International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications as Learning Tools for Higher Education Students https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i03.10195 Tinashe Chuchu (*), Tinashe Ndoro University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa tinashe.chuchu@up.ac.za Abstract—The main purpose of the present study was to examine whether mobile applications could be adopted as feasible tools for learning purposes at higher education institutions. Furthermore the study’s intention was to conduct an empirical investigation into students’ perceptions towards mobile applications being introduced as learning aids. The researcher developed a conceptual model derived from the technology acceptance model in order to measure the constructs used in the study. Adopting a quantitative approach, the field study was con- ducted in South Africa at a selected higher education institution. Research data was collected from 380 registered students at the selected higher education insti- tution who were older than 18 years. Using SPSS 23 and AMOS 23 software programs, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was performed to analyse the data set. The results revealed that perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitudes towards a mobile application, intention to use a mobile application were all significant predictors for the actual use of mobile applications for learning. The findings of the study illuminate the importance of the determinants of the adoption of mobile applications for learning in higher education. Keywords—Technology, mobile application, students, higher education 1 Introduction The advent of mobile education technologies into teaching and learning has given rise to both new opportunities and challenges to educators (Handal, El-Khoury, Camp- bell & Cavanagh, 2013) [21].The rapid advance in broadband and wireless internet technologies has promoted the utilisation of wireless applications in our daily lives (Hwang, Yang, Tsai &Yang, 2009). Application software, also referred to as an appli- cation or an app, relates to a software designed to assist users in performing specific or various related tasks (Handal, El-Khoury, Campbell and Cavanagh, 2013) [21]. Ad- vancement in mobile technology and learning applications have broadened the scope of learning areas outside of formal education by allowing flexible and instant access to rich digital learning sources (Cheon, Lee, Crooks & Song, 2012) [13]. Access to mobile online lectures can provide an opportunity for learning by students while commuting (Massey, Ramesh & Khatri, 2006) [37]. For example eSchoolBag, is a platform that iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 53 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i03.10195 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i03.10195 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i03.10195 mailto:ssr@online-engineering.org mailto:ssr@online-engineering.org Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… allows students to download/upload homework, access class announcements and com- plete exercises, anywhere, anytime (Massey et al., 2006) [37]. Education in particular has benefitted from technologies such as computers and the internet (Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed, 2016) [1]. Being economical, flexible and acces- sible without constraints of time and distance, technologies such as electronic learning (e-learning) systems are becoming increasingly relevant in the Higher Education con- text (Abdullah et al., 2016 [1]; Lin, Lu & Liu, 2013) [35]. An e-learning system is defined by Lee, Hsieh and Ma (2011) [32] as an information system that can integrate a wide variety of instructional elements through audio, video, and text delivered through live chat sessions, online discussions, forums, tests and assignments. The pre- sent study will primarily focus on the adoption of mobile applications as educational tools. The study used the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989) [18] to examine the determinants of the adoption of educational mobile applica- tions in higher education. In numerous empirical studies (Ong & Lai, 2006 [42]; Pituch & Lee, 2006 [45]; Sánchez & Hueros, 2010) the utility and applicability of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been supported in a wide range of educational settings. Wang, Wiesemes and Gibbons (2012) [56] define mobile applications for educational purposes as learning tools used to gain knowledge through mobile devices. Mobile devices in- clude mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones. Nonetheless, mobile devices facilitate mobile learning (m-learning) which involves a form of learning that makes use of mobile communication technologies that give students the capacity to continu- ously learn anywhere and anytime (Moreira, Santos & Durao, 2017) [41]. According to Rainie (2012) [46] over 60% of young adults aged between 18-29 years, own smartphones and use them for a variety of purposes such as, surfing the internet for information, texting , social networking and reading emails. This therefore reveals how significant a role smartphones play in young adult’s lives. Smartphones and mobile apps have developed into an everyday staple in the lives of young people including Higher education students (Green, Cantu & Wardle, 2014 [20]; Moreira et al., 2017) [46]. 