Where past literature has studied the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model to a large extent, the research in the domain of UTAUT3 is limited. Further, different studies on m-learning acceptance in the higher education sector report different values of correlation among constructs of the model. This study fills this gap by conducting a meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of relationships of the constructs of the UTAUT3 model from the past 20 years of study. Further, the study tries to explore the moderation effect variables, such as the influence of country, user type, data collection mode, sampling technique, sample size and publication date on the causal relationships of the constructs of UTAUT3. For the study, 39 articles reported an effect size of the five core constructs in UTAUT (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions and behavioural intentions) and four extended constructs (hedonic motivation, personal innovativeness, price value and habit) have been studied and the results of the same have been consolidated. The results show a high impact of personal innovativeness, habit and performance expectancy on behavioural intention. Furthermore, a habit was found to be the strongest predictor of user adoption. The heterogeneity in data was examined by the moderator analysis. The moderators were found to have an influential impact on the relationships of the constructs of UTAUT3.The study will be crucial in bringing in new inputs to help governmental entities, education administrators and managers to formulate policies for the higher education sector that can assist in the proper and proactive adoption of innovative m-learning technologies.
Abu-Al-AishA., & LoveS. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5), 82–107.
2.
AhmadT. (2020a). Scenario based approach to re-imagining future of higher education which prepares students for the future of work. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 10(1), 217–238.
3.
AhmadT. (2020b). Student perceptions on using cell phones as learning tools. PSU Research Review, 4(1), 25–43.
4.
AhmedM. S. (2016). Technology acceptance of smartphones as mobile learning tools: A contextual comparative study of engineering and education colleges (PhD thesis). University of Canterbury.
5.
AinN., KaurK., & WaheedM. (2015). The influence of learning value on learning management system use: An extension of UTAUT2. Information Development, 32(5), 1306–1321.
6.
AjzenI., & FishbeinM. (1988). Theory of reasoned action—Theory of planned behavior. University of South Florida, 2007, 67–98.
7.
AladeT., WelchR., RobinsonA., & NicholL. (2020, March9–12). Mobile learning for just-in-time knowledge acquisition in a workplace environment. In 2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer, Technologies (ICICT), pp. 198–204. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9092239
8.
Al-AdwanA. S., Al-AdwanA., & BergerH. (2018). Solving the mystery of mobile learning adoption in higher education. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 16(1), 24–49.
9.
Al-AzaweiA., & AlowayrA. (2020). Predicting the intention to use and hedonic motivation for mobile learning: A comparative study in two Middle Eastern countries. Technology in Society, 62, 101325.
10.
AlbóL., Hernández-LeoD., & Moreno OliverV. (2019). Smartphones or laptops in the collaborative classroom? A study of video-based learning in higher education. Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(6), 637–649.
11.
AlfaddaH. A., & MahdiH. S. (2021). Measuring students’ use of zoom application in language course based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50, 883–900.
12.
AlmaiahM. A., AlamriM. M., & Al-RahmiW. (2019). Applying the UTAUT model to explain the students’ acceptance of Mobile learning system in higher education. IEEE Access, 7, 174673–174686.
13.
Al-NawaysehM. K., BaarahA. H., Al-MasaeedS. A., & AlnabhanM. M. (2019). Mobile learning adoption in Jordan: Technology influencing factors. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 20(4), 400–417.
14.
AlotaibiF. D., SirajS., & IsmailW. M. A. S. (2019). Factors influencing acceptance to use M-learning in learning Arabic language for non-native speakers in Saudi Universities. Opción, 35(20), 2337–2365.
15.
AlrasheediM., & CapretzL. F. (2014). Learner perceptions of a successful mobile learning platform: A systematic empirical study. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science. http://www.iaeng.org/publication/WCECS2014/WCECS2014_pp306-310.pdf
16.
AlshehriA., RutterM. J., & SmithS. (2019). An implementation of the UTAUT model for understanding Students’ perceptions of learning management systems: A study within tertiary institutions in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies (IJDET), 17(3), 1–24.
17.
AlthunibatA. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71.
18.
AmeriA., KhajoueiR., AmeriA., & JahaniY. (2020). Acceptance of a mobile-based educational application (LabSafety) by pharmacy students: An application of the UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(1), 419–435.
19.
AmosC., HolmesG. R., & KenesonW. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of consumer impulse buying. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 86–97.
20.
ArainA. A., HussainZ., RizviW. H., & VighioM. S. (2019). Extending UTAUT2 toward acceptance of mobile learning in the context of higher education. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3), 659–673.
21.
