Top

Journal of Computers in Education

Published in:

05-09-2022

Predicting behavioural intention among graduate students in emergency remote teaching: evidence from a transition country

Authors: Sidita Dibra, Blendi Gerdoçi, Gerda Sula, Sllavka Kurti

Published in: Journal of Computers in Education | Issue 4/2023

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Emergency remote teaching (ERT) is a new concept that describes the context in which instructional delivery is switched entirely online due to crisis circumstances. Recent research in such a context has been focused either on exploring the unique learning environment and enabling factors or on instructors’ intended behavior, with few studies exploring the students’ perspective. This study aims to contribute to the literature on technology-mediated teaching and learning by deepening the knowledge of the factors determining students’ behavioral intentions (BI) in ERT settings, using a survey of 487 graduate students attending public and non-public universities in Albania conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was employed to explore the chain relationship between ease of use (EASYUSE), expected efficiency (EE), attitudes (ATT), and BI. We expand the TAM model and increase its explanatory power by introducing new variables, such as co-presence (CP), and emergent variables, such as lack of learning materials and time constraints. Variance-based partial least squares techniques were used to validate our conceptual model. As hypothesized, EE and EASYUSE have a direct, positive effect on BI and an indirect effect via ATT. CP does not influence the BI directly but only indirectly via ATT and EE. Finally, the lack of learning materials is shown to negatively affect EE. While some of the findings have limited generalizability the specific research setting provides a unique opportunity to investigate the critical role of interactive teaching methods and learning barriers on students’ intentions and ATT. The fresh insights gained from the extended TAM model have important implications concerning the effective and systematic use of online modalities in similar settings.

previous article Enhancing online participation in education: quarter century of research

next article Uncovering factors predicting the effectiveness of MOOC-based academic leadership training

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

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

Available only for authorised users

Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic: Students' perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Sociology and Psychology, 2(1), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPSP.2020261309CrossRef

Aguilera-Hermida, A. P. (2020). College students’ use and acceptance of emergency online learning due to COVID-19. International Journal of Educational Research Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100011CrossRef

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRef

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.

Akour, I., Alshurideh, M., Al Kurdi, B., Al Ali, A., & Salloum, S. (2021). Using machine learning algorithms to predict people’s intention to use mobile learning platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Machine learning approach. JMIR Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.2196/24032CrossRef

Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Ryu, K. (2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568CrossRef

Almaiah, M. A., Jalil, M. A., & Man, M. (2016). Extending the TAM to examine the effects of quality features on mobile learning acceptance. Journal of Computer Education, 3, 453–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1CrossRef

Alqurashi, E. (2018). Predicting student satisfaction and perceived learning within online learning environments. Distance Education, 40(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553562CrossRef

Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.046CrossRef

Andersson, A., & Grönlund, A. (2009). A conceptual framework for e-learning in developing countries: A critical review of research challenges. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 38(1), 1–16.CrossRef

Baki, R., Birgoren, B., & Aktepe, A. (2018). A meta-analysis of factors affecting perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in the adoption of e-learning systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 19(4), 4–42.CrossRef

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Benitez Amado, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares? Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information and Management, 57(2), 103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003CrossRef

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844CrossRef

Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Ade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, A. P., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379CrossRef

Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15, i–vi. https://www.asianjde.com/ojs/index.php/AsianJDE/article/view/447/297

Cahyadi, A. H., Widyastuti, S., Mufidah, N. V., & Achmadi (2021). Emergency remote teaching evaluation of the higher education in Indonesia. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07788

Calatano, A. (2018). Measurement in distance education. A Compendium of Instruments, Scales, and Measures for Evaluating Online Learning. Routledge.

Capece, G., & Campisi, D. (2011). Technological change and innovation behaviour in high level education: An international comparison between Italian and Portuguese samples. Knowledge and Process Management, 18(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.362CrossRef

Chen, Y. H., & Wang, C. H. (2017). Learner presence, perception, and learning achievements in augmented-reality-mediated learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1399148CrossRef

Cheng, Y. M. (2014). Roles of interactivity and usage experience in e-learning acceptance: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 10(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWIS-05-2013-0015CrossRef

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling, in modern methods for business research. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (p. 297). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In V. Esposito Vinzi, W. W. Chin, J. Henseler & H. Wang (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.