1.1 Problem investigated The South African higher education landscape is faced by a plethora of challenges which include transformation, student unrests and poor student graduation rates (Barkhuizen, Rothmann & Van de Vijver, 2013 [6]; Barkhuizen & Rothmann, 2006 [5]; Letseka & Maile, 2008 [34]). Mobile applications have the potential to positively support teaching and learning in higher education institutions by providing universal communication, study aids and flexible location-based services for learners (Cheon et al., 2012) [12]. Moreover, the higher education landscape is particularly suitable for the integration of student centred mobile educational applications to be adopted because mobile devices have become ubiquitous on university campuses among both students and staff members in both developed and developing countries (Cheon et al., 2012 [12]; Rogers, Palmer & Miller, 2017). According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) (2015), seven billion people in the world have access to mobile devices 54 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… coverage. Africa has the second largest and fastest growing mobile phone market in the world (ITU, 2015). According to Phuangthong and Malisawan (2005) [44], most re- searchers have focused on mobile applications, users’ acceptance and the application of mobile learning in developed countries (Brown, Ryu & Parsons, 2006 [7]; Liu, 2008 [36] and Chao and Chen (2009) [10]. However, limited research has explored the adop- tion of mobile devices to facilitate learning in higher education institutions within the African context (Kaliisa & Picard, 2017) [26]. Open the document you would like to format and import the styles. How this works depends very much on the version of MS WORD that you use. The styles’ names to be used for online-journals.org are preceded by a “0_” which makes them appear first in the styles list and therefore easier to be found. Now just place the cursor in the paragraph you would like to format and click on the corresponding style in the styles window (or ribbon). 2 Literature Review Baker (2000) [4] considers reviewing current literature relevant to a research interest to be an essential initial step and basis for undertaking the research study. In an educa- tional environment, students can utilise mobile devices to support their learning. Mobile devices , such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), mobile phones, or portable com- puters are increasingly being incorporated in learning activities by educators (Wu, Hwang, Tsai, Chen & Huang, 2011) [57]. This research focuses on problem solving in education utilizing technology, which echoes past research from Sediyono, Kristi- nawati and Paseleng (2018) [49]. In this respect, mobile technology, allows learning activities to be carried out inside and outside of the classroom (Wu et al., 2011) [57]. Researchers have established that what really matters is students being able to access the right educational resources at the right time in the right place (Shih, Chu & Hwang, 2011[51] and Wu et al., 2011) [57]. As a form of learning, mobile learning involves learning, which is facilitated by mo- bile devices. Mobile learning provides continuous opportunities to extend spaces and times for learning by learners (McCaffrey, 2011) [38]. There are four types of learning approaches that can be supported by mobile devices, namely: • Individualized learning • Situated learning • Collaborative learning • Informal learning Through individualized learning, mobile learning allows students to pace themselves as they learn and acquire knowledge. On the other hand, situated learning occurs when students utilize mobile devices to learn within a real life context. Collaborative learning occurs when students utilize mobile devices to interact and share knowledge with other students. Finally, informal learning occurs when students are able to utilize their mobile devices out of the classroom setting at their convenience (Wu et al., 2011) [57]. Several iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 55 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… studies focusing on the use of mobile devices to facilitate learning have provided em- pirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of mobile devices in the learning process. For example, in a study conducted by Hwang, Yang, Tsai and Yang (2009) [24] mobile and wireless communication technologies were used in a Chemistry course to train stu- dents on the operating procedure of the single-crystal X-ray diffraction experiment. In this vein, mobile applications have been reported to facilitate learning activities, which include, sharing of information, robust debates and the discussions of important topics. The potential benefits of mobile applications as learning tools has received extensive support in terms of being cost saving, ubiquitous, and convenient (Cheon et al., 2012) [12]. According to Young (2011), mobile applications on mobile devices can be used as study aids that can be easily accessed by learners when they are at home during any time of the day. The characteristics of mobile devices are three fold: • Portability - mobile device can be taken to any location because of their size • Instant connectivity - because of the wide spread accessibility of the internet mobile devices can be used to access any information instantly • Context sensitivity - with regard to the availability of the internet, any use of mobile devices can be tracked and measured to gather necessary data and information (Churchill & Churchill, 2008 [14]; Klopfer, Squire & Jenkins, 2002 [28]; Sharples, 2000 [50]). Recent research showed that 67% of students’ smartphones and tablets are reportedly being used for academic purposes (Chen & Denoyelles, 2013) [11]. Research also in- dicates that most students use mobile devices for academic applications including uni- versity applications (such as, UCF mobile, Tegrity, Mobile learn), educational applica- tion (such as, Flash cards, Khan Academy and iTunes U), e-books (such as, Course Smart and Inkling), Google and Safari for accessing information (Chen et al, 2012) [11]. The following sections in the paper will comprise of the theoretical grounding un- derpinning the study, research objectives, hypotheses, research methodology, find- ings/results, managerial and academic implications, conclusions and lastly suggestions for future research. 