UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)
Start | FAQ | About

QR Code Link :

Type :article
Subject :LB2300 Higher Education
ISSN :2222-6990
Main Author :Wong, Kung Teck
Additional Authors :Analisa Hamdan
Nor Syazwani Mat Salleh
Title :M-Heutagogy acceptance among students of higher education institutions: the conceptual framework
Place of Production :Tanjong Malim
Publisher :Fakulti Pembangunan Manusia
Year of Publication :2021
Corporate Name :Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
PDF Full Text :Login required to access this item.

Abstract : Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
The education systems worldwide are showing changes in teaching and learning. The Covid-19 pandemic that occurred since the end of 2019 is also a contributing factor to the change in our country's education system. Students and educators have to cope with the challenges of learning out of the classroom. Therefore, one of the learning approaches, which is Mobile Heutagogy (M-Heutagogy) has been chosen by educators as a teaching and learning framework. Numerous studies have identified the effectiveness of M-Heutagogy to promote learner autonomy and capability among higher education institutions students. However, past studies have shown students mostly having problem to learn online due to weak Internet access. Hence, the main purpose of this study is to discuss the factors that influence the acceptance of M-Heutagogy. This study proposed a conceptual framework of M-Heutagogy acceptance that predicts the behavioural intentions to use M-Heutagogy among students. This study will contribute to the body of knowledge, methodology and practice in providing insights of the acceptance factors of M-Heutagogy among students of Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia. Keywords: Heutagogy, Learner Autonomy, Conceptual Framework, Learning Style, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology.


Abu, B., Johan, O. M., Mansor, S. M. S. S., & Jaafar, H. (2007). Kepelbagaian Gaya Pembelajaran Dan Kemahiran Belajar Pelajar Universiti Di Fakulti Pendidikan, UTM Johor. No. Vot Penyelidikan, 71881.

Adams, C., Yin, Y., Vargas Madriz, L. F., & Mullen, C. S. (2014). A phenomenology of learning large: The tutorial sphere of xMOOC video lectures. Distance Education, 35(2), 202-216.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Alghanmi, S. (2014). Investigating the interpersonal and contextual factors govern Saudi lecturers’ motivation in creating innovative blended learning environment that web 2.0-based. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3), 96–106.

Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1), 143-155.

Ali, R. A., & Arshad, M. R. M. (2016). Perspectives of students’ behavior towards mobile learning (M-learning) in Egypt: an extension of the UTAUT model. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 6(4), 1109-1114.

Aliano, A. M., Hueros, A. D., Franco, M. G., & Aguaded, I. (2019). Mobile learning in university contexts based on the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research (NAER Journal), 8(1), 7-17.

Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28-38.

Anders, A. (2015). Theories and applications of massive online open courses (MOOCs): The case for hybrid design. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6).

Anderson, T. (2010). Theories for learning with emerging technologies. Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications, 23-39.

Andersson, S. B. (2006). Newly qualified teachers’ learning related to their use of information and communication technology: a Swedish perspective. British Journal of Educatioanl Technology, 37, 665-682.

Ayub, E. (2018). Topic: A smart future classroom in VLE for a massive number of students: a solution for instructor and classroom shortages. University Carnival On E-Learning (IUCEL) 2018, 93.

Bhoyrub, J., Hurley, J., Neilson, G. R., Ramsay, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Heutagogy: An alternative practice-based learning approach. Nurse education in practice, 10(6), 322-326. Birch, A., & Irvine, V. (2009). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in the classroom: applying the UTAUT model. Educational media international, 46(4), 295-315.

Blaschke, L. M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 13(1), 56-71.

Blaschke, L. M. (2016). Strategies for implementing self-determined learning (heutagogy) within education: A comparison of three institutions (Australia, South Africa, and Israel). Unpublished master’s thesis, Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.

Blaschke, L. M. (2018). Self-determined learning (heutagogy) and digital media creating integrated educational environments for developing lifelong learning skills. In The Digital Turn in Higher Education (pp. 129-140). Springer VS, Wiesbaden.

