Education
AN
Geng, 2010) devices”, “mobile resources” and students’ acceptance of mobile Higher
“visual attraction”) along with an learning. Education
additional factor (“interest”).
(Joo, Lee, & (“User interface”, “personal Not Specified
M
Ham, 2014) innovativeness”, and “satisfaction in
learning”). Predicting the students’ acceptance of
Korea
(Park, Nam, & (“self-efficacy”, “relevance for M-learning. Educational
D
Survey
Cha, 2012) major”, “system accessibility”, and Technology
“subjective norm”).
TE
(Althunibat, (“Self-efficacy”, “Facilitating Understanding the students’ acceptance Jordan Not Specified
2015) Conditions”, and “Quality of of M-learning.
Service”).
EP
(Nikou & (“Perceived mobility” and Explaining the students’ acceptance of Not Environmental Secondary
Economides, “satisfaction”). mobile-based assessment. Specified Education School
2015)
C
(Chung, Chen, (“self-efficacy” and “compatibility”). Investigating the students’ acceptance Taiwan Engineering Higher
& Kuo, 2015) of mobile-based vocabulary learning of Education
AC
English.
(Theng et al., (“Intrinsic motivation”, “prestige”, Determining the students’ acceptance Singapore Geography Secondary
2007) “tool functionality” and “task of mobile “G-portal”. School
technology fit”).
(Zhang, (“Perceived enjoyment”, “Social Examining the students’ acceptance of China Not Specified High
Chang, & influence”, “Resource needs”, and mobile technology in the countryside. School
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Zhou, 2015) “Love degree”).

(J. Huang et (“Perceived enjoyment” and Leveraging the users’ acceptance of Taiwan Not Specified Higher
al., 2007) “Perceived mobility value”). mobile devices for accessing the Education
PT
learning material.
(Zhao & Zhu, (“E-learning experience”, “age”, Explaining the learners’ acceptance of Not China Not Specified Not
2010) “opinion leader”, and “mobile devices M-learning in Chinese universities. Specified Specified
RI
using confidence”) where the “opinion
leader” variable was adopted from the
theory of two-step flow of
SC
communication.
(José Carlos (“Self-efficacy” and “mobile device Not Specified Higher
Sánchez anxiety”). Education
U
Prieto,
Migueláñez,
AN
& García-
Peñalvo,
2015) Examining the primary teachers’
Spain
(José Carlos (“Previous experience”, “Perceived acceptance of mobile technologies. Not Specified Primary
M
Sánchez enjoyment”, “Subjective norm”, “Self- Education
Prieto, efficacy”, and “Facilitating
Migueláñez, conditions”).
D
& García-
Peñalvo,
TE
2014b) Survey
(Lai, Chang, “User capability” Predicting the elementary school Not Specified Elementary
Wen-Shiane, teachers’ acceptance of QR code School
EP
Fan, & Wu, Information System using mobile
2013) technology in an outdoor environment.
Not
(Kathryn Mac (“ICT anxiety” and “ICT Literacy”). Investigating students and educators’
Specified
C
Callum, acceptance of mobile technology in the

Jeffrey, & educational process.
AC
Kinshuk,
Business Higher
2014)
Education
(K Mac (“Basic ICT skills”, “advanced Investigating the influence of ICT New
Callum & ICT skills” and “advanced mobile Skills on M-learning adoption by Zealand
Jeffrey, 2013) skills”). students.
(Briz-Ponce & (“Social influence”, “facilitating Addressing the students’ and Spain Medical education
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
García- conditions”, “self-efficacy”, “anxiety”, professionals’ acceptance of mobile

Peñalvo, “reliability” and “recommendation”). technology “Applications”.
2015)
PT
(Lu & (“Subjective norm”, “self-efficacy”, Identifying the factors that affect M- New Higher
Viehland, “perceived financial resources” and learning adoption. Zealand Education
2008) “prior use of electronic learning”).
Not Specified
RI
(C. Huang, (“Subjective norm” and “perceived Examining the factors that affect the Taiwan Not
2012) behavioral control”). learners’ acceptance of M-learning Specified
technologies.
SC
(Briz-Ponce, (“Social Influence”, “Facilitating Investigating the factors that affect the Portugal Medical education
Pereira, conditions”, “Self-efficacy”, students’ behavior toward the usage of
Carvalho, “Anxiety”, “Reliability and M-learning.
U
Juanes- Recommendation”).
Méndez, &
AN
García-
Peñalvo,
2017)
(Suki & Suki, (“Perceived enjoyment” and Predicting the students’ acceptance of
M
2011) “Perceived mobility value”). M-learning in the future.
(Tan, Ooi, (“Personal innovativeness in Investigating the factors that affect the
Survey
Leong, & Lin, information technology” and “Social students’ adoption of M-learning. Malaysia
D
2014) influences”) in addition to other
control variables (“gender”, “age”,
TE
Higher
Not Specified
and “academic qualifications”). Education
(Theng, 2009) (“Learning through communications Investigating the factors that affect the Singapore
between lecturers and students”, students’ acceptance of M-learning.
EP
“Accessibility anytime/anywhere”,
“mobile self-efficacy”, and “Prior
experience with mobile”).
C
(Chi-cheng (“Perceived convenience”) Examining the impact of “Perceived

Applied Foreign
Chang, 2012) convenience” on English mobile
AC
Language +
learning acceptance by students.
Taiwan Accounting +
(C. Chang, (“Perceived convenience” and Examining the factors that affect the
Information
Liang, Yan, & “perceived playfulness”). students’ continuous intention of
Management
Tseng, 2013) English mobile learning usage.
(Fadare et al., (“Self-efficacy”, “subjective norm”, Examining the factors that affect the Nigeria Not Specified
2011) “perceived enjoyment”, and “system students’ adoption of M-learning on 3G
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
accessibility”). mobile telecommunication.

