Social Influence: Testing the Predictive Power of Its Dimensions in Explaining the Intention to Use Mobile Learning Systems in Universities-Empirical Evidence from Ugandan Universities

Faisal Mubuke*, Geoffrey Mayoka Kituyi **, Kutosi Ayub Masaba ***, Cosmas Ogenmungu****, Shakilah Nagujja *****
* Research Scholar, Makerere University Business School (MUBS), Uganda.
** Senior Lecturer and Dean, Faculty of Vocational and Distance Education, Makerere University Business School (MUBS), Uganda.
*** Senior Lecturer and Director, MUBS-Mbale Regional Campus, Uganda..
**** Lecturer, Department of Applied Computing & IT, Faculty of Computing & Informatics, Makerere University Business School Kampala, Uganda..
***** Lecturer and Director, E-learning Center, Makerere University Business School (MUBS), Uganda.
Periodicity:October - December'2018


Among information systems, mobile learning systems are acknowledged for the exponential growth in recent years into education sector specifically in the higher education learning institutions. Mobile learning systems are viewed as a kind of information system, which universities use to better serve their students efficiently and effectively in order to provide sustainable value for education. While past studies from numerous scholars positioned their focus on development of mobile learning frameworks to enhance the usage of mobile learning systems. Comparatively, little research has been conducted to explore the predictive, positional, and potential influence of social influence and its dimensions on student's intention to continuously use mobile learning systems in universities of developing countries like Uganda. This study used a cross sectional survey methodology to gather data from a sample size of N=375 students from both public and private universities. The results of correlation and regression analysis revealed significant positive relationship between social influence and the intention to use M-learning systems in Ugandan universities, implying that social influence is a significant determinant of student's intentions to use M-learning systems in Uganda. Additionally, social influence significantly impacts student's intention to use mobile learning systems. Social influence as presented in this study, explain 34.90% variation in enhancing student's intention to use mobile learning systems in Ugandan universities. Therefore, universities should pay meticulous attention to social influence as one of the major determinants and predictors needed to enhance student's intention to use M-learning systems.


M-Learning, Social Influence, Intention to Use, ICT, MoICT

How to Cite this Article?

Mubuke, F., Kituyi, G. M., Masaba, A. K., Ogenmungu, C., and Shakilah, N. (2018). Social Influence: Testing the Predictive Power of Its Dimensions in Explaining the Intention to Use Mobile Learning Systems in Universities-Empirical Evidence from Ugandan Universities. i-manager’s Journal of Educational Technology, 15(3), 52-61.


