You are here:

Empirical Analysis on Factors Impacting on Intention to Use M-learning in Basic Education in Egypt ARTICLE

, , School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia USM, Penang, Malaysia

IRRODL Volume 19, Number 2, ISSN 1492-3831 Publisher: Athabasca University Press


It is apparent that m-learning will continuously have a massive role in terms of development in teaching and learning methods for education. Student's intention to use this technology is the main factor that eventually leads to a success in implementing m-learning. The objectives of this particular research are to come up with the development and examination towards a research model to uncover the factors that have important effects on the intention to use mobile learning for basic education in Egypt. A research model was developed through extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) by incorporating two additional factors namely; learners' autonomy (LA) and content quality design (CQD). A quantitative approach based on cross-sectional survey was used to collect data from 386 respondents.. The methodology used in this study was a Partial Least Squares (PLS) that was expected to test the model empirically. The results showcased that learners' autonomy (LA), performance expectancy (PE), facilitating conditions (FC), and social influence (SI) are significant in relation to behavioural intention (BI) to use m-learning while effort expectancy (EE) did not show the impact on intention to use mobile learning. The research also found that content quality design (CQD) affects significantly on performance expectancy (PE) and effort expectancy (EE). The possible development in future research and the limitations of the findings are also discussed later in this paper.


Adel Ali, R. & Rafie Mohd Arshad, M. (2018). Empirical Analysis on Factors Impacting on Intention to Use M-learning in Basic Education in Egypt. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2),. Athabasca University Press. Retrieved October 16, 2018 from .


View References & Citations Map


  1. Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An
  2. Al-Hujran, O., Al-Lozi, E., & Al-Debei, M.M. (2014). Get ready to mobile learning: Examining factors
  3. Ali, R.A., & Arshad, M.R.M. (2016). Perspectives of students’ behavior towards mobile learning (m DASHDASH
  4. 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.
  5. Alshalabi, I.A., & Elleithy, K. (2012). Effective m-learning design strategies for computer science and
  6. Alzahrani, A., Stahl, B.C., & Prior, M. (2012). Developing an instrument for e-public services’ acceptance
  7. Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
  8. Attalla, S.M.E.-S., El-Sherbiny, R., Mokbel, W.A., El-Moursy, R.M., & Abdel-Wahab, A.G. (2012).
  9. Badwelan, A., Drew, S., & Bahaddad, A.A. (2016). Towards acceptance m-learning approach in higher education in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(8), 12.
  10. Bere, A. (2014). Exploring determinants for mobile learning user acceptance and use: an application of
  11. PressCoursaris, C., & Hassanein, K. (2002). Understanding m-commerce: a consumer-centric model. Quarterly Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3, 247-272.
  12. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3) 319-340.
  13. Dyson, L.E., Litchfield, A., Raban, R., & Tyler, J. (2009). Interactive classroom mLearning and the
  14. Fornell, C., & Cha, J. (1994). Partial least squares. In R.P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced methods of marketing research (pp. 52–78). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 13, 39-50.
  16. Brantes Ferreira, J., Zanela Klein, A., Freitas, A., & Schlemmer, E. (2013). Mobile learning: Definition, uses and challenges In Increasing student engagement and retention using mobile applications: smartphones, skype and texting technologies (pp. 47-82). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  17. Galal, R. (2016). How Egypt plans to build its next generation of scientists. Retrieved from
  18. GSM Association and NTT DOCOMO. (2014). Children’s use of mobile– an international comparison 2013. Japan. Retrieved from
  19. Hwang, G.J., & Tsai, C.C. (2011). Research trends in mobile and ubiquitous learning: A review of
  20. Jairak, K., Praneetpolgrang, P., & Mekhabunchakij, K. (2009). An acceptance of mobile learning for
  21. Jawad, H., & Hassan, Z. (2015). Applying UTAUT to evaluate the acceptance of mobile learning in higher education in Iraq. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(5), 952-954.
  22. Jeong, H.-Y., & Hong, B.-H. (2013). A practical use of learning system using user preference in ubiquitous computing environment. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 64(2), 491-504.
  23. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
  24. Kuciapski, M. (2016). Students acceptance of m-learning for higher education–UTAUT model
  25. Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A.E., Schroder, K.E., & Belland, B.R. (2014). Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and
  26. Liaw, S.-S., Hatala, M., & Huang, H.-M. (2010). Investigating acceptance toward mobile learning to assist
  27. Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers& Education, 49(4), 1066-1080.
  28. Makoe, M. (2010). Linking mobile learning to the student-centred approach (Blog post). Retrieved from
  29. Maniar, N., Bennett, E., Hand, S., & Allan, G. (2008). The effect of mobile phone screen size on videobased learning. Journal of Software, 3(4), 51-61.
  30. Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the use of mobile technology. Computers& Education, 68, 76-85.
  31. Nassuora, A.B. (2012). Students acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. American Academic& Scholarly Research Journal, 4 (2), 24-30.
  32. Ng, K.S., Ibrahim, M.A., Ahmad, A.R., & Ng, M.X.S. (2015). Factors influencing intention to use mobile
  33. Ramayah, T., Lee, J.W.C., & In, J.B.C. (2011). Network collaboration and performance in the tourism sector. Service Business, 5(4), 411.
  34. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH
  35. Selfe, C.L. (1999). Technology and literacy in the 21st century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.
  36. Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of
  37. Sureephong, P., Sirichai, P., & Winya, S. (2015). Technology Acceptance of Thai Primary Student on
  38. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
  39. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
  40. Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users' attitudes toward the use of mobile
  41. Watts, N. (1997). A Learner-based approach to computer mediated language learning. System, 25(1), 1-8.
  42. West, D.M. (2013). Mobile learning: Transforming education, engaging students, and improving

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact