International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning

Volume 16, Number 3

June – 2015

The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System

at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning
Satisfaction and Achievement

Won Sug Shin1 and Minseok Kang2

1Korea University, 2KyungHee Cyber University, Korea

Abstract

This study investigates online students’ acceptance of mobile learning and its influence on
learning achievement using an information system success and extended technology acceptance
model (TAM). Structural equation modeling was used to test the structure of individual, social,
and systemic factors influencing mobile learning’s acceptance, and how said acceptance
influences learning satisfaction and achievement. Unlike earlier TAM-related research that did
not provide a broad view of technological acceptance and its impact on learning activities, the
present study’s results highlight the relationship between behavioral intention/learning
satisfaction and learning achievement. Additionally, this study tests the theoretical model of
successful mobile learning by empirically accepting mobile learning management systems. The
findings further imply that students at online universities have started to accept mobile
technology as a new learning tool; consequently, its acceptance has influenced their learning
achievement both directly and indirectly. These discoveries should facilitate a better
understanding of students’ usage of mobile learning systems in higher education, and provide
timely guidance for its development and implementation.

Keywords: Mobile learning; mobile LMS; TAM; ISS

110
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

As mobile technology has matured sufficiently in recent years to support advanced learning
activities, its adaptation for this purpose has spread globally. This is natural since students are
surrounded by mobile technology in their daily lives. Additionally, the proliferation of advanced
wireless technologies has facilitated learning on the go, whereby individuals can access
educational content regardless of their location. Mobile technology also offers various
opportunities for timely and active knowledge acquisition through the exchange of learning
materials (Woodill, 2011; Jones, Scanlon, & Clough, 2013).

Due to its wide range of benefits (e.g., cost effectiveness, ubiquity, location-based services, and
potential as a study aid), mobile learning is expected to play a significant role in a multitude of
educational settings (Cheon, Lee, Crooks, & Song, 2012). Most importantly, mobile technology
possesses great potential in offering rich multimedia experiences and resources of a varied nature
while enabling students to learn without being restricted by time or location in both formal and
informal educational settings (i.e., seamless learning) (Lam, Yau, & Cheung, 2010; Milrad, Wong,
Sharples, Hwang, Looi, Ogata, 2013). Consequently, educational institutions specializing in open
and distance learning have attempted to develop applications such as mobile learning
management systems (LMSs) for students enrolled in e-learning courses. Indeed, the swift
deployment of such systems by online educational institutions should be a priority given
continuously increasing student demand.

The availability of mobile technology does not actually guarantee that it will be used in an
educational setting (Hwang & Chang, 2011); similarly, the mere adoption of a new technology
does not assure its learning effectiveness. Nevertheless, many educational institutions have
attempted to support online learning activities, while researchers have also begun placing greater
focus on the utilization of mobile LMSs. Still, mobile learning at institutions of higher education
remains in its infancy (Park, 2011; Cheon et al., 2012). Research concerning mobile learning has
generally focused either on its effectiveness as a learning aid, or on approaches to designing such
systems (Chu, Hwang, Tsai, & Tseng, 2010; W. Wu, J. Wu, Chen, Kao, Lin, & Huang, 2012).
Additionally, existing studies have focused primarily on mobile learning as a potential type of
informal learning (Wang & Chang, 2011; Jones et al., 2013; Martin & Ertzberger, 2013), or on its
effectiveness in supplementing formal learning (Gikas & Grant, 2013). Studies examining
situations in which all elements of learning occur through a mobile device are scant, however.
Furthermore, few studies have investigated the impact of mobile LMSs on student learning
activities in regular courses at formal educational institutions. Further research is necessary to
determine why students use mobile LMSs and their effect on learning satisfaction (LS) and
achievement.