[1]. Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students' acceptance of M-Learning: An investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(5), 82-107.
[2]. Amin, M. E. (2005). Social Science Research Conception, Methodology and Analysis. Kampala, Makerere University Printery.
[3]. Annan, N. K. (2014). Leveraging Mobile Computing and Communication Technologies in Education: Incorporation of Mobile Learning into Tertiary Education (Ph.D. Thesis, Aalborg University).
[4]. Coghlan, D. (2011). Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 53-87.
[5]. Collins, H. (2010). Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. AVA Publications, p. 38.
[6]. Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies, 38 (3), 475-487.
[7]. Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of antecedents and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 163-176.
[8]. Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2015). Working out for Likes: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior. 50, 333- 347
[9]. Hernandez, B., Montaner, T., Sese, F. J., & Urquizu, P. (2011). The role of social motivations in E-Learning: How do they affect usage and success of ICT interactive tools? Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2224-2232.
[10]. Huang, R. T. (2014a). Exploring the moderating role of self-management of learning in mobile english learning. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 255- 267.
[11]. Huang, Y. (2014b). Empirical Analysis on Factors Impacting Mobile Learning Acceptance in Higher Engineering Education (PhD Dissertation, University of Tennessee).
[12]. Igbaria, M. (1993). User Acceptance of Microcomputer Technology: An Empirical Test. Omega, 2(1), 73-90.
[13]. Iqbal, S., & Qureshi, I. A. (2012). M-learning adoption: A perspective from a developing country. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(3), 147-164.
[14]. Kampala University Strategic Planning Report. (2014). Policy and Strategic Planning Report for Distance Education at Kampala University.
[15]. Kihoro, J. M., Oyier, P. A., Kiula, B. M., Wafula, J. M., & Ibukah, R. W. (2013, May). E-learning eco-system for mobility and effective learning: A case of JKUAT IT students. In IST-Africa Conference and Exhibition (pp. 1-9). IEEE.
[16]. Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukophadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
[17]. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
[18]. Liu, Y., & Li, H. (2010). Mobile Internet diffusion in China: An empirical study. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 110 (3), 309-324.
[19]. Lowenthal, J. N. (2010). Using mobile learning: Determinates impacting behavioral intention. The American Journal of Distance Education, 24(4), 195-206.
[20]. Lu, X., & Viehland, D. (2008). Factors influencing the adoption of mobile learning. ACIS 2008 Proceedings.
[21]. MacCallum, K. (2011). Influences on the Adoption of Mobile Technology by Students and Teachers (Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Massey University Albany).
[22]. Makerere University. (October, 2013). Policy and Strategic Framework for Distance Education at Makerere University. Kampala: Makerere University.
[23]. Ministry of Information and Communications Technology (MoICT). (2012). Information Management Services Policy: Draft V.8, February. Retrieved from
[24]. Miura, A., & Yamashita, K. (2007). Psychological and social influences on blog writing: An online survey of blog authors in Japan. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1452-1471.
[25]. Mubuke, F., Kituyi, G. M., & Ogenmungu, C. (2016). A model to enhance student's intention to adopt and use mobile learning systems in Ugandan Universities. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 16(3), 1- 13.
[26]. Muyinda, P. B. (2012). Open and Distance Learning in Dual Mode Universities: A Treasure Unexploited. In Moore, J. L., & Benson, A. D. (Eds), International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education (pp. 33-50). IntechOpen.
[27]. Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Students acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4(2), 24-30.
[28]. Neumann, W. L. (2006). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (6th Eds). London: Pearson International.
[29]. Ngarambe, A. (2013). Mobile phone penetration records significant growth. The East African. Retrieved from rowth/-/1433224/1669528/-/item/1/-/l21dra/-/index.html
[30]. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York McGraw-Hill.
[31]. Park, S. Y., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2011). University students' behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Education Technology, 43(4), 592-605.
[32]. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267.
[33]. Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Social influences and the theory of planned behavior: Evidence for a direct relationship between prototypes and young people's exercise behavior. Psychology & Health, 18 (5), 567-583.
[34]. Sarker, S., Ahuja, M., Sarker, S., & Kirkeby, S. (2011). The role of communication and trust in global virtual teams: A social network perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 28(1), 273-310.
[35]. Sung, H. N., Jeong, D. Y., Jeong, Y. S., & Shin, J. I. (2015). The effects of self-efficacy and social influence on behavioral intention in mobile learning service. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 103, 27-30.
[36]. Talukder, M., & Quazi, A. (2011). The impact of social influence on individuals' adoption of innovation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21(2), 111-135.
[37]. Talukder, M., Harris, H., & Mapunda, G. (2008). Adoption of innovations by individuals within organizations: An Australian study. Asia Pacific Management Review, 13(2), 463-480.
[38]. Thomas, T. D., Singh, L., & Gaffar, K. (2013). The utility of the UTAUT model in explaining mobile learning adoption in higher education in Guyana. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(3), 71-85.
[39]. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
[40]. Vosloo, S. (2012). Mobile Learning and Policies: Key Issues to consider Mobile Learning (pp. 1-55). Paris, France. Retrieved from 002176/217638E.pdf
[41]. Wang, E., & Chiu, C. (2008). Understanding Webbased learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Information and Management, 45(3) 194-201.

Purchase Instant Access

Single Article

North Americas,UK,
Middle East,Europe
India Rest of world
Pdf 35 35 200 20
Online 35 35 200 15
Pdf & Online 35 35 400 25

If you have access to this article please login to view the article or kindly login to purchase the article
Options for accessing this content:
  • If you would like institutional access to this content, please recommend the title to your librarian.
    Library Recommendation Form
  • If you already have i-manager's user account: Login above and proceed to purchase the article.
  • New Users: Please register, then proceed to purchase the article.