Cho, V., Cheng, T. C. E., & Hung, H. (2009). Continued usage of technology versus situational factors: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management., 26(4), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2009.10.003CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

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. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2632151

Davis, L. N., Gough, M., & Taylor, L. L. (2019). Online teaching: Advantages, obstacles and tools for getting it right. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 19(3), 256–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2019.1612313CrossRef

Davis, R., & Wong, D. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring the optimal experience of the e-learning environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 97–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4609.2007.00129.xCrossRef

Dhimitri, J., Pepkolaj, L., & Avdia, B. (2021). Geography and math teachers in distance learning education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Albania. Dela, 56, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.4312/dela.56.175-191CrossRef

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2011). Linear indices in nonlinear structural equation models: Best fitting proper indices and other composites. Quality and Quantity, 45(6), 1505–1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-010-9359-zCrossRef

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015a). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis., 81, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.07.008CrossRef

Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015b). Consistent partial least squares path modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316.CrossRef

Fatani, T. H. (2020). Student satisfaction with videoconferencing teaching quality during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Medical Education, 20, 396. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02310-2CrossRef

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104CrossRef

Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Taylor & Francis

Gunawardena, C., & Zittle, F. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649709526970CrossRef

Hair Jr., J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31, 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203CrossRef

Hair Jr., J. F., Tomas, M., Hult, G., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE.

Henseler, J. (2018). Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Quality and Quantity, 52(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6CrossRef

Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, J., David, J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: Comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114526928CrossRef

Henseler, J., Hubona, G. S., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 116(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382CrossRef

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8CrossRef

Henseler, J., & Schuberth, F. (2020). Using confirmatory composite analysis to assess emergent variables in business research. Journal of Business Research, 120, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.07.026CrossRef

Hernandez, B., Montaner, T., Sese, J., & Urquizu, P. (2011). The role of social motivations in e-learning: How do they affect usage and success of ICT interactive tools? Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2224–2232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.07.001CrossRef

Ho, I. M. K., Cheong, K. Y., & Weldon, A. (2021). Predicting student satisfaction of emergency remote learning in higher education during COVID-19 using machine learning techniques. PLoS ONE, 16(4), e0249423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249423CrossRef

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning

Hong, X., Zhang, M., & Liu, Q. (2021). Preschool teachers’ technology acceptance during the COVID-19: An adapted technology acceptance model. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 2113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.691492CrossRef

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRef

Hubackova, S., & Golkova, D. (2014). Podcasting in foreign language teaching. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 143, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.376CrossRef

Iacobucci, D. (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.09.002CrossRef

Iglesias-Pradas, S., & Herná́ndez-García, A., & Chaparro-Pelá́ez, J. (2021). Emergency remote teaching and students’ academic performance in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106713CrossRef

Iglewicz, B., & Hoaglin, D. C. (1993). How to detect and handle outliers. ASQ Quality Press.

Joosten, T., & Cusatis, R. (2019). A cross-institutional study of instructional characteristics and student outcomes: Are quality indicators of online courses able to predict student success? Online Learning, 23(4), 354–378. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v23i4.1432CrossRef

Khan, S. A., Zainuddin, M., Al Mahi, M., & Arif, I. (2020). Behavioral intention to use online learning during COVID-19: An analysis of the technology acceptance model. In International conference on innovative methods of teaching and technological advancements in higher education (IMTTAHE), Tbilisi, Georgia, 2020. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3756886

Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Education Technology, 42, 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01107.xCrossRef

Kock, N., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(7), 546–580. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00302CrossRef

Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Schroder, E. E. K., & Belland, R. B. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001CrossRef

Lassoued, Z., Alhendawi, M., & Bashitialshaaer, R. (2020). An exploratory study of the obstacles for achieving quality in distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Science, 10(9), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090232CrossRef

Lee, H.-J., & Rha, I. (2009). Influence of structure and interaction on student achievement and satisfaction in web-based distance learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 372–382. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.12.4.372

Lee, J. (2014). An exploratory study of effective online learning: Assessing satisfaction levels of graduate students of mathematics education associated with human and design factors of an online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1638CrossRef

Li, B. (2022). Ready for Online? Exploring EFL teachers’ ICT acceptance and ICT literacy during COVID-19 in Mainland China. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 60(1), 196–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331211028934CrossRef

