The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected schools, with traditional in-person operation changing to remote online learning. The rapid, involuntary shift was met with resistance and acceptance in varying degrees by Generation Z students. This study seeks to develop an e-learning technology acceptance model for Generation Z students, with a focus on the environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic. A theoretical framework based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was extended by 8 factors based on literature review and student input from a prior focus group study and survey (Motamedi et. al., 2021). The survey had 3 parts: 1) background information, 2) personality traits, 3) acceptance model factors. Twenty responses were collected and analyzed using Cronbach’s alphas. The results found the survey items to have good internal consistency. The outcome of this study provides a baseline for future studies to validate the model. The framework provides understanding of Generation Z acceptance of e-learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbdullahF.WardR. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238-256.
2.
AbdullahF.WardR.AhmedE. (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 eportfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 75-90.
3.
AgarwalR.KarahannaE. (2000). Time Flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665.
4.
AixiaD.WangD. (2011). Factors influencing learner attitudes toward elearning and development of e-learning environment based on the integrated e-learning platform. International Journal of eEducation, eBusiness, e-Management and e-Learning, 1(3), 264.
5.
Al-AulamieA. (2013). Enhanced technology acceptance model to explain and predict learners’ behavioural intentions in learning management systems.
6.
BaberH. (2020). Determinants of students’ perceived learning outcome and satisfaction in online learning during the pandemic of covid19. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 7(3), 285-292.
7.
BaberH. (2021). Modelling the acceptance of e-learning during the pandemic of Covid-19-A Study of South Korea. The International Journal of Management Education, 19(2), 100503.
8.
BagciK.CelikH. E. (2018). Examination of factors affecting continuance intention to use web-based distance learning system via structural equation modelling. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 18(78), 1-24.
9.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.
10.
DebeiM. M. (2014). The quality and acceptance of websites: An empirical investigation in the context of Higher Education. International Journal of Business Information Systems, 15(2), 170.
11.
DeLoneW. H.McLeanE. R. (1992). Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
12.
DongX.ChangY.WangY.YanJ. (2017). Understanding usage of Internet of Things (IOT) systems in China: Cognitive experience and affect experience as moderator.Information Technology & People.
13.
EomS. (2009) Effects Of Interaction On Students’ Perceived Learning Satisfaction In University Online Education: An Empirical Investigation. Proceedings of the 2009 AIS SIGED: IAIM International Conference on Information Systems Education and Research. 33.
14.
FathemaN.ShannonD.RossM. (2015). Expanding The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Examine Faculty Use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) In Higher Education Institutions. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2).
15.
GranicA.MarangunicN. (2019). Technology acceptance model in educational coufntext: A systematic literature review. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2572-2593.
16.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102138). Guilford Press.
17.
KarahannaE.StraubD. W.ChervanyN. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183.
18.
KettingerW. J.LeeC. C. (1997). Pragmatic perspectives on the measurement of information systems service quality. MIS quarterly, 223-240.
19.
LaCailleL. (2013). Theory of Reasoned Action. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine.
20.
LeeY.-H.HsiaoC.PurnomoS. H. (2014). An empirical examination of individual and system characteristics on enhancing e-learning acceptance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5).
21.
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.
22.
MotamediS.WangP.ZhangT.ChanC.-Y. (2020). Acceptance of Full Driving Automation: Personally Owned and Shared-Use Concepts. Human Factors, 62(2), 288-309.
23.
MotamediS.MarquisK.LevineH. (2021) “Understanding ELearning Acceptance of Gen Z Students: An Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).”Paper presented at 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference.
24.
ParasuramanA.ZeithamlV. A.BerryL. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. 1988, 64(1), 12-40.
25.
RocaJ. C.ChiuC.-M.MartinezF. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683-696.
26.
SaadeR.BahliB. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317-327.
27.
ParkS. Y. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioral Intention to Use eLearning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150-162.
28.
SalloumS. A.Qasim Mohammad AlhamadA.Al-EmranM.Abdel MonemA.ShaalanK. (2019). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access, 7, 128445-128462.
29.
SaxenaC.BaberH.KumarP. (2020). Examining the moderating effect of perceived benefits of maintaining social distance on e-learning quality during COVID-19 pandemic. SSRN Electronic Journal.
30.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
31.
H VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
ZhaoY.WangN.LiY.ZhouR.LiS. (2021). Do cultural differences affect users’ e-learning adoption? A meta-analysis. British Journal of Education Technology, 52(1), 20-41.