2.1 Theoretical grounding For the purpose of this study the theoretical grounding will be guided by, the Tech- nology Acceptance Model (Davis et al., 1989) [18], Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) and the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975). These theories were be used to explain students’ behaviour towards the adoption of mobile applications as learning tools. Moreover, this study will add to our understanding of theory through the application of the aforementioned theories within the African higher education context to comprehend the adoption of mobile applications as learning tools. Technology Acceptance Model: The technology acceptance model (TAM) pro- posed by Davis (1989) [17] is the most widely used and recognized theory for explain- ing an individual’s acceptance and adoption of information technology (Lee, Hsieh & 56 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… Hsu, 2011) [32]. TAM determines user’s attitudes and recognises the role of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) in the comprehension of user’s ac- ceptance of information systems (Min, So & Jeong, 2018 [39]; Taylor & Todd, 1995 [53]; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) [55]. Increasingly, TAM has been used as an explana- tory tool in investigating m learning amongst students. In a study conducted by Park, Nam and Cha (2012) [43] it was found that the TAM is an acceptable model to explain student’s acceptance of m learning. TAM highlights the importance of two key dimen- sions, namely, Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PE). In this vein, PU represents the extent to which individuals believe that technology will aid them in achieving their intended outcomes. On the other hand, PE denotes the extent to which an individual believes that adopting technology will ease and support their cognitive efforts (Park et al., 2012) [43]. Theory of Reasoned Action: According to Tsai, Chen and Chien (2012) [53] the theory of reasoned action is widely used to explain human behaviour. According to theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein 1975) [3], intentions are the sole determi- nant of the behaviour (Sommer, 2011) [52]. According to the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975) [3] in order for an individual to fully engage in a certain behaviour, their behaviour is driven by their intentions. Theory of Planned Behaviour: The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is a theory intended to predict and explain human behaviour in specific settings (Ajzen, 1991) [2]. The theory of planned behaviour is an extension of the theory of reasoned action, which addresses the limitation of the theory of reasoned action in not accounting for behav- iours in which individuals do not have complete voluntary control. Hence, the theory of planned behaviour has the additional component of perceived behaviour control has a determinant for behaviour intention (Ajzen, 1991) [2]. 3 Research Objectives The main objective of the literature was to investigate the determinants of the adop- tion of mobile applications as learning tools by students in higher education. 4 Research Conceptual Model In the conceptual model adapted from the TAM (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989) [18], Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) [2] and the Theory of Reasoned Ac- tion (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975) [3], perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitudes on mobile applications, intentions to use mobile applications and the actual use of mo- bile applications will be presented. Based on the conceptual model, hypotheses are de- veloped for the present study. iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 57 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… Fig. 1. The proposed conceptual model 4.1 Hypotheses development Perceived usefulness and Attitudes towards a mobile application: According to literature, perceived usefulness is a construct used to measure user’s satisfaction with information systems (Calisir & Calisir, 2004) [15]. In empirical research, perceived usefulness has been identified as an important predictor for the adoption technology systems such as mobile payments, mobile commerce and mobile learning (Brown et al., 2006 [7]; Chao & Chen, 2009) [10]. Furthermore, it is believed that if a particular technology system is useful in one’s daily life and activities it will automatically change their attitudes towards it. Perceived usefulness is an important determinant for an indi- vidual's acceptance and usage of information technology, the features of the technol- ogy, and the targeted users acceptance of the technology. Within the educational con- text, perceived usefulness is noted to positively influence users' attitudes towards mo- bile application tools as learning and educational tools (Chen et al., 2012 [57]; Moon & Kim, 2001) [40]. Kim and Woo (2016) [27] suggest that ease of use positively influ- ences attitudes towards technology. Therefore, inferring from the literature and the abovementioned empirical evidence, the study hypothesises that H1: There is a positive relationship between perceived usefulness and attitudes to- wards mobile applications among higher education students. Perceived ease of use and attitudes towards mobile applications: Perceived ease of use refers to the degree to which a particular user of a technology system views it as easy and with less effort to use (Chang, Kim and Oh, 2002; Koo, 2003; Chang, Yan and Tseng, 2012). Lee, Cheung and Chen (2005) [31] suggest that perceived ease of use can be seen as a moderate predictor of the intention to use technological devices as educational tools. However, Kim and Woo (2016) [27] argue that ease of use positively and strongly influences attitudes towards technology. Within