Intelligent Information Management, 2013, 5, 141-149 Published Online September 2013 (
Factors of Acceptance for Mobile Learning in Corporate
Settings: An Empirical Investigation in Banking Industry
Ayse Kok
Management Information Systems Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Received July 2, 2013; revised August 1, 2013; accepted August 13, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Ayse Kok. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which per-
mits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Due to the proliferation of mobile technology and devices like smartphones and tablet PCs into our daily lives, m-
learning attracts also more attention in professional training in enterprises. Derived from these statements, this research
paper is focused on the following question: what are acceptance factors for m-learning (mobile learning) in the organ-
izational setting? The paper analyzes a real experience in m-learning for training the banking personnel in an interna-
tional banking institution in Turkey. For this purpose, a mobile virtual learning environment called as mFOR@ was
developed and implemented, which was designed to support the training and development process for employees using
Pocket PCs. The participants of the training activity (13 professionals) evaluated the m-learning experience via a
semi-structured interview; all the content and interactions within mFOR@ were analyzed via content analysis. As a
basis for a successful implementation in professional training in enterprises, the acceptance by decision makers and the
learners is critical. That is the reason why I present a qualitative analysis of acceptance and the perceived value of
m-learning in a corporate setting.
Keywords: M-Learning; Mobile Learning; Corporate Training; Acceptance
1. Introduction
Nowadays, many possibilities exist in terms of the en-
hancement and redesign in organizational and training
context processes due to the growing development and
diffusion of mobile technologies. Among them, mobile
technologies enable learning to occur in any setting or at
any moment, according to organizational and individual
Mobility now represents a constant in the lives of
many workers in the most diverse fields of work (Kris-
toffersen and Ljungberg, 2000). These technologies con-
tribute to teaching and learning processes not being lim-
ited to classroom environments, thus learning can be ac-
complished in various settings and with flexible hours,
allowing mobile professionals to stay where they need to
be: whether it be in the field or about handling customers,
providing services, doing business or developing pro-
As different needs are emerging, subject to the context
where learners are found, it becomes increasingly neces-
sary to be PDA or smartphones and learn on a continuous
basis to meet all the demands of a dynamic, competitive
and quite unpredictable market.
M-learning actually seems to be a promising emerging
market for the training industry. Yet, while process be-
fore implementing m-learning as professional training in
enterprises, the first step has to be a look at the accep-
tance at the individual level with a focus on decision-
makers and learners. This gap should be filled a little
more in the following qualitative research study.
2. Literature Review
Although there are many studies which focus on this
important aspect or briefly touching the topic already
exist [1] these studies more or less all emphasize quanti-
tative research approaches, either focusing on technology
acceptance [2] e.g. using the TAM—Technology Accep-
tance Model of Davis/Bagozzi/Warshaw (1975), or para-
digm changes in general educational contexts, teacher
training contexts [3] or higher education contexts [4].
As this literature review shows a lack of information
can be found and shown in qualitative research dealing
with acceptance, chances, and problems in the field of
m-learning for professional training in enterprises. All
the existing research focuses on how m-learning works
and how it can be defined and analyzed.
opyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
2.1. Searching and Selection Procedures
The search for relevant literature was completed in two
stages. First, I examined peer reviewed articles that I
found in electronic databases using keyword searches
including mobile learning, wireless learning, and hand-
held devices. I used Academic Search Premier, Business
Source Premier, Communication and Mass Media Com-
plete, ERIC, Library, Information Science and Technol-
ogy Abstracts, and PsycARTICLES. In the second stage,
I used the “snowball” method by searching for journal
articles, as well as articles presented in peer reviewed
conferences that are cited in some of the articles that we
had read. Altogether, as at 28 January, 2013, 120 articles
were analysed and 81 of them were deleted. The 81 arti-
cles were discarded because they were opinion papers,
conceptual articles or non-empirical descriptions of pro-
gram implementations.