Blaschke, L. M., & Hase, S. (2016). Heutagogy: A holistic framework for creating twenty-first-century self-determined learners. In The future of ubiquitous learning (pp. 25-40). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Canning, N. (2010). Playing with heutagogy: Exploring strategies to empower mature learners in higher education. Journal of further and Higher Education, 34(1), 59-71. Canning, N., &

Callan, S. (2010). Heutagogy: Spirals of reflection to empower learners in higher education. Reflective Practice, 11(1), 71-82.

Chan, C. G., Embi, M. A., & Hashim, H. (2019). Primary school teachers’ readiness towards heutagogy and peeragogy. Asian Education Studies, 4(1), 11-21.

Chan, C. S. C. Leng, P. G., Saidon Z. L., & Lim, C. K. (2018). Empowering Youth Performance of the Living Multicultural Heritage of Tanjong Malim through a Heutagogical Approach. In Mohd Kipli, A. R., Chan, C.S.C., Saidon, Z. L., S., Augustine, C. & Maniam, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Music and Performing Arts Conference (pp. 37-45). Tanjong Malim: Faculty of Music and Performing Arts, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia.

Cochrane, T., & Bateman, R. (2009). Transforming pedagogy using mobile Web 2.0. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 1(4), 56-83. Cruz, Y., Boughzala, I., & Assar, S. (2014). Technology acceptance and actual use with mobile learning: first stage for studying the influence of learning styles on the behavioral intention.

Dunn, R. (1990). Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescription. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 6(3), 223-247. Efe, R. (2011). Science Student Teachers and Educational Technology: Experience, Intentions, and Value. Educational technology & society, 14(1), 228-240.

Ernst, C. P. H., Pfeiffer, J., & Rothlauf, F. (2013). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations of social network site adoption. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz: Working Papers in Information Systems and Business Administration.

Esteva-Armida, E., & Rubio-Sanchez, A. (2012). Adoption process for VoIP: The UTAUT model. International Journal of E-Services and Mobile Applications (IJESMA), 4(4), 15-31.

Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering education, 78(7), 674-681. Fianu, E., Blewett, C., Ampong, G., & Ofori, K. (2018). Factors Affecting MOOC Usage by Students in Selected Ghanaian Universities. Education Sciences, 8(2), 70.

Fidani, A., & Idrizi, F. (2012). Investigating students’ acceptance of a learning management system in university education: a structural equation modeling approach. ICT Innovations 2012 Web Proceedings, 2(23), 311-320.

Fleming, N. D. (1995). I'm different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Research and development in higher education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), HERDSA (Vol. 18, pp. 308-313).

Fleming, N. D. (2012). Facts, fallacies and myths: VARK and learning preferences. Retrieved from vark-learn. com/Introduction-to-vark/the-vark-modalities.

Fu, J. (2013). ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(1), 112–125.

Galanouli, D., & McNair, V. (2001). Students’ perceptions of ICT- related support in teaching placements. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 396-408. Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3), 200.

Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS quarterly, 389-400.

Hamdan, A., Din, R., Manaf, S. Z. A., Salleh, N. S. M., Kamsin, I. F., Ismail, N. M. (2015). Pengaplikasian UTAUT Dalam Bidang Pendidikan: Satu Ulasan Sistematik (UTAUT Applications in the field of Education: A Systematic Review). Journal of Advanced Review on Scientific Research| Vol, 5(1), 10-29.

Harsono, I. L. D., & Suryana, L. A. (2014). Factors Affecting the Use Behavior of Social Media Using UTAUT 2 Model. Proceedings of the First Asia-Pacific Conference on Global Business, Economic, Finance and Social Science. Retrieved from

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2000). From andragogy to heutagogy. Ulti-BASE In-Site.

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An international journal of complexity and education, 4(1).

