Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model

Open access
Mailizar, Mailizar, Burg, Damon, Maulina, Suci·2021·Education and Information Technologies
DOI 10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This present study aims to investigate factors that impact behavioural intention of university students on e-learning use during the COVID-19 pandemic. An online questionnaire was utilised to gather data from 109 students enrolled in one of the universities in Indonesia. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was the primary framework employed for analysis, in which system quality and e-learning experience were included as external constructs to seek out a much better model to improve the understanding of students’ intention to adopt e-learning. An extended TAM model was developed and tested in this study. The model consists of six constructs: system quality, e-learning experience, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, attitude toward use, and behavioural intention. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) and SMART PLS 3.0 software were applied for data analysis. The findings informed that the proposed model has been succefully explained factors university students use of e-learning during the pandemic in Indonesia. It suggested that attitude toward e-learning use was the most prominent construct to predict university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the pandemic. Finally, this study offers recommendations for future research and practices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 70

  1. Abbasi, M. S., Chandio, F. H., Soomro, A. F., & Shah, F. (2011). Social influence, voluntariness, experience and the internet acceptance: An extension of technology acceptance model within a south‐Asian country context. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391111097410. · DOI
  2. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 9(2), 4–18. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/130283/.
  3. Al-alak, B. A., & Alnawas, I. A. (2011). Measuring the acceptance and adoption of e-learning by academic staff. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(2), 201–221.
  4. Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 12(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001. · DOI
  5. Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5261–5280. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Armenteros, M., Liaw, S.-S., Fernández, M., Díaz, R. F., & Sánchez, R. A. (2013). Surveying FIFA instructors’ behavioral intention toward the multimedia teaching materials. Computers & Education, 61, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.010. · DOI
  7. Binyamin, S. S., Rutter, M., & Smith, S. (2019). Extending the technology acceptance model to understand students’ use of learning management systems in saudi higher education. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 14(03), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i03.9732. · DOI
  8. Chang, C.-T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C.-R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers & Education, 111, 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Chu, T.-H., & Chen, Y.-Y. (2016). With good we become good: Understanding e-learning adoption by theory of planned behavior and group influences. Computers & Education, 92, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.013. · DOI
  11. Cigdem, H., & Topcu, A. (2015). Predictors of instructors’ behavioral intention to use learning management system: A Turkish vocational college example. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.049. · DOI
  12. Cruz-Cárdenas, J., Zabelina, E., Deyneka, O., Guadalupe-Lanas, J., & Velín-Fárez, M. (2019). Role of demographic factors, attitudes toward technology, and cultural values in the prediction of technology-based consumer behaviors: A study in developing and emerging countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149, 119768. · DOI
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982. · DOI · Paper page
  14. De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 58(2), 688–696. · DOI
  15. Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.683. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fathema, N., & Sutton, K. L. (2013). Factors influencing faculty members’ Learning Management Systems adoption behavior: An analysis using the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Trends in Economics Management & Technology (IJTEMT), 2(6), 20–28. https://www.ijtemt.org
  17. Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 1–23.
  18. Fokides, E. (2017). Greek pre-service teachers’ intentions to use computers as in-service teachers. Contemporary Educational Technology, 8(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/6187. · DOI