2.2. Research Topics and Findings
Most definitions of mobile learning (m-learning) refer to
learning possibilities in different places and/or at differ-
ent times or, as Gjeddes [5] points out, “m-learning is the
acquisition of any knowledge and skill through using
mobile technology, anywhere, anytime, that results in an
alteration in behaviour”. Gjeddes [5] state mobile learn-
ing is “any type of learning that takes place in learning
environments and spaces that take account of the mobil-
ity of technology, mobility of learners and mobility of
A review of the literature suggested that the three most
frequent uses of the handhelds centered on utilising the
devices as communication, multimedia access, and task
management tools. These were followed by the use of
handhelds as assessment, capture tools, representational,
and analytical tools.
Mobile handheld devices are most commonly used by
learners and teachers as communication and multimedia
access tools (i.e. accessing multimedia resources such as
e-books, databases, web pages, PowerPoint presenta-
tions). As these devices were originally designed and
created for people to exchange information with one an-
other, considering them as a communication tool makes
sense. On the other hand, the dominant use of mobile
devices (e.g. PDA or smartphones) as multimedia access
tools suggests that the current technology functions pri-
marily as replacement. Waycott et al. [6] asserts that
technology as replacement involves technology serving
as a different means to the same instructional or learning
goal. For example, learners could read an e-book on a
PDA or smartphones. This activity replaces the reading
of a paper based book with the unchanged learning goal
of learner gaining information. An underlying reason for
the wide use of PDA or smartphones as replacement
technology may be due to the convenience and portabil-
ity of the handheld devices. Technology as replacement
may be contrasted with technology functioning as trans-
formation [6]. The latter has the potential to reorganise
learners’ cognitive processes and problem solving activi-
ties such as using graphing tools for exploratory data
analysis, data organisation, and testing hypotheses re-
lated to the data [7]. Another plausible reason for the cur-
rent wide use of PDA or smartphones as replacement
technology is that learners and teachers are new to using
such devices for learning purposes; hence they are still
exploring them. Technology integration stage theorists
would view such users as being located in the familiari-
sation stage [8].
A majority of the studies tend to place greater empha-
sis on the features of the mobile devices and procedures
for using them, rather than on the theoretical rationale or
justification for using them. Most of these studies suggest
that learners’ learning is enhanced through the use of
mobile handheld devices. Yet, due to the lack of rigorous
research, this statement should be viewed with caution. I
will describe this issue in greater detail in the next sec-
tion “Limitations of previous studies.”
The use of theoretical foundations will help inform the
pedagogy of using them—a key success factor to the
successful use of mobile devices to enhance learning [9].
Some of the theoretical foundations relevant to learning
in a m-learning environment might include activity the-
ory [10] and conversation theory Gjeddes [5]. Results
suggested that previous studies that examined learners’
learning appeared to focus on two types of Gagne’s
(1985) learning outcomes—verbal information, and intel-
lectual skills. For example, with regard to the former,
five of the ten studies dealt with language learning, in
particular the learning of English vocabulary [10]. The
remaining five studies appeared to deal with an intellec-
tual skills outcome such as discriminating different types
of birds [11-16].
One of the theoretical frameworks that might be useful
to examine the uptake of mobile devices in teaching and
learning is the use of Everett Rogers’ diffusion of inno-
vation theory. Rogers [17] described an innovation as
“…an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by
an individual or other unit of innovation” [17]. Although
many would argue that mobile devices such as mobile
phones and PDA or smartphones are not really innova-
tive objects in the 21st century era, Rogers asserted that
an innovation need not be a brand new thing, in contrast
to what its name implies, but rather is perceived as new
by the user. I believe that this might also be the case with
the use of mobile devices for learning purposes. For
many studies, the uptake of mobile devices was mainly
limited to the level of knowledge awareness, possibly
due to the short duration of time in which the studies
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
A. KOK 143
were conducted. One aspect of the innovation—com-
plexity, which is the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as difficult to use, can hinder the uptake of
mobile devices in learning settings. However, issue such
as difficulties in inputing data using phone keypads, or
small screens may perhaps be an irresolvable dilemma
because any attempt to increase screen size or allow for a
greater ease of data entry (e.g. via a keyboard), may ren-
der the devices bulkier and therefore less portable.