(Wang, 2013) (“Learning motivation”, “Material Leveraging learning interest and Taiwan Forest +
characteristic”, and “Systemic motivation of students through a Veterinary
PT
characteristic”). mobile navigation system through the Medicine + Plant
use of TAM. Industry of
Agriculture +
RI
Management
information
systems
SC
(Mohammadi, (“Subjective norm”, “perceived Investigating the impact of the external Iran
2015) image”, “personal innovativeness”, variables on students' intention and
“individual mobility”, “absorptive satisfaction to use M-learning.
capacity”, and “self-efficacy”).
U
(Hao, Dennen, Pedagogical factors (“Perceived Examining the factors that affect the China Not Specified
AN
& Mei, 2017) facilitation condition”), Social factors adoption of M-learning.
Higher
(“Social subjective norm”, “Social
Education
image”, and “Voluntariness”), and
“Personal innovativeness”.
M
(Bere & Flexible learning components Examining the factors that affect South IT
Rambe, 2016) (“portability”, “collaboration”, “cost”, mobile instant messaging systems (e.g., Africa
and “learner control”) and WhatsApp) adoption and how it Survey
D
“performance enhancement”. enhances students' performance.
(Nikou & (“facilitating conditions”, “social Europe
TE
Economides, influence”, “mobile device anxiety”,
2017b) “personal innovativeness”, “mobile
self-efficacy”, “perceived trust”,
EP
Examining the factors that affect the
“content”, “cognitive feedback”, “user Environmental Secondary
acceptance of mobile-based
interface”, and “perceived ubiquity Education School
assessment.
value”).
C
(Nikou & (“perceived mobility”, “authentic Greece

Economides, context”, and “interest/enjoyment”).
AC
2016)
(Hamidi & (“personal features and characters”, Investigating the factors that influence Iran IT
Chavoshi, “trust”, “culture of using”, and the adoption of M-learning.
Higher
2017) “context”). Survey
Education
(Sánchez- (“self-efficacy” and “mobile anxiety”) Investigating the factors that influence Spain Education
Prieto, Olmos- the pre-service primary education
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Migueláñez, instructors’ adoption of M-learning.

& García-
Peñalvo,
PT
2017)
(Koç, Turan, (“trust”, “personal initiative and Examining the use and acceptance of Turkey Management
& Okursoy, character”, and “context”). M-learning information system.
RI
2016)
(José Carlos (“perceived entertainment” and “self- Examining the secondary education
Sánchez efficacy”). instructors’ acceptance of M-learning.
SC
Prieto,
Migueláñez,
& García-
Peñalvo,
U
Spain Education
2017)
AN
(J C S Prieto, “subjective norm”. Examining the instructors’ attitudes
Migueláñez, towards the use of M-learning.
& García-
Peñalvo,
M
2016)
(Bakhsh, (“prior experience”, “technical skill”, Investigating the factors that affect the Pakistan Science, social
Mahmood, & “service affordability and students and educators’ acceptance of sciences, and
D
Sangi, 2017) availability”, “device features M-learning. education
usability”, and “self-efficacy”).
TE
(Fatima, “self-efficacy” as an external variable Examining the factors that affect the Bangladesh Tourism
Ghandforoush, and “innovativeness” as a control M-learning acceptance. Education
Khan, & variable. Survey
EP
Masico, 2017)
(Abdullah, (“student readiness”, “culture”, “cost Investigating the factors that affect the Malaysia Higher
Ebiary, & Al- of service”, and “compatibility”). M-learning acceptance. Education
C
Sammarraie,
2017)
AC
(Poong, (“social influence”, “self-efficacy”, Examining the drivers of M-learning Laos

Not Specified
Yamaguchi, & “perceived enjoyment”, and “personal acceptance.
Takada, 2017) innovativeness”).
(Raza, Umer, (“Behavioral control”, “learning Investigating the factors that affect the
Qazi, & autonomy”, “self-efficacy”, M-learning acceptance. Pakistan
Makhdoom, “subjective norm”, “instructors’
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2017) readiness”, and “students’ readiness”).