the educational context, perceived ease of is noted as an important determinant for an individual to accept and adopt on information technology to aid in their learning (Moon et al, 2001) [40]. There- fore, inferring from the literature and the empirical evidence abovementioned, the study hypothesizes that: H2: There is a positive relationship between perceived ease of use and attitudes toward mobile applications among higher education students. Attitudes towards a mobile application and intention to use mobile applica- tions: An attitude towards a behaviour relates to an individual’s positive or negative 58 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… feelings towards performing the behaviour (Cheon et al., 2012) [12]. Attitudes towards using technology positively and directly influences the behavioural intention to use that technology (Kim & Woo, 2016) [27]. Attitudes towards using and accepting technology are included as a key construct in TAM (Chang et al., 2012). Therefore, deducing from the literature and the abovementioned empirical evidence, the study hypothesizes that: H3: There is a positive relationship between attitudes towards a mobile application and the intention to use that mobile application among higher education students. Intentions to use a mobile application and actual use of the mobile application Intention refers to an individual’s motivation in his or her’s conscious plan to exert effort to carry out behaviour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) [19]. According to Venkatesh and Davis (2000) [55] intentions to use a certain type of technology system have a direct influence on the actual use of that technology system. Research by several scholars (such as, Hong, Thong Moon & Tam, 2008 [22]; Moon & Kim, 2001 [40]; Hong, Thong & Tam, 2006) [23] on students and mobile applications has shown that students’ behaviour towards adopting mobile learning tools is guided by reasoned conscious intentions towards the use of these mobile applications as learning tools. Drawing from TAM, Lee et al., (2013) [30] purport that a user’s intention to adopt mobile applications is the most immediate predictor of the actual usage of the mobile applications. Therefore, inferring from the literature and the abovementioned empirical evidence, the study hypothesizes that: H4: There is a positive relationship between the intention to use a mobile application and the actual use of that mobile application among higher education students. 5 Research Methodology 5.1 Research design The study utilised the positivist paradigm, a philosophy that is of the view that knowledge stems from human experience (Collins, 2010) [16]. A quantitative research approach was adopted for this study whereby a 28-item survey questionnaire was self- administered to 380 research participants at a selected South African university. Convenience sampling was adopted to select the research participants (students), which involves selecting suitable participants who are willing to participate in the study (Collins, 2010) [16]. In the present study, due to the difficulty in obtaining suitable and willing research participants within the research setting, convenience sampling was deemed suitable as recommended by (Collins, 2010) [16]. Furthermore, drawing from the methodological precepts adopted by Cheon et al., (2012) [12], data analysis through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was deemed suitable for the sample obtained through the convenience sampling process in the study. The data for the research in question was normally distributed therefore qualifying it for a SEM analysis as indicated in table 4 with standard deviation values ranging from 0,896 to 1,045 falling within the recommended threshold of -2 and +2. iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 59 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… 5.2 Measurement instrument The research constructs in the research instrument were developed and adapted from previous studies investigating similar phenomenon. The research instrument consisted of two sections namely; Demographic section and 5 point Likert scale type questions based on the research conceptual model. The Likert scale was measured from 1 = Strongly disagree; 3= Neutral; 5= Strong agree. In terms of data analysis SPSS 23 and AMOS 23, software programs were used to perform SEM. 6 Results / Findings Table 1. Sample Demographic Profile Gender Frequency Percentage Age Frequency Percentage Female 166 43.7 18-19 232 61.1 Male 214 56.3 20-25 133 35 Total 380 100 26+ 15 3.93 Total 380 100 Marital Status Frequency Percentage Academic level Frequency Percentage Single 13 96.6 High School 317 83.4 Married 367 3.4 Diploma 6 1.6 Total 380 100 Degree 43 1.3 Post-graduate 13 3.4 Other 1 0.3 Total 380 100 As indicated in table 1 above, female participants represented 43.7% of the total sample whereas male participants accounted for 56.3% of the total sample. In terms of the participants educational levels most of the participants had a high school qualification as indicated by 317 out of a total of 380 participants. Participants with a post-graduate qualification had the least representation as indicated by only 13 out of the total 380. The following section illustrates the inter-construct correction matrix of the study’s constructs. Table 2. Correlations between Constructs Inter-construct Correlations Matrix PU PEU ATT I AU Perceive Usefulness (PU) 1 Perceived Ease of Use (PEU) 0.521** 1 Attitudes Toward Mobile Applications (ATT) 0.676** .527** 1 Intentions To Use Mobile Applications (I) 0.599** .420** .721** 1 Actual Use of Mobile Applications (AU) 0.464** 0.389** 0.554** .515** 1 **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The inter-construct correlation matrix was used to test for discriminant validity of the research constructs. Correlations among latent constructs were evaluated in order 