Some authors stated that the cost of using mobile
handheld devices (e.g. price of the device, cost of mobile
service) is a barrier against introducing the devices into
teaching and learning [18,19]. Basole [20] argued that
although the cost of a mobile device (e.g., a PDA or
smartphones) varies according to functionality, size of
memory, and accessory features, it is usually less expen-
sive than desktop and laptop computers. Companies
would be interested to know if the money used to intro-
duce devices (e.g. PDA or smartphones, mobile phones)
could affect certain outcomes, for example whether lear-
ner enrollment is positively affected by use of these de-
vices in completely online courses.
2.3. Limitations in Previous Empirical Studies
I found out that four methodological limitations exist
concerning previous research studies.
The experimental method which utilised a one group
pretest and posttest design to examine learner learn-
ing outcomes due to use of mobile handheld devices
use has been widely used, yet this makes the design
less weak. According to Ogato & Yano [16], without
a control group, differences found between pretest
and posttest scores might not necessarily be attribut-
able to the use of mobile handheld devices such as a
PDA or smartphones or mobile phone. By integrating
a control group and random assignment of partici-
pants into the research design the study could be
strengthened considerably [21,22]. Yet, comparing
learning outcomes between different media due to the
presence of many potential confounding variables
makes the task of pinpointing a specific factor or fac-
tors that may account for the learning difference dif-
ficult, if not impossible [23]. Instead, since different
media possess different attributes [24,25], future re-
search studies might focus on investigating where and
how to best use mobile devices as an instructional
A great majority of the previous studies did not report
effect sizes in the results or discussion section (the
exception being Tan et al.’s 2007 study). The APA
Task Force stressed that researchers should provide
some effect size estimate such as Cohen’s d when re-
porting a p value since reporting and interpreting ef-
fect sizes is essential to good research [26]. Ogato &
Yano [16] argued that reporting effect size allows a
researcher to judge the magnitude of the differences
present between groups, thus increasing the capability
of the researcher to judge the practical significance of
the results derived.
Almost half (46%) of the descriptive research studies
based their findings primarily on participants’ self-
reported data, such as interviews and questionnaire
surveys. A general problem of studies based on self-
reported data is that participants usually have correct
notions about socially desirable answers, which can
be referred to as the tendency to provide answers that
cause the respondent to look good [27]. Social desir-
ability responding has long been viewed as a potential
source of error variance in self-report measures [28,
A majority of the studies (56%) were limited in their
duration, ranging from as short as a few hours to one
semester. Short-term studies cannot fully address
some issues that may be critical in helping us under-
stand how the use of mobile handheld devices might
evolve over time. Short-term studies may suffer from
a novelty effect, where it is possible that learners and
teachers are more likely to use the devices because
the devices are new to them compared to participants
who have used them for a longer period of time. This
may introduce a significant bias with respect to the
obtained results.
3. Aim and Research Design of Study
Given the scarcity of qualitative studies in enterprise
settings, the purpose of this qualitative research study is
to reflect on and understand the position of mobile
learning in professional training in enterprises. Main ob-
jective of my research is to clarify which issues are ad-
dressed when decision makers responsible for profes-
sional training and human resources management in a
banking institute in Turkey are reflecting on the accep-
tance of mobile learning [30] concerning their educa-
tional measures in initial and further education at enter-
A mobile virtual learning environment called as
mFOR@ was developed and implemented within the
bank, which was designed to support the training and
development for workers using Pocket PCs. The partici-
pants of the training activity (13 professionals) evaluated
the m-learning experience via a semi-structured inter-
view; all the content and interactions within mFOR@
were analyzed via content analysis. Data has been col-
lected by means of semi-structured interviews based on
an interview guideline with responsible decision makers
in enterprise. The narrative parts of the interviews are
suited to delineate personal meanings [31-33] and ex-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
managers are highly involved in the training process.
