CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Technology Adoption and User BehaviourOnline and Blended LearningTechnology-Enhanced Education Studies

Examining the Effects of Habit and Self-Efficacy on Users’ Acceptance of a Map-Based Online Learning System via an Extended TAM

Open access
Xu, Wenhui, Zhu, Ke, Zhou, Dongbo, Wang, Chunli, Wen, Chaodong·2025·Education Sciences
DOI 10.3390/educsci15070828
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Digital maps have become important teaching and learning tools in education. However, limited research has examined the factors influencing learners’ acceptance of map-based online learning systems. This study proposes and validates an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) that integrates two psychological constructs—habit and self-efficacy—into the original TAM framework to better explain students’ behavioural intention to use a map-based online learning system (Map-OLS). Structural equation modelling (SEM) was employed to analyse data from 812 participants with prior online learning experience. The results indicated that perceived ease of use (PEoU) and perceived usefulness (PU) had direct positive effects on the behavioural intention to use Map-OLS. PEoU positively affected PU and indirectly influenced behavioural intention to use Map-OLS via PU. Both habit and self-efficacy had significantly positive influences on PEoU and PU. Self-efficacy also directly influenced the behavioural intention to use Map-OLS. This study makes a theoretical contribution by extending and empirically validating TAM in the context of map-based learning environments, while also offering practical insights for designing more engaging and effective online learning systems.

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 · 10.3390/educsci15070828

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • SE may reduce uncertainty when students interact with AR interfaces, allowing them to focus more on therapeutic activities rather than on the complexity of the technology itself.

    “SE may reduce uncertainty when students interact with AR interfaces, allowing them to focus more on therapeutic activities, such as simulated social exposure and cognitive restructuring, rather than on the complexity of the technology itself [96,97,98,99].”

    From Advancing Undergraduate Student Mental Healthcare of Social Anxiety Disorder: Evaluating the Acceptance of AR-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Through TAM-Based Constructs. (2026) · cites this paper as [97]