Recent research has adopted the technology acceptance model (TAM) as an explanatory tool for
investigating the technological learning process (Park, 2009), allowing researchers to identify
how students adopt mobile learning approaches (Park, Nam, & Cha, 2012). Notwithstanding the
TAM’s adaptability, arguments exist in favor of incorporating additional socio-cultural and

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

111
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

organizational factors into the model that were originally unexplored (Teo, 2009). Indeed, TAM’s
two constructs (i.e., ease of use and usefulness) may not fully capture the components necessary
to predict students’ acceptance of technology (Edmunds, Thorpe, & Conole, 2012); as such, other
variables should be considered to provide a broader view and improved explanation of
technological adoption (Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003). These unexplored factors, which
have not been studied in mobile learning contexts, should be investigated to identify influential
factors involved in applying an information system success (ISS) model to gauge student
intentions toward adopting mobile learning, satisfaction, and learning achievement (LA).
Moreover, a sparse amount of research has explored mobile LMS adoption and its influence on LS
and achievement from the perspective of learning success. Therefore, this paper tackles the
intention to implement mobile LMSs and the resultant influence on LS and achievement by
combining the TAM and ISS model.

Background

TAM

Researchers have spent many years attempting to develop and test models for predicting
technology acceptance. In most m-learning studies, adaptations of the theory of reasoned action
(TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991), and the TAM
(Davis, 1989) have been proven to predict technology acceptance behavior successfully (Cheon et
al., 2012). The TAM, which is derived from the TRA, has gained recognition as the most useful
among them for investigating the acceptance of novel technologies, and it covers significant
factors affecting their use. Moreover, since its introduction the TAM has been extensively tested
and validated empirically by scholars in various fields and contexts to explain user belief-
intention-behavior across a broad range of computer-related technologies (Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1989; McCoy, Galletta, & King, 2007; Teo, 2009; Giesbers, Rienties, Tempelaar, &
Gijselaers, 2013).

The TAM comprises factors affecting behavioral intentions in technology use, and demonstrates
the effects of self-efficacy and outcome expectations (the perceived ease of use and usefulness of a
technology [Davis & Venkatesh, 1996]) on attitudes toward technology use. Technology
acceptance in this model entails four main factors: perceived ease of use (PEU), perceived
usefulness (PU), attitudes toward technology use, and behavioral intention (BI). Among these
predictors, PU and PEU are hypothesized to be the fundamental determinants of user acceptance,
a notion verified through empirical support (Gibson, Harris, & Colaric, 2008). PU is the extent to
which a person believes using a particular technology will enhance his or her job performance,

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

112
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

while PEU refers to the degree of simplicity a prospective user expects from a target system (Davis
et al., 1989).

Extended-Technology Acceptance Model (eTAM)

Although the TAM has been successfully adapted to explain the acceptance and usage of various
forms of technology, some researchers insist that further investigation is necessary to identify
additional factors that may influence technology acceptance. Teo (2010), for example, advocates
integrating technological complexity, computer self-efficacy, and environmental/organizational
support, in addition to other relevant and unexplored factors. Critics of TAM, such as Legris et al.
(2003), assert that other variables should be considered in order to facilitate a broader view and
more thorough understanding of technology adoption. In other words, the eTAM is a prerequisite
for developing a genuine understanding of technology use.

eTAM-based research examining the acceptance of new technology deems individual, social, and
systemic factors most important. For example, Park (2009) postulates that self-efficacy (SE),
subjective norms (SN), and system accessibility (SA) are important factors that influence online
learners’ ways of interacting from an individual, organizational, and social standpoint
respectively. Thus, this study proposes a version of the eTAM comprising three exogenous
variables, which are discussed in further detail below.

The eTAM proposed herein includes two individual factors: SE and personal innovativeness (PI).
SE was selected as an important construct based on the findings of Compeau and Higgins (1995),
who reported that higher SE levels with respect to computers lead to greater behavioral intention
and use of information technology. Furthermore, Lewis, Agarwal, and Sambamurthy (2003)
examined the effects of SE and PI on PEU and PU among 161 university staff members, finding
that PI exhibited a significant effect on ease of use and usefulness. In another study by Liu, Li,
and Carlsson (2010), the TAM was applied to examine PI’s effects on Chinese university students’
intention to use mobile learning; the results revealed that, in the long term, PI positively
influences PU. Furthermore, Park (2009) found that SN exhibit a significantly positive influence
on PU.