My interviews has been documented via audio-re-
cordings, then transcribed and structured via argumenta-
tion tables. Content analysis has been used to analyze
and categorize the data. To establish trustworthiness the
interviews are randomly assigned and analyzed by the
authors. Concerning validity it can be stated that all
categories that emerged from the data are consistent with
the understandings of the participants. The average dura-
tion of each interview is about 15 minutes after a first
informative telephone contact of about 5 minutes. All
interviews have been conducted during February, 2013.
Training deliverables have shifted from a catalog of
courses that focused on content design to a blended mix
of learning experiences focused on personalized learning
environments making use of new learning Technologies
such as social and mobile learning technologies.
The Bank has recently implemented a mobile learning
environment with the following characteristics.
3.1.1. Content Module
Figure 1 shows the framework design of mobile learning
management system; it consists of three modules with
two interfaces. They are content module, learning mod-
ule and evaluation module. Figure 2, shows that the con-
tent module consists of five authoring tools i.e. develop-
ment, management, distribution, collaboration and deliv-
3.1. General Overview of the Bank and Its
Learning Management System
The Turkish Bank with approximately 9200 employees
has the following characteristics with regard to its learn-
ing strategy and organization of the Training function. Development tool: Here, content may be developed
based on the Dale’s cone of experience (Chen et al.,
2008), it contains the words or text, images, audio, video,
graphics and animations, demonstration of the topic. It
mentions the passive learning and also it contains a vari-
ety of questions like multiple choice, true or false, short
answers and descriptive answers types. It is called as
active learning. In this cone of experience of learning
process, it improves the learner’s passive learning ap-
proach to active learning. The major content types are
The company’s learning strategy has evolved in the
past 6 years. Until 2006, it was more traditionally fo-
cused on priorities established by Training & Decelop-
ment Department under HR Group on the basis of a reac-
tive approach to the requests of managers in the com-
The main delivery system was the classroom and the
LMS. Training and learning priorities are established by
business leaders as a part of their business plans, and
Figure 1. mFOR@ main modules (display in Turkish).
A. KOK 145
Figure 2. How decision makers in enterprises see the acceptance of the use of m-learning.
web pages in HTML, images in JPEG, Text in PDF or
word format, Audio in MP3 or WAV, Video in AVI and
MPEG4, animations in Flash for the teachers, there is no
need to dictate the notes in the classroom to the learners.
Instant available materials can be used in online or off-
line campus. The teacher or subject experts can develop
the m-content with video-based lessons which includes
text-based and audio-based lessons. The learners can get
the more ability to execute new problems, new ideas and
strengthen their knowledge.
Management tool: This contains the storing, retrieving
and browsing the required content and the content can
also be imported or exported.
Distribution tool: Using this tool, m-content can be
distributed through the database servers and web servers,
the database server contains the login address and pass-
word, they instantly get the details about their personal
information, class schedules, time table. From the web
server the learner’s can download the syllabus, assign-
ments and video-based lessons.
Collaboration tool: This is used to share the knowl-
edge with other learners and teachers with the collected
information and experience. The delivery tool can act as
m-content which can access via the wireless networks
such as wifi, Bluetooth using mobile phones through
internet enabled equipments (web-based learning) like
PDA or smartphones, notebook computers, palm tops,
tablet PCs etc. The use of mobile devices is to delivery
performance support and to teach through communica-
tion, which are the two important primary delivery strate-
3.1.2. Learning Module
Teacher can conduct the assessment test, online test
through this learning module. The learners can access the
syllabus, schedules, assignments through wireless net-
works using mobile phones or wireless devices like PDA
or smartphones, note book computers etc. This type of
learning can be individualized or personalized self-
learning which enhances the problem solving skills and
improve their knowledge. It can be easy accessible, pri-
vacy, immediacy, permanency. Wireless technology learn-
ing system is a state-of-the-art in the field of m-learning
due to the benefits of privacy, immediacy, flexibility, ac-
cessibility, reliability, security, mobility, reusability, in-
teractivity provided by the video-based content. The learn-
ers or teachers have the ability to learn contents from the
multiple sources on different devices notebook computer,
etc. The learners and teachers can have a close relation-
ship by solving the problems and completing the assign-
ments together. The mobile learning management system
can increase the thinking skills, performance and knowl-
edge sharing to learners.
