MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126829455 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v16i4.2351

An Investigation of University Student Readiness towards M-learning using Technology Acceptance Model

2015· article· en· W2126829455 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shakeel Iqbal, Zeeshan Ahmed Bhatti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology acceptance modelPsychologyUsabilityContext (archaeology)Sample (material)Blended learningEducational technologyData collectionM-learningMobile deviceApplied psychologyKnowledge managementSocial psychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M-learning is learning delivered via mobile devices and mobile technology. The research indicates that this medium of learning has potential to enhance formal as well as informal learning. However, acceptance of m-learning greatly depends upon personal attitude of students towards this medium; therefore this study focuses only on the individual context in which role of student’s readiness towards m-learning is investigated using Technology acceptance model (TAM). TAM is the popular choice among the researchers for investigating acceptance of any new technology primarily because of its robust and parsimonious nature. The sample selected for this study consisted of students from the private sector universities in a developing country. A structured questionnaire was used for data collection. The final results of investigation were based on 244 valid responses. The results indicate that the students’ skills and psychological readiness strongly influence their perceived ease of use (PEU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of m-learning, whereas both these constructs positively influenced their behavioral intention to use m-learning. The findings of this study have theoretical as well as practical implications which are discussed at the end.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.363
GPT teacher head0.551
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations89
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207