(Iqbal & (“students’ readiness”, “self- Examining the factors that influence
Bhatti, 2017) management of learning”, “mobility”, the adoption of M-learning.
PT
“perceived playfulness”, “social
influence”, “faculty support”, and
“university support”).
RI
(Sarrab, (“enjoyment”, “economic”, Examining the factors that affect the Oman Not Specified
Shibli, & “suitability”, and “social”). adoption of M-learning.
Badursha,
SC
2016)
(L. Huang, (“subjective norm”, “resistance to Examining the factors that affect the China English Language
2017) change”, “anxiety”, “self-efficacy”, English instructors’ acceptance of M-
U
“perceived enjoyment”, and learning.
“facilitating conditions”).
Higher
AN
(Almaiah, (“context”, “trust”, “personal Examining the factors that affect the Survey Jordan IT
Education
2018) characteristics and features”, and students’ acceptance of M-learning.
“perceived security”).
(Leong, “perceived task-technology fit” and Examining the factors that affect the Malaysia Not Specified
M
Ibrahim, “perceived enjoyment” as external students’ adoption of mobile social
Dalvi- variables and “mobile social network network sites for educational purposes.
Esfahani, sits’ experience” as a control variable.
D
Shahbazi, &
Nilashi, 2018)
TE
Table 5: Analysis of TAM research papers in terms of external variables in M-learning context.
Source Theories/Models and Factors Research Problem Methods Country Discipline/context Education
EP
Level
(Almaiah et Quality constructs (“learning content Investigating the students’ acceptance Survey Jordan Higher
al., 2016) quality”, “content design quality”, of M-learning. Education
C
“interactivity”, “functionality”, “user-

interface design”, “accessibility”,
AC
“availability”, “personalization”, and Not Specified

“responsiveness”) from the updated
DeLone and McLean information
system success model (DL&ML).
(Elmorshidy, (“System quality”, “information Introducing an integrated model for Not Not Not
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2012) quality” and “service quality”) from mobile learning success based on Specified Specified Specified
the information system success model (TAM and DeLone and McLean
in addition to other moderating information system success model).
PT
factors (“gender”, “age”,
“experience” and “voluntariness
use”).
RI
(Joo, Kim, (“expectation-confirmation”, Examining the online university Korea Higher
& Kim, “satisfaction”, and “continuance students’ acceptance of “mobile Education
2016) intention”) from the expectation- learning management system”.
SC
confirmation model (ECM).
(Chew & (“Expected outcomes”, “Efficacy”, Measuring the intentions for reading Ethiopia, Not
West, 2015) and “Barriers”) from two models, on mobile devices. Ghana, Specified
TRA and The Unified Theory of India,
U
Acceptance and Use of Technology Kenya,
Survey Not Specified
AN
(UTAUT) and other demographic Nigeria,
variables (“age”, “gender”, and “level Pakistan
of education”). and
Zimbabwe
M
(Wang, Two constructs from the information Examining the students’ acceptance of Taiwan Digital
2012) ability indicator (“information mobile learning in countryside area. Opportunity
accomplishment” and “intention to Center +
D
learn”). High school
(Molina, (“Task demands” and “device Analyzing the influences of using Experiment Spain Computer Science
TE
Redondo, demands”) from the Cognitive Load portable mobile devices (smartphones + Survey
Lacave, & Theory (CLT) and other factors like and tablets) with desktop PCs to access
Ortega, (“time to learn”, “learning the learning materials.
EP
2014) efficiency”, “interest”, “motivation”,
“pressure”, and “perceived
satisfaction”).
Higher
C
(Chiou, Survey Not Management

(“Learnability”, “Memorability”, Education
Perng, & Examining the relationship between Specified
AC
“Effectiveness”, and “Efficiency”)

Lin, 2009) TAM and usability through the testing
from the usability test along with the
(C. Lin, of an E-learning task with PDA. Experiment Taiwan Technology
“experience” variable.
2013) + Survey
(Nikou & (“Perceived autonomy”, “perceived Europe Informatics
Investigating the students’ acceptance
Economides, competence” and “perceived Survey
of mobile-based assessment.
2014b) relatedness”) from the Self-
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(Nikou & Determination Theory (SDT) of Greece Medical Education

Economides, motivation.
2014a)
PT
(Nikou & (“perceived autonomy”, “perceived Europe Environmental Secondary
Economides, competence”, and “perceived Education School
2017a) relatedness”) from the SDT along
RI
with other constructs (“perceived
ubiquity value”, “content”, “perceived
feedback”, “mobile self-efficacy”,
SC
“perceived interactivity”, and
“perceived collaboration”).
(Hsiao & Theories of (“Task-Technology Fit” Investigating the students’ reading Language Primary
Chen, 2015) (TTF) and “self-efficacy”). ability using e-readers. Learning School
U
(Hsia, 2016) (“Perceived behavioral control”) from Measuring the students’ acceptance of Education Higher
AN
the TPB theory along with an external M-learning. Education
variable (“locus of control”).
Taiwan
(Cheng, (“Compatibility”) from the Measuring the students’ acceptance of Not Specified Not
2015) “Innovation Diffusion Theory” (IDT) M-learning. Specified
M
and other constructs (“navigation”,
“convenience”, and “perceived
enjoyment”) as external variables.
D
(Kim, Chun, (“Gender”, “ethnicity”, “personal Investigating the students’ acceptance USA Communication Higher
& Lee, innovativeness”, “perceived price”, of smartphone. Education
TE
2014) “perceived value”, “affiliation”,
Survey
“perceived image”, and “perceived
popularity”) from the theories (“IDT”,
EP
“value-based adoption model
(VAM)”, and “social influence model
(SI)”).
C
(Sánchez- (“Previous experience”, “perceived Measuring primary teachers’ Not Specified Primary
Prieto, enjoyment”, “subjective norm”, “self- acceptance of mobile technology in the School
AC
Olmos- efficacy”, and “facilitating teaching body.