3.1.3. Evaluation Module
Wireless mobile learning is two types, m-learning as a
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
form of performance support and m-learning as commu-
nication that creates knowledge. The m-learning as com-
munication takes a different approach is based on con-
structivist theories of learning and stem from learners
and experts constructing knowledge in an authentic con-
text. Wireless m-learning performance support systems
are similar to traditional support. The m-learning solu-
tions integrate mobile devices with the work to help the
user perform a task by providing information, guidance
and learning experiences when and where needed.
4. Results
The interviews focus on ten questions about learning
with mobile devices in general and in the enterprise of
the interviewees. The decision makers chosen to be in-
terviewed are given the chance of talking about experi-
ences, opinions, plans, and strategy concerning m-learn-
ing. The ten guiding questions the interviews are based
on are presented below:
Have you been confronted with m-learning in any
way in your company?
In general, what is the relevance of learning with mo-
bile devices?
What is the relevance of learning with mobile devices
in your company?
In general, which role will learning with mobile de-
vices play in the near future (next 5 years)?
Which role will learning with mobile devices play in
your company in the near future (next 5 years)?
Would you say that using mobile learning in compa-
nies makes sense or not?
Which advantages do you see in learning with mobile
Which disadvantages do you see in learning with mo-
bile devices?
Would mobile learning fit into your current training
Please describe an example of how the integration of
learning with mobile devices into your company could
make sense.
Most managers state that mobile devices (mainly
smartphones) have already become part of their daily
work and are used extensively in many areas such as
presenting products or information to clients. So, why
haven’t mobile devices found their way into the training
programs of this company yet?
4.1. Acceptance of M-Learning in Enterprises
In order to get a more complete picture of how these
companies feel about m-learning I group the statements
into categories that have a critical influence on the ac-
ceptance level of mobile learning. These categories are
the advantages, disadvantages, and expectations associ-
ated with the use of mobile devices for learning. An
overview of the items in each category is given below.
The items are loosely sorted by how frequently they were
mentioned with higher frequencies at the top (see Figure
A closer look at the advantages and disadvantages
listed reveals that many decision makers might be think-
ing of m-learning as simply moving their current learning
methods like seminars and handbooks to mobile devices.
This is very evident in the following statements:
Easy to switch device off if learning content is irrele-
No individual questions and answers”.
Very few of the decision makers mentioned the op-
portunity for the “individualization of learning content”
in terms of the advantages. This could be either because
they aren’t aware of solutions that exist or because the
solutions they need in their enterprise aren’t available yet.
In any case, this is a clear challenge for m-learning pro-
viders to become active and either develop the right m-
learning methods and content or to keep decision makers
better informed about their products.
Moreover, the following statements show that there is
also uncertainty if the new approaches work or can pro-
vide positive learning results:
Needs to be tested more”;
Learning outcomes need to be at least as good as in
The following statement even shows that new ap-
proaches which come with m-learning like serious games
could actually be a good alternative way of learning.
M-learning should not be used for amusement and
Based on these statements, it should be mentioned that
it is important to evaluate m-learning approaches and
methods scientifically and find out how effective these
approaches are, at least until enterprises have had enough
time for practical experiences. This would be the chal-
lenge for the scientific community.
The uncertainty of decision makers also highlights the
need for showcases and best practice cases. The situation
indicates that m-learning in this enterprise is still in its
infancy, and it will take an effort on several levels in
order to turn it into an important part of further profes-
sional training.
