Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This study investigates students’ acceptance of e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, examining differences between voluntary and involuntary use contexts.

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, universities shifted to online instruction for an extended period. E-learning became mandatory to use and was met with varying degrees of acceptance by students, whose educational expectations and experiences were altered. By 2022, institutions began transitioning to optional e-learning use, creating a natural setting to examine technology acceptance under both voluntary and involuntary conditions.

Method

This study employed a two-phase approach, first validating an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) incorporating seven factors derived from focus groups. Second, conducting multigroup analysis of acceptance between voluntary and involuntary users. Data was collected through surveys from 908 undergraduate students.

Results

PLS-SEM analysis revealed strong explanatory power (R² = .463-.731) for the extended TAM framework. Compatibility demonstrated the strongest effect on perceived usefulness, while information quality and system quality influenced both perceived usefulness and ease of use. Multigroup analysis revealed significant contextual differences in students’ acceptance. Perceived ease of use more strongly influenced behavioral intention for voluntary users, while perceived usefulness had stronger effects for involuntary users.

Conclusion

The extended TAM framework significantly predicted e-learning acceptance in both voluntary and involuntary contexts. Significant differences between usage scenarios were identified, extending TAM’s applicability to crisis situations.

Application

This study provides insights for postpandemic educational technology implementation, emphasizing system quality and alignment with learning preferences. Practitioners should consider differences in adoption contexts when working to facilitate acceptance among both voluntary and mandatory users.

Keywords

instructional technologies environment/context distance learning usability/acceptance measurement and research structural equation modeling/LISREL

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdullah

Ward

(2016). Developing a General Extended Technoloy Accpetance Model for E-Learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56(1), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036

Abdullah

Ward

Ahmed

(2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014

Adam

Awerbuch

Slonim

Wegner

Yesha

(1997). Globalizing business, education, culture through the Internet. Communications of the ACM, 40(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1145/253671.253748

Agarwal

Prasad

(1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x

Ali

Puah

C. H.

Fatima

Hashmi

Ashfaq

(2022). Student e-learning service quality, satisfaction, commitment and behaviour towards finance courses in COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(6), 892–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-04-2021-0133

Ali

Zafar

(2017). A security and privacy framework for e-learning. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(2), 556–566. https://doi.org/10.20533/ijels.2046.4568.2017.0070

Alwi

N. H. M.

Fan

I. S.

(2010). Information security in elearning: A discussion of empirical data on information security and elearning.

Anderson

J. C.

Gerbing

D. W.

(1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Arpaci

Kilicer

Bardakci

(2015). Effects of security and privacy concerns on educational use of cloud services. Computers in Human Behavior, 45(1), 93–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.075

10.

Baber

(2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of COVID-19-A study of South Korea. International Journal of Management in Education, 19(2), Article 100503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100503

11.

Bagdi

Bulsara

H. P.

Sankar

Sharma

(2023). The transition from traditional to digital: Factors that propel Generation Z’s adoption of online learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(3), 695–717. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2023-0003

12.

Bagozzi

R. P.

Phillips

L. W.

(1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392322

13.

Bailey

S. K.

Hughes

A. M.

Dong

Robertson

J. M.

Ray

J. M.

(2024). Integrating human factors to enhance healthcare distance simulation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, 13(1), 94–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/2327857924131055

14.

Bashir

Rana

Lambert

Vernallis

(2021). Post-COVID-19 adaptations; the shifts towards online learning, hybrid course delivery and the implications for biosciences courses in the higher education setting. Frontiers in education, 6(1). Article 711619. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.711619

15.

Baticulon

R. E.

J. J.

Alberto

N. R. I.

Baron

M. B. C.

Mabulay

R. E. C.

Rizada

L. G. T.

Tiu

C. J. S.

Clarion

C. A.

Reyes

J. C. B.

(2021). Barriers to online learning in the time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the Philippines. Medical science educator, 31(2), 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01231-z

16.

Bozzi

Mazzola

Testa

Raffaghelli

J. E.

Sancassani

Zani

(2024). Educational innovation in higher education: Engineering students’ experiences of Emergency Remote Teaching. Cogent Education, 11(1), Article 2437882. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.2437882

17.

Cheah

J. H.

Amaro

Roldán

J. L.

(2023). Multigroup analysis of more than two groups in PLS-SEM: A review, illustration, and recommendations. Journal of Business Research, 156(1), Article 113539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113539

18.

Cheung

G. W.

Cooper-Thomas

H. D.

Lau

R. S.

Wang

L. C.

(2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 745–783. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y

19.

Chi

M. T.

Wylie

(2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

20.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21.

Chintalapati

Daruri

V. S. K.

(2017). Examining the use of YouTube as a Learning Resource in higher education: Scale development and validation of TAM model. Telematics and Informatics, 34(6), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.008

22.

Cilliers

E. J.

(2017). The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.31.188198

23.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

24.

Dhawan

(2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of covid-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018

25.

Estriegana

Medina-Merodio

J.-A.

Robina-Ramírez

Barchino

De-Pablos-Heredero

(2023). E-learning acceptance in face-to-face universities due to COVID-19. Sage Open, 13(4), Article 21582440231214873. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231214873

26.

Fathema

Shannon

Ross

(2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of learning management systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210–233. https://jolt.merlot.org/Vol11no2/Fathema_0615.pdf.

27.

Fornell

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/10.2307/3151312

28.

Granić

Marangunić

(2019). Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864

29.

Greenhow

Graham

Koehler

(2022). Foundations of online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2090364

30.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202

31.