Migueláñez, conditions”) from various
Spain
& García- models/theories (“TRA, TPB,
Peñalvo, UTAUT, IDT, and TAM3”).
2016)
(Carlos, (“Compatibility”) from the IDT Examining the pre-service teachers’ Education Higher
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Prieto, & theory and (“resistance to change”) as acceptance of mobile technologies for Education
Garcia- a construct. using them in their future teaching
peiialvo, context.
PT
2015)
(Sabah, (“Social influence”) from The unified Investigating the factors that affect Palestine Computer System
2016) theory of acceptance and use of students’ adoption and acceptance of Engineering + E-
RI
technology (UTAUT), besides other M-learning. management +
factors (“M-learning services” and Accounting +
“mobile limitations”), control Information and
SC
variables (“gender”, “field of study”, Communication
“study level”) and moderator Technology Higher
Survey
variables (“mobile capabilities”, Education
“level of mobile usage”, and
U
“frequent use of m-services”).
AN
(D. Liu & (“Social benefits”, “trust”, and Examining the students’ acceptance of China Not Specified
Guo, 2017) “perceived financial cost”) from M-learning in terms of gender.
TAM2 in addition to the gender as a
mediator variable.
M
Table 6: Analysis of TAM research papers in terms of factors from other theories/models in M-learning context.
D
Source Contextual Factors Research Problem Methods Country Discipline/context Education
Level
TE
(Böhm & “Perceived contextual value”. Examining the impact of context- Survey Germany Language High School
Constantine, aware mobile learning application on Learning + Higher
2016) students’ “behavioral intention”. Education
(José Carlos (“Experience”, “enjoyment”, “social Predicting the attitude towards the Interviews, Spain Not Specified Primary
EP
Sánchez norm” and “critical mass”). usage of mobile technology by Observation, Education
Prieto, teachers of primary education. Document
Migueláñez, review
C
& García-
Peñalvo,
AC
2014a)
(Pindeh, (“Content richness”, “user Predicting the students’ acceptance of Malaysia Foundation
Suki, & satisfaction”, and “perceived mobile “Apps” for learning the Program Higher
Survey
Suki, 2016) playfulness”). Kadazandusun language. Education
(Yoon, (“Perceived interactivity” and Measuring the students’ acceptance of Korea Not Specified
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2016) “Satisfaction”). mobile library “Apps” in the libraries’

academic discipline.
(Seliaman (“Perceived innovativeness” and Examining the students’ usage of Saudi Computer Science
PT
& Al-Turki, “Perceived ICT anxiety”). smartphones and tablets in the Arabia + Information
2012) educational process. Technology
Table 7: Analysis of TAM research papers in terms of contextual factors in M-learning context.
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References
Abatan, O. K., & Maharaj, M. (2015). Analyzing educational and social usage of mobile
telecommunications in a South African university. In International Conference on
Information Society, i-Society 2014 (pp. 64–69). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/i-
Society.2014.7009013
Abdullah, M. A., Ebiary, Y. B., & Al-Sammarraie, N. (2017). Determine Factors
PT
Influencing Mobile Learning Acceptance in Higher Education Institution of
Malaysia: Online Based Learning. International Journal of Contemporary Computer
Research (IJCCR), 1(1).
RI
Abu-Al-Aish, A. (2014). Toward mobile learning deployment in higher education.
Brunel University. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMLO.2013.057165
SC
Akour, H. (2011). Determinants of mobile learning acceptance: An empirical
investigation in higher education. Oklahoma State University.
https://doi.org/3408682
U
Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the
use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–
AN
102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.033
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018a). PLS-SEM in Information
Systems Research: A Comprehensive Methodological Reference (In Press). In 4th
M
International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics (AISI

2018). Springer.
Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018b). Students’ Perceptions towards
D
the Integration of Knowledge Management Processes in M-learning Systems: A

Preliminary Study. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(2), 371–380.
TE
Almaiah, M. A. (2018). Acceptance and usage of a mobile information system services in

University of Jordan. Education and Information Technologies, pp. 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9694-6
EP
Almaiah, M. A., Jalil, M. A., & Man, M. (2016). Extending the TAM to examine the
effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. Journal of Computers in
Education, 3(4), 453–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1
C
Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-

learning in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71.
AC
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.046
Bakhsh, M., Mahmood, A., & Sangi, N. A. (2017). Examination of factors influencing
students and faculty behavior towards m-learning acceptance: An empirical study.
International Journal of Information & Learning Technology, 34(3), 166–188.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-08-2016-0028
Bere, A., & Rambe, P. (2016). An empirical analysis of the determinants of mobile
instant messaging appropriation in university learning. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 28(2), 172–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9112-2
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Birch, D., & Burnett, B. (2009). Advancing e-learning policy and practice: influences on
academics’ adoption, integration and development of multimodal e-learning
courses. Institutional transformation through best practices in virtual campus
development: advancing e-learning policies. United States: IGI Global.
Böhm, S., & Constantine, G. P. (2016). Impact of contextuality on mobile learning
acceptance. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 13(2), 107–122.
PT
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2016-0003
Briz-Ponce, L., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2015). An Empirical Assessment of a
Technology Acceptance Model for Apps in Medical Education. Journal of Medical
RI
Systems, 39(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-015-0352-x
Briz-Ponce, L., Pereira, A., Carvalho, L., Juanes-Méndez, J. A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J.
(2017). Learning with mobile technologies – Students’ behavior. Computers in
SC
Human Behavior, 72, 612–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027
Buabeng-Andoh, C. (2018). New technology in health education: Nursing students’
application of mobile technology in the classroom in Ghana. Interactive Technology
U
and Smart Education, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2016-0039
Carlos, J., Prieto, S., & Garcia-peiialvo, F. J. (2015). Behavioral Intention of Use of
AN
Mobile Technologies Among Pre-Service Teachers. In Computers in Education
(SIIE), 2015 International Symposium (pp. 120–125). IEEE.
Chang, C. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended technology acceptance model :
M
Mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 28(October 2016), 809–826.
https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.818
D
Chang, C., Liang, C., Yan, C., & Tseng, J. (2013). The Impact of College Students’
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on Continuance Intention to Use English Mobile
TE
Learning Systems. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 181–192.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0011-7
Cheng, Y. M. (2015). Towards an understanding of the factors affecting m-learning
EP
acceptance: Roles of technological characteristics and compatibility. Asia Pacific