4.2. Chances for Enterprises that Make Use of
The aspects of “chances” that mobile learning provides
for this company as seen by the decision makers can
summarized in the order of their frequency, grouped by
category, as follows:
Usability and Aims: Respondents list chances in the
category usability and aims. This category can be
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
A. KOK 147
characterized as chances concerning main future com-
pany goals and aspects which create additional use-
fulness future. The main statements outlining these
chances are:
Making use of company’s online resources
Attracting new generations
Saving money
Organization: The decision makers focus on chances
which can be summarized under the category of or-
ganization. The chances they see under this category
have in common that these are all aspects that im-
prove the processes and organizational structure of
measures, courses in the field of initial and/or further
training in learning environment. The main state-
ments outlining these chances are:
Good way of putting information (handbooks, pre-
sentations) in the hands of employees
Use of smartphones as a quick way of distributing
Essential for keeping mobile employees connected
Good for preparing learners for seminars and for
providing material after seminars
Making information available that’s up to date
Possibility of replacing the mandatory seminars
Employees can take device home and have learn-
ing content available
Learning: Last but not least, the respondents empha-
size chances which can be grouped into the category
learning. The indicated chances in this category refer
to learning contents and learning aims as well as an
improvement of the learning process of the users of
mobile learning.
Good for learning about company’s products
Individualized content for learners
Good for learning languages
Opportunity for users to provide feedback
Use of simulations to make understanding easier
Once again it becomes clear from the following state-
ments that the dominant way of understanding m-learn-
ing in enterprises is the transfer of established training
methods to mobile devices:
Good way of putting information (handbo oks, pres-
entations) in the hands of employees”.
However, ideas of new approaches are starting to ap-
pear as well although decision makers admit to not
knowing very much about these approaches:
Individualized content for learners”;
Lets users provide feedback”;
Using simulations to make understanding easier”.
One of the very interesting chances seen by decision
makers is the opportunity to make the company’s train-
ing programs more attractive to young generations that
are more used to mobile devices. This is seen as a good
way of attracting high potential employees to the com-
4.3. Problems for Enterprises that Make Use of
In terms of the real problems for the introduction of
m-learning in their company decision makers differenti-
ate between purpose-related problems, cost-related prob-
lems, and problems concerning the acceptance and abil-
ity in enterprises to deal with matters of m-learning.
Their biggest worries are summarized, grouped by cate-
gory, in the order of their frequency below:
Cost efficiency
High costs for the technology
High costs for the content
Purpose adequacy
Uncertainty if results will be good enough to replace
current learning methods or if it can just be an addi-
No content available for company’s purposes
No technology available for company’s purposes
Ability and acceptance
M-learning will be tested but it is a question of ac-
ceptance by the employees
Willingness to introduce m-learning but company
doesn’t have the knowledge
The problems mentioned are definitely not insur-
mountable obstacles but they are currently keeping the
interviewed companies from embracing m-learning im-
mediately. Solving these problems would require a good
cooperation between company staff and the providers of
m-learning solutions, especially when it comes to devel-
oping employee-friendly solutions, creating products with
convincing learning results, and designing cost-efficient
5. Conclusions
It is essential to study how new technologies like m-
learning can contribute to improving the quality of edu-
cation (cf. Laurel, 1995). Ideally, the scope of this study
should include the views of both teachers and partici-
pants as teaching and learning processes both involve
teachers and learners. This would add to the impressions
provided by the decision makers by using the results and
categories of this study as a starting point for future in-
terviews and surveys. In addition, it would be useful to
find out how current and future generations of employees
want to learn, how easy it is for them to accept m-learn-
ing, and what their expectations of further education pro-
vided by their employer are. Furthermore, it would make
sense to repeat the interviews every year and examine
how the acceptance and the use of mobile devices for
learning purposes in enterprises change since the devel-
opment of mobile devices proceeds at a very high pace
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
and the role of mobile devices in people’s daily life in-
creases rapidly. The result of the study is only meaning-
ful for a short time.
