Duolingo, a gamified educational digital platform, has received significant popularity in EFL education. In this context, the study purposes to explores how Algerian EFL learners respond to using Duolingo as a digital technology learning tool. Specifically, the study sought to investigate the role of Self-Efficacy (SE) and Intrinsic Motivation (IM) in shaping Algerian EFL learners’ behavioral intention (BI) to use Duolingo within an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework. Both direct and indirect effects were tested alongside the moderating roles of Digital Resource Access and Institutional Support using structural equation modeling approach. Data were collected from 319 EFL undergraduate students through a validated questionnaire. Findings revealed significant direct effect of both Self-Efficacy and Intrinsic Motivation on BI. In addition, Self-Efficacy indirectly influenced BI through perceived usefulness (PU), while Intrinsic Motivation had an indirect effect via Perceived Ease of Use (PEU). Furthermore, Institutional Support and Digital Resource access has significantly moderate the PU and PEU on BI pathways respectively. The study highlights the need for Algerian higher education to adopt local pedagogical and infrastructural strategies to optimize the use of digital language tools in EFL education.
AhmedS. A.SulimanM. A.AL-QadriA. H.ZhangW. (2024). Exploring the intention to use mobile learning applications among international students for Chinese language learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(4), 1093–1116. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2023-0012
2.
AksakallıC.DaşerZ. (2025). Unlocking EFL learners’ insights into ChatGPT use for L2 writing: The impacts of usage frequency and gender variations. Current Psychology, 44(9), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07437-3
3.
Al-AdwanA. S.LiN.Al-AdwanA.AbbasiG. A.AlbelbisiN. A.HabibiA. (2023). Extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) to Predict University Students’ intentions to use metaverse-based learning platforms. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 15381–15413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11816-3
4.
Al-EmranM.TeoT. (2020). Do knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing really affect e-learning adoption? An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 25(3), 1983–1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10062-w
5.
AlfaddaH. A.MahdiH. S. (2021). Measuring students’ use of zoom application in language course based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(4), 883–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09752-1
6.
AlmayezM. A.Al-KhreshehM. H.Al-QadriA. H.AlkhateebI. A.AlomaimT. I. M. (2025). Motivation and English self-efficacy in online learning applications among Saudi EFL learners: Exploring the mediating role of self-regulated learning strategies. Acta Psychologica, 254, Article 104796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104796
7.
AlmousawiS. A. (2021). Examining English language learning apps from a second language acquisition perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 10(5), 166. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v10n5p166
AnF.XiL.YuJ. (2024). The relationship between technology acceptance and self-regulated learning: The mediation roles of intrinsic motivation and learning engagement. Education and Information Technologies, 29(3), 2605–2623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11959-3
10.
ArainA. A.HussainZ.RizviW. H.VighioM. S. (2019). Extending UTAUT2 toward acceptance of mobile learning in the context of higher education. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3), 659–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-019-00685-8
11.
BanduraA. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-inefficacy. In SchwarzerR. (Ed.), Self-related cognitions in anxiety and motivation (pp. 77–98). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
BanduraA. (1997b). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
14.
BentlerP. M.BonettD. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
15.
BernsA.Isla-MontesJ. L.Palomo-DuarteM.DoderoJ. M. (2016). Motivation, students’ needs and learning outcomes: A hybrid game-based app for enhanced language learning. SpringerPlus, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2971-1
16.
BouherarS.SalemS. (2025). English as a medium of instruction in practice: Exploring implementation and impact. In Sustainability in Algerian higher education: Balancing emerging reforms, outcomes, and practices (pp. 117–165): Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-81347-4_5
17.
BoumechaalS. (2021). English language teaching and conflicting visions of change within Algerian higher education(Doctoral dissertation). University of Leeds. Retrieved from: https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/29936/
18.
Buabeng-AndohC. (2025). Investigating student–teachers’ continuous intention to use mobile learning management system: The technology acceptance model and expectation confirmatory model. Discover Education, 4(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00447-0
19.
ChenZ.ChenW.JiaJ.AnH. (2020). The effects of using mobile devices on language learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(4), 1769–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09801-5
20.
CreswellJ. W. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.): Sage Publications.
21.
DavisF. D. (1989). Technology acceptance model: TAM. In M. N. Al-Suqri & A. S. Al-Aufi (Eds.), Information seeking behavior and technology adoption (pp. 205–219). IGI Global.
22.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
23.
DerakhshanA.FathiJ. (2024). Grit and foreign language enjoyment as predictors of EFL learners’ online engagement: The mediating role of online learning self-efficacy. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(4), 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00745-x
24.