  19. Fraenkel, Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages.
  20. Gan, C. L., & Balakrishnan, V. (2018). Mobile technology in the classroom: What drives student-lecturer interactions? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 34(7), 666–679. · DOI
  21. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
  22. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
  23. Hamid, A. A., Razak, F. Z. A., Bakar, A. A., & Abdullah, W. S. W. (2016). The effects of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on continuance intention to use e-government. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35(2016), 644–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(16)00079-4. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Henseler, J. (2010). On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm. Computational Statistics, 25(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-009-0164-x. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Hess, T. J., McNab, A. L., & Basoglu, K. A. (2014). Reliability generalization of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intentions. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.01. · DOI
  26. Ho, N. T. T., Sivapalan, S., Pham, H. H., Nguyen, L. T. M., Van Pham, A. T., & Dinh, H. V. (2020). Students' adoption of e-learning in emergency situation: the case of a Vietnamese university during COVID-19. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 17(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0164. · DOI
  27. Hrtoňová, N., Kohout, J., Rohlíková, L., & Zounek, J. (2015). Factors influencing acceptance of e-learning by teachers in the Czech Republic. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 873–879. · DOI
  28. Hsia, J.-W., Chang, C.-C., & Tseng, A.-H. (2014). Effects of individuals’ locus of control and computer self-efficacy on their e-learning acceptance in high-tech companies. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2012.702284. · DOI
  29. Hussein, Z. (2017). Leading to intention: The role of attitude in relation to technology acceptance model in e-learning. Procedia Computer Science, 105, 159–164. · DOI
  30. Joo, Y. J., Park, S., & Lim, E. (2018). Factors influencing preservice teachers’ intention to use technology: TPACK, teacher self-efficacy, and technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(3), 48–59.
  31. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5), 361. · DOI
  32. Kawano, S., & Kakehashi, M. (2015). Substantial impact of school closure on the transmission dynamics during the pandemic flu H1N1-2009 in Oita, Japan. PloS one, 10(12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144839. · DOI
  33. Lau, S.-H., & Woods, P. C. (2008). An empirical study of learning object acceptance in multimedia learning environment. Communications of the IBIMA, 5(1), 1–6.
  34. Lee, Y.-H., Hsiao, C., & Purnomo, S. H. (2014). An empirical examination of individual and system characteristics on enhancing e-learning acceptance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 562–579. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.381. · DOI
  35. Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2013). An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning systems: Applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2011.577190. · DOI
  36. Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Ma, C.-Y. (2011). A model of organizational employees’e-learning systems acceptance. Knowledge-based systems, 24(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2010.09.005. · DOI
  37. Letchumanan, M., & Tarmizi, R. (2011). Assessing the intention to use e-book among engineering undergraduates in Universiti Putra Malaysia. Malaysia. Library Hi Tech, 29(3), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378831111174459. · DOI
  38. Lew, S.-L., Lau, S.-H., & Leow, M.-C. (2019). Usability factors predicting continuance of intention to use cloud e-learning application. Heliyon, 5(6), e01788. · DOI
  39. Lin, K.-M., Chen, N.-S., & Fang, K. (2010). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: A negative critical incidents perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(1), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449291003752948. · DOI
  40. Liu, I.-F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C.-H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Mailizar, M., & Fan, L. (2020). Examining Indonesian secondary school mathematics teachers’ instructional practice in the integration of technology. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4692–4699. · DOI
  42. Martin, R. G. (2012). Factors affecting the usefulness of social networking inE-learning at German University of Technology in Oman. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(6), 498. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijeeee.2012.v2.171. · DOI
  43. Martinho, D. S., Santos, E. M., Miguel, M. I., & Cordeiro, D. S. (2018). Factors that influence the adoption of postgraduate online courses. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(12), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i12.8864. · DOI
  44. McGill, T., Klobas, J., & Renzi, S. (2011). LMS use and instructor performance: The role of task-technology fit. International Journal on E-Learning, 10(1), 43–62.
  45. Mou, J., Shin, D.-H., & Cohen, J. (2017). Understanding trust and perceived usefulness in the consumer acceptance of an e-service: A longitudinal investigation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2016.1203024. · DOI
  46. Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Pham, L., Limbu, Y. B., Bui, T. K., Nguyen, H. T., & Pham, H. T. (2019). Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1–26. · DOI
  48. Premchaiswadi, W., Porouhan, P., & Premchaiswadi, N. (2012). An empirical study of the key success factors to adopt e-learning in Thailand. International conference on information society (i-Society 2012).