This study shows that m-learning is still in its infancy
due to the fact that the chances that are seen in m-learn-
ing in enterprises are still very simple implementations,
with independence of location and time or the quick dis-
tribution of information as the main ideas. The ideas re-
main on a relatively simple level of taking advantage of
the m-learning potential, such as providing a way of find-
ing information quickly or the use of podcasts. Individu-
alization of learning content and the chance of reaching
new generations through m-learning also play a big role
in the companies’ willingness to give m-learning a try in
the near future.
In order for m-learning to find its way into enterprises,
it will be necessary to educate decision makers on how
m-learning could work for them. At the same time, there
seems to be a lack of good solutions on the market and
providers of mobile learning solutions are called on to
offer more educational products that can be used for m-
Acceptance of m-learning as a future way of further
educating the workforce is surprisingly high. Apparently
decision makers are open to innovation in this area if
they see that m-learning solutions can fulfill three critical
Acceptance by the learners
Depending on the industry, the workforce is expected
to accept the use of mobile devices or electronic devices
for learning more or less. With younger generations, de-
cision makers expect the acceptance to go up quickly and
even predict that mobile learning will be a lot more at-
tractive than holding seminars.
Good learning results
If an enterprise relies on m-learning, the learning re-
sults should be at least as good as the results of current
methods like seminars. This of course demands scientific
studies of effectiveness and showcases to convince deci-
sion makers.
Acceptable costs
The costs involved should not be higher than the cur-
rent costs of educating the workforce. Many decision
makers are under the impression that m-learning would
be expensive because of the high costs of the technology
involved. Saving potentials are rarely seen. In order for
m-learning to be accepted in enterprises, cost advantages
will have to become more apparent.
Based on this research study, the following practical
solutions can be suggested for overcoming the barriers of
The creation of showcases in which different partners
work together on implementing a m-learning appro-
ach in a company, study the results, and publish them.
This would require a company willing to try new
learning approaches, an academic partner to study the
results, a provider of m-learning solutions, and, ide-
ally, a dissemination partner like an association or a
government organisation.
Informing decision makers: The showcase would pro-
vide interesting facts to prove that m-learning is a vi-
able alternative, and this would have to be supple-
mented with information on how other companies
could get started with their own m-learning projects.
It is important to remember that the study only shows
the current situation of one banking institution in Turkey.
Further studies would be needed to expand the result to a
European view or even a more global view. As enter-
prises are in different situations and at different stages of
introducing m-learning into their professional training
and their on-the-job training, similar studies in other
countries would allow an interesting comparison.
[1] V. Venkatesh, M. Morris, G. Davis and F. Davis, “User
Acceptance of İnformation Technology: Toward a Uni-
fied View,” MIS Quartely, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2003, pp. 425-
[2] G. Walsham, “Interpreting Information Systems in Or-
ganisations,” John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1993.
[3] J. Waycott and A. Hulme, “Learner’s Experiences with
PDAs for Reading Course Materials,” Personal and Ubi-
quitous Computing, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2003, pp. 30-43.
[4] A. Weilenmann, “Doing Mobility,” Tese de Doutorado,
Department of Informatics, Göteborg University, Göte-
borg, 2003.
[5] E. Wenger, “Communities of Practice—Learning, Mean-
ing and İdentity,” Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1998. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803932
[6] C. Argyris, “On Organizational Learning,” Blackwell,
Cambridge, 1992.
[7] R. Basole, “Enterprise Mobility: Researching a New Par-
adigm,” Information Knowledge Systems Management,
Vol. 7, No. 1-2, 2008, pp. 1-7.
[8] G. Boterf, “Compétence et Navigation Professionelle,”
Éditions d’Organisation, Paris, 2000.
[9] J. Brown and D. Metcalf, “Mobile Learning Uptade,”
[10] R. Lindgren, O. Henfridsson and U. Schultze, “Desing
Priciples for Competence Management Systems: A Syn-
thesis of an Action Research Study,” MIS Quartely, Vol.
28, No. 3, 2004, pp. 425-472.
[11] K. Lyytinen and Y. Yoo, “The Next Wave of Nomadic
Computing,” Information Systems Research, Vol. 13, No.
