Identifying key factors affecting college students’ adoption of the e-learning system in mandatory blended learning environments
Abstract
The successful application of the e-learning system is of great significance to the implementation, management and continuous improvement of blended learning in higher education. Hence, we focused on identifying key factors affecting college students’ adoption of the e-learning system in mandatory blended learning environments. In this study, the Unified Technology Acceptance and System Success (UTASS) model was proposed, a method integrating self-reported and system log data was implemented, while the moderator variables of gender and major were considered. Self-reported questionnaires were distributed in the e-learning system-starC and a total of 287 valid questionnaires were collected, meanwhile system log was collected to record students’ actual behavior online. Structural equation modeling analysis revealed that system quality (SQ), social influence (SI) and facilitating conditions (FC) have significant positive effects on behavioral intention (BI) whereas information quality (IQ) has none on BI. There is no significant positive relationship among FC, BI and use behavior (UB), and only moderator effect of gender exists. The results suggested that male college students are more susceptible to the impact of system quality and social influence.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Formative self-tests tailored to individual needs can enhance learning efficiency.
“Formative self-tests tailored to individual needs can enhance learning efficiency [126].”
From Leveraging AI in E-Learning: Personalized Learning and Adaptive Assessment through Cognitive Neuropsychology—A Systematic Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [126]
Cites
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035 · see citing works
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941 · see citing works
The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update
(2003) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 · Cited by 11,791 · see citing works
Journal of The American Statistical Association
Fienberg, S. E. (2004) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess1317 · Cited by 6,289 · see citing works
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0014694 · Cited by 2,242 · see citing works
The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China
van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001 · Cited by 940 · see citing works
Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model
Mohammadi, H. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044 · Cited by 779 · see citing works
Learning Engagement and Persistence in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS)
Jung, Y., & Lee, J. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.02.013 · Cited by 557 · see citing works
Rafique, H., Almagrabi, A. O., Shamim, A., Anwar, F., & Bashir, A. K. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103732 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
A time‐based blended learning model
Norberg, A., Dziuban, C. D., & Moskal, P. D. (2011) · On the Horizon The International Journal of Learning Futures · doi:10.1108/10748121111163913 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Estriégana, R., Medina, J., & Barchino, R. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.010 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Šumak, B., & Šorgo, A. (2016) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.037 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Applying the UTAUT to Understand Factors Affecting the Use of English E-Learning Websites in Taiwan
Tan, P. J. B. (2013) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244013503837 · Cited by 286 · see citing works
Dečman, M. (2015) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.022 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Assessing the success of e-government systems: An employee perspective
Stefanović, D., Marjanović, U., Delić, M., Culibrk, D. R., & Lаlić, B. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.02.007 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Serrano, D. R., Dea‐Ayuela, M. A., González‐Burgos, E., Gil, A. S., & Lalatsa, A. (2019) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12330 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
The promised land of blended learning: Quizzes as a moderator
Spanjers, I. A. E., Könings, K. D., Leppink, J., Verstegen, D. M. L., de Jong, N., Czabanowska, K., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2015) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2015.05.001 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
The Influence of Values on E-learning Adoption
Mehta, A., Morris, N. P., Swinnerton, B. J., & Homer, M. (2019) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103617 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Mtebe, J. S., & Raphael, C. (2018) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.2993 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Adoption and Application of Mobile Learning in the Education Industry
Bidin, S., & Ziden, A. B. A. (2013) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.145 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
How to build an e-learning product: Factors for student/customer satisfaction
Dominici, G., & Palumbo, F. (2012) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.011 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e‐learning systems in rural China
Li, Y., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., & Alford, P. (2011) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01261.x · Cited by 147 · see citing works
The role of quality factors in intention to continue using an e-learning system in Malaysia
Ramayah, T., Ahmad, N. H., & Lo, M. (2010) · Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.885 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Unfamiliar technology: Reaction of international students to blended learning
Prasad, P. W. C., Maag, A., Redestowicz, M., & Hoe, L. S. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.016 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Zhang, J., Zou, L.-C., Miao, J.-J., Zhang, Y.-X., Hwang, G., & Zhu, Y. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1636078 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Ameen, N., Willis, R., Abdullah, M. N., & Shah, M. H. (2018) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.12651 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Multilevel Research in the Field of Organizational Behavior
Costa, P., Graça, A. M., Marques‐Quinteiro, P., Santos, C. M., Caetano, A., & Passos, A. (2013) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244013498244 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Yang, H. H., Feng, L., & MacLeod, J. (2018) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/0735633117746084 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Pozón-López, I., Kalinić, Z., Higueras‐Castillo, E., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. J. (2019) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2019.1636074 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Lin, J., & Lin, H.-C. K. (2018) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.3395 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Online help-seeking in communities of practice: Modeling the acceptance of conceptual artifacts
Nistor, N., Schworm, S., & Werner, M. (2012) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.017 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Swartz, R. J., Cox, D. D., Cantor, S. B., et al. (2006) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214505000000998 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Kim, S. M., Akahori, K., & Shimizu, Y. (1997) · Journal on Educational Technology · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Halkiopoulos, C., & Gkintoni, E. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13183762 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
“Formative self-tests tailored to individual needs can enhance learning efficiency [126].”
Exploring the factors influencing the effectiveness of online learning: A study on college students
Kedia, P., & Mishra, L. (2023) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100559 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, Z., Cao, T., Shu, J., & Liu, H.
- Affiliations
- Central China Normal University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Cao, Taihe
- Venue
- Interactive Learning Environments
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-02-06
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1388-1401
- ISSN
- 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-5191
- OpenAlex
- W3005281502
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 21.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61875068)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and E-Learning
- Keywords
- e-learning adoption, university students, technology acceptance, system quality, social influence, facilitating conditions, information quality, behavioral intention, use behavior, gender differences, higher education
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