Management Review, 20(3), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.12.011
Chew, H. E., & West, M. (2015). Good Intentions to Read on Mobiles Are Not Good
C
Enough: Reducing Barriers to M-reading is Crucial. In Proceedings of the Seventh

International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and
AC
Development. Singapore: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2737856.2737859

Chiou, W. C., Perng, C., & Lin, C. C. (2009). The relationship between technology
acceptance model and usability test - Case of performing E-learning task with PDA.
In 2009 WASE International Conference on Information Engineering, ICIE 2009
(pp. 579–582). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIE.2009.207
Chung, H. H., Chen, S. C., & Kuo, M. H. (2015). A Study of EFL College Students’
Acceptance of Mobile Learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176,
333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.479
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Crompton, H., Burke, D., & Gregory, K. H. (2017). The use of mobile learning in PK-12
education: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 110, 51–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.03.013
Davis, Fred D.Bagozzi, Richard P.Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer
Technology: a Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science,
35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
PT
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance
of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
RI
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement
biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19–45.
SC
https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040
Donaldson, R. L. (2010). Student acceptance of mobile learning. The Florida State
University.
U
El-gayar, O., & Moran, M. (2007). Examining students’ acceptance of tablet pc using
tam. Issues in Information Systems, VIII(1), 167–172.
AN
Elmorshidy, A. (2012). Mobile Learning - A New Success Model. The Journal of Global
Business Management, 8(2), 18–27.
M
Fadare, O. G., Babatunde, O. H., Theophilus, D., Lawal, O. O., Anglais, A. E., Umé, R.
É. S., & French, F. (2011). Behavioral Intention for Mobile Learning on 3G Mobile
Internet Technology in South-West Part of Nigeria. World Journal of Engineering
and Pure and Applied Science, 1(2), 19–28.
D
Fatima, J. K., Ghandforoush, P., Khan, M., & Masico, R. Di. (2017). Role of
TE
innovativeness and self-efficacy in tourism m-learning. Tourism Review, 72(3), 344–

355. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-02-2017-0019
Gelderblom, H., Dyk, T. Van, & Biljon, J. Van. (2010). Mobile phone adoption: Do
existing models adequately capture the actual usage of older adults? In Proceedings
EP
of the 2010 annual research conference of the south african institute of computer
scientists and information technologists (pp. 67–74). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1899503.1899511
C
Hamidi, H., & Chavoshi, A. (2017). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of
mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the University of
AC
Technology. Telematics and Informatics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016

Hao, S., Dennen, V. P., & Mei, L. (2017). Influential factors for mobile learning
acceptance among Chinese users. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 65(1), 101–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9465-2
Harchay, A., Cheniti-belcadhi, L., & BRAHAM, R. (2017). MobiSWAP: Personalized
Mobile Assessment Tool Based on Semantic Web and Web Services. In 2017
IEEE/ACS 14th International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(pp. 1406–1413). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/AICCSA.2017.143

Hsia, J. W. (2016). The effects of locus of control on university students’ mobile learning
adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9103-8
Hsiao, K.-L., & Chen, C.-C. (2015). How do we inspire children to learn with e-readers?
Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-04-2015-0038
PT
Hsu, C. K., Hwang, G. J., & Chang, C. K. (2013). A personalized recommendation-based
mobile learning approach to improving the reading performance of EFL students.
Computers and Education, 63, 327–336.
RI
Huang, C. (2012). A comparison of fuzzy DNP and SEM in analyzing novel mobile
SC
learning technology acceptances by learners. In 2012 International Conference on
Fuzzy Theory and Its Applications, iFUZZY 2012 (pp. 119–124). Taiwan: IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/iFUZZY.2012.6409686
Huang, J., Lin, Y., & Chuang, S. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A
U
perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library,
25(5), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/02640470710829569
AN
Huang, L. (2017). Acceptance of Mobile Learning in Classroom Instruction among
College English Teachers in China: Using an Extended TAM. In The Sixth
International Conference of Educational Innovation through Technology (pp. 283–
M
287). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2017.75

Huang, Y. (2014). Empirical Analysis on Factors Impacting Mobile Learning Acceptance
in Higher Engineering Education (doctoral dissertation). University of Tennessee.
D
Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A
TE
review of publications in selected journals from 2001 to 2010. British Journal of

Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01183.x
Iqbal, S., & Bhatti, Z. A. (2017). What drives m-learning? An empirical investigation of
university student perceptions in Pakistan. Higher Education Research and
EP
Development, 36(4), 730–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1236782

Joo, Y. J., Kim, N., & Kim, N. H. (2016). Factors predicting online university students’
use of a mobile learning management system (m-LMS). Educational Technology
C
Research and Development, 64(4), 611–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-

9436-7
AC
Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-
014-9081-2
Kim, D., Chun, H., & Lee, H. (2014). Determining the factors that influence college
students’ adoption of smartphones. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 65(3), 578–588. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22987
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model.
Information and Management, 43(6), 740–755.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature
Reviews in Software Engineering. Software Engineering Group, School of
Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University, 1–57.
PT
https://doi.org/10.1145/1134285.1134500
Koç, T., Turan, A. H., & Okursoy, A. (2016). Acceptance and usage of a mobile
information system in higher education: An empirical study with structural equation
RI
modeling. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 286–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.06.001
Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2005). Mobile usability and user experience. In Mobile Learning:
SC
A Handbook for Educators and Trainers (pp. 45–56).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203003428
Lai, H.-C., Chang, C.-Y., Wen-Shiane, L., Fan, Y.-L., & Wu, Y.-T. (2013). The
U
implementation of mobile learning in outdoor education: Application of QR codes.
British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), E57–E62.
AN
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01343.x
Laurillard, D. (2007). Pedagogical forms of mobile learning: framing research questions.
Mobile Learning: Towards a Research Agenda, (2007), 153–175. Retrieved from
M
http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/627/1/Mobile_C6_Laurillard.pdf
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information
technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information &
D
Management, 40(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4

Leong, L. W., Ibrahim, O., Dalvi-Esfahani, M., Shahbazi, H., & Nilashi, M. (2018). The
TE
moderating effect of experience on the intention to adopt mobile social network sites
for pedagogical purposes: An extension of the technology acceptance model.
Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9726-
EP
2
Lin, C. (2013). Exploring the relationship between technology acceptance model and
usability test. Information Technology and Management, 14(3), 243–255.
C
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-013-0162-0
Lin, C. C. (2014). Learning English reading in a mobile-assisted extensive reading
AC
program. Computers and Education, 78, 48–59.

Liu, D., & Guo, X. (2017). Exploring gender differences in acceptance of mobile
computing devices among college students. Information Systems and E-Business
Management, 15(1), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-016-0315-x
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An
empirical study. Computers and Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lu, X., & Viehland, D. (2008). Factors influencing the adoption of mobile learning. In
19th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (pp. 597–606).
Mac Callum, K., & Jeffrey, L. (2013). The influence of students’ ICT skills and their
adoption of mobile learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,
29(3), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1234/ajet.v29i3.298
Mac Callum, K., Jeffrey, L., & Kinshuk. (2014). Comparing the role of ICT literacy and
PT
anxiety in the adoption of mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 8–
19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.024
Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (1998). An assessment of survey research in POM: from
RI
constructs to theory. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 407–425.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00021-7
SC
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: a literature review
from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Social and individual antecedents of m-learning adoption in
U
Iran. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 191–207.
AN
Molina, A. I., Redondo, M. A., Lacave, C., & Ortega, M. (2014). Assessing the
effectiveness of new devices for accessing learning materials: An empirical analysis
based on eye tracking and learner subjective perception. Computers in Human
M
Behavior, 31(1), 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.022

Mortenson, M. J., & Vidgen, R. (2016). A computational literature review of the
technology acceptance model. International Journal of Information Management,
D
36(6), 1248–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.007

TE
Mota, J. M., Ruiz-Rube, I., Dodero, J. M., & Arnedillo-Sánchez, I. (2018). Augmented
reality mobile app development for all. Computers and Electrical Engineering, 65,
250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.08.025
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2014a). A model for Mobile-based Assessment
EP
adoption based on Self-Determination Theory of Motivation. In Interactive Mobile

Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL), 2014 International Conference
(pp. 86–90). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCTL.2014.7011111
C
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2014b). Acceptance of mobile-based assessment

from the perspective of self-determination theory of motivation. In 2014 IEEE 14th
AC
International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies Acceptance (pp.

454–458). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2014.136
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2015). The effects of Perceived Mobility and
Satisfaction on the adoption of Mobile-based Assessment. In Interactive Mobile
Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL), 2015 International Conference
(pp. 167–171). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IMCTL.2015.7359579
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). An Outdoor Mobile-Based Assessment
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Activity: Measuring Students’ Motivation and Acceptance. International Journal of

Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 10(4), 11.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v10i4.5541
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017a). Mobile-Based Assessment: Integrating
acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of Self-Determination
Theory and Technology Acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83–95.
PT
Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2017b). Mobile-based assessment: Investigating the
factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Computers & Education, 109, 56–
RI
73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005
Park, S. Y., Nam, M. M.-W., & Cha, S. S.-B. (2012). University students’ behavioral
intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model.
SC
British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x
Pindeh, N., Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2016). User Acceptance on Mobile Apps as an
U
Effective Medium to Learn Kadazandusun Language. Procedia Economics and
Finance, 37(16), 372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30139-3
AN
Ponce, L. B., Méndez, J. A. J., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014). Analysis of certificated
mobile application for medical education purposes. In Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing
M
Multiculturality (pp. 13–17). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669871