  49. Purnomo, S. H., & Lee, Y.-H. (2013). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia: An empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666912448258. · DOI
  50. Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2020). Investigating the acceptance of mobile library applications with an extended technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education, 145, 103732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Rezaei, M., Mohammadi, H. M., Asadi, A., & Kalantary, K. (2008). Predicting e-learning application in agricultural higher education using technology acceptance model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 85–95.
  52. Ritter, N. L. (2017). Technology acceptance model of online learning management systems in higher education: A meta-analytic structural equation model. International Journal of Learning Management Systems, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.18576/ijlms/050101. · DOI
  53. Sharma, S., & Chandel, J. (2013). Technology acceptance model for the use of learning through websites among students In Oman. International Arab Journal of E-Technology, 3(1), 44–49.
  54. Sim, C., & Finger, G. (2012).It's time to technological pedagogical reason ACEC2012: ITs Time Conference, Perth, Australia.
  55. Siron, Y., Wibowo, A., & Narmaditya, B. S. (2020). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning in Indonesia: Lesson from Covid-19. JOTSE: Journal of Technology and Science Education, 10(2), 282–295. · DOI
  56. Sukendro, S., Habibi, A., Khaeruddin, K., Indrayana, B., Syahruddin, S., Makadada, F. A., & Hakim, H. (2020). Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of e-learning during Covid-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon, 6(11), e05410. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Taat, M. S., & Francis, A. (2019). Factors influencing the students’ acceptance of e-learning at teacher education institute: An exploratory study in Malaysia. The International Journal of Higher Education, 9, 133. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n1p133. · DOI
  58. Tarhini, A., Elyas, T., Akour, M. A., & Al-Salti, Z. (2016). Technology, demographic characteristics and e-learning acceptance: A conceptual model based on extended technology acceptance model. Higher Education Studies, 6(3), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.5539/hes.v6n3p72. · DOI
  59. Tarhini, A., Hassouna, M., Abbasi, M. S., & Orozco, J. (2015). Towards the acceptance of RSS to support learning: An empirical study to validate the technology acceptance model in Lebanon. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(1), 30–41.
  60. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020. · DOI · Paper page
  61. Teo, T. (2010). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes to computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820802231327. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18. · DOI
  63. Teo, T., Milutinović, V., Zhou, M., & Banković, D. (2017). Traditional vs. innovative uses of computers among mathematics pre-service teachers in Serbia. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(7), 811–827. · DOI
  64. Tosuntaş, ŞB., Karadağ, E., & Orhan, S. (2015). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the Unified Theory of acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.009. · DOI
  65. Vladova, G., Ullrich, A., Bender, B., & Gronau, N. (2021). Students’ Acceptance of Technology-Mediated Teaching–How It Was Influenced During the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020: A Study From Germany. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636086. · DOI
  66. Waheed, M., & Jam, F. A. (2010). Teacher’s intention to accept online education: Extended TAM model. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(5), 330–344.
  67. Wheeler, C. C., Erhart, L. M., & Jehn, M. L. (2010). Effect of school closure on the incidence of influenza among school-age children in Arizona. Public Health Reports, 125(6), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491012500612. · DOI
  68. Williams, M., & Williams, J. (2010). Evaluating a model of business school students’ acceptance of web-based course management systems. The International Journal of Management Education, 8(3), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.3794/ijme.83.264. · DOI
  69. Wong, G. K. (2015). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers of primary mathematics in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1890. · DOI
  70. Zogheib, B., Rabaa’i, A., Zogheib, S., & Elsaheli, A. (2015). University student perceptions of technology use in mathematics learning. Journal of Information Technology Education, 14, 417–438. · DOI

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Mailizar, M., Burg, D., & Maulina, S.
Venue
Education and Information Technologies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-04-28
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
7057-7077
ISSN
  • 1360-2357 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7608
DOI
10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5
OpenAlex
W3159166245
Cited by
369
References
10
FWCI
57.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
Funders
RME Research Center (01032020)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.