Investigating Users’ Continued Usage Intentions of Online Learning Applications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
2.1. Social Influence (SI)
2.2. System Characteristics (SC)
2.3. Individual Differences (ID)
2.4. Facilitating Conditions (FC)
2.5. Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)
2.6. Perceived Usefulness (PU)
2.7. Behavioral Intention (BI)
3. Research Methods
3.1. Participants
3.2. Procedure
3.3. Reliability and Validity Measures
3.3.1. Internal Consistency Reliabilities (Cronbach’s Test; All Constructs Pass the Reliability Test)
3.3.2. Construct Validity (KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin) and Bartlett’s Spherical Test; All constructs Pass the Test)
3.3.3. Discriminant Validity (All Constructs Pass the Test)
4. Results
4.1. Significance Analysis
4.1.1. There were Significant Differences in Usage Intention for Gender
4.1.2. There were Significant Differences in Usage Intention among Different Groups
4.2. The Measurement Model Analysis
4.3. Factor Analysis
4.4. Path Coefficients
5. Conclusion and Discussions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire Items and References
References
- Harasim, L.M. Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Docebo. E-Learning Market Trends & Forecast 2014–2016 Report. A Report by Docebo 2014. Available online: http://www. docebo.com/landing/contactform (accessed on 4 May 2019).
- Cheon, J.; Lee, S.; Crooks, S.M.; Song, G. An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 1054–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frohberg, D.; Göth, C.; Schwabe, G. Mobile Learning Projects: A critical analysis of the state of the art. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2009, 25, 307–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannakas, F.; Kambourakis, G.; Papasalouros, A.; Gritzalis, S. A critical review of 13 years of mobile game-based learning. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2018, 66, 341–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagozzi, R.P. The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2007, 8, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timothy, T.; Mingming, Z. The influence of teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning on their technology acceptance. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2017, 25, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saeed, K.A.; Abdinnour-Helm, S. Examining the effects of information system characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of information systems. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallya, J.; Lakshminarayanan, S. Factors influencing usage of Internet for academic purposes using technology acceptance model. DESIDOC J. Libr. Inf. Technol. 2017, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daǧhan, G.; Akkoyunlu, B. Modeling the continuance usage intention of online learning environments. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 60, 198–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, B.; Chen, X. Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 67, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thongsri, N.; Shen, L.; Bao, Y. Investigating factors affecting learners perception toward online learning evidence from ClassStart application in Thailand. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2019, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barclay, C.; Donalds, C.; Oseibryson, K.M. Investigating critical success factors in online learning environments in higher education systems in the Caribbean. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2018, 24, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelman, H.C. Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. J. Confl. Resolut. 1958, 2, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Webster, J.; Martocchio, J.J. Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Q. 1992, 16, 201–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Card, S.K.; Moran, T.P.; Newell, A. The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Commun. ACM 1980, 23, 396–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V. Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Q. 1999, 23, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.Y.; Nam, M.W.; Cha, S.B. University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 43, 592–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarhini, A.; Hone, K.; Liu, X. Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling approach. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2013, 3, 54–59. [Google Scholar]