Healy, P. A. (2017). Georgetown’s first six MOOCs: Completion, intention, and gender achievement gaps. Undergraduate Economic Review, 14(1),1

Huang, E. Y., Lin, S. W., & Huang, T. K. (2012). What type of learning style leads to online participation in the mixed-mode e-learning environment? A study of software usage instruction. Computers & Education, 58(1). 338–349.

Hung, M. (2015). Teacher readiness for online learning: Scale development and teacher perception. Computers & Education, 94, 120–133.

Kamrozzaman, N. A., Badusah, J. & Mohammad, W. M. R. W. (2019). Heutagogy Approach: Effectiveness of M-Learning for Lifelong Learning Education, Sains Humanika, 11(3), 53-61.

Kedin, N. A., Sulaiman, S. B., Saari, I. S., Ab Hamid, A. S., & Zahidi, N. E. (2018). ID NO. UiTM006 TOPIC:Heutagogy Approach: Exploring Statistics in MOOC. UNIVERSITY CARNIVAL on e-LEARNING (IUCEL) 2018, 148.

Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A. (2014). UTAUT model for blended learning: The role of gender and age in the intention to use webinars. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10(1), 33-52.

Kim, J., & Lee, K. S. S. (2020). Conceptual model to predict Filipino teachers’ adoption of ICT-based instruction in class: using the UTAUT model. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1-15.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.

Kumar, P., & Chaudhary, S. (2017). Massive open online courses and modern education. International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 7(3), 422-424. Lai, D. C. F., Lai, I. K.

W., & Jordan, E. (2009). An extended UTAUT model for the study of negative user adoption behaviours of mobile commerce. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Electronic Business. Laru, J., Naykki, P., & Järvelä, S. (2014). Four stages of research on the educational use of ubiquitous computing. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 8(1), 69-82.

Lu, H. P., & Yang, Y. W. (2014). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a social networking site: An extension of task-technology fit to social technology fit. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 323-332.

Madden, A., Ford, N., Miller, D., & Levy, P. (2005). Using the Internet in teaching: the views of practitioners (A survey of views of secondary school teachers in Sheffield, UK). British Journal of Educational Technology, 36, 255-280.

Malek, J. A. (2017). The impact of heutagogy education through telecentre in smart village (SV). e-Bangi, 14(2). Ministry of Higher Education. (2018a). Amanat Menteri Pendidikan Tinggi 2018. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Ministry of Higher Education. (2018b). Framing Malaysia Higher Education 4.0: Future-proof talents. Putrajaya: Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia. Mok, S. S. (2008). Educational psychology & pedagogy: Learner and learning environment. Penerbitan Multimedia.

Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Vol. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nair, P. K., Ali, F., & Leong, L. C. (2015). Factors affecting acceptance & use of ReWIND: Validating the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(3), 183-201.

Narayan, V., & Herrington, J. (2014). Towards a theoretical mobile heutagogy framework. Paper presented at ASCILITE 2014: The Rhetoric and Reality: Critical perspectives on educational technology, Dunedin.

Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Students’ acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4(2), 24-30. Ng, S. F., Confessore,

G. J., Zulkarnain, Y., Aidil, N. A. A., Norhaini, M. L. (2011). Learner Autonomy and Academic Performance among Undergraduate Students. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 1(4).

Nguyen, C. (2018). Demographic factors, family background and prior self-employment on entrepreneurial intention-Vietnamese business students are different: why? Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 8(1), 10.

Nordin, N., Norman, H., & Embi, M. A. (2015). Technology Acceptance of Massive Open Online Courses in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Distance Education, 17(2), 1-16.

Othman, M. N., Yap, S. F., & Wee, Y. G. (2011). Examining the relationship between gender, age, education level and social cognitive factors in a health setting. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(9), 79.

Persada, S. F., Miraja, B. A., & Nadlifatin, R. (2019). Understanding the generation Z behavior on D-learning: A Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(05), 20-33.

Phang, C. W., Sutanto, J., Kankanhalli, A., Li, Y., Tan, B. C., & Teo, H. H. (2006). Senior citizens' acceptance of information systems: A study in the context of e-government services. IEEE transactions on engineering management, 53(4), 555-569. Plude, D. J., & Hoyer, W. J. (1986). Age and the selectivity of visual information processing. Psychology and Aging, 1(1), 4.