Poong, Y. S., Yamaguchi, S., & Takada, J. I. (2017). Investigating the drivers of mobile
learning acceptance among young adults in the World Heritage town of Luang
D
Prabang, Laos. Information Development, 33(1), 57–71.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666916638136
TE
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014a). ICTs Integration in

Education: Mobile Learning and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems
EP
for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 683–687). Spain: ACM.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669974
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014b). Mobile learning
C
adoption from informal into formal: an extended TAM model to measure mobile
acceptance among teachers. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference
AC
on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 595–602). ACM.

https://doi.org/10.1145/2669711.2669961
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2015). Mobile acceptance
among pre-service teachers: A descriptive study using a TAM-based model. In
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for
Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 131–137). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2808580.2808601
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Subjective Norm and
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Technologies: A descriptive study on the

attitudes of future Primary Education teachers. In 2016 International Symposium on
Computers in Education (SIIE 16). Spain: IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/SIIE.2016.7751847
Prieto, J. C. S., Migueláñez, S. O., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). Assessment of the
Disposition of Future Secondary Education Teachers Towards Mobile Learning. In
PT
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for
Enhancing Multiculturality - TEEM 2017 (pp. 1–6).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3144826.3145374
RI
Ramayah, T., & Suki, N. M. (2006). Intention To Use Mobile Pc Among Mba Students :
Implications for Technology Integration in the Learning Curriculum. Unitar E-
Journal, 2(2), 30–39.
SC
Raza, S. A., Umer, A., Qazi, W., & Makhdoom, M. (2017). The Effects of Attitudinal,
Normative, and Control Beliefs on M-Learning Adoption Among the Students of
Higher Education in Pakistan. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117715941
U
Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude
AN
change: A revised theory of protection motivation. Social Psychophysiology, 153–
176.
Sabah, N. M. (2016). Exploring students’ awareness and perceptions: Influencing factors
M
and individual differences driving m-learning adoption. Computers in Human

Behavior, 65, 522–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.009
Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Informal
D
tools in formal contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile

technologies among teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 519–528.
TE
Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). MLearning
and pre-service teachers: An assessment of the behavioral intention using an
EP
expanded TAM model. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 644–654.

Sarrab, M., Shibli, I. Al, & Badursha, N. (2016). An Empirical Study of Factors Driving
C
the Adoption of Mobile Learning in Omani Higher Education. International Review

of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(4), 331–349.
AC
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2614
Scholtz, B., & Kapeso, M. (2014). An m-learning framework for ERP systems in higher
education. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 11(4), 287–301.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2014-0030
Sek, Y.-W., Lau, S.-H., Teoh, K.-K., Law, C.-Y., & Parumo, S. Bin. (2010). Prediction of
User Acceptance and Adoption of Smart Phone for Learning with Technology
Acceptance Model. Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(20), 2395–2402.
https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2010.2395.2402
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Seliaman, M. E., & Al-Turki, M. S. (2012). Mobile Learning Adoption in Saudi Arabia.
World Academy of Science, Engineering, and Technology, 6(9), 1129–1131.
Soleimani, E., Ismail, K., & Mustaffa, R. (2014). The Acceptance of Mobile Assisted
Language Learning (MALL) among Post Graduate ESL Students in UKM. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 457–462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.062
PT
Suki, N. M., & Suki, N. M. (2011). Users’ behavior towards ubiquitous M-learning.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 12(3), 118–129.
Sun, J., Chang, K.-Y., & Chen, Y.-H. (2015). GPS sensor-based mobile learning for
RI
English: an exploratory study on self-efficacy, self-regulation and student
achievement. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-015-0024-y
SC
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices
with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis and
research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275.
U
Tan, G. W. H., Ooi, K. B., Leong, L. Y., & Lin, B. (2014). Predicting the drivers of
AN
behavioral intention to use mobile learning: A hybrid SEM-Neural Networks
approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 198–213.
M
Theng, Y.-L. (2009). Mobile Learning for Tertiary Students: An Exploratory Study of
Acceptance of Use. In Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational
Media and Technology (pp. 937–946).
D
Theng, Y.-L., Tan, K.-L., Lim, E.-P., Zhang, J., Goh, D. H.-L., Chatterjea, K., … Vo, M.
C. (2007). Mobile G-Portal supporting collaborative sharing and learning in
TE
geography fieldwork: an empirical study. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM/IEEE-CS

joint conference on Digital libraries (pp. 462–471). Canada: ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1255175.1255269
EP
Tlili, A., Essalmi, F., & Jemni, M. (2016). Improving learning computer architecture
through an educational mobile game. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 7.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-016-0030-6
C
Traxler, J., Attewell, J., & Savill-Smith, C. (2004). Mobile learning – evaluating the
effectiveness and the cost. Learning with Mobile Devices, 183–188.
AC
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User Acceptance of
Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Verhoeven, J. C., Heerwegh, D., & De Wit, K. (2010). Information and communication
technologies in the life of university freshmen: An analysis of change. Computers
and Education, 55(1), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.002
Wai, I. S. H., Ng, S. S. Y., Chiu, D. K. W., Ho, K. K. W., & Lo, P. (2018). Exploring
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
undergraduate students’ usage pattern of mobile apps for education. Journal of