BeckerB. J. (2005). Failsafe N or file-drawer number. In RothsteinH. R., SuttonA. J., & BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 111–126). John Wiley.
22.
BhimastaR. A., & SupraptoB. (2016). An empirical investigation of student adoption model toward mobile e-textbook: UTAUT2 and TTF model. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Communication and Information Processing, pp. 167–173. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3018009.3018046
23.
BorensteinM., HedgesL., HigginsJ., & RothsteinH. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
24.
CamilleriM. A., & CamilleriA. C. (2020). The students’ readiness to engage with mobile learning apps. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 17(1), 28–38.
25.
CarvalhoJ. V., PereiraR. H., & RochaÁ. (2020). A systematic literature review on maturity models for information systems in higher education institutions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(4), 434–449.
26.
ChaoC. M. (2019). Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1652.
27.
ChavoshiA., & HamidiH. (2019). Social, individual, technological and pedagogical factors influencing mobile learning acceptance in higher education: A case from Iran. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 133–165.
28.
Cheng-MinC. (2019). Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652
29.
CheneyG. R., RuzziB. B., & MuralidharanK. (2005). A profile of the Indian education system. Paper prepared for the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, pp. 228–253. https://www.academia.edu/2967274/A_profile_of_the_Indian_education_system
30.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge Academic.
31.
DermentziE., & PapagiannidisS. (2018). UK public’s intention to engage with academia via online technologies. Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(2), 120–132.
32.
DickersinK. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In RothsteinH. R., SuttonA. J., & BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 11–33). Wiley.
33.
DwivediY. K., RanaN. P., TamilmaniK., & RamanR. (2020). A meta-analysis based modified unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (Meta-UTAUT): A review of emerging literature. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 13–18.
34.
EggerM., SmithG., SchneiderM., & MinderC. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.
35.
FaganM. H. (2019). Factors influencing student acceptance of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in the Schools, 36(2), 105–121.
36.
FarooqM. S., SalamM., JaafarN., FayolleA., AyuppK., Radovic-MarkovicM., & SajidA. (2017). Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329–348.
37.
FunkM., LiangR. H., PalanqueP., HuJ., & MarkopoulosP. (2021). Designing and engineering interactive computing systems. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(EICS), 1–4.
38.
Ghali-ZinoubiZ., AmariA., & JaouaF. (2021). E-learning in Era of COVID-19 Pandemic: Impact of flexible working arrangements on work pressure, work–life conflict and academics’ satisfaction. Vision. 10.1177/09722629211054238
39.
GikasJ., & GrantM. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and Higher Education, 19, 18–26.
40.
GunasingheA., HamidJ. A., KhatibiA., Ferdous AzamS. M., AzamS. M. F., KhatibiA., GunasingheA., & Abd HamidJ. (2020). The viability of UTAUT-3 in understanding the lecturer’s acceptance and use of virtual learning environments. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 12(4), 458–481.
41.
GuptaY., KhanF. M., & SonalM. (2021). Exploring factors influencing mobile learning in higher education—A systematic review. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 15(12), 140–157.
42.
HakT., Van RheeH. J., & SuurmondR. (2016). How to interpret results of meta-analysis (Version 1.3)Erasmus Rotterdam Institute of Management. https://www.erim.eur.nl/fileadmin/erim_content/images/meta-essentials/How_to_interpret_results_of_meta-analysis_1.4.pdf
43.
HamidiH., & ChavoshiA. (2018). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: A case study of students of the University of Technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1053–1070.
44.
HarrisonJ. S., BanksG. C., PollackJ. M., O’BoyleE. H., & ShortJ. (2017). Publication bias in strategic management research. Journal of Management, 43(2), 400–425.
45.
HigginsJ. P. T., & ThompsonS. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539–1558.
46.
HigginsJ., & GreenS. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration (Version 5.1.0). https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
47.
HigginsJ., ThompsonS., DeeksJ., & AltmanD. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560.
48.
HoiV. N. (2020). Understanding higher education learners’ acceptance and use of mobile devices for language learning: A Rasch-based path modeling approach. Computers & Education, 146, 103761.
49.
HuS., LaxmanK., & LeeK. (2020). Exploring factors affecting academics’ adoption of emerging mobile technologies—An extended UTAUT perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4615–4635.
50.
HuanY., LiX., AydenizM., & WyattT. (2015). Mobile learning adoption: An empirical investigation for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(4), 1081–1091.
51.
HunterJ. E., & SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. SAGE Publications.
52.
HunterJ. E., SchmidtF. L., & JacksonG. B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. SAGE Publications.
53.