60 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… to observe if they were, lower than 1.0. As indicated in table 2 below, the inter-corre- lation values for all paired latent variables are below 1, therefore, implying that there is the presence of discriminant validity (Chinomona, Lin, Wang & Cheng, 2010) [13]. Below is table 3, which depicts the model, fit for the study’s research data. It can be observed that all the model fit indices met the required thresholds. Table 3. Model Fit (χ2/DF): Chi-square, GFI: Goodness of fit index, CFI: Confirmatory fit index, IFI: Incremental fit index, NFI: Normed fit index, RFI: Relative fit index, TLI: Tucker Lewis index, RMSEA: Root mean standard error approximation 6.1 Scale accuracy analysis Results of scale reliability are presented in table 4 whereby Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were above 0.8 while the composite reliability values ranged from 0.824 to 0.882. Furthermore, it was observed that most of the AVE values ranged from 0.644 to 0.750. The measurement model produced a ratio of chi-squared value over degree-of- freedom of 1.713, which is acceptable as it falls below the recommended 3 recommended (Ullman, 2001). Other model fit indices that included the GFI, CFI, IFI, NFI, RFI and TLI were 0.926, 0.970, 0.970, 0.932, 0.918 and 0.964 respectively. All these model fit measures were above the recommended threshold of 0.8 (Chinomona, Lin, Wang, & Cheng 2010) [13]. The RMSEA was 0.043, which fell below the recommended threshold of 0.08. Table 4. Accuracy Analysis Statistics χ2/df = 1.713, GFI= 0.926, CFI = 0.970 , NFI=0.932 , RMSEA= 0.043; a significance level significance level significance level p<0.001 * Scores: 1 – Strongly Agree; 3 – Neutral; 5 –Strongly Disagree. α value PU1 1,961 1,02 0,717 0,743 PU2 2,282 0,989 0,733 0,766 PU3 2,324 1,006 0,682 0,743 PU4 2,229 0,94 0,709 0,771 PU5 2,382 0,98 0,681 0,702 PU6 2,253 0,936 0,696 0,742 PEU1 2,011 0,942 0,743 0,817 PEU2 2,018 0,909 0,708 0,789 PEU3 2,174 0,832 0,713 0,779 PEU4 2,111 0,903 0,659 0,732 ATT1 2,132 0,946 0,624 0,739 ATT2 2,311 1 0,617 0,699 ATT3 2,024 0,934 0,733 0,745 ATT4 2,021 0,941 0,681 0,662 ATT5 2,037 0,963 0,643 0,735 BI1 2,071 0,918 0,726 0,807 BI2 2,061 0,871 0,703 0,769 BI3 2,35 0,896 0,77 0,839 BI4 2,155 0,947 0,687 0,75 AU1 2,521 1,056 0,65 0,7 AU AU2 2,653 1,065 0,712 0,774 AU3 2,463 1,02 0,737 0,785 AU4 2,382 1,037 0,653 0,673 2,505 1,045 0,849 0,824 0,669 0,307 0,52 BI 2,159 0,908 0,869 0,87 0,75 0,52 ATT 2,105 0,957 0,849 0,841 0,644 0,457 PEU 2,078 0,896 0,859 0,861 0,734 0,278 Factor Loading Mean Value Standard Deviation Item-total PU 2,238 0,978 0,888 0,882 0,697 Research Construct Descriptive Statistics Cronbach’s Test C.R. Value AVE Value Highest Shared Variance Model fit criteria (χ2/DF) GFI CFI IFI NFI RFI TLI RMSEA Indicator value 1,713 0,926 0,970 0,970 0,932 0,918 0,964 0,043 iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 61 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… 6.2 Path modeling and hypotheses testing Table 5 presents the results of the structural equation modeling followed by a dis- cussion Table 5. Results of sructural equation model analysis Proposed Hypothesis Relationship Hypothesis Factor Loading P Value Outcome Perceived usefulness (PU) Attitudes (ATT) H1 0.64 *** Supported and significant Perceived ease of use (PEU) Attitudes (ATT) H2 0.23 *** Supported and significant Attitudes on mobile applications (ATT) Intention to use (I) H3 0.88 *** Supported and significant Intention to use (I) Actual use (AU) H4 0.68 *** Supported and significant 6.3 Discussion of hypotheses results It can be observed in table 5 that all four hypotheses are supported. • From the first hypothesis (H1) it can be noted that perceived usefulness positively and significantly affects attitudes as indicated by a factor loading of 0.64. This implies that the more participants perceive mobile applications as useful products the more positive their attitudes become towards them. • In terms of the second hypotheses (H2) which is supported by the findings, it can be observed that the perceived ease of use of mobile applications for educational purposes leads to the development of positive attitudes towards those applications. • It can be seen that for the third hypothesis (H3), attitudes on mobile applications positively and significantly second hypotheses influence the intention to use those applications for educational purposes as indicated by a factor loading of 0.88. • Lastly for the forth hypothesis (H4) it can be noted that there is a positive relationship between the intention to use mobile applications and their actual use. This finding implies that the more the users’ are motivated and intend to use mobile applications for educational purposes the more they will use and adopt the mobile applications. 7 Managerial and Academic Implications The present study has both implications for academicians and managers in various ways. First, academicians would benefit significantly in understanding the acceptance and adoption of technology by students in their learning process. The study allows ac- ademics to gain insight of the interrelationships of the factors that influence the adop- tion of technology to facilitate learning by students. The study allows academics to ascertain the perceived usefulness of technology for learning by students within the South African context. The study can be used by Higher Education institutions within 62 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… the South African context to facilitate learning through the use of technology platforms. From a marketing perspective, organizations that design online educational appliances can understand the factors that influence the adoption of online learning resources with Higher education institutions. Moreover, the findings of the study can aid organizations that develop online educational appliances to ascertain if their products would be viable in the market and the potential challenges they would face in launching those products. 