Li, H., & Yu, J. (2020). Learners’ continuance participation intention of collaborative group project in virtual learning environment: An extended TAM perspective. Journal of Data, Information and Management, 2, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42488-019-00017-8CrossRef

Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 1211–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.018CrossRef

Mailizar, M., Burg, D., & Maulina, S. (2021). Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education Information Technology, 26, 7057–7077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5CrossRef

Marangunić, N., & Granic, A. (2014). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1CrossRef

Martinez-Torres, M. R., Marin, S. L. T., Garcia, F. B., Vazquez, S. G., Oliva, M. A., & Torres, T. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching according to the European higher education area. Behaviour and Information Technology, 27(6), 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290600958965CrossRef

Martins, L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students' acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 7–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40214228

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 8, 2022, from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Meléndez, P. A., 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

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. JosseyBass

Moreno, V., Cavazotte, F., & Alves, I. (2016). Explaining university students’ effective use of e-learning platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(4), 995–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12469CrossRef

Mouloudj, K., Bouarar, A. C., & Stojczew, K. (2021). Analyzing the students' intention to use online learning system in the context of COVID-19 pandemic: A theory of planned behavior approach. In W. B. James, C. Cobanoglu & M. Cavusoglu (Eds.), Advances in global education and research (Vol. 4, pp. 1–17). https://doi.org/10.5038/9781955833042.

Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269CrossRef

Muthuprasad, T., Aiswarya, S., Aditya, K. S., & Jha, G. K. (2021). Students’ perception and preference for online education in India during COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences and Humanities Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2020.100101CrossRef

Nikou, S. (2021). Web-based videoconferencing for teaching online: Continuance intention to use in the post-COVID-19 period. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, 47, 123–143. https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-047-006CrossRef

Nitzl, C., Roldán, J. L., & Cepeda, C. G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 119(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302CrossRef

OECD. (2020). The shadows of the coronavirus education crisis. Retrieved January 8, 2022, from https://oecdedutoday.com/shadows-coronavirus-education-crisis/

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.05.005CrossRef

Park, S. Y., Nam, M. W., & Cha, S. B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the Technology Acceptance Model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.xCrossRef

Peregrina, A. A., García, A. H., & Miguel, P. F. (2014). Behavioral intention use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: Differences between higher education and lifelong learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.035CrossRef

Picciano, A. G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v6i1.1870CrossRef

Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers and Education, 47, 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007CrossRef

Podsakoff, M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879CrossRef

Psacharopoulos, G. (2017). Albania the cost of underinvestment in education and ways to reduce it. UNICEF. Retrieved January 8, 2022, from https://www.unicef.org/albania/media/451/file/The%20Cost%20of%20Underinvestment%20in%20Education%20and%20ways%20to%20reduce%20it.pdf

Richardson, J. (2006). Motives, attitudes and approaches to studying in distance education. Higher Education, 54(3), 385–416. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29735118

Richardson, J., Maeda, Y., Lv, J., & Caskurlu, S. (2017). Social presence in relation to students’ satisfaction and learning in the online environment: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 402–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001CrossRef

Richardson, J., & Swan, K. (2003). An examination of social presence in online courses in relation to students' perceived learning and satisfaction, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864CrossRef

Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in MIS quarterly. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410402CrossRef

Rodriguez, A. I., & Artola, M. A. (2016). E-learning continuance: The impact of interactivity and the mediating role of imagery, presence and flow. Information and Management, 53, 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.11.005CrossRef

Ros, S., Roberto, H., Agustín, C., Antonio, R., Isabel, B., Araceli, M., & Francisco, H. P. (2015). On the use of extended TAM to assess students’ acceptance and intent to use third-generation learning management systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1250–1271. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12199CrossRef

Sanchez, R. A., Hueros, A. D., & Ortaz, M. G. (2013). E-learning and the University of Huelva: A study of WebCT and the Technological Acceptance Model. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741311306318CrossRef

Shima, T. E., & Lee, Y. (2020). College students’ experience of emergency remote teaching due to COVID-19. Children and Youth Services Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105578CrossRef

Siron, Y., Wibowo, A., & Narmaditya, B. S. (2020). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning in Indonesia: Lesson from COVID-19. Journal of Technology and Science Education. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.1025CrossRef