    Section 2.2 (page unavailable) says self-efficacy shapes learners’ confidence in using technology and helps them navigate resources and maintain engagement. The paper studies a map-based online learning system, not AR interfaces, and does not address reduced uncertainty or a shift of attention toward therapeutic activities. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology acceptance model in m-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 125, 389-412.
  2. Amoroso, D., & Lim, R. (2017). The mediating effects of habit on continuance intention. International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 693-702.
  3. Anshari, M. (2016). Developing online learning resources: Big data, social networks, and cloud computing to support pervasive knowledge. Education and Information Technologies, 21(6), 1663-1677.
  4. Araos, A., Damşa, C., & Gašević, D. (2023). Browsing to learn: How computer and software engineering students use online platforms in learning activities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(2), 676-693.
  5. Arbaugh, J. B. (2000). Virtual classroom characteristics and student satisfaction with internet-based MBA courses. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 32-54.
  6. Bandura, A., & Wessels, S. (1997). Self-efficacy. Cambridge University Press.
  7. Barz, N., Benick, M., Dörrenbächer-Ulrich, L., & Perels, F. (2024). Students' acceptance of e-learning: Extending the technology acceptance model with self-regulated learning and affinity for technology. Discover Education, 3(1), 114.
  8. Chahal, J., & Rani, N. (2022). Exploring the acceptance for e-learning among higher education students in India: Combining technology acceptance model with external variables. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(3), 844-867.
  9. Chen, Y.-L. (2014). A study on student self-efficacy and technology acceptance model within an online task-based learning environment. Journal of Computers, 9(1), 34-43.
  10. Chiu, T. K. F. (2022). Applying the self-determination theory (SDT) to explain student engagement in online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54Suppl. S1, S14-S30.
  11. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T.-M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1136-1144.
  12. Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  13. Dang, Y., Zhang, Y., Hu, P. J.-H., Brown, S. A., & Chen, H. (2011). Knowledge mapping for rapidly evolving domains: A design science approach. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 415-427.
  14. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
  15. 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.
  16. DuHadway, L. P., & Henderson, T. C. (2015, October 21-24). Informing change: Course content analysis and organization. 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-9), El Paso, TX, USA.
  17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  18. Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
  19. Hanafizadeh, P., Behboudi, M., Koshksaray, A. A., & Tabar, M. J. S. (2014). Mobile-banking adoption by iranian bank clients. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 62-78.
  20. Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012). A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(12), 10959-10966.
  21. Henrie, C. R., Halverson, L. R., & Graham, C. R. (2015). Measuring student engagement in technology-mediated learning: A review. Computers & Education, 90, 36-53.
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
  23. Huang, H., Chen, Y., & Rau, P.-L. P. (2021). Exploring acceptance of intelligent tutoring system with pedagogical agent among high school students. Universal Access in the Information Society, 21(2), 1-12.
  24. Jeyaraj, A. (2022). Models of information systems habit: An exploratory meta-analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 62, 102436.
  25. Li, H., Hasegawa, S., & Kashihara, A. (2015). A multi-layer map-oriented resource organization system for web-based self-directed learning combined with community-based learning. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1), 1-28.
  26. Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31, 705-737.
  27. Liu, S., Guo, D., Sun, J., Yu, J., & Zhou, D. (2020). MapOnLearn: The use of maps in online learning systems for education sustainability. Sustainability, 12(17), 7018.
  28. Luo, Y., & Du, H. (2022). Learning with desktop virtual reality: Changes and interrelationship of self-efficacy, goal orientation, technology acceptance and learning behavior. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 1.
  29. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.
  30. Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2015). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81-95.
  31. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  32. Pan, Z., Xie, Z., Liu, T., & Xia, T. (2024). Exploring the key factors influencing college students' willingness to use AI coding assistant tools: An expanded technology acceptance model. Systems, 12(5), 176.
  33. Panigrahi, R., Srivastava, P. R., & Sharma, D. (2018). Online learning: Adoption, continuance, and learning outcome-A review of literature. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 1-14.
  34. Perna, L. W., Ruby, A., Boruch, R. F., Wang, N., Scull, J., Ahmad, S., & Evans, C. (2014). Moving through MOOCs: Understanding the progression of users in massive open online courses. Educational Researcher, 43(9), 421-432.
  35. Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring information systems success: Models, dimensions, measures, and interrelation- ships. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 236-263.
  36. Shaw, R.-S. (2010). A study of learning performance of e-learning materials design with knowledge maps. Computers & Education, 54(1), 253-264.
  37. Shirish, A., Chandra, S., & Srivastava, S. C. (2021). Switching to online learning during COVID-19: Theorizing the role of IT mindfulness and techno eustress for facilitating productivity and creativity in student learning. International Journal of Information Management, 61, 102394.
  38. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers' intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432-2440.
  39. van Haastrecht, M., Haas, M., Brinkhuis, M., & Spruit, M. (2024). Understanding validity criteria in technology-enhanced learning: A systematic literature review. Computers & Education, 220, 105128.
  40. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.
  41. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
  42. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
  43. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
  44. 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.
  45. Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Tu, Y.-F. (2021). Factors affecting the adoption of AI-based applications in higher education. Educational Technology & Society, 24(3), 116-129.
  46. Zhao, J.-H., & Yang, Q.-F. (2023). Promoting international high-school students' Chinese language learning achievements and perceptions: A mind mapping-based spherical video-based virtual reality learning system in chinese language courses. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(3), 1002-1016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Xu, W., Zhu, K., Zhou, D., Wang, C., & Wen, C.
Affiliations
  • Henan Normal University (CN)
  • Central China Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Zhou, Dongbo
ORCID
Venue
Education Sciences
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2025-07-01
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
828
ISSN
2227-7102 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/educsci15070828
OpenAlex
W4411927008
Cited by
4
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Education Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62477008, 22IRTSTHN031, 24YJA880016)
  • 2022 Annual Program for Innovative Research Teams in Science and Technology of Henan Province Universities, “Big Data Analysis and Application in Education” (62477008, 22IRTSTHN031, 24YJA880016)
  • Research Planning Project for Humanities and Social Sciences by the Ministry of Education of China (62477008, 22IRTSTHN031, 24YJA880016)
  • Doctoral Research Initiation Funds from Henan Normal University (62477008, 22IRTSTHN031, 24YJA880016)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Technology-Enhanced Education Studies
Keywords
map-based learning, online learning platforms, technology acceptance, habit, self-efficacy, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, behavioral intention, extended technology acceptance model

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