IsaiasP., ReisF., CoutinhoC., & LencastreJ. A. (2017). Empathic technologies for distance/mobile learning. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(2), 159–180.
54.
IsraelD. J., & VeluR. (2019). The partial test of UTAUT model to explain the influence of variables on the intention to adopt the mobile learning in higher education. IJITEE, 8(8), 1076–1082.
55.
IssaramanorosE., KhlaisangJ., & PugseeP. (2018). Auto mechanic students’ perceptions and readiness toward mobile learning in Thailand. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 12(5), 28–42.
56.
JairakK., PrasongP., & KittimaM. (2009, December17–18). An acceptance of mobile learning for higher education students in Thailand. In The Sixth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society, Thailand. http://cmruir.cmru.ac.th/handle/123456789/416
57.
KangM., LiewB. Y. T., LimH., JangJ., & LeeS. (2015). Investigating the determinants of mobile learning acceptance in Korea using UTAUT2. In ChenG., KumarV., KinshukHuang R., & KongS. (Eds.), Emerging issues in smart learning (pp. 209–216). Lecture Notes in Educational Technology. Springer.
58.
KhanF. M., & GuptaY. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of mobile learning in the education sector. Interactive Technology and Smart Education. 10.1108/ITSE-03-2021-0048
59.
KimJ. (2020). Learning and teaching online during Covid-19: Experiences of student teachers in an early childhood education practicum. International Journal of Early Childhood, 52(2), 145–158.
60.
KimH. J., LeeJ. M., & RhaJ. Y. (2017). Understanding the role of user resistance on mobile learning usage among university students. Computers & Education, 113, 108–118.
61.
KraaijV., ArensmanE., & SpinhovenP. (2002). Negative life events and depression in elderly persons: A meta-analysis. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57(1), 87–94.
62.
KuciapskiM. (2016). Students acceptance of m-learning for higher education–UTAUT model validation. In WryczaS. (Ed.), Information systems: Development, research, applications, education. Euro Symposium on Systems Analysis and Design (Vol. 264, pp. 155–166). Springer.
63.
LauK. S. N., LoP., ChiuD. K. W., HoK. K. W., JiangT., ZhouQ., PercyP., & AllardB. (2020). Library and learning experiences turned mobile: A comparative study between LIS and non-LIS students. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 46(2), 102–103.
64.
LinS., ZimmerJ. C., & LeeV. (2013). Podcasting acceptance on campus: The differing perspectives of teachers and students. Computers & Education, 68, 416–428.
65.
LuA., ChenQ., ZhangY., & ChangT. (2016, December). Investigating the determinants of mobile learning acceptance in higher education based on UTAUT. In International Computer Symposium (ICS) (pp. 651–655). IEEE. 10.1109/ICS.2016.0133
66.
MaQ., & LiuL. (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–72.
67.
MakW. W. S., PoonC. Y. M., PunL. Y. K., & CheungS. F. (2007). Meta-analysis of stigma and mental health. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 245–261.
68.
MasrekM. N., & SamadiI. (2017). Determinants of mobile learning adoption in higher education setting. Asian Journal of Scientific Research, 10(2), 60–69.
69.
MathewJ., & NairS. (2021). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Vision, 0972262921994350.
70.
MoherD., LiberatiA., TetzlaffJ., AltmanD. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Reprint—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy, 89(9), 873–880.
71.
MokhaA. K., & KumarP. (2021). Using the technology acceptance model (TAM) in understanding customers’ behavioural intention to use E-CRM: Evidence from the Banking Industry. Vision. https://doi.org10.1177/09722629211060565.
72.
MoorthyK., YeeT. T., T’ingL. C., & KumaranV. V. (2019). Habit and hedonic motivation are the strongest influences in mobile learning behaviours among higher education students in Malaysia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 174–191.
73.
MosunmolaA., MayowaA., OkuboyejoS., & AdenijiC. (2018, January). Adoption and use of mobile learning in higher education: The UTAUT model. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning. 10.1145/3183586.3183595
74.
NassuoraA. B. (2012). Students’ acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4(2), 24–30.
75.
NawazS. S., & MohamedR. (2020). Acceptance of mobile learning by higher educational institutions in Sri Lanka: An UTAUT2 approach. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(12), 1036–1049.
76.
NikolopoulouK., GialamasV., & LavidasK. (2020). Acceptance of mobile phone by university students for their studies: An investigation applying UTAUT2 model. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 4139–4155.
77.
NikouS. A., & EconomidesA. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: Integrating acceptance and motivational factors into a combined model of self-determination theory and technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 83–95.
