The present study aims to explore not only the motivators and barriers associated with e-learning apps, but understanding the overall experience and more specifically how a barrier can influence motivation in the long run and impact the usage behaviour. The methodology adopted for the study is exploratory and qualitative in nature. The in-depth interview method is used for the collection of data. The interviews were first transcribed and then coded and analysed using thematic analysis through NVivo. Two-factor theory is used for theoretical underpinning for the themes. The themes are categorized as internal and external categories for both motivators and barriers. Internal motivators stem from intrinsic factors such as self-regulation, personal interest, goal orientation and pro-innovative behaviour. External motivators are social, time and reward factors. The barrier for e-learning comes in the form of boredom, health hazards and external barrier comes as service, teaching and ergonomics issues. Understanding the overall motivations and barrier is crucial for designing effective e-learning environments that cater to diverse learner needs and preferences. This article highlights the interplay between intrinsic and extrinsic factors in enhancing engagement and fostering meaningful learning experiences.
AboagyeE., YawsonJ. A., & AppiahK. N. (2021). COVID-19 and e-learning: The challenges of students in tertiary institutions. Social Education Research, 2(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.37256/SER.212021422
2.
AliM., RazaS. A., QaziW., & PuahC. H. (2018). Assessing e-learning systems in higher education institutes: Evidence from structural equation modeling. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 15(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-02-2017-0012/FULL/PDF
3.
AsadiS., NilashiM., IranmaneshM., GhobakhlooM., SamadS., AlghamdiA., AlmulihiA., & MohdS. (2022). Drivers and barriers of electric vehicle usage in Malaysia: A DEMATEL approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 177, 105965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105965
4.
BanduraA. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x
5.
BarhoumiC., AlsaysiA., & EssidS. (2022). Diagnosis of the effectiveness of the e-learning solutions adopted in Saudi higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online Information Review, 46(6), 1132–1151. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2021-0078/FULL/PDF
6.
BerridgeK. C., RobinsonT. E., & AldridgeJ. W. (2009). Dissecting reward components: ‘Liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.014
7.
ChuR. J. (2010). How family support and Internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among older adults–Analyses of gender and age differences. Computers and Education, 55(1), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.011
8.
ClarkeV., & BraunV. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298.
9.
CovingtonM. V. (2015). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/461388
10.
DavidL. (2015). Social learning theory: Bandura. Learning Theories. https://learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html
11.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
12.
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
13.
DehghaniM., BagherianS., & MousazadehN. (2016). The effectiveness of e-learning in learning: A review of the literature article investigation of content and face validity and reliability of sociocultural attitude towards appearance. International Journal of Medical Research & Health Sciences, 5(2), 86–91. https://www.ijmrhs.com/medical-research/the-effectiveness-of-e-learning-in-learning-a-review-of-the-literature.pdf
14.
DubeyS., PiroskaB., & GautamM. (2019). Exploration of factors affecting learners’ motivation in e-learning. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 5(2), 2456.
15.
EbnerM., & HolzingerA. (2007). Successful implementation of user-centered game-based learning in higher education: An example from civil engineering. Computers & Education, 49(3), 873–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2005.11.026
16.
EttingerA., HoltonV., & BlassE. (2006). E-learner experiences: A lesson on in-house branding. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850610646025/FULL/PDF
17.
EvansC., CoolsE., & CharlesworthZ. M. (2010). Learning in higher education: How cognitive and learning styles matter. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(4), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2010.493353
18.
GhoshD., & DashS. (2023). Barriers and facilitators of B2B degree of digital use and brand engagement: An integration of technology and behavioral perspectives. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 38(12), 2793–2810.
19.
GriffinE., & McClishG. (2011). Social learning theory of Albert Bandura. In A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill.
20.
HaythornthwaiteC., & AndrewsR. N. L. (2011). E-learning theory and practice. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446288566
21.
HodgesD. C. (1958). Reward. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 19(2), 198–211.
22.
HosenM., OgbeibuS., GiridharanB., ChamT. H., LimW. M., & PaulJ. (2021). Individual motivation and social media influence on student knowledge sharing and learning performance: Evidence from an emerging economy. Computers & Education, 172, 104262. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2021.104262
23.
IMARC Group. (2024). Mental health market: Global industry trends, share, size, growth, opportunity and forecast 2024–2032. IMARC Group. https://www.imarcgroup.com
24.
JohnsonR. D., HornikS., & SalasE. (2008). An empirical examination of factors contributing to the creation of successful e-learning environments. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 66(5), 356–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHCS.2007.11.003
25.
KahnP. E. (2014). Theorizing student engagement in higher education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6), 1005–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3121
26.
KasiryeI. (2009). Determinants of learning achievement in Uganda. Economic Policy Research Centre, Uganda.
27.
KaurJ., PathakN., TanejaS., & ÖzenE. (2025). Understanding the trend and GAP of studies related to the banks’ financial performance: A literature review using bibliometric and thematic analysis. International Journal of Electronic Finance, 14(1), 83–105.
28.
KimD. J., FerrinD. L., & RaoH. R. (2009). Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudinal exploration. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0188
29.
KimH. J., HongA. J., & SongH. D. (2019). The roles of academic engagement and digital readiness in students’ achievements in university e-learning environments. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0152-3
30.
KoohangA., RileyL., SmithT., & SchreursJ. (2009). E-learning and constructivism: From theory to application. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), 91–109.
31.