Regarding social factors, Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) examined the relationship between SN,
perceived pressure to perform a given behavior, and one’s motivation to comply with said
pressures; since then, researchers have focused on SN when attempting to demonstrate
correlations between behavioral intentions. While early TAMs did not consider SN influential
(Davis, 1989), models were later revised as the influence of SN on the acceptance of technology
became well established (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Hence, contemporary researchers give
credence to SN due to its proven, significant relationship to the intention to use mobile learning
(Cheon et al., 2012).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

113
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Finally, this study considers relative advantage (RA) and SA as system factors. RA, which is
rooted in Rogers’ (2005) innovation diffusion theory, measures to what extent an innovation
improved upon its predecessors. Although it was not deemed influential in early TAMs, it is
currently considered a dominant factor affecting technology adoption since its importance was
proposed by Venkatesh, Morris, G. B. Davis, & F. D. Davis (2003), who argue that while some
researchers may insist that PU is similar to RA, differences become apparent between them in
discussions concerning performance expectancy. Additionally, SA could be regarded as an
important factor affecting BI. Park et al. (2012) insist that SA as an organizational factor is among
the dominant exogenous constructs affecting BI toward mobile learning, since a wireless Internet
connection is required to facilitate mobile learning activities.

Mobile Learning with the TAM and ISS Model

Proposed by DeLone and McLean in 1992, the ISS model influenced the research direction of
information systems and is considered the most suitable model for evaluating information system
success (Freeze, Alshare, Lane, & Wen, 2010; Alsabawy, Cater-Steel, & Soar, 2013). For example,
Freeze et al. utilized the ISS model in examining e-learning systems among college students in the
United States, discovering a positive correlation between system/information quality and
satisfaction/system use.

In terms of mobile learning employing the TAM, Park et al. (2012) investigated mobile learning
intention among Korean college students and determined that attitude was the most important
construct in explaining the acceptance of mobile learning. In contrast, Liu et al. (2010) found that
PU and PI were the two most influential factors in adopting mobile learning among Chinese
college students. As mentioned earlier, most prior research has focused on the general adoption of
new technology related to mobile learning, not college students’ adoption of mobile learning and
its relation to satisfaction and LA specifically; this is because said studies primarily examine
students’ acceptance of mobile learning from the standpoint of intention (Cheon et al., 2012).
Ultimately, research on the relationship between technology adoption and learner achievement
would be more significant if the effect of new technology on learning were considered. Studies
examining the path to LA that take advantage of the TAM and ISS model are influential in this
regard.

By referring to literature involving mobile learning and ISS (e.g., Freeze et al., 2010; Park et al.,
2012), this study developed an integrated model based on both the TAM and ISS model (Figure
1), which is best suited for investigating students’ intention to use mobile learning systems, in
addition to their satisfaction and LA. That is, this study examines relationships among PU, PEU,
BI, LS, and LA in a mobile learning environment based on the TAM and ISS model, while also
considering exogenous variables such as SE/PI, SN, and RA/SA as individual, social, and systemic
factors respectively. Accordingly, the following research hypotheses were posed concerning
mobile learners:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

114
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

H1: That PEU is influenced by SE, PI, SN, RA, and SA

H2: That PU is influenced by PI, SN, RA, SA, and PEU

H3: That BI is influenced by PEU and PU

H4: That LS is influenced by BI

H5: That LA is influenced by BI and LS

Figure 1. Research model.

Research Methods

Participants and Context

The study’s participants included 1,117 undergraduate students enrolled in a South Korean online
university. Upon registering for courses students were offered to select between PC (traditional)
or mobile-based learning, the latter being periodically augmented by in-class lectures. Mobile
learners used devices such as smartphones and tablets to stream classroom lectures and post

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

115
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

questions or messages by means of the mobile LMS. Participant demographics, including gender,
age, and grade level are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic Information of Participants

Gender Age (years) Grade

Number Number Number
(Percentage) (Percentage) (Percentage)
Male 514(46.0) Under 20 7(0.6) Grade 1 390(34.9)
Female 603(54.0) 20–29 275(24.6) Grade 2 62(5.6)

30–39 336(30.1) Grade 3 478(42.8)

40-49 387(34.6) Grade 4 187(16.7)
Over 50 112(10.0)
Total 1,117(100) 1,117(100) 1,117(100)

Data Collection
Questionnaires were distributed using the university’s LMS and results were collected for
fourteen days between May 20 and June 3, 2013. In total, 1,304 questionnaires were received, of
which 187 were excluded from analysis that contained either blank or invalid responses (i.e.,
identical answers for each question). Hence, 1,117 surveys were analyzed.