Librarianship and Information Science, 50(1), 34–47.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000616662699
Wang, T. S. (2012). The relevant research of mobile learning mode and information
ability indicator in countrified area. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computing
(ICGEC), 2012 Sixth International Conference (pp. 95–98). IEEE.
PT
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGEC.2012.143
Wang, T. S. (2013). Design and assessment of joyful mobile navigation systems based on
TAM and integrating learning models applied on ecological teaching activity.
RI
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 201–212.
https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.9210a
Wu, W.-H., Wu, Y.-C. J., Chen, C.-Y., Kao, H.-Y., Lin, C.-H., & Huang, S.-H. (2012).
SC
Review of trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers &
Education, 59(2), 817–827.
Ye, H., Li, R., & Geng, M. (2010). Research on the factors of affecting the mobile
U
learning. In 2010 3rd International Symposium on Knowledge Acquisition and
Modeling, KAM 2010 (pp. 313–316). IEEE.
AN
Yoon, H.-Y. (2016). User Acceptance of Mobile Library Applications in Academic
Libraries: An Application of the Technology Acceptance Model. The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, 42(6), 687–693.
M
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.08.003
Zhang, J., Chang, C., & Zhou, P. (2015). Factors Affecting the Acceptance of Mobile
Devices in the Classroom. In Educational Innovation through Technology (EITT),
D
2015 International Conference (pp. 294–298). IEEE.

https://doi.org/10.1109/EITT.2015.67
TE
Zhao, Y., & Zhu, Q. (2010). Influence Factors of Technology Acceptance Model in
Mobile Learning. In Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (ICGEC), 2010 Fourth
International Conference (pp. 542–545). IEEE.
EP
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGEC.2010.139
C
AC
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Acknowledgement
This work was made under the support of the Faculty of Computer Systems and Software
Engineering at Universiti Malaysia Pahang.
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
• The present study systematically reviews and synthesizes the TAM studies related to M-
learning.
• Most of the TAM studies involving M-learning focused on extending the TAM with
external variables.
PT
• The main frequent research problem was to examine the M-learning acceptance among
students.
RI
• Questionnaire surveys were the primarily relied research methods for data collection.
SC
• Most of the analyzed studies were carried out in the higher educational settings.
U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Al Emran2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al Emran2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning context: A systematic review

Mostafa Al-Emran, Vitaliy Mezhuyev, Adzhar Kamaludin

To appear in: Computers & Education

Received Date: 26 August 2017

Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning Context: A Systematic Review

Mostafa Al-Emran (Corresponding Author)

Technology Acceptance Model in M-learning Context: A Systematic

and educational context, followed by IT and computer science context, respectively

Keywords: Technology Acceptance Model; Mobile Learning; Systematic Literature

related to M-learning in order to provide a comprehensive analysis of the collected

RQ4: What are the main disciplines/contexts of the selected studies?

such systems. Higher educational institutions stakeholders need to understand the

Furthermore, (Mortenson & Vidgen, 2016) conducted a computational literature review

that were mainly based on TAM.

Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

3.2 Data sources and search strategies

Figure 2. Systematic review process.

3.3 Quality Assessment

S5 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%

S9 1 0.5 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 5.5 61%

S11 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 7.5 83%

S15 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 7 78%

S19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%

S22 1 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 6 67%

S61 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0.5 0 6.5 72%

S64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0 7.5 83%

S68 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%

S72 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 6.5 72%

S74 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 7 78%

S84 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 6 67%

3.4 Data coding and analysis

Figure 3. TAM’s four groups of modifications (King & He, 2006).

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 RQ1: distribution of research purposes

the students’ adoption of M-learning preceding to its implementation in the future.

Taiwanese higher educational institutions.

4.2 RQ2: distribution of research methods

data collection is the questionnaire survey, followed by other mixed methods.

Figure 5: Distribution of studies in terms of research methods.

4.3 RQ3: distribution of countries

Figure 6: Distribution of studies in terms of country.

4.4 RQ4: distribution of studies by disciplines/contexts

Context/discipline is a study field that is taught and researched in an educational level

Figure 7: Distribution of studies in terms of context/discipline.

4.5 RQ5: distribution of studies by educational levels

4.6 RQ6: distribution of studies by year of publication

In terms of publication year, Figure 9 illustrates the distribution of studies that

remarkable increase in 2014 could be attributed to the popularity of using mobile

Figure 9: Distribution of studies in terms of publication year

distribution across their year of publication. In the present study, we conducted a

Source External Variables Research Problem Methods Country Discipline/context Education

Zhou, 2015) “Love degree”).

Callum, acceptance of mobile technology in the

García- conditions”, “self-efficacy”, “anxiety”, professionals’ acceptance of mobile

(Chi-cheng (“Perceived convenience”) Examining the impact of “Perceived

accessibility”). mobile telecommunication.

(Nikou & (“perceived mobility”, “authentic Greece

Migueláñez, instructors’ adoption of M-learning.

(Poong, (“social influence”, “self-efficacy”, Examining the drivers of M-learning Laos

2017) readiness”, and “students’ readiness”).

“interactivity”, “functionality”, “user-

“availability”, “personalization”, and Not Specified

(Chiou, Survey Not Management