8 Conclusion The present study sort to investigate the determinants of the adoption of mobile ap- plications by students at a selected Higher education institution. For purposes of the study, the Technology Adoption Model (TAM) adopted and adapted by the researchers. From the findings of the study it was found that student’s attitudes towards the use of a mobile application was positively influenced by their perceived usefulness and per- ceived ease of use of the mobile applications. Attitudes positively influenced the stu- dent’s intention to use the mobile applications. This research revealed that the use of a leaning application was well received by students reflecting the findings of (Zidoun, Talea, & Dehbi, 2016) [58]. Additionally, Yunita, Nursechafia, Setiawan, Nugroho and Ramadhan (2018) established that mobile phone usage in classrooms was significantly beneficial to students, further supporting findings of the present study in question. Fi- nally, student’s actual adoption of mobile applications for learning purposes were di- rectly influenced by their intention to use the mobile applications. 9 Suggestions for Future Research Future research could be comparison in nature and include using students from more higher education institutions in South Africa to ascertain if there is a difference in the adoption of mobile applications by students from different Higher education institutions. Moreover, future research can involve the adoption of a qualitative research design in which participant’s would be interviewed to gain a deep understanding of their technology adoption behaviour. A longitudinal study could be adopted to ascertain the changes in the adoption behaviour of students of technology. More research participants including academic staff members can be included in future research. 10 References [1] Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most com- monly used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63: 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014 [2] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human deci- sion processes, 50(2): 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 63 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… [3] Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley. [4] Baker, M. J. (2000). Writing a literature review. The Marketing Review, 1(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347002529189 [5] Barkhuizen, N., & Rothmann, S. (2006). Work engagement of academic staff in South Af- rican higher education institutions. Management Dynamics: Journal of the Southern African Institute for Management Scientists, 15(1): 38-46. [6] Barkhuizen, N., Rothmann, S., & Van De Vijver, F. J. (2014). Burnout and work engage- ment of academics in higher education institutions: Effects of dispositional optimism. Stress and Health, 30(4): 322-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2520 [7] Brown, R., Ryu, H., & Parsons, D. (2006, November). Mobile helper for university students: a design for a mobile learning environment. In Proceedings of the 18th Australia conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Design: Activities, Artefacts and Environments (pp. 297- 300). ACM. [8] Chang, C. C., Yan, C. F., & Tseng, J. S. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended tech- nology acceptance model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5): 809-826. https://doi.org/10 .14742/ajet.818 [9] Chang, H. S., Kim, J. K., & Oh, C. G. (2002). Technology acceptance model with web in- teractivity. The Journal of MIS research, 12(4): 55-75. [10] Chao, P. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2009). Augmenting paper-based learning with mobile phones. Interacting with Computers, 21(3): 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.01.001 [11] Chen, B., & Denoyelles, A. (2013). Exploring students' mobile learning practices in higher education. Educause Review. Retrieved from http://www. educause. Edu/ero/article/explor- ing-students-mobile-learning-practices-higher-education. [12] 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 & Edu- cation, 59(3): 1054-1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015 [13] Chinomona, R., Lin, J. Y. C., Wang, M. C. H., & Cheng, J. M. S. (2010). Soft power and desirable relationship outcomes: the case of Zimbabwean distribution channels. Journal of African Business, 11(2): 182-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2010.508997 [14] Churchill, D., & Churchill, N. (2008). Educational affordances of PDAs: A study of a teacher’s exploration of this technology. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1439-1450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.002 [15] Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource plan- ning (ERP) systems. Computers in human behavior, 20(4): 505-515. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.chb.2003.10.004 [16] Collins, H. (2010). Creative research: the theory and practice of research for the creative industries. Ava Publishing. [17] 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 [18] Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer tech- nology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 [19] Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. [20] Green, M., Cantu, A., & Wardle, A. (2014, October). A study examining student preferences of mobile applications at an institution of higher learning in South Texas. In E-Learn: World 64 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347002529189 https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347002529189 https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2520 https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2520 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.818 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.818 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2009.