Top

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

Published in:

22-04-2021 | Original research

Blended Learning Acceptance: A Systematic Review of Information Systems Models

Authors: Rana Al-Maroof, Noor Al-Qaysi, Said A. Salloum, Mostafa Al-Emran

Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning | Issue 3/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Examining the blended learning (b-learning) acceptance is not a new research topic, and it has been tackled by many scholars. Nevertheless, the analysis of information systems (IS) models that are used to study the acceptance of b-learning is regarded as a topic of great importance. To examine these models and afford scholars a holistic view of this research trend, we should be aware of the forefront IS models adopted in this research trend. To that end, the current systematic review analyzed a total of 64 studies published between 2006 and 2018. The key research findings revealed that the technology acceptance model (TAM) was regarded as the predominant model in predicting the individuals’ intention to adopt b-learning. Additionally, e-learning was found to be the most effective tool used to manage b-learning classrooms. Besides, investigating the students’ adoption or acceptance of b-learning along with its underpinned technologies represents the main research purpose addressed among the majority of the analyzed studies. Furthermore, most of the collected studies were conducted in Malaysia, Taiwan, and Turkey, respectively. Moreover, university students were found to be the main respondents in terms of data collection in most of the analyzed studies. These results are expected to immensely provide a better understanding of b-learning research on one hand, and the use of IS models on the other hand.

previous article Methodological Elements for the Implementation of Data Acquisition Systems as Support for Experimental Activity in the Physics Teaching

next article Malleability of Spatial Reasoning With Short-Term and Long-Term Robotics Interventions

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Adukaite, A., van Zyl, I., Er, Ş, & Cantoni, L. (2017). Teacher perceptions on the use of digital gamified learning in tourism education: The case of South African secondary schools. Computers and Education, 111, 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.008CrossRef

Alammary, A. (2019). Blended learning models for introductory programming courses: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 14(9), e0221765. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.022176CrossRef

Aldholay, A. H., Isaac, O., Abdullah, Z., & Ramayah, T. (2018). The role of transformational leadership as a mediating variable in DeLone and McLean information system success model: The context of online learning usage in Yemen. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1421–1437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.03.012CrossRef

Al-Emran, M., & Teo, T. (2020). Do knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing really affect e-learning adoption? An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1983–1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10062-wCrossRef

Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., & Kamaludin, A. (2018). Technology acceptance model in M-learning context: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 125, 389–412CrossRef

Al-Harbi, K.A.-S. (2011). E-Learning in the Saudi tertiary education: Potential and challenges. Applied Computing and Informatics, 9(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2010.03.002CrossRef

Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N., & Al-Emran, M. (2020). Employing the technology acceptance model in social media: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10197-1CrossRef

Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A. F. M., Phon, D. N. A. L. E., Abdullah, A., & Ming, G. L. (2020). Blended learning adoption and implementation in higher education: A theoretical and systematic review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-zCrossRef

Arbaugh, J. B., Godfrey, M. R., Johnson, M., Pollack, B. L., Niendorf, B., & Wresch, W. (2009). Research in online and blended learning in the business disciplines: Key findings and possible future directions. Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.06.006CrossRef

Atmacasoy, A., & Aksu, M. (2018). Blended learning at pre-service teacher education in Turkey: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9723-5CrossRef

Azizan, F. Z. (2010). Blended learning in higher education institution in Malaysia. Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT 2010.

Bachtiar, F. A., Rachmadi, A., & Pradana, F. (2014). Acceptance in the Deployment of Blended Learning as Learning Resource in Information Technology and Computer Science Program, Brawijaya University. Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Aided System Engineering (APCASE), 131–135.

Baltaci-Goktalay S. & Ozdilek Z. (2010) Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about web 2.0 technologies. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.760

Basol, G., & Balgalmis, E. (2016). A multivariate investigation of gender differences in the number of online tests received-checking for perceived self-regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.010CrossRef

Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. J. (2017). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19.

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3CrossRef

Bliuc, A. M., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.001CrossRef

Bonk, C. C. J., Kim, K. K., & Zeng, T. (2006). Future directions of blended learning in higher education and workplace learning settings. Global Perspectives, Local Designs.

Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 48(5), 589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4CrossRef

Brown, M. G. (2016). Blended instructional practice: A review of the empirical literature on instructors’ adoption and use of online tools in face-to-face teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 31, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.001CrossRef

Buchanan, T., Sainter, P., & Saunders, G. (2013). Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6CrossRef

Cabrera-Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M. D., Garcia-Sanchez, D., & Lujan, S. (2012). Unifying heterogeneous e-learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. Computers and Education, 58(1), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.014CrossRef

Cakır, R., & Solak, E. (2015). Attitude of Turkish EFL Learners towards e-Learning through tam model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 176, 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.515CrossRef

Chmiel, A. S., Shaha, M., & Schneider, D. K. (2017). Introduction of blended learning in a master program: Developing an integrative mixed method evaluation framework. Nurse Education Today, 48, 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.10.008CrossRef

Chou, H. K., Lin, I. C., Woung, L. C., & Tsai, M. T. (2012). Engagement in e-learning opportunities: An empirical study on patient education using expectation confirmation theory. Journal of Medical Systems, 36(3), 1697–1706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9630-9CrossRef

Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2017). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers and Education, 122, 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001CrossRef

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.2015.05.049CrossRef

Colis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. Kogan-Page.

Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002CrossRef

Dečman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.022CrossRef

Deepak, K. C. (2017). Evaluation of moodle features at Kajaani university of applied sciences-case study. Procedia Computer Science, 116, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.10.021CrossRef

Driscoll, M. (2002). Blended learning: Let’s get beyond the hype. E-Learning

Dumpit, D. Z., & Fernandez, C. J. (2017). Analysis of the use of social media in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) using the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0045-2CrossRef

Dziuban, C., & Moskal, P. (2001). Evaluating distributed learning in metropolitan universities. Metropolitan Universities, 12(1), 41–49

Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., & Hartman, J. (2005). Higher education, blended learning and the generations: Knowledge is power-no more. Engaging Communities. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687761003657614CrossRef

Gan, C. L., & Balakrishnan, V. (2017). Enhancing classroom interaction via IMMAP - An interactive mobile messaging app. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.05.007CrossRef

García Botero, G., Questier, F., Cincinnato, S., He, T., & Zhu, C. (2018). Acceptance and usage of mobile assisted language learning by higher education students. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9177-1CrossRef

Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems:Definition, current trends, and future directions. Handbook of Blended Learning Global Perspectives Local Designs. https://doi.org/10.2307/4022859CrossRef

Graham, C. R., Woodfield, W., & Harrison, J. B. (2012). A framework for institutional adoption and implementation of blended learning in higher education. Internet and Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.003CrossRef

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, 644–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00079-4CrossRef

Haron, H., Abbas, W. F., & Rahman, N. A. A. (2012). The adoption of blended learning among malaysian academicians. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.318CrossRef

Harris, K. M., Phelan, L., McBain, B., Archer, J., Drew, A. J., & James, C. (2016). Attitudes toward learning oral communication skills online: the importance of intrinsic interest and student-instructor differences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 591–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9435-8CrossRef

He, C., Gu, J., Wu, W., Zhai, X., & Song, J. (2017). Social media use in the career development of graduate students: The mediating role of internship effectiveness and the moderating role of Zhongyong. Higher Education, 74(6), 1033–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0107-8CrossRef

Hong, J., Lee, O. K., & Suh, W. (2013). A study of the continuous usage intention of social software in the context of instant messaging. Online Information Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2011-0144CrossRef

Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous & Synchronous E-Learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly.

Hung, M. C., Chang, I. C., & Hwang, H. G. (2011). Exploring academic teachers’ continuance toward the web-based learning system: The role of causal attributions. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1530–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.001CrossRef

Ifinedo, P., Pyke, J., & Anwar, A. (2018). Business undergraduates’ perceived use outcomes of Moodle in a blended learning environment: The roles of usability factors and external support. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.10.001CrossRef

Isa, W. A. R. W. M., Lokman, A. M., Mustapa, M. N., Sah, I. N. M., Hamdan, A. R., & Luaran, J. E. (2015). Exploring the adoption of blended learning: Case of mobile learning. Artificial Intelligence, Modelling and Simulation (AIMS), 2015 3rd International Conference, 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1109/AIMS.2015.63

Kanthawongs, P., & Kanthawongs, P. (2013). Individual and social factors affecting student’s usage intention in using learning management system. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 88, 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.484CrossRef

Karimi, S. (2016). Do learners’ characteristics matter? An exploration of mobile-learning adoption in self-directed learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 769–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.014CrossRef

Kastner, M., & Stangl, B. (2011). Mapping learning aids and introducing learning styles as a moderator. System Sciences (HICSS), 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.299

Khee, C. M., Wei, G. W., & Jamaluddin, S. A. (2014). Students’ perception towards lecture capture based on the technology acceptance model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1445CrossRef

Kim, K., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The Future of Online Teaching and Learning in Higher Education : The Survey Says. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 29(4): 22–30

Kimiloglu, H., Ozturan, M., & Kutlu, B. (2017). Perceptions about and attitude toward the usage of e-learning in corporate training. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.062CrossRef