Song, Y., & Kong, S. C. (2017). Investigating students’ acceptance of a statistics learning platform using Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(6), 865–897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116688320CrossRef

Sukendro, S., Habibi, A., Khaeruddin, K., Indrayana, B., Syahruddin, S., Makadada, F. A., & Hakim, H. (2020). Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of e-learning during COVID-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05410CrossRef

Sullivan, P. (2001). Gender differences and the online classroom: Male and female college students evaluate their experience. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(10), 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/106689201753235930CrossRef

Sullivan, P. (2002). “It’s easier to be yourself when you are invisible”: Female college students discuss their online classroom experiences. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021109410893CrossRef

Šumak, B., Hericˇko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2067–2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005CrossRef

Swan, K., Shea, P., Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Pelz, W., & Maher, G. (2000). Building knowledge building communities: Consistency, contact and communication in the virtual classroom. Educational Computing Research, 23(4), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.2190/W4G6-HY52-57P1-PPNECrossRef

Swan, K., & Shih, L.-F. (2005). On the nature and development of social presence in online course discussions. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(3), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i3.1788CrossRef

Tallent-Runnels, M. K., Thomas, J. A., Lan, W. Y., Cooper, S., Ahern, T., Shaw, S. M., & Liu, X. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093CrossRef

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2013.V3.233CrossRef

Taylor, S., & Todd P. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23011007

Tselios, N., Daskalakis, S., & Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning university course. Educational Technology and Society, 14(2), 224–235. https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.14.2.224CrossRef

Van Der Stede, W. A., Young, S. M., & Chen, C. X. (2006). Doing management accounting survey research. In C. S. Chapman, A. G. Hopwood & M. D. Shields (Eds.), Handbooks of management accounting research (Vol. 1, pp. 445–478). Elsevier.

Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–314. 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), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 273, 425. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30036540

Venkatesh, V., & Sykes, T. A. (2013). Digital divide initiative success in developing countries: A longitudinal field study in a village in India. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0409CrossRef

Vladova, G., Ullrich, A., Bender, B., & Gronau, N. (2021). Students’ acceptance of technology-mediated teaching—How it was influenced during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020: A study from Germany. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636086CrossRef

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.

Wang, T., Lin, C. L., & Su, Y. S. (2021). Continuance intention of university students and online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A modified expectation confirmation model perspective. Sustainability, 13(8), 4586. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084586CrossRef

Watson, S. L., Watson, W., Richardson, J., & Loizzo, J. (2016). Instructor’s use of social presence, teaching presence, and attitudinal dissonance: A case study of an attitudinal change MOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2379CrossRef

World Bank. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Shocks to education and policy responses. World Bank.

Xhelili, P., Ibrahimi, E., Rruci, E., & Sheme, K. (2021). Adaptation and perception of online learning during COVID-19 pandemic by Albanian university students. International Journal on Studies in Education, 3(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijonse.49CrossRef

Xu, Y., Jin, L., Deifell, E., & Angus, K. (2021). Chinese character instruction online: A technology acceptance perspective in emergency remote teaching. System. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102542CrossRef

Zhang, N., Guo, X., & Chen, G. (2007). Extended information technology initial acceptance model and its empirical test. Systems Engineering: Theory and Practice, 27(9), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-8651(08)60057-5CrossRef

Zhou, S., Zhou, Y., & Zhu, H. (2021). Predicting Chinese university students’ e-learning acceptance and self-regulation in online English courses: Evidence from emergency remote teaching (ERT) during COVID-19. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211061379CrossRef

Title: Predicting behavioural intention among graduate students in emergency remote teaching: evidence from a transition country
Authors: Sidita Dibra
Blendi Gerdoçi
Gerda Sula
Sllavka Kurti
Publication date: 05-09-2022
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Journal of Computers in Education / Issue 4/2023
Print ISSN: 2197-9987
Electronic ISSN: 2197-9995
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00239-7

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"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2023

Sentiment analysis in learning resources

Uncovering factors predicting the effectiveness of MOOC-based academic leadership training

Enhancing online participation in education: quarter century of research

Is the implementation of the ICT curriculum in low income schools in Africa swimming against or with the tides? The case of selected schools in Zimbabwe

Social media and data privacy in education: an international comparative study of perceptions among pre-service teachers

A review of using digital game-based learning for preschoolers

Premium Partner