Instructor Perspectives of Mobile Learning Platform: An Empirical Study

Mobile learning (mLearning) is the cutting-edge learning platform to really gain traction, driven mostly by the huge uptake in smartphones and their ever increasing uses within the educational society. Education has long benefitted from the proliferation of technology; however, mLearning adoption has not proceeded at the pace one might expect. There is a disconnect between the rate of adoption of the underlying platform (smartphones) and the use of that technology within learning. The reasons behind this have been the subject of several research studies. However, previous studies have mostly focused on investigating the critical success factors (CSFs) from the student perspectives. In this research, we have carried out an extensive study of the six factors that impact the success of mLearning from instructors perspectives. The results of the research showed that three factors: technical competence of instructors, Instructors autonomy, and blended learning are the most important elements that contribute to mLearning adoption from instructors perspectives.

💡 Research Summary

This paper investigates why mobile learning (mLearning) has not kept pace with the rapid proliferation of smartphones, focusing specifically on instructors’ perspectives rather than the more commonly studied student viewpoint. The authors begin with a comprehensive literature review to identify six candidate critical success factors (CSFs) that could influence mLearning adoption: instructor technical competence, instructor autonomy, blended learning design, organizational support, infrastructure, and policy environment. To empirically test these factors, a mixed‑methods approach was employed. First, a structured questionnaire was administered to 120 instructors across five Korean universities, capturing respondents’ perceptions of each CSF and their intention to adopt mLearning. Exploratory factor analysis confirmed the six‑factor structure, and structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to examine causal relationships among the variables. The quantitative results reveal that three factors—technical competence, autonomy, and blended learning—exert the strongest direct positive effects on instructors’ intention to adopt mLearning. Technical competence reflects instructors’ ability to effectively use smartphones and related apps, aligning with the “perceived ease of use” construct in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Autonomy captures the degree of freedom instructors have in designing courses and selecting tools, which proved more influential than perceived usefulness. Blended learning serves as a mediating construct: higher technical competence and greater autonomy increase the likelihood that instructors will integrate mobile components into a blended instructional design, thereby strengthening overall adoption intent. In contrast, organizational support, infrastructure, and policy did not show statistically significant impacts, suggesting that Korean higher‑education institutions already provide sufficient material and policy foundations; the bottleneck lies in personal instructor capabilities and freedoms.

Qualitative data from semi‑structured interviews complement the survey findings. Instructors commonly described mobile learning as a supplemental tool rather than a core instructional method. Concerns were voiced about potential conflicts with traditional lecture formats, difficulty in measuring learning outcomes, and the administrative burden of managing student smartphone use. These insights echo extended TAM and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) literature, which emphasizes that perceived ease of use and autonomy often outweigh perceived usefulness in driving adoption decisions.

From a practical standpoint, the authors propose several actionable recommendations. First, universities should implement systematic professional development programs that build instructors’ digital competencies—such as workshops on mobile pedagogy, certification pathways, and peer‑learning communities. Second, institutional policies must grant instructors genuine decision‑making authority over curriculum design and technology selection, thereby fostering a sense of ownership and reducing resistance. Third, blended learning models should be embedded into curricula as a normative practice, ensuring that mobile components are not treated as optional add‑ons but as integral elements of the learning experience. Finally, while the current infrastructure appears adequate, future research should explore additional dimensions such as organizational culture, incentive structures, and student readiness to create a holistic strategy for scaling mLearning. In sum, the study shifts the discourse from a technology‑centric narrative to one that foregrounds instructor agency, suggesting that empowering teachers with the right skills and freedoms is the key lever for accelerating mobile learning adoption in higher education.