King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003CrossRef

Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Software Engineering Group, School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University

Labib, N. M., & Mostafa, R. H. (2015). Determinants of social networks usage in collaborative learning: Evidence from Egypt. Procedia Computer Science, 65, 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.09.113CrossRef

Lakhal, S., & Khechine, H. (2016). Student intention to use desktop web-conferencing according to course delivery modes in higher education. International Journal of Management Education, 14(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.04.001CrossRef

Lakhal, S., Khechine, H., & Pascot, D. (2013). Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing in a distance course: Integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 93–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-013-9069-3CrossRef

Lee, C. Y. (2020). How to improve the effectiveness of blended learning of pharmacology and pharmacotherapy? A case study in pharmacy program. Technology, Knowledge and Learning., 25(4), 977–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09447-5CrossRef

Lee, L. T., & Hung, J. C. (2015). Effects of blended e-Learning: a case study in higher education tax learning setting. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 5(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-015-0024-3CrossRef

Li, Y., Duan, Y., Fu, Z., & Alford, P. (2012). An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e-learning systems in rural China. British Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01261.xCrossRef

Lin, W. S. (2012). Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance intention and task-technology fit perspectives. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 70(7), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.01.006CrossRef

Lin, W. S., & Wang, C. H. (2012). Antecedences to continued intentions of adopting e-learning system in blended learning instruction: A contingency framework based on models of information system success and task-technology fit. Computers and Education, 58(1), 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.008CrossRef

Liu, G. Z., Lo, H. Y., & Wang, H. C. (2013). Design and usability testing of a learning and plagiarism avoidance tutorial system for paraphrasing and citing in English: A case study. Computers and Education, 69, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.011CrossRef

Lo, T. S., Chang, T. H., Shieh, L. F., & Chung, Y. C. (2011). Key factors for efficiently implementing customized e-learning system in the service industry. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 20(3), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-011-5173-yCrossRef

Magsamen-Conrad, K., Upadhyaya, S., Joa, C. Y., & Dowd, J. (2015). Bridging the divide: Using UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practices. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 186–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.032CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1CrossRef

Martyn, M. (2003). Hybrid online model: Good practice. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 1, 18–23

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman, N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D’Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin, K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., & Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097CrossRef

Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, 1, 22–38

Nkenke, E., Vairaktaris, E., Bauersachs, A., Eitner, S., Budach, A., Knipfer, C., & Stelzle, F. (2012). Acceptance of technology-enhanced learning for a theoretical radiological science course: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 12(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-12-18CrossRef

Ozkan, S., & Findik, D. (2010). Work in progress - Learning management systems acceptances of instructors from various departments: Empirical investigation. Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2010.5673594CrossRef

Padilla-Meléndez, A., Del Aguila-Obra, A. R., & Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers and Education, 63, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014CrossRef

Pappas, I. O., Giannakos, M. N., & Mikalef, P. (2017). Investigating students’ use and adoption of with-video assignments: lessons learnt for video-based open educational resources. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(1), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9132-6CrossRef

Patiar, A., Ma, E., Kensbock, S., & Cox, R. (2017). Students’ perceptions of quality and satisfaction with virtual field trips of hotels. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 31, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2016.11.003CrossRef

Picciano, A. G., Dziuban, C. D., & Graham, C. R. (2013). Blended Learning: Research Perspectives,. (Vol. 2)Routledge.CrossRef

Piccoli, G., & Pigni, F. (2019). Information systems for managers: with cases. Prospect Press.

Ramakrisnan, P., Jaafar, A., Yatim, N. F. M., & Mamat, M. N. (2014). Validating instrument quality for measuring students’ acceptance of an online discussion site (ODS). Proceedings - 2013 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science Applications and Technologies, ACSAT 2013, 475–478. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSAT.2013.99

Rowe, M., Frantz, J., & Bozalek, V. (2012). The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 34(4), e216–e221. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.642831CrossRef

Rueda, L., Benitez, J., & Braojos, J. (2017). From traditional education technologies to student satisfaction in Management education: A theory of the role of social media applications. Information & Management, 54(8), 1059–1071CrossRef

Saa, A. A., Al-Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Factors affecting students’ performance in higher education: A systematic review of predictive data mining techniques. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 567–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-019-09408-7CrossRef

Sadik, A. (2017). Students’ acceptance of file sharing systems as a tool for sharing course materials: The case of google drive. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2455–2470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9556-zCrossRef

Saltz, J. S., Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Passerini, K. (2007). Increasing participation in distance learning courses. IEEE Internet Computing, 11(3), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2007.64CrossRef

Sandjojo, N., & Wahyuningrum, T. (2015). Measuring e-learning systems success: Implementing D & M is success model. Interactive Digital Media (ICIDM), 2015 4th International Conference On, 1–6.