Survey Instrument
A survey instrument was designed to measure ten constructs using a five-point Likert scale. The
survey comprises two sections, the first of which contains questions concerning demographic
factors, followed by 31 questions regarding the ten constructs. The ten constructs included two
questions for SE, four questions each for RA and LA, and three questions each for PI, SN, SA, PU,
PEU, BI, and LS. Three experts in related fields reviewed each question to verify content validity.
The definitions and sources for the ten constructs are provided in Table 2.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

116
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Table 2

Survey Instrument

Construct Operational definition Items Source

Students’ ability to use a mobile LMS to
SE (Self-Efficacy) 2 Cheon et al. (2012)
accomplish a learning job or task

PI (Personal Willingness to adopt a mobile LMS before

3 van Braak (2001)
Innovativeness) others

SN (Subjective Perception that those most important to the

3 Park et al. (2012)
Norm) respondent should use a mobile LMS
Degree to which using a mobile LMS for
RA (Relative Moore & Benbasat (1991);
learning is perceived to be superior to its 4
Advantage) Venkatesh et al. (2003)
predecessor

SA (System Extent to which students are granted free

3 Park et al. (2012)
Accessibility) access and use of a mobile LMS

Degree to which a student believes using a

PU (Perceived
mobile LMS will enhance his or her 3 Liu et al. (2010)
Usefulness)
learning

Degree to which a student believes using a

PEU (Perceived
mobile LMS would be simple and 3 Liu et al. (2010)
Ease of Use)
straightforward

Perceived likelihood that a student will take

BI (Behavioral
a class utilizing a mobile LMS in the future 3 Cheon et al. (2012)
Intention)
or recommend doing so to others

LS (Learning Perceived learning satisfaction when using

3 Sun et al. (2008);
Satisfaction) a mobile LMS

LA (Learning Perceived learning achievement when using

4 Sun et al. (2008);
Achievement) a mobile LMS

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

117
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Method

This study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the reliability and validity of the
survey instrument and research model hypotheses using AMOS 18.0. SEM is a general term used
to describe a family of statistical methods designed to test a conceptual or theoretical model. The
advantage of SEM is that it considers both the evaluation of the measurement model and the
estimation of the structural coefficient simultaneously.

Results

Data analyses comprised two steps. First, the measurement model’s convergent and discriminant
validity was examined. Next, the hypotheses were tested by evaluating the path model and
assessing model fit using various indices.

Examining the Research Instrument’s Reliability and Validity

Convergent validity.

Three variables encompass the convergent validity test: each measure’s item reliability, each
construct’s composite reliability, and the average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). All indicator factor loadings for each measure’s item reliability require significance (i.e., a
value equal to or greater than 0.7). The results showed that all items’ factor loadings were
significant, ranging between 0.711 and 0.931; hence, all items obtained convergent reliability. As
for composite reliability, it requires a value equal to or greater than .7. Composite reliability in
this study ranged between .802 and .932, indicating that all constructs obtained composite
reliability. Finally, AVE requires a value equal to or greater than .50; this condition was also met,
with values exceeding .50. These findings, which are summarized in Table 3, conclusively
demonstrate that the measurement model’s convergent validity is adequate.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