- Venkatesh, V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 2000, 11, 342–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1995, 12, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halawi, L.; McCarthy, R. Measuring students perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model: A PLS approach. E-Learning 2008, 26, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Park, S.Y. An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-Learning. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2009, 12, 150–162. [Google Scholar]
- Rong, T. AMOS and Research Method; Press of Chongqing University: Chongqing, China, 2010; p. 65. [Google Scholar]
- Ji, Z. Empirical study on the network learning behavior of college students. Distance Educ. China 2013, 5, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, J.D. The Cronbach alpha reliability estimate. JALT Test. Eval. SIG Newsl. 2002, 6, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Tarhini, A.; Hone, K.; Liu, X.; Tarhini, T. Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of e-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interact. Learn. Environ. 2016, 25, 306–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beach, L.R. Image Theory: Theoretical and Eempirical Foundations; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
- Beach, L.R. Decision Making in the Workplace: A Unified Perspective; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2014; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Compeau, D.; Higgins, C. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 189–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Component | Cronbach’s | KMO | Approximate | Significance | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Test | Chi-Square | Level | |||
SI | 0.829 | 0.794 | 622 | 0 | |
SC | 0.895 | 0.848 | 1090 | 0 | |
ID | 0.841 | 0.724 | 468 | 0 | |
FC | 0.893 | 0.883 | 1273 | 0 | |
PEOU | 0.841 | 0.724 | 468 | 0 | |
PU | 0.847 | 0.750 | 487 | 0 | |
BI | 0.860 | 0.695 | 425 | 0 |
Component | M | SD | SI | SC | ID | FC | PEOS | PU | BI | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SI | 3.210 | 0.695 | 0.785 | |||||||
SC | 3.310 | 0.656 | 0.741 | 0.920 | ||||||
ID | 3.150 | 0.775 | 0.453 | 0.630 | 0.803 | |||||
FC | 3.140 | 0.732 | 0.434 | 0.594 | 0.690 | 0.761 | ||||
PEOS | 3.150 | 0.775 | 0.453 | 0.630 | 0.740 | 0.690 | 0.868 | |||
PU | 3.230 | 0.715 | 0.659 | 0.825 | 0.649 | 0.580 | 0.649 | 0.803 | ||
BI | 3.130 | 0.799 | 0.382 | 0.518 | 0.635 | 0.729 | 0.506 | 0.635 | 0.760 |
Model | p | CMIN/DF | GFI | AGFI | NFI | TLI | CFI | RMSEA | IFI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
> 0.05 | < 3.0 | > 0.90 | > 0.80 | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | > 0.90 | < 0.10 | > 0.90 | |
A1 | 0 | 6.118 | 0.784 | 0.674 | 0.822 | 0.788 | 0.845 | 0.137 | 0.847 |
A2 | 0 | 4.798 | 0.819 | 0.694 | 0.874 | 0.840 | 0.896 | 0.119 | 0.897 |
A3 | 0 | 3.077 | 0.908 | 0.794 | 0.939 | 0.913 | 0.957 | 0.088 | 0.958 |
A4 | 0 | 2.883 | 0.916 | 0.809 | 0.944 | 0.921 | 0.962 | 0.084 | 0.962 |
Determinants | Measurement Scales | Factor Load |
---|---|---|
Social Influence | Subjective Norm | 0.44 |
Image | 0.63 | |
System Characteristics | Job Relevance | 0.58 |
Output Quality | 0.88 | |
Demonstrability Result | 0.62 | |
Individual Differences | Device Self-Efficacy | 0.77 |
Device Anxiety | 0.68 | |
Device Playfulness | 0.65 | |
Perception of External Control | 0.72 | |
Facilitating Conditions | Perceived Enjoyment | 0.76 |
Objective Usability | 0.76 | |
Perceived Ease of Use | Clear and Understandable | 0.69 |
Easy to Use | 0.60 | |
Easy to Do What Wanted to Do | 0.68 | |
Requirement of Less Mental Effort | 0.60 | |
Perceived Usefulness | Performance Improvement | 0.42 |
Productivity Increase | 0.88 | |
Effectiveness Enhancement | 0.76 | |
Usefulness | 0.90 | |
Behavioral Intention | Intend to Use | 0.78 |
Predict to Use | 0.78 | |
Plan to Use | 0.69 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ji, Z.; Yang, Z.; Liu, J.; Yu, C. Investigating Users’ Continued Usage Intentions of Online Learning Applications. Information 2019, 10, 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10060198
Ji Z, Yang Z, Liu J, Yu C. Investigating Users’ Continued Usage Intentions of Online Learning Applications. Information. 2019; 10(6):198. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10060198
Chicago/Turabian StyleJi, Zhi, Zhenhua Yang, Jianguo Liu, and Changrui Yu. 2019. "Investigating Users’ Continued Usage Intentions of Online Learning Applications" Information 10, no. 6: 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10060198
APA StyleJi, Z., Yang, Z., Liu, J., & Yu, C. (2019). Investigating Users’ Continued Usage Intentions of Online Learning Applications. Information, 10(6), 198. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10060198