SazmandAsfaranjan, Y., Shirzad, F., Baradari, F., Salimi, M., & Salehi, M. (2013). Alleviating the senses of isolation and alienation in the virtual world: Socialization in distance education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.199CrossRef

Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers and Education, 71, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.016CrossRef

Šebjan, U., & Tominc, P. (2015). Impact of support of teacher and compatibility with needs of study on usefulness of SPSS by students. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.022CrossRef

Singh, H. (2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43(6), 51–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2033229CrossRef

Siritongthaworn, S., Krairit, D., Dimmitt, N. J., & Paul, H. (2006). The study of e-learning technology implementation: A preliminary investigation of universities in Thailand. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11134-006-7363-8CrossRef

Smith, G. G., & Kurthen, H. (2007). Front-stage and back-stage in hybrid E-Learning face-to-face courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 455–474

Song, Y., & Kong, S.-C. (2017). Investigating students’ acceptance of a statistics learning platform using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116688320CrossRef

Songsangyos, P., Kankaew, S., & Jongsawat, N. (2016). Learners’ acceptance toward blended learning. Proceedings of 2016 SAI Computing Conference, SAI 2016, 890–892 https://doi.org/10.1109/SAI.2016.7556085

Tarhini, A., Teo, T., & Tarhini, T. (2016). A cross-cultural validity of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM) in Lebanon and England: A confirmatory factor analysis. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9381-9CrossRef

Teo, T. (2010). Development and validation of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM). Internet and Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.001CrossRef

Thongkoo, K., & Panjaburee, P. Daungcharone, K. (2017). An Inquiry blended SECI Model-based Learning Support Approach for Promoting Perceptions and Learning Achievement of University Students. 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 527–532.

Torrisi-Steele, G., & Drew, S. (2013). The literature landscape of blended learning in higher education: The need for better understanding of academic blended practice. International Journal for Academic Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2013.786720CrossRef

Tsai, Y. Y., Chao, C. M., Lin, H. M., & Cheng, B. W. (2017). Nursing staff intentions to continuously use a blended e-learning system from an integrative perspective. Quality and Quantity. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0540-5CrossRef

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14(2), 224–235

Tulaboev, A., & Ieee. (2013). Blended Learning Approach with Web 2.0 Tools. In 2013 International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems (pp. 118–122). IEEE.

Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2017). In search of attributes that support self-regulation in blended learning environments. Education and Information Technologies, 22(4), 1395–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9505-xCrossRef

Van Laer, S., & Elen, J. (2020). Adults’ self-regulatory behaviour profiles in blended learning environments and their implications for design. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 25, 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-017-9351-yCrossRef

Vaughan, N. (2007). Perspectives on blended learning in higher education. International Journal on E-Learning.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.xCrossRef

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

Wang, C.-C. (2015). Towards a Japanese Language Learning Process Based on Japanese Dubbing - A Case Study on University Students. 15TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES, doi https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2015.10

Yang, H. H., Feng, L., & MacLeod, J. (2017). Understanding college students’ acceptance of cloud classrooms in flipped instruction: Integrating UTAUT and connected classroom climate. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117746084CrossRef

Yeou, M. (2016). An investigation of students’ acceptance of moodle in a blended learning setting using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(3), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239515618464CrossRef

Zhai, X., Dong, Y., & Yuan, J. (2018). Investigating learners’ technology engagement - A perspective from ubiquitous game-based learning in smart campus. IEEE Access, 6, 10279–10287. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2805758CrossRef

Title: Blended Learning Acceptance: A Systematic Review of Information Systems Models
Authors: Rana Al-Maroof
Noor Al-Qaysi
Said A. Salloum
Mostafa Al-Emran
Publication date: 22-04-2021
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Technology, Knowledge and Learning / Issue 3/2022
Print ISSN: 2211-1662
Electronic ISSN: 2211-1670
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09519-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2022

How Does Digital Competence Training Affect Teachers' Professional Development and Activities?

Engaging Students Through Educational Podcasting: Three Stories of Implementation

Not Only the Intention to Complete: The Role of Action-Oriented Intentions in MOOC Completion

Correction to: Do Teachers Find Dashboards Trustworthy, Actionable and Useful? A Vignette Study Using a Logs and Audio Dashboard

Details Matter: How Contrasting Design Features in Two MUVEs Impact Learning Outcomes

Examining the Primacy and Recency Effect on Learning Effectiveness with the Application of Interactive Response Systems (Irs)

Premium Partners