DingL.ZouD. (2024). Automated writing evaluation systems: A systematic review of Grammarly, Pigai, and Criterion with a perspective on future directions in the age of generative artificial intelligence. Education and Information Technologies, 29(11), 14151–14203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12402-3
25.
DysvikA.KuvaasB.GagnéM. (2013). An investigation of the unique, synergistic and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12068
26.
El-MasriM.TarhiniA. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research & Development, 65(3), 743–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9508-8
27.
FanC. (2023). English learning motivation with TAM: Undergraduates’ behavioral intention to use Chinese indigenous social media platforms for English learning. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(2), 2260566. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.2260566
28.
FathiJ.Ahmad nejadM.NosratiS. (2024). Investigating the impact of Duolingo on second language learning achievement and self-regulated learning among French as a foreign language learners. Computer-Assisted Language Learning Electronic Journal, 25(4), 379–413. https://callej.org/index.php/journal/article/view/477
GovenderT.Arnedo-MorenoJ. (2020). A survey on gamification elements in mobile language-learning applications. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 669–676). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434780.3436597
31.
GranićA.MarangunićN. (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
32.
HabibS.HaiderA.SulemanS. S. M.AkmalS.KhanM. A. (2022). Mobile assisted language learning: Evaluation of accessibility, adoption, and perceived outcome among students of higher education. Electronics, 11(7), 1113. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11071113
33.
HairJ. F.Jr.HultG. T. M.RingleC.SarstedtM. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.): Sage Publications.
34.
Hennebry-LeungM.LambM. (2024). Language learning motivation in diverse educational contexts. English Teaching & Learning, 48(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-024-00179-8
35.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
36.
HsuH. T.LinC. C. (2022). Extending the technology acceptance model of college learners' mobile‐assisted language learning by incorporating psychological constructs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(2), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13165
37.
JeonJ. (2022). Exploring a self-directed interactive app for informal EFL learning: A self-determination theory perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 5767–5787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10839-y
KhanM.ParvaizG. S.BashirN.ImtiazS.BaeJ. (2022). Students’ key determinant structure towards educational technology acceptance at universities, during COVID 19 lockdown: Pakistani perspective. Cogent Education, 9(1), 2039088. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2039088
40.
Kic-DrgasJ.KılıçkayaF. (2024). Exploring novel approaches to digital self-regulated learning: A study on the use of mobile applications among Polish and Turkish EFL pre-service teachers. Educational Technology Research & Development, 72(6), 3453–3470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10374-w
41.
LaiC. Y.CheungK. Y.ChanC. S. (2023). Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation in ChatGPT adoption to support active learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, Article 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100178
42.
LaifaM.GiglouR. I.AkhroufS. (2023). Blended learning in Algeria: Assessing students’ satisfaction and future preferences using SEM and sentiment analysis. Innovative Higher Education, 48(6), 879–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-023-09658-5
43.
LeiX.FathiJ.NoorbakhshS.RahimiM. (2022). The impact of mobile-assisted language learning on English as a foreign language learners’ vocabulary learning attitudes and self-regulatory capacity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 872922. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872922
44.
LiJ.JinM.ChenX. (2025). Understanding continued use of smart learning platforms: Psychological wellbeing in an extended TAM-ISCM model. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article 1521174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1521174
45.
LiZ.BonkC. J.ZhouC. (2024). Supporting learners self-management for self-directed language learning: A study within Duolingo. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 21(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2023-0093
46.
LinY.YuZ. (2023). Extending Technology Acceptance Model to higher-education students’ use of digital academic reading tools on computers. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00403-8
47.
LiuI. F.ChenM. C.SunY. S.WibleD.KuoC. H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & education, 54(2), 600–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009
48.
MaierC.ThatcherJ. B.GroverV.DwivediY. K. (2023). Cross-sectional research: A critical perspective, use cases, and recommendations for IS research. International Journal of Information Management, 70, Article 102625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102625
49.
MurtadloM.AlbanaH.NisaY. F.IzazyN. Q.SumiatiN. T.DewiHenryM. S. C. (2025). Inclusive education in Africa: Transforming higher education in low-income countries. Scientific African, 28, Article e02708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e02708
50.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.): McGraw-Hill.
51.
OrçanF. (2018). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Which one to use first?Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 9(4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21031/epod.394323
52.
OuaredA.OuhammouY.BellatrecheL. (2016). Costdl: A cost models description language for performance metrics in database. In 2016 21st international conference on engineering of complex computer systems (ICECCS) (pp. 187–190). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCS.2016.031
53.