118
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Table 3

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Average
Composite
Standardized Variance
Factor Variable t p Reliability
factor loadings Extracted
(CR; >.70)
(AVE; >.50)
SE 1 .820 - -
SE .816 .689
SE 2 .829 27.702 .000
PI 1 .711 -
PI PI 2 .849 25.529 .000 .853 .662
PI 3 .862 25.743 .000
SN 1 .837 - -
SN SN 2 .803 29.031 .000 .861 .673
SN 3 .779 28.050 .000
RA 1 .772 -
RA 2 .816 29.431 .000
RA .918 .739
RA 3 .908 33.662 .000
RA 4 .882 32.440 .000
SA 1 .700
SA SA 2 .764 22.388 .000 .798 .569
SA 3 .752 22.099 .000
PU 1 .825
PU PU 2 .745 27.484 .000 .895 .741
PU 3 .772 28.847 .000
PEU 1 .740
PEU PEU 2 .840 27.073 .000 .895 .641
PEU 3 .765 24.740 .000
BI 1 .890
BI BI 2 .850 37.420 .000 .873 .697
BI 3 .761 31.088 .000
LS 1 .816
LS LS 2 .873 35.430 .000 .882 .715
LS 3 .882 36.037 .000
LA 1 .877
LA 2 .823 36.548 .000
LA .900 .693
LA 3 .844 38.313 .000
LA 4 .879 41.566 .000
Fit indices: /df = 4.145, TLI = .944, CFI = .953, RMSEA = .053

Discriminant validity.

Discriminant validity measures if a construct differs with another construct and its indicators,
which is determined by examining whether the AVE’s square root is over the correlation
coefficient between constructs (Segars & Grover, 1998). Table 4 shows that the AVE’s square root

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

119
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

is greater than the correlation coefficient between constructs, thereby validating the research
instrument.

Table 4

Correlation Matrices and Discriminant Validity

Variable AVE SE PI SN RA SA PU PEU BI SA LA

SE .69 .83*

PI .66 .53 .80*

SN .67 .30 .39 .82*

RA .74 .32 .38 .63 .86*

SA .57 .38 .39 .46 .65 .76*

PU .74 .39 .43 .56 .65 .53 .82*

PEU .74 .40 .42 .63 .73 .57 .67 .81*

BI .70 .69 .54 .39 .44 .53 .50 .55 .83*

SA .72 .37 .40 .54 .67 .66 .73 .67 .49 .87*

LA .70 .39 .44 .54 .69 .64 .76 .69 .53 .87 .88*

* The square root of the average variance extracted (AVE)

Model Fit and Hypothesis Testing

The chi-square ( ) score for testing model fit was 1845.162 (p<.001), invalidating the null
hypothesis and necessitating another goodness-of-fit index (Bentler, 1989). Model fit was
confirmed by testing the model fit index (Hu & Bentler, 1999), which considers parsimony but not
sample size.

Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was used as a measure of absolute fit, while
the comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) were used to measure incremental
fit. According to Bentler (1990) and Tucker and Lewis (1973), CFI and TLI values of .90 or more
reflect good fit; comparatively, for RMSEA values between .06 to .08 are considered a good fit,
and those below .06 excellent (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Based on these standards, model fit in the
present study reflected a good-fit, with CFI, TLI, and RMSEA values of .945, .937, and .056
respectively.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

120
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

For the hypothesis testing, the t-value results are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Hypotheses test results.

Path Analysis
Table 5 shows the direct, indirect, and total effects of determinants on the endogenous variables.
Small, medium, and large effect sizes are denoted by <0.1, 0.1-0.3, and >0.5, respectively (Cohen,
1988).

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

121
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Table 5

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of the Research Model (A->B)

B PEU PU BI LS LA
A Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
SE .664* .664* -.098 .245* .147* .136* .136* .119* .119* .120* .120*

PI .100* .100* .019 .037 .056 .053* .053* .046 .046 .046 .046

SN .040 .040 .232* .015 .247* .209* .209* .182* .182* .184* .184*

RA -.080 -.080 .553* -.037 .516* .425* .425* .370* .370* .375* .375*

SA .330* .330* .027 .122* .149* .144* .144* .125* .125* .127* .127*

PEU .369* .369* .059 .308 .367* .319* .319* .324* .324*

PU .836* .836* .728* .728* .738* .738*

BI .870* .870* .187* .695* .882*

LS .799* .799*

* p<.05

Discussion and Conclusion

This study investigated online students’ acceptance of mobile learning and its influence on LA
using an eTAM and ISS model. Furthermore, SEM was employed to test the structure of
individual, social, and systemic factors influencing the acceptance of mobile learning, and how its
acceptance influenced LS and LA. Several implications were derived from the results, which are
discussed below.