KoohangA., RileyL., SmithT., & SchreursJ. (2009). E-learning and constructivism : From theory to application e-learning and e-learning design what is constructivism ?InSITE, 9. https://doi.org/10.28945/3321.
32.
LaameradP., GuittonD., & PackC. C. (2020). Eye movements shape visual learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(14), 8203–8211. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913851117
33.
LeeJ. K., & LeeW. K. (2008). The relationship of e-learners’ self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-learning environmental quality. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(1), 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.12.001
34.
MaatukA. M., ElberkawiE. K., AljawarnehS., RashaidehH., & AlharbiH. (2021). 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/FIGURES/1
35.
MacgregorG., & TurnerJ. (2009). Revisiting e-learning effectiveness: Proposing a conceptual model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), 156–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/17415650911005375
36.
MailizarA., AlmanthariA., MaulinaS., & BruceS. (2020). Secondary school mathematics teachers’ views on e-learning implementation barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Indonesia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(7), em1860. https://doi.org/10.29333/EJMSTE/8240
37.
MaldonadoU. P. T., KhanG. F., MoonJ., & RhoJ. J. (2011). E-learning motivation and educational portal acceptance in developing countries. Online Information Review, 35(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521111113597/FULL/PDF
38.
McLeodS. (2016). Albert Bandura | Social Learning Theory. Simply Psychology.
39.
Mental Health Association. (2023). Mental health facts and statistics. Mental Health Association. https://www.mhanational.org
40.
MogajiE., & NguyenN. P. (2022). Managers’ understanding of artificial intelligence about marketing financial services: Insights from a cross-country study. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 40(6), 1272–1298.
41.
MtebeJ. (2020). Examining eLearning system self-efficacy amongst instructors at the University of Dodoma, Tanzania. Open Praxis, 12(3), 343. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.12.3.1103
42.
MuilenburgL. Y., & BergeZ. L. (2005). Students’ barriers to online learning: A factor-analytic study. Distance Education, 26(1), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910500081269
43.
NgJ. Y. Y., NtoumanisN., Thøgersen-NtoumaniC., DeciE. L., RyanR. M., DudaJ. L., & WilliamsG. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612447309
44.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543
45.
ParkC. W. (2009). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength. In MacInnisD. J., ParkC. W., & PriesterJ. R. (Eds.), Handbook of brand relationships (pp. 177–195). M.E. Sharpe.
46.
PekrunR., & PerryR. P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In PekrunR. & Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (Eds), International handbook of emotions in education (pp. 120–141). Routledgehttps://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8_UjAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA120&dq=pekrun+control+value+theory&ots=FbZPhRdMvA&sig=qlCp_Ww8ORj6_if66aN3RwOW8zs
47.
PrenskyM. (2014a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. In From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. On the Horizon. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387765.n6
48.
PrenskyM. (2014b). The emerging online life of the digital native. In From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning (pp. 67–85). Corwin Press. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483387765.n7
49.
RegmiK., & JonesL. (2020). A systematic review of the factors—enablers and barriers: Affecting e-learning in health sciences education. BMC Medical Education, 20(1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02007-6
50.
RocaJ. C., ChiuC. M., & MartínezF. 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
51.
RovaiA., RovaiA., PontonM., WightingM., & BakerJ. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 413–432.
52.
SaadéR. G., MorinD., & ThomasJ. D. E. (2012). Critical thinking in e-learning environments. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1608–1617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.025
SchunkD. H., & MullenC. A. (2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In ChristensonS., ReschlyA., & WylieC. (Eds), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10
55.
SerdyukovP. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what does not, and what to do about it?Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrit-10-2016-0007
56.
SharmaS., DickG., ChinW., & LandL. P. W. (2007). Self-regulation and e-learning. Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop207003
57.
ShethJ. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die?Journal of Business Research, 117, 280–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2020.05.059
58.
ShethS., GaneshA., NagendraS., KumarK., TejdeepikaR., LikhithaC., MurthyP., & ChandP. (2020). Development of a mobile-responsive online learning module on psychosocial and mental health issues related to COVID-19. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 102248. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AJP.2020.102248
59.
SifeA., LwogaE., & SangaC. (2007). New technologies for teaching and learning: Challenges for higher learning institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 3, 57–67.
60.
SperlingR., HowardL., StaleyR., & DuBoisN. (2010). Metacognition and self-regulated learning constructs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(2), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.10.2.117.27905
61.
Statista. (2024). Online learning platforms: India. https://www.statista.com/outlook/emo/online-education/online-learning-platforms/india#revenue
62.
ŠumakB., HeričkoM., & PušnikM. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067–2077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005
63.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. 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.46.2.186.11926
64.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology (1). MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
65.
von GlasersfeldE. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In The Invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know. W. W. Norton & Company.
66.
WangW., LamE. T. H., LungM. M., ChiuD. K. W., & HoK. K. (2021). Supporting higher education with social networks: Trust and privacy vs. perceived effectiveness. Online Information Review, 45(1), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2020-0042/FULL/PDF
67.
WinneP. H., & HadwinA. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In HackerD., DunloskyJ., & GraesserA. (Eds), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum.
68.
WongA., LeahyW., MarcusN., & SwellerJ. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect, and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004
69.
ZareM., PahlC., RahnamaH., NilashiM., MardaniA., IbrahimO., & AhmadiH. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making approach in e-learning: A systematic review and classification. Applied Soft Computing, 45, 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASOC.2016.04.020
70.
ZimmermanB. J. (2010). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15430421TIP4102_2
