Top

Published in:

04-05-2018

E-learning services acceptance in higher educational institutes: A case study in Brunei

Authors: Aqilah Nawwarah H.A. Rajak, Dk. Nurul Najiah Pg Abu Bakar, Nur Dina Azyyati Lajim, Nurul Hikmatull Su’aidah Haji Kamarulzaman, Siti Nur Fakhrinah Haji Karim, Mohammad Nabil Almunawar

Published in: Education and Information Technologies | Issue 6/2018

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This research studies on the e-learning services acceptance in higher education institutions in Brunei Darussalam. This research has seven hypotheses, relating to independent, intermediary, and dependent variables. The independent variables include lecturer’s characteristics, design of learning contents, teaching materials, and playfulness; while the intermediary variables are perceived benefits and perceived ease of use. On the other hand, the dependent variable in this research is the intention to use e-learning. Multiple regression analysis were conducted to test the hypotheses proposed. Data analysis from this research has confirmed that the lecturer’s characteristics, teaching materials, perceived ease of use and the intention to use e-learning corresponds to the perceived benefits. Meanwhile, the design of learning content and the intention to use e-learning are positively related to the perceived ease of use and lastly, the variable playfulness is positively related to the intention to use e-learning.

previous article Investigating the effects of peer instruction on preservice mathematics teachers’ achievements in statistics and probability

next article Technology for Social Change in school contexts: A new landscape for K-12 educational technology research

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 "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
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

Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.CrossRef

Al-Adwan, A., Smedley, J., & Al-Adwan, A. (2013). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(2), 4–18.

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. In Babson survey research group. Available at: Accessed 19 December 2017. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/digital-learning-compass-distance-education-enrollment-report-2017/&sa=D&ust=1513687335504000&usg=AFQjCNF3B3U7IMMUwo4HPn6lHsrh_Mgp9Q

Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.

Anshari, A., Almunawar, M. N., Shahrill, M., Wicaksono, D. K., & Huda, M. (2017). Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference? Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3063–3079.CrossRef

Asabere, N., & Enguah, S. (2012). Use of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) in Tertiary Education in Ghana: A Case Study of Electronic Learning (E-learning). International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, 2(1), 62–68.

Becker, K., Newton, C., & Sawang, S. (2013). A learner perspective on barriers to e-learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(2), 211–233.

Bell, J. (2007). E-learning: Your flexible development friend? Development and Learning in Organizations. An International Journal, 21(6), 7–9.

Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305.CrossRef

Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 505–515.CrossRef

Cantoni, V., Cellario, M., & Porta, M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges in elearning: Towards natural interaction paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 15, 333–345.CrossRef

Cole, A., Anderson, C., Bunton, T., Cherney, M., Cronin Fisher, V., Draeger Jr., R., Featherston, M., Motel, L., Nicolini, K., Peck, B., & Allen, M. (2017). Student predisposition to instructor feedback and perceptions of teaching presence predict motivation toward online courses. Online Learning, 21(4).

Connolly, T. M., MacArthur, E., Stansfield, M., & McLellan, E. (2007). A quasi-experimental study of three online learning courses in computing. Computers & Education, 49(2), 345–359.CrossRef

Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning Management Systems in Education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives. In Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR http://www.educause.edu/ecar.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.CrossRef

Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.CrossRef

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRef

DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 256–259.

El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242–248.

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 modelling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192–199.CrossRef

Fathema, N., Shannon, D. and 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).

Fenech, T. (1998). Using perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness to predict acceptance of the world wide web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 629–630.CrossRef

Fisher, S. L., & Howell, A. W. (2004). Beyond user acceptance: An examination of employee reactions to information technology systems. Human Resource Management, 43(2), 245–258.

Fleming, J., Becker, K., & Newton, C. (2017). Factors for successful e-learning: Does age matter? Education and Training, 59(1), 76–89.CrossRef

Freire, L., Arezes, P., Campos, J., Jacobs, K., & Soares, M. M. (2012). A literature review about usability evaluation methods for e-learning platforms. Work, 41, 1038–1044. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0281-1038.CrossRef

GoConqr. (2017). Online learning report. Available at: https://info.goconqr.com/files/2017/02/2017-GoConqr-Online-Learning-Report.pdf. Accessed 19th December 2017.