First, the results revealed that SE, PI, and SA have a significant influence on PEU. The
determination that SE and PI significantly influences PEU supports the notion that learners’ SE
and PI positively influence technology use, a finding mirrored by Lewis et al. (2003). This implies
that intrinsic personal factors such as SE and PI positively impact mobile LMS use. Moreover, the
finding that SA has positive effect on PEU coincides with prior studies that adopted a TAM, such
as Park et al. (2012). It further demonstrates the importance of systems that provide high-speed
wireless Internet access, compatibility between mobile/PC-based LMSs, and a user-friendly
design that facilitates searching for information and learning content using mobile devices.

However, SN and RA did not influence PEU, indicating that SN and RA as social and system
factors respectively are not directly related to mobile LMS use, thus coinciding with previous
studies (i.e., Venkatesh et al., 2003; Cheon et al., 2012) that found SN and RA to indirectly
influence BI by way of PU. It can be understood that since students enrolled in online universities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

122
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

are accustomed to using mobile LMSs, exogenous variables such as SN and RA influence PU
directly and PEU indirectly. Thus, to enhance PEU one must consider ways to support individual
factors such as SE and PI, as well as systemic factors that allow learners to easily access mobile
LMSs. Educational institutions may accomplish this, for example, by providing students with
mobile LMS orientation and detailed instructional manuals.

Second, SN and RA exhibited a significant and positive influence on PU. This is in agreement with
Legris et al. (2003), Park (2009), and Huang et al. (2014), who found a correlation between
students’ desire to remain current with societal changes engendered in technological development
while integrating contemporary technology into their learning activities. Thus, based on the
perception that rapidly embracing technology can aid one’s survival in society, students may
adopt a positive attitude toward mobile learning. The aforementioned influence of RA on PU also
coincides with Venkatesh et al. (2003), who concluded that learners expecting mobile LMSs to
outperform preexisting technology perceive its usefulness. Such individuals consider mobile
learning a complementary alternative to traditional tools, which promote more effective and
easier learning, and hence hold a positive outlook concerning their use. In contrast, SE, PI, and
SA did not exhibit a positive or direct influence on PU. Thus, confidence and openness toward
mobile LMSs does not necessarily imply a belief in its usefulness (Joo, Lee, & Ham, 2014).
Furthermore, SA does not significantly influence PU, a finding that is consistent with prior
studies examining factors affecting mobile learning in Korea (Park et al., 2012). In a
technologically advanced country like Korea, where Wi-Fi and 3G are ubiquitous, accessibility to
mobile-based LMSs is not an issue; accordingly, student familiarity with mobile technology
facilitates an awareness of mobile LMSs and their potential indispensability as a social tool. This
familiarity may increase students’ technological expectations, and consequently necessitate
modifications to the LMS to meet user demands for additional features and functions.

Third, PU is the most influential factor affecting BI in students’ intention to use mobile learning
systems, a finding that is in agreement with Park et al. (2012) and Huang et. al (2014). PU
significantly and directly influences BI, while PEU and other exogenous variables (including SE)
indirectly influence BI by means of PU. There are two possible interpretations for these results.
The first is that students adopt mobile learning based on its perceived usefulness, while the
second is that since students enrolled in an online university are already very familiar with mobile
learning, PEU has no direct effect on their intention to use such technologies. Thus, a key factor
determining the acceptance of mobile learning is whether students are inclined not only to
consider its ease of use, but other characteristics as well. The active acceptance of mobile learning
systems requires, when compared to preexisting e-learning systems, greater support for
optimized functions, information, and follow-up services.

Fourth, a significant relationship was discovered between BI and LS, a result consistent with Park
et al. (2007) who found that the use of information systems influenced learner satisfaction. This
indicates that mobile LMSs enhance LS, and that online university enrollees positively accept it;

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

123
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

in turn, this acceptance is embodied in their LS. That is, the acceptance of mobile LMS promotes
successful learning, indicating a need for its active diffusion in order to enhance LS.