4, 2002, pp. 377-388. doi:10.1287/isre.13.4.377.75
[12] J. Mills, K. Platts and M. Bourne, “Competence and
Resource Architectures,” International Journal of Opera-
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. IIM
tions & Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 9, 2003,
pp. 977-994
[13] H. Collis and R. Hussey, “Pesquisa em Administração,”
Bookman, Porto Alegre, 2005.
[14] L. Gjedde, “Learning on the Road—Designing for Con-
textual and Engaging Mobile Learning,” Proceedings of
IADIS International Conference on Mobile Learning,
Algarve, 11-13 April 2008, pp.
[15] C. Hardless, J. Lundin and U. Nulden, “Mobile Com-
petence Development for Nomads,” Proceedings of the
Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, Big
Island, Hawaii, 3-6 January 2001, pp.
[16] H. Ogata and Y. Yano, “How Ubiquitous Computing can
Support Language Learning,” 2003.
[17] A. Jeyaraj, J. Rottman and M. Lacity, “A Review of the
Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT Innovation Adop-
tion Research,” Journal of Information Technology, Vol.
21, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-23.
[18] A. Jones, K. Issroff and E. Scanlon, “Affective factors in
learning with mobile devices,” In: M. Sharples, Ed., Big
Issues in Mobile Learning, Kaleidoscope, Nottingham,
2007, pp. 17-22.
[19] N. S. Chen, C. W. Kinshuk and S. J. H. Yang, “Designing
a Self-Contained Group Area Network for Ubiquitous
Learning,” Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 11,
No. 2, 2008, pp. 16-26.
[20] P. Perrenoud, “Construire des Compétences dès l’École,”
ESF, Paris, 1997.
[21] J. Piaget, “Sociological Studies,” Routledge, London,
[22] M. Kakihara and C. Sorensen, “Mobility: An Extended
Perspective,” Proceedings of the Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Big Island, Hawaii, 7-10
January 2002. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2002.994088
[23] A. Lasen, “Affective Technologies—Emotions and Mo-
bile Phones,” 2004.
[24] J. Sherry and T. Salvador, “Running and Grimacing: The
Struggle for Balance in Mobile Work,” In: B. Brown, N.
Green and R. Harper, Eds., Wireless World—Social and
İnteractional Aspects of Mobile Age, Springer-Verlag,
London, 2002, pp. 108-120.
[25] O. Smørdal and J. Gregory, “Personal Digital Assistants
in Medical Education and Practice,” Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning, Vol. 19, No. 3, 2003, pp. 320-329.
[26] C. K. Prahalad and G. Hamel, “The Core Competence of
the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, 1990, pp.
[27] E. M. Rogers, “Diffusion of Innovations,” 5th Edition,
Free Press, New York, 2003.
[28] M. Sharples, I. S. Arnedillo, M. Milrad and G. Vavoula,
“Mobile Learning: Small Devices, Big İssues,” 2007.
[29] C. Sorensen and D. Gibson, “Ubiquitous Visions and
Opaque Realities: Professionals Talking about Mobile
Technologies,” Info: The Journal of Policy, Regulation
and Strategy for Telecommunications, Information and
Media, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2004, pp. 188-196.
[30] C. Sorensen, A. Al-Taitoon and J. Kietzmann, et al.,
“Exploring Enterprise Mobility: Lessons from the Field,”
Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 7, No.
1-2, 2008, pp. 243-271.
[31] A. Trifonova, “Mobile Learning—Review of the Litera-
ture,” Technical Report DIT-03-009, University of Trento.
[32] A. Saccol, “A Teoria da Hospitalidade e o Processo de
Adoção de Tecnologias Móveis e Sem Fio,” Tese de Dou-
torado, Faculdade de Economia e Administração, Uni-
versidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2005.
[33] M. Sharples, “The Design of Personal Mobile Techno-
logies for Lifelong Learning,” Computers & Education,
Vol. 34, No. 3-4, 2000, pp. 177-193.