Puspitasari, N., Firdaus, M. B., Haris, C. A., & Setyadi, H. J. (2019). An application of the UTAUT model for analysis of adoption of integrated license service information system. Procedia Computer Science, 161, 57-65.

Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human behavior, 27(1), 568-575.

Reid, G. (2005). Learning styles and inclusion. Sage. Sánchez-Torres, J. A., Varon-Sandobal, A., & Sánchez-Alzate, J. A. (2017). Differences between e-commerce buyers and non-buyers in Colombia: The moderating effect of educational level and socioeconomic status on electronic purchase intention. Dyna, 84(202), 175-189.

Sime, D., & Priestley, M. (2005). Student teachers’ first reflections on information and communications technology and classroom learning: implications for initial teacher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21, 130-142.

Stoszkowski, J., & McCarthy, L. (2018). Who Wouldn't Want to Take Charge of their Learning? Student Views on Learner Autonomy, Self-Determination and Motivation. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 6(2).

Sung, Y. T., Chang, K. E., & Liu, T. C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices with teaching and learning on students' learning performance: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252-275.

Surjanti, J., Aji, T. S., Rahman, Z., & Musfidah, H. (2019). Gender and Educational Background: Influence on Entrepreneurial Intention (EI) in Economics Learning. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(4), 604-609. Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors affecting the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. Sage Open, 3(4), 2158244013503837.

Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & education, 57(2), 1645-1653.

Thomas, T., 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 ICT, 9(3).

Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students? Journal of European industrial training.

Van Zwanenberg, N., Wilkinson, L. J., & Anderson, A. (2000). Felder and Silverman's Index of Learning Styles and Honey and Mumford's Learning Styles Questionnaire: how do they compare and do they predict academic performance? Educational Psychology, 20(3), 365-380.

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. Wahi, W., & Idris, F. (2017). Pendekatan heutagogi dalam pendidikan citra UKM abad ke -21.

Wang, Y. S., & Shih, Y. W. (2009). Why do people use information kiosks? A validation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Government information quarterly, 26(1), 158-165.

Weng, F., Ho, H. J., Yang, R. J., & Weng, C. H. (2019). The influence of learning style on learning attitude with multimedia teaching materials. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 15(1), 1-9.

Wong, K. T., Hwang, G. J., Goh, P. S. C., & Ariff, S. K. M. (2018). Effects of blended learning pedagogical practices on students’ motivation and autonomy for the teaching of short stories in upper secondary English. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14.

Wong, K. T., Muhammad, M. @ M., Abdullah, N., & Hamdan, A. (2020). Mobile-Heutagogical Practices among Student Teachers: Its Pedagogical Affordances and Challenges. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 14(02), 130-143.

Wong, S. L., & Teo, T. (2009). Investigating the technology acceptance among student teachers in Malaysia: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 261-272.

Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2016). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221-232.

Yeap, J. A., Ramayah, T., & Soto-Acosta, P. (2016). Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher education. Electronic Markets, 26(4), 323-338. Yusoff, A. N. M.,

Mohammad R., Ali, N., & Aziz, S. A. (2018). ID NO. UPM002 TOPIC: Memperkasakan Gamifikasi Dalam Hieps 4.0 Mpu Via 'Tools' Heutagogi, UNIVERSITY CARNIVAL on e-LEARNING (IUCEL) 2018. 389. Zandi, G., Naysary, B., & Say, S. O. K. (2013). The Behavioural Intention. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 12(3), 471.

Zhang, M., Liu, Y., Yan, W., & Zhang, Y. (2016). Users’ continuance intention of virtual learning community services: The moderating role of usage experience. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–19.

This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials.
You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research.

Back to previous page

Installed and configured by Bahagian Automasi, Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
If you have enquiries with this repository, kindly contact us at or Whatsapp +60163630263 (Office hours only)