Fifth, the results highlight BI and LS’s role in LA in a mobile learning environment, which is in
agreement with Park et al.’s (2007) assertion that information systems likely promote LA. BI also
exhibited a strong influence on LA by means of LS, possibly demonstrating that the intention to
adopt mobile LMSs influences LS, which subsequently leads to LA. This indicates, to some extent,
that mobile LMS acceptance influences LA both directly and indirectly, further highlighting the
importance of diffusing mobile LMSs to enhance LS and LA.

The results and discussion presented above demonstrate that there is potential for the practical
application of this research in the design and implementation of mobile learning in open and
distance learning institutions. Instructors and administrators should make an effort to develop
structured manuals, organize mobile learning orientations, and ensure high accessibility to
mobile systems since SE, PI, and SA have a direct effect on PEU. Furthermore, because PU affects
BI directly instructors and administrators should focus on SN, RA, and PEU, which affect PU.
Indeed, the importance of remaining current with technical trends in mobile learning cannot be
overemphasized, and instructors must ensure that students are afforded a comfortable mobile
learning environment while continuously receiving information of relative advantage to mobile
learning (Han & Han, 2014). Additionally, unlike prior TAM research examining online distance
and mobile learning, the present study reflects the ISS model, which empirically shows that the
adoption of mobile technology contributes to successful learning. The acceptance of mobile LMSs
as a new technology directly impacts student learning satisfaction and achievement. These results
suggest that positive support from instructors and academic institutions and diffusion are
necessary for the adoption of mobile learning in online distance learning; further research must
be carried out in this regard.

In sum, the present study is significant in that it comprehensively examined factors partly
considered by the TAM and eTAM. Specifically, it demonstrated a relationship between BI/LS
and LA, a feat unaccomplished by prior TAM-related research that did not provide a broad view of
technology acceptance and its impact on learning activities. Indeed, enrollees at online
universities have begun accepting mobile technology as a new learning tool; in turn, this
acceptance has influenced their LA both directly and indirectly. Furthermore, the results should
elucidate student usage of mobile learning systems in higher education, aiding stakeholders such
as instructors and academic staff in creating and developing similar systems and learning
environments. Moreover, the results yield timely information for further development and
implementation. As the application of mobile learning in education has been widely researched
and is spreading rapidly to open distance learning, this study is timely and has great relevance for
future educational research.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

124
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

While this study bears significant implications for providing guidelines to support mobile learning
systems, the generalizability of its results are limited. As one of the world’s most technologically
advanced countries, approximately 10% of Korea’s formal universities operate online.
Consequently, the study’s results reflect a unique context that may not be transferrable to other
educational systems, and similar studies should be conducted in different educational contexts.
Second, the study is limited in terms of statistics, since LA reflected student perception rather
than actual data. Analyses based on quantifiable data such as test scores could strengthen the
study’s results. Furthermore, not all variables that could significantly affect student adoption of
mobile learning systems were examined. Therefore, the SEM results may have differed if other
variables were considered. Finally, data analysis was based on self-reported information, which
can be susceptible to response bias. From a methodological perspective, in-depth student
interviews could reinforce the study’s results by strengthening their perception and satisfaction of
mobile learning systems.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

125
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

References

Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2013). IT infrastructure services as a requirement for
e-learning system success. Computers & Education, 69, 431–451.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. Los Angeles: BMDP
Statistical Software.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107,
238–246.

Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness
in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education,
59(3), 1054–1064.

Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., & Tseng, J. C. (2010). A two-tier test approach to developing
location-aware mobile learning systems for natural science courses. Computers &
Education, 55(4), 1618–1627.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial
test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS quarterly, 319–340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.

DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3, 60–95.

Edmunds, R., Thorpe, M., & Conole, G. (2012). Student attitudes towards and use of ICT in course
study, work and social activity: A technology acceptance model approach. British Journal
of Educational Technology, 43(1), 71-84.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

126
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Freeze, R. D., Alshare, K. A., Lane, P. L., & Wen, H. J. (2010). IS success model in e-learning
context based on students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Education,
21(2), 173-184.

Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones and social media. The Internet
and Higher Education, 19, 18-26.

