Mobile learning is one of the pivotal advances in the 21st century education. However, other than its performance and function, its acceptance by the students is a very important factor in successful implementation of mobile learning. The present study was an attempt to determine the effective factors in acceptance of m-learning and determine the type of relationship among the factors in the undergraduate healthcare professional students based on technology acceptance model (TAM). This survey study was carried out as a descriptive-analytical work. A total of 310 students in Saveh University of Medical Sciences in Iran were selected in 2018. Data gathering tool was a researcher designed questionnaire designed based on technology acceptance model of which validity and reliability were supported beforehand. Data analyses were carried out through structural equation modeling and confirmatory path analysis in LISREL. The mean score of all variables (perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude and intention to use, and actual use) except the external factors were higher than base mean score (m ≥ 3), which indicates good acceptance of mobile learning among the students. The lowest mean score was obtained by teacher’s support of using mobile for learning purposes (an external factor). There was a significant correlation among the external factors, perceived usefulness, attitude and intention to use, and actual use (p < 0.05).The results supported effectiveness of the constructs of technology acceptance method and its ability to predict acceptance of mobile learning. TAM factors were significant determinants of mobile learning acceptance.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
10
Mohammad Shooriabi, Farideh KaabOmeir, Sedigheh Modarres Mousavy, Mohammad Reza Darvishi Lardi, Amin Beshkar
(2023)
Design and evaluation of a smartphone app to teach students about body language and patient management
Telematics and Informatics Reports, 9()
10.1016/j.teler.2022.100035
Alejandro Valencia-Arias, Sebastian Cardona-Acevedo, Sergio Gómez-Molina, Rosa María Vélez Holguín, Jackeline Valencia, Eric Amankwa
(2024)
Adoption of mobile learning in the university context: Systematic literature review
PLOS ONE, 19(6)
10.1371/journal.pone.0304116
Alvin Muhammad ‘Ainul Yaqin, Ahmad Kamil Muqoffi, Sigit Rahmat Rizalmi, Faishal Arham Pratikno, Remba Yanuar Efranto
(2025)
Hybrid learning in post-pandemic higher education systems: an analysis using SEM and DNN
Cogent Education, 12(1)
10.1080/2331186X.2025.2458930
Jason Wen Yau Lee, Dennis Wenhui Ong, Reuben Chee Chong Soh, Jai Prashant Rao, Fernando Bello
(2025)
Exploring student acceptance of learning technologies in anatomy education: A mixed‐method approach
Clinical Anatomy, 38(3)
10.1002/ca.24254
Nayereh Baghcheghi, Hamid Reza Koohestani
(2021)
The relationship between the willingness to mobile learning and educational achievements in health-care professional students
Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10(1)
10.4103/jehp.jehp_1491_20
Soleiman Ahmady, Nasrin Khajeali, Noushin Kohan, Afagh Zarei, Bikram Biswas, Mohammad Barzegar, Azadeh Kordestani Moghaddam, Ehsan Namaziandost
(2024)
Medical students’ perception of mobile learning during COVID-19 in Iran: A national study
PLOS ONE, 19(10)
10.1371/journal.pone.0308248
Eugenia Smyrnova-Trybulska, Małgorzata Przybyła-Kasperek, Marcin Gierczyk, Dagmara Dobosz
(2025)
E-Learning and Enhancing Soft Skills
, ()
10.1007/978-3-031-82243-8_8
Mirela-Catrinel Voicu, Mihaela Muntean
(2023)
Factors That Influence Mobile Learning among University Students in Romania
Electronics, 12(4)
10.3390/electronics12040938
Jason Wen Yau Lee, Jenelle Yingni Tan, Fernando Bello
(2025)
Technology Acceptance Model in Medical Education: Systematic Review
JMIR Medical Education, 11()
10.2196/67873
Zhangxiang Zhu, Wansu Huang
(2025)
A meta-analysis of mobile learning adoption using extended UTAUT
Information Development, 41(2)
10.1177/02666669231176428The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.