An Empirical Study of Factors Driving the Adoption of Mobile Learning in Omani Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile learning (M-learning) provides a new learning channel in which learners can access content and just in time information as required irrespective of the time and location. Even though M-learning is fast evolving in many regions of the world, research addressing the driving factors of M-learning adoption is in short supply. This article focuses on the driving factors in adoption of M-learning and the learner’s perceptions and willingness towards M-learning adoption. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been shown to be a valid and powerful model in mobile and other learning technologies research. Based on Technology Acceptance Model theory, this paper analyzes the influencing factors on M-learning adoption and measure the acceptance of M-learning in Oman. The data collected from 806 participants in 17 different Omani higher education institutions using a survey questionnaire. Some factors of perceived innovative characteristics, such as ease of use, usefulness, enjoyment, suitability, social, and economic were found to have more influence on learners’ adoption of M-learning which help to facilitate and promote future empirical research. This effort is part of funded research project that investigate the development, adoption, and dissemination of M-learning in Oman.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".