Padilla-MeléndezA.del Aguila-ObraA. R.Garrido-MorenoA. (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender differences and technology acceptance model in a blended learning scenario. Computers & Education, 63, 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.014
54.
PatilH.UndaleS. (2023a). Willingness of university students to continue using e-Learning platforms after compelled adoption of technology: Test of an extended UTAUT model. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 14943–14965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11778-6
55.
PatilH.UndaleS. (2023b). Willingness of university students to continue using e-Learning platforms after compelled adoption of technology: Test of an extended UTAUT model. Education and Information Technologies, 28(11), 14943–14965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11778-6
56.
PintrichP. R.SmithD. A. D.GarciaT.McKeachieW. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). University of Michigan, National Center for Research to Improve Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning.
57.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
58.
QuX.WuQ. (2024). ChatGPT as a CALL tool in language education: A study of hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM). Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 123–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12598-y
59.
RingleC. M.WendeS.BeckerJ.-M. (2022). SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek: SmartPLS. Available at: https://www.smartpls.com
60.
RiniatiW. O.AkfanS. S.MunirahM.UtamiN. D.FitrianiF. (2025). Utilizing mobile-assisted Language learning (Duolingo) to foster metacognitive awareness and self-directed learning in non-english major students. ELS Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 8(1), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.34050/elsjish.v8i1.43453
61.
RiversD. 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
RosliM. S.SalehN. S. (2023). Technology enhanced learning acceptance among university students during COVID-19: Integrating the full spectrum of self-determination theory and self-efficacy into the technology acceptance model. Current Psychology, 42(21), 18212–18231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02996-1
64.
SanC. K.GuoH. (2023). Institutional support, social support, and academic performance: Mediating role of academic adaptation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(4), 1659–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-022-00657-2
65.
SaraaN.Mohammed AlhaqbaniH.Hasan AL-QadriA.Al-KhadherM. A. (2025). The Development of Emotional Intelligence Scale for Algerian Higher Education EFL Students: validating the modified version of Schutte et al.’s (1998) Model. Psychological Reports, Advance Onlinepublication. Article 00332941251390463. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941251390463
66.
ShorttM.TilakS.KuznetcovaI.MartensB.AkinkuolieB. (2023). Gamification in mobile-assisted language learning: A systematic review of Duolingo literature from public release of 2012 to early 2020. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(3), 517–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1933540
67.
SongkramN.ChootongchaiS.OsuwanH.ChuppunnaratY.SongkramN. (2023). Students’ adoption towards behavioral intention of digital learning platform. Education and Information Technologies, 28(9), 11655–11677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11637-4
68.
SunY.GaoF. (2020). An investigation of the influence of intrinsic motivation on students’ intention to use mobile devices in language learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(3), 1181–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09733-9
69.
TalbiO.OuaredA. (2022). Goal-oriented student motivation in learning analytics: How can a requirements-driven approach help?Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12083–12121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11091-8
70.
TamilmaniK.RanaN. P.WambaS. F.DwivediR. (2021). The extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evaluation. International Journal of Information Management, 57, Article 102269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102269
71.
TengM. F.WuJ. G. (2024). An investigation of learners’ perceived progress during online education: Do self-efficacy belief, language learning motivation, and metacognitive strategies matter?The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 33(2), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-023-00727-z
TogaibayevaA.RamazanovaD.YessengulovaM.YergazinaA.NurlinA.ShokanovR. (2022). Effect of mobile learning on students' satisfaction, perceived usefulness, and academic performance when learning a foreign language. Frontiers in Education, 7, 946–1002. Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.946102
74.
UnalE.UzunA. M. (2021). Understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use Edmodo through the lens of an extended technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13046
75.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
76.
VibergO.GrönlundÅ. (2012). Mobile assisted Language learning: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning (mLearn 2012).Linköping University ElectronicPress. Retrieved from:https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:du-10659
77.
WangX.LuA.LinT.LiuS.SongT.HuangX.JiangL. (2022). Perceived usefulness predicts second language learners’ continuance intention toward language learning applications: A serial multiple mediation model of integrative motivation and flow. Education and Information Technologies, 27(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10822-7
78.
WohlfartO.WagnerI. (2024). Longitudinal perspectives on technology acceptance: Teachers’ integration of digital tools through the COVID-19 transition. Education and Information Technologies, 30(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12954-y
79.
ZhangR.ZouD. (2022). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 696–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1744666
80.
ZhangY.PanW. (2024). A UTAUT2 model expansion: Investigating the effect of interactive learning environment and gamification on Duolingo user base in China. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(15), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2024.2426736