Hair

Jr, J.

Hair Jr

J. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

Gudergan

S. P.

(2023). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. Sage publications.

32.

Han

J. H.

H. J.

(2022). Acceptance of and satisfaction with online educational classes through the technology acceptance model (TAM): The COVID-19 situation in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review, 23(3), 403–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-021-09716-7

33.

Harlow

L. L.

(2014). The essence of multivariate thinking: Basic themes and methods (2nd ed.). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832746

34.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/imr-09-2014-0304

35.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

(2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing (Vol. 20, pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1474-7979(2009)0000020014

36.

Godfrey

Ren

Wang

Yang

(2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on college students in USA: Two years later. Psychiatry Research, 315(1), Article 114685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114685

37.

Hubackova

(2015). History and perspectives of Elearning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191(1), 1187–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.594

38.

Hwang

Al-Arabiat

Shin

D.-H.

(2016). Understanding technology acceptance in a mandatory environment: A literature review. Information Development, 32(4), 1266–1283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666915593621

39.

Keith

T. Z.

(2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling. Routledge.

40.

Lazim

C. S. L. M.

Ismail

N. D. B.

Tazilah

M. D. A. K.

(2021). Application of technology acceptance model (TAM) towards online learning during covid-19 pandemic: Accounting students perspective. International Journal of Business, Economics and Law, 24(1), 13–20.

41.

Lepore

Capone

(2023). The impact of changing environment on undergraduate mathematics students’ status. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(4), 672–689. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/13438

42.

Liu

Huang

Ren

Wang

(2025). The intention to use short videos for health information among Chinese adults: Based on the technology acceptance model. Digital Health, 11(1), Article 20552076251335519. https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251335519

43.

Maatuk

A. M.

Elberkawi

E. K.

Aljawarneh

Rashaideh

Alharbi

(2022). The COVID-19 pandemic and E-learning: Challenges and opportunities from the perspective of students and instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09274-2

44.

Mailizar

Burg

Maulina

(2021). Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7057–7077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5

45.

Marcus

Masrahi

Motamedi

(2022). Generation Z and E-Learning: COVID-19, personality, and technology acceptance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 66(1), 2103–2107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181322661183

46.

Martin

Bolliger

D. U.

(2018). Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment. Online Learning, 22(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

47.

Masrom

(2007). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology, 21(24), 81.

48.

Motamedi

Marquis

Levine

(2021). Understanding E-Learning acceptance of Gen Z students: An extension of the technology Acceptance model (TAM).

49.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

(1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

50.

Pitts

Aggarwal

(2025). Student course behaviors influencing performance in a flipped CS1 classroom model. Proceedings of the 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 2(1), 1759. https://doi.org/10.1145/3641555.3705050

51.

Prasetyo

Y. T.

Ong

A. K. S.

Concepcion

G. K. F.

Navata

F. M. B.

Robles

R. A. V.

Tomagos

I. J. T.

Young

M. N.

Diaz

J. F. T.

Nadlifatin

Redi

A. A. N. P.

(2021). Determining factors Affecting acceptance of e-learning platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic: Integrating Extended technology Acceptance model and DeLone & Mclean is success model. Sustainability, 13(15), 8365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158365

52.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

(2024). SmartPLS 4. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS.

53.

Rivers

D. J.

(2021). The role of personality traits and online academic self-efficacy in acceptance, actual use and achievement in Moodle. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4353–4378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10478-3

54.

Roca

J. C.

Chiu

C.-M.

Martínez

F. J.

(2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003

55.

Salloum

S. A.

Qasim Mohammad Alhamad

Al-Emran

Abdel Monem

Shaalan

(2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 7(1), 128445–128462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467

56.

Sarstedt

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

(2011). Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In Measurement and research methods in international marketing (pp. 195–218). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

57.

Stenseth

N. C.

Dharmarajan

Shi

Z. L.

Yang

Gao

G. F.

(2021). Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Public Health, 9(1), Article 694705. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.694705

58.

Sukendro

Habibi

Khaeruddin

Indrayana

Syahruddin

Makadada

F. A.

Hakim

(2020). Using an extended Technology Acceptance Model to understand students’ use of e-learning during Covid-19: Indonesian sport science education context. Heliyon, 6(11), Article e05410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05410

59.

Venkatesh

Morris

M. G.

Davis

G. B.

Davis

F. D.

(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

60.

Weerathunga

P. R.

Samarathunga

W. H. M. S.

Rathnayake

H. N.

Agampodi

S. B.

Nurunnabi

Madhunimasha

M. M. S. C.

(2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and the acceptance of E-Learning among university students: The role of precipitating events. Education Sciences, 11(8), 436. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080436

61.

Wester

E. R.

Walsh

L. L.

Arango-Caro

Callis-Duehl

K. L.

(2021). Student engagement declines in STEM undergraduates during COVID-19–driven remote learning. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(1), 10–1128. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2385

62.

Teets

T. S.

(2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on student engagement in a general chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(12), 3633–3642. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00665

63.

(2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3

64.

Zhang

Nunamaker

J. F.

(2003). Powering e-learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022609809036

65.

Zhao

Wang

Zhou

(2021). DO cultural differences affect users’ e-learning adoption? A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13002

66.

Zhou

Xue

(2022). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore students’ intention to use an online education platform at a University in China. SAGE Open, 12(1), Article 21582440221085259. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221085259

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB

Lessons Learned From COVID-19: Acceptance of E-Learning Technologies in Higher Education

Abstract

Objective

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Application

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material