Gender Influence on Undergraduates Students’ Acceptance of Mobile Learning Instruction using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)


  • Gloria Adedoja University of Ibadan
  • Daniel A. Morakinyo University of Ibadan


Mobile Learning, Gender, Technology Acceptance Model,


The term mobile learning (m-learning) refers to the use of mobile and handheld IT devices, such as Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), mobile telephones, laptops and tablet PC technologies, in teaching and learning. The use of these devices are gradually increasing and diversifying across every sector of education in both the developed and developing worlds. It is gradually moving from small-scale, short-term trials to a larger more sustained and blended deployment. In this study, 216 undergraduate students of the University of Ibadan were exposed to mobile learning platform using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM Model). The model contained the following variables: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude, peer-influence, behavioural intention to use, interest, technology self-efficacy and acceptance. The paper discussed gender influence on these variables, implications and findings were discussed and recommendations were given.

Author Biographies

Gloria Adedoja, University of Ibadan

Department of Teacher Education

Senior Lecturer

Daniel A. Morakinyo, University of Ibadan

Department of Teacher Education



• Aremu, A (2008). A cry for help! Endagerede species in the science and technology classrooms. Paper presented at the joint Staff-Student Seminar, Department of Teacher Education, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 9th April, 2008.

• Aremu, A & Morakinyo, D.A. (2009). Gender Issues in the Use of Information Communication Technology (ICT) for Research By Post-Graduate Students in A Typical Nigerian University. Journal of Sociology and Education in Africa. 8 (1) 77-92.

• Dasgupta, S., Granger, M. &McGarry, N. (2002). User acceptance of e-collaboration technology: an extension of the technology acceptance model. Group Decision and Negotiation, 11, 87-100.

• Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 16, 2, 227-247.

• Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. &Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.

• DiSabatino, J. (2000). Glass ceiling for women in IT persists. Computerworld, 34(20), 12.

• EDUCAUSE (2011).Evaluating a Campus-Wide Mobile Learning Initiative. Retrieved on January, 29, 2013 from

• Green, M.Y. (2000, November). Why aren’t girls more tech savvy? NEA Today, 19(3), 31.

• Horiuchi, V. (2002, March 18). Computer skills not an equalizer for women at work.The Salt Lake Tribune.

• Hu, P.J., Chau, P.Y.K., Sheng, O.R.L., & Tam, K.Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using the physical acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems. 16(2), 91-112.

• Hutchinson, M. and Weaver, C.K. (2004).Barriers to women studying IT courses.Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2(3). Retrieved February 13, 2013 from

• Hunt, L. M., Thomas, M. J. W., & Eagle, L. (2002). Student resistance to ICT in education.In Kinshuk, R., Lewis, K., Akahori, R., Kemp, T., Okamoto, L., Henderson, C. & Lee, H. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th InternationalConference on Computers in Education (Vol. 2, pp. 964-968), Auckland, New Zealand: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, NZ.

• Huyer, S. (1997). Supporting Women’s Use of Information Technologies for Sustainable Development. A paper submitted to the Gender and Sustainable Development Unit. IDRC.

• INSINC. (1997).The Net Result: Social Inclusion in an Information Society. London: IBM.

• Kalmus, V. (2004). Will the girls catch up ?: Trends in gender-based digital inequality in Estonia, 'Internet Research 5.0: Ubiquity?', International and Interdisciplinary Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers at the University of Sussex, England, 19th-22nd September 2004.

• Kelkar, G. (2004). Women in the Digital Era: Gender and Culture. A Paper presented at the International Conference on Women in the Digital Era: Opportunities and Challenges. Organised by Annamalai University and Software Technology Parks of India, at Chidambaram, India, 10th-12th December, 2004.

• Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online

• consumer behaviour. Information Systems Research, 13 (2), 205-223.

• Kroker, A. & Weinstein, M. (1994).Datatrash: The Theory of Virtual Class. New York: St.Martin’s Press.

• Landry, B.J.L., Griffit, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring students perception of blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences, 4(1), 87-99.

• Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intention: comparing the technology acceptance model with theory of planned behaviour. Infoirmation Systems Research, 2 (3), 173-191

• Masrom, M. (2007).Technology Acceptance Model and E-learning. A paper delivered at the 12th International Conference on Education, Sultan HassanalBolkiah Institute of Education.Universiti Brunei Darussalam. 21-24 May, 2007.

• Metcalf, D. S. (2006).mLearning: Mobile Learning and Performance in the Palm of Your Hand, HRD Press, Massachusetts, US.

• Morris, M.G. & Dillon, A. (1997). The influence of user perceptions on software utilization: application and evaluation of a theoretical model of technology acceptance. IEEE Software, 14(4), 56-74.

• Raban Y., Soffer , T., Mihnev, P., Ganev, K.(2002). e -living D7.1 ICT Uptake and Use A Cross Sectional Analysis". E-Living Project Deliverable Available[2 May 2006].

• Roy, M., Taylor, R., & Chi, M. T. (2004). Searching for information on-line and off-line: gender differences among middle school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 229–252.

• Sax, L J., Alexander W. Astin, William S. Korn, and Kathryn M. Mahoney (2001). The American Freshman: NationalNorms for Fall 2000: UCLA, 2001.

• Schubert, J. (2001). Gender equity in computer learning.Theory into Practice, XXV(4), 267-275.

• So, S (2008).A Study on the Acceptance of Mobile Phones for Teaching and Learning with a Group of Pre-service Teachers in Hong Kong. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange.Volume 1, No. 1,Pp 81-92

• Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model: Management Science, 42(1), 85-92.

• Traxler, J. (2007). Defining, Discussing and Evaluating Mobile Learning: the moving finger writes and having writ . . . . The International Review and Research in Open Distance Learning.Vol 8, (2).

• Vermetten, Y.J., Vermunt, J.D., &Lodewijks, H.G. (2002).Powerful learning environments?How HE institution students differ in their response to instructional measures. Learning and Instruction, 12, 263-284

• Yousuf, M (2007). EFFECTIVENESS OF MOBILE LEARNING IN DISTANCE EDUCATION. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE October2007 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 8 Number: 4 Article 9.

• Retrieved on 31.3.2008




How to Cite

Adedoja, G., & Morakinyo, D. A. (2016). Gender Influence on Undergraduates Students’ Acceptance of Mobile Learning Instruction using Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 4(2). Retrieved from