Han, I., & Han, S. (2014). Adoption of the mobile campus in a cyber university. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(6), 237-256, 140-157.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Education Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Huang, R. T., Hsiao, C. H., Tang, T. W., & Lien, T. C. (2014). Exploring the moderating role of
perceived flexibility advantages in mobile learning continuance intention (MLCI). The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3).

Hwang, G. J., & Chang, H. F. (2011). A formative assessment-based mobile learning approach to
improving the learning attitudes and achievements of students. Computers & Education,
56(4), 1023–1031.

Gibson, S. G., Harris, M. L., & Colaric, S. M. (2008). Technology acceptance in an academic
context: Faculty acceptance of online education. Journal of Education for Business,
83(6), 355–359.

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Investigating the relations
between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course
using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 285–292.

Gu, X., Gu, F., & Laffey, J. M. (2011). Designing a mobile system for lifelong learning on the move.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 204–215.

Jones, A. C., Scanlon, E., & Clough, G. (2013). Mobile learning: Two case studies of supporting
inquiry learning in informal and semiformal settings. Computers & Education, 61, 21–32.

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, 1–16.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

127
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Kim, S., Kim, H., & Han, S. (2013). A development of learning widget on m-learning and e-
learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(2), 190–202.

Kukulska-Hulme, A., Sharples, M., Milrad, M., Arnedillo-Sánchez, I. & Vavoula, G. (2009)
Innovation in mobile learning: A European perspective. International Journal of Mobile
and Blended Learning, 1(1), 13–35.

Lam, J., Yau, J., & Cheung, S. K. (2010). A review of mobile learning in the mobile age. Hybrid
Learning, 306–315.

Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3),
191–204.

Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about
information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly,
657–678.

Lin, Y. M., Lin, G. Y., & Laffey, J. M. (2008). Building a social and motivational framework for
understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 38(1), 1–27.

Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An empirical
study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.

Martin, F., & Ertzberger, J. (2013). Here and now mobile learning: An experimental study on the
use of mobile technology. Computers & Education, 68, 76–85.

McCoy, S., Galletta, D., & King, W. (2007). Applying TAM across cultures: The need for caution.
European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 81–90.

Milrad, M., Wong, L.-H., Sharples, M., Hwang, G.-J., Looi, C.-K., Ogata, H. (2013). Seamless
learning: An international perspective on next-generation technology-enhanced learning.
In Z. L. Berge & L. Y. Muilenburg (Eds.), Handbook of mobile learning (pp. 95–108).
New York: Routledge.

Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3),
192–222.

Park, S. H, Ko, E. Y, & Kim, J. W. (2007). Factors influencing users’ intention to use and academic
achievements of e-learning: Focusing on technology acceptance model and self-
determination theory. Journal of Finance & Knowledge, 5(2), 85–113.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

128
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Park, Y. (2011). A pedagogical framework for mobile learning: Categorizing educational

applications of mobile technologies into four types. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 78–102.

Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university

students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society,
12(3), 150–162.

Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use
mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605.

Rogers, E. M. (2005). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Segars, A. H., & Grover, V. (1998). Strategic information systems planning success: An
investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quarterly, 22(2), 139–163.

Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives successful e-learning? An
empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers
& Education, 50(4), 1183–1201.

Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers.

Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312.

Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computer use: Applying
and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive
Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.

van Braak, J. (1991). Factors influencing the use of computer mediated communication by
teachers in secondary schools. Computers & Education, 36(1), 41–57.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.

Walker, K. (2006). Introduction: Mapping the landscape of mobile learning. In Big issues in
mobile learning: Report of a workshop by the kaleidoscope network of excellence mobile
learning initiative. University of Nottingham.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

129
 The Use of a Mobile Learning Management System at an Online University and Its Effect on Learning Satisfaction and Achievement
Shin and Kang

Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a
learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(3), 428–438.

Woodill, G. (2011). The mobile learning edge: Tools and technologies for developing your teams.
New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Wu, W. H., Wu, Y. C. J., Chen, C. Y., Kao, H. Y., Lin, C. H., & Huang, S. H. (2012). Review of
trends from mobile learning studies: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 59(2),
817–827.

© Shin and Kang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

130