Gogan, M., Sirbu, R., & Draghici, A. (2015). Aspects concerning the use of the moodle platform – Case study. Procedia Technology. 19, 1142–1148. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2015.02.163. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Honey, P. (2001). E-learning: A performance appraisal and some suggestions for improvement. The Learning Organization, 8(5), 200–203.CrossRef

Hošková-Mayerová, Š., & Rosická, Z. (2015). E-learning pros and cons: Active learning culture? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 958–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.702 Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Hussein R., Aditiawarman, U., & Mohamed, N. (2007) E-learning acceptance in a developing country: A case of the Indonesian Open University Faculty of ICT. In German e-Science Conference.

Hussin, H., Bunyarit, F., & Hussein, R. (2009). Instructional design and e-learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(1), 4–19.CrossRef

Landry, B. J. L., Griffeth, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring student perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 87–99.CrossRef

Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information Management, 42(8), 1095–1104.CrossRef

Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320–1329.CrossRef

Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfactions, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(4), 864–873.CrossRef

Mainka, C., & Benzies, A. (2006). E-learning: Vision to reality. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(2), 101–111.CrossRef

McGill, T. J., & Hobbs, V. J. (2008). How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00253.CrossRef

Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.CrossRef

Nakamura, H, Hanamitsu, N & Minamizawa, K. (2015). A(touch)ment: A smartphone extension for instantly sharing visual and tactile experience. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Vol. 11, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 223-224, 6th augmented human international conference, AH 2015, Singapore, Singapore, 15/3/9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2735711.2735782.

Ngampornchai, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Students’ acceptance and readiness for e-learning in northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1).

Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information Management, 41(6), 795–804.CrossRef

Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention: Key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46(6–7), 335–342.CrossRef

Pattnayak, J., & Pattnaik, S. (2016). Integration of web services with e-learning for knowledge society. Procedia Computer Science., 92, 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.340. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Pearson. (2016). Digital appetite vs. what’s on the table: Student attitudes toward digital course materials in 2016. https://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/transition-to-digital-infographic.pdf. Accessed 18^th December 2017.

Pituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education. [Online] 47 (2), 222–244. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Roca, J., & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1585–1604.CrossRef

Sánchez-Franco, M., Martínez-López, F., & Martín-Velicia, F. (2009). Exploring the impact of individualism and uncertainty avoidance in Web-based electronic learning: An empirical analysis in European higher education. Computers & Education. 52 (3), 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.006. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Sawang, S., Newton, C., & Jamieson, K. (2013). Increasing learners’ satisfaction/intention to adopt more e-learning. Education and Training, 55(1), 83–105.CrossRef

Singh, A., & Singh, L. (2017). E-learning for employability skills: Students perspective. Procedia Computer Science., 122, 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.386. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Song, S. M. (2010). E-learning: Investigating students’ acceptance of online learning in hospitality programs. Iowa State University.

Sun, P., Tsai, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.CrossRef

Teo, T. (2011). Modeling the determinants of pre-service teachers' perceived usefulness of e-learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 124–140.CrossRef

Tîrziu, A., & Vrabie, C. (2015) Education 2.0: E-Learning methods. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 376–380. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.213. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(11), 115–139.CrossRef

Versteijlen, M., Perez Salgado, F., Janssen Groesbeek, M., & Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 80–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.004. Accessed 18 December 2017.CrossRef

Zhang, D., Zhao, J., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75–79.CrossRef

Title: E-learning services acceptance in higher educational institutes: A case study in Brunei
Authors: Aqilah Nawwarah H.A. Rajak
Dk. Nurul Najiah Pg Abu Bakar
Nur Dina Azyyati Lajim
Nurul Hikmatull Su’aidah Haji Kamarulzaman
Siti Nur Fakhrinah Haji Karim
Mohammad Nabil Almunawar
Publication date: 04-05-2018
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Education and Information Technologies / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9720-8

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 "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

Gender differences in an introductory programming course: New teaching approach, students’ learning outcomes, and perceptions

Effect of blended learning and learners’ characteristics on students’ competence: An empirical evidence in learning oriental music

PAVT: a tool to visualize and teach parsing algorithms

Correction to: Learning orientations of IT higher education students in UAE University

Introducing fundamental object-oriented programming concepts in preschool education within the context of physical science courses

Short answer scoring system using automatic reference answer generation and geometric average normalized-longest common subsequence (GAN-LCS)

Premium Partner