78.
NikouS. A., & EconomidesA. A. (2018). Mobile-based assessment: A literature review of publications in major referred journals from 2009 to 2018. Computers and Education, 125, 101–119.
79.
QiC. (2019). A double-edged sword? Exploring the impact of students’ academic usage of mobile devices on technostress and academic performance. Behaviour and Information Technology, 38(12), 1337–1354.
80.
RosenbergM. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution, 59(2), 464–468.
81.
RothsteinH. R., SuttonA. J., & BorensteinM. (Eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Wiley.
82.
SabahN. M. (2016). Exploring students’ awareness and perceptions: Influencing factors and individual differences driving m-learning adoption. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 522–533.
83.
SabherwalR., JeyarajA., & ChowaC. (2006). Information system success: Individual and organizational determinants. Management Science, 52(12), 1849–1864.
84.
SchepersJ., & WetzelsM. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information Management, 44(1), 90–103.
85.
SchmidtF. L., & HunterJ. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
86.
Sitar-TăutD. A. (2021). Mobile learning acceptance in social distancing during the COVID-19 outbreak: The mediation effect of hedonic motivation. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(3), 366–378.
87.
SunejaV., & BagaiS. (2021). Examining the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on online education: Reviewing the Indian schooling system based on the perspective of major Indian E-tutoring platforms. Vision. 10.1177/09722629211029011
88.
TaiwoA. A., & DowneA. G. (2013). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A meta-analysis review of empirical findings. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 49(1), 48–58.
89.
TaoD., ShaoF., LiuS., WangT., & QuX. (2016, September). Predicting factors of consumer acceptance of health information technologies: A systematic review. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 60(1), 598–602.
90.
TeyT. C. Y., & MosesP. (2018). UTAUT: Integrating achievement goals and learning styles for undergraduates’ behavioural intention to use technology. EAI Endorsed Transactions on E-Learning, 5(17), 155573.
91.
ThomasT., SinghL., & GaffarK. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 9(3), 71–85.
92.
ThongsriN., ShenL., BaoY., & AlharbiI. M. (2018). Integrating UTAUT and UGT to explain behavioural intention to use M-learning. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 20(3), 278–297.
93.
TiszaG., & MarkopoulosP. (2021). Understanding the role of fun in learning to code. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 28, 100270.
94.
UrbachN., SmolnikS., & RiemppG. (2009). The state of research on information systems success. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 1(4), 315–325.
95.
Van RaaijE. M., & SchepersJ. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852.
96.
Van WinkleC. M., BueddefeldJ. N., HalpennyE. A., & MacKayK. J. (2019). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2: Understanding mobile device use at festivals. Leisure Studies, 38(5), 634–650.
97.
VenkateshV., ThongJ., & KuK. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
98.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
99.
WangY. S., WuM. C., & WangH. Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.
100.
WangJ. H., ChangC. C., YaoS. N., & LiangC. (2016). The contribution of self-efficacy to the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. Higher Education, 72(2), 209–224.
101.
WebsterJ., & WatsonR. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13–23.
102.
WongS. M., LeongC. M., & PuahC. H. (2019). Mobile internet adoption in Malaysian suburbs: The moderating effect of gender. Asian Journal of Business Research, 9(3), 90–114.
103.
WuJ., & DuH. (2012). Toward a better understanding of behavioral intention and system usage constructs. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(6), 680–698.
104.
WuJ., & LedererA. (2009). A meta-analysis of the role of environment-based voluntariness in IT acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 419–432.
105.
WuH. K., LeeS. W. Y., ChangH. Y., & LiangJ. C. (2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education, 62, 41–49.
106.
XingW., & WangX. (2021). Understanding students’ effective use of data in the age of big data in higher education. Behaviour and Information Technology. 10.1080/0144929X.2021.1936176
107.
XuY., LiH., YuL., ZhaS., HeW., & HongC. (2020). Influence of mobile devices’ scalability on individual perceived learning. Behaviour and Information Technology, 40(11), 1137–1153.
108.
YangS. (2013). Understanding undergraduate students’ adoption of mobile learning model: A perspective of the extended UTAUT2. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 8(10), 969.
109.
ZhangX., LoP., SoS., ChiuD. K., LeungT. N., HoK. K., & StarkA. (2020). Medical students’ attitudes and perceptions towards the effectiveness of mobile learning: A comparative information-need perspective. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 10.1177/0961000620925547
110.
ZolotovM. N., OliveiraT., & CasteleynS. (2018). E-participation adoption models research in the last 17 years: A weight and meta-analytical review. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 350–365.