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015 https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2010.508997 https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2010.508997 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.004 https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 717-723). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [21] Handal, B., El-Khoury, J., Campbell, C., & Cavanagh, M. (2013, September). A framework for categorising mobile applications in mathematics education. In Proceedings of The Aus- tralian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education (formerly UniServe Science Con- ference). [22] Hong, S. J., Thong, J. Y., Moon, J. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2008). Understanding the behavior of mobile data services consumers. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4): 431-445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9096-1 [23] Hong, S., Thong, J. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2006). Understanding continued information tech- nology usage behavior: A comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet. Decision support systems, 42(3): 1819-1834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.03.009 [24] Hwang, G. J., Yang, T. C., Tsai, C. C., & Yang, S. J. (2009). A context-aware ubiquitous learning environment for conducting complex science experiments. Computers & Educa- tion, 53(2): 402-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.016 [25] Jiang, J. J., Hsu, M. K., Klein, G., & Lin, B. (2000). E-commerce user behavior model: an empirical study. Human Systems Management, 19(4): 265-276. [26] Kaliisa, R., & Picard, M. (2017). A Systematic Review on Mobile Learning in Higher Edu- cation: The African Perspective. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1): 1-18. [27] Kim, Y. G., & Woo, E. (2016). Consumer acceptance of a quick response (QR) code for the food traceability system: Application of an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Food Research International, 85: 266-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.05.002 [28] Klopfer, E., Squire, K., & Jenkins, H. (2002). Environmental detectives: PDAs as a window into a virtual simulated world. In Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, 2002. Proceedings. IEEE International Workshop on (pp. 95-98). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1 109/WMTE.2002.1039227 [29] Koo, D. M. (2003). An investigation on consumer’s internet shopping behavior explained by the technology acceptance model. Journal of Korean Management Information System, 14(1): 141-170. [30] Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61: 193-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001 [31] Lee, M. K., Cheung, C. M., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning me- dium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & management, 42(8): 1095-1104 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.007 [32] Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Hsu, C. N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees' intentions to use e-learning systems. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 14(4):124-137 [33] Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Ma, C. Y. (2011). A model of organizational employees’e- learning systems acceptance. Knowledge-based systems, 24(3): 355-366. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.knosys.2010.09.005 [34] Letseka, M., & Maile, S. (2008). High university dropout radropouthreat to South Africa's future. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council. [35] Lin, P. C., Lu, H. K., & Liu, S. C. (2013). Towards An Education Behavioral Intention Model For E-Learning Systems: An Extension Of UTAUT. Journal of Theoretical & Ap- plied Information Technology, 47(3):1120-1127 [36] Liu, Y. (2008, July). An adoption model for mobile learning. In Paper presented at the IADIS e-commerce 2008 conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 65 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9096-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9096-1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.03.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.03.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.02.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.05.002 https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039227 https://doi.org/10.1109/WMTE.2002.1039227 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2010.09.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2010.09.005 Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… [37] Massey, A. P., Ramesh, V., & Khatri, V. (2006). Design, development, and assessment of mobile applications: the case for problem-based learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 49(2): 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.875700 [38] McCaffrey, M. (2011). Why mobile is a must. Teaching in Higher Education Journal, 38(2): 21-22. [39] Min, S., So, K. K. F., & Jeong, M. (2018). Consumer adoption of the Uber mobile applica- tion: Insights from diffusion of innovation theory and technology acceptance model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1507866 [40] Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & management, 38(4): 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 7206(00)00061-6 [41] Moreira, F., Ferreira, M. J., Santos, C, P., & Durao, N. (2017). Evolution and use of mobile devices in higher education: A case study in Portuguese Higher Education Institutions be- tween 2009/2010 and 2014/2015. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2017): 838-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.010 [42] Ong, C. S., & Lai, J. Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in human behavior, 22(5): 816-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006 [43] 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 Edu- cational Technology, 43(4): 592-605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x [44] Phuangthong, D., & Malisawan, S. (2005, August). A study of behavioral intention for 3G mobile Internet technology: Preliminary research on mobile learning. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society (pp. 4-7). [45] Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2): 222-244. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.compedu.2004.10.007 [46] Rainie, L. (2012). Two-thirds of young adults and those with higher income are smartphone owers. Washington DC: Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved August, 25, 1014 Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Re- ports/2012/PIP_Smartphones_Sept12%209%2010%2012.pdf (Accessed 11/ 05/2016) [47] Rogers, K., Palmer, E & Miller, J. (2017). Mobile earning in higher education: A compara- tive analysis of developed and developing country context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1-16. [48] Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in human behavior, 26(6): 1632-1640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011 [49] Sediyono, E., Kristinawati, W., & Paseleng, M. C. (2018). Empowering Teachers in the Socialization of the Anti-Sexual Violence Behavior in Primary Schools. International Jour- nal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 12(8), 20-29. https://doi.org/10 .3991/ijim.v12i8.9641 [50] Sharples, M. (2000). The design of personal mobile technologies for lifelong learning. Com- puters & Education, 34(3): 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5 [51] Shih, J. L., Chu, H. C., & Hwang, G. J. (2011). An investigation of attitudes of students and teachers about participating in a context-aware ubiquitous learning activity. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(3): 373-394. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2009.01020.x 66 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.875700 https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2006.875700 https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1507866 https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1507866 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.010 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.011 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i8.9641 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i8.9641 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00044-5 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01020.x Paper—An Examination of the Determinants of the Adoption of Mobile Applications… [52] Sommer, L. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behaviour. The International Business & Economics Research Journal, 10(1): 91-110 https://doi.org/10 .19030/iber.v10i1.930 [53] Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quar- terly, 19(4): 561–570 https://doi.org/10.2307/249633 [54] Tsai, M. T., Chen, K. S., & Chien, J. L. (2012). The factors impact of knowledge sharing intentions: the theory of reasoned action perspective. Quality & Quantity, 46(5): 1479-1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9462-9 [55] Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2): 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 [56] Wang, R., Wiesemes, R., & Gibbons, C. (2012). Developing digital fluency through ubiq- uitous mobile devices: Findings from a small-scale study. Computers & Education, 58(1): 570-578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.013 [57] Wu, P. H., Hwang, G. J., Tsai, C. C., Chen, Y. C., & Huang, Y. M. (2011). A pilot study on conducting mobile learning activities for clinical nursing courses based on the repertory grid approach. Nurse Education Today, 31(8): e8-e15. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.nedt.2010.12.001 [58] Yunita, A., Nursechafia, N., Setiawan, E., Nugroho, H., & Ramadhan, H. (2018). The Rela- tionship between Mobile Phone Usage in Classroom and Academic Achievement in College Life. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 12(8), 96-103. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i8.9530 [59] Zidoun, Y., Talea, M., & Dehbi, R. (2016). Students’ Perception about Mobile Learning in Morocco: Survey Analysis. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 10(4), 80-84. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v10i4.5947 11 Authors Dr Tinashe Chuchu Ph.D. is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing Management at the University of Pretoria. He is research area of focus is customer decision-making and marketing. Dr Tinashe Ndoro Ph.D. is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Marketing Man- agement at the University of Pretoria. He is research area of focus is consumer behav- iour. Article submitted 2018-11-22. Resubmitted 2019-01-27. Final acceptance 2019-01-27. Final version pub- lished as submitted by the authors. iJIM ‒ Vol. 13, No. 3, 2019 67 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01020.x https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v10i1.930 https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v10i1.930 https://doi.org/10.2307/249633 https://doi.org/10.2307/249633 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9462-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9462-9 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.12.001 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i8.9530 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i8.9530 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v10i4.5947 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v10i4.5947 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v10i4.5947