Research Article

System Quality and Student’s Acceptance of the E-learning System: The Serial Mediation of Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use

Maha Ismail Alkhawaja 1 * , Mutia Sobihah Abd Halim 1 , Mohanad S. S. Abumandil 2 , Ahmed Samed Al-Adwan 3
More Detail
1 University Sultan Zainal Abidin, Malaysia2 University Malaysia Kelantan, Malaysia3 Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Jordan* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(2), April 2022, ep350, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11525
Published: 09 January 2022
OPEN ACCESS   2584 Views   2359 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study explores the mechanism through which system quality influences e-learning system acceptance. Precisely, this study aims to examine how perceived usefulness and intention to use serially mediate the impact of system quality on actual use. The data were collected from three public universities in Jordan. Structural equation modeling was employed to examine 336 questionnaires. The findings reveal that system quality significantly affects perceived usefulness and intention to use, perceived usefulness significantly affects intention to use and actual use, where the intention to use significantly affects actual use of the e-learning system as well. Furthermore, the study also confirms that system quality does not affect the e-learning system actual use directly but indirectly and serially through the two acceptance variables, perceived usefulness and intention to use. Thus, this study improves the understanding of student’s acceptance and behavior towards the e-learning system in Jordan public universities and the effect of system quality attributes on this relationship. Also, this study set certain directions for the decision-makers and university management in designing their strategies.
Keywords: actual use, e-learning system, intention to use, perceived usefulness, serial mediators, system quality

CITATION (APA)

Alkhawaja, M. I., Abd Halim, M. S., Abumandil, M. S. S., & Al-Adwan, A. S. (2022). System Quality and Student’s Acceptance of the E-learning System: The Serial Mediation of Perceived Usefulness and Intention to Use. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(2), ep350. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11525

REFERENCES

  1. Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
  4. Al-araibi, A. A. M., Mahrin, M. N. B., & Yusoff, R. C. M. (2019). Technological aspect factors of e-learning readiness in higher education institutions: Delphi technique. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 567-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9780-9
  5. Alenazy, W. M., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Khan, M. S. (2019). Validation of TAM model on social media use for collaborative learning to enhance collaborative authoring. IEEE Access, 7, 71550-71562. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2920242
  6. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004
  7. Algunto, A. D. K., Jaryono, & Daryono. (2017). Technology of e-government acceptance analysis on electronic resident identification card (E-KTP) adoption. Performance: Business & Management Journal, 23(2), 77-88. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.performance.2016.23.2.272
  8. Alhabeeb, A., & Rowley, J. (2017). Critical success factors for eLearning in Saudi Arabian universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 131-147. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2016-0006
  9. Alharbi, H., & Sandhu, K. (2019). New empirical data findings for student experiences of e-learning analytics recommender systems and their impact on system adoption. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE), 10(2), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJIDE.2019040104
  10. Alharthi, A., Alassafi, M. O., Walters, R. J., & Wills, G. B. (2017). An exploratory study for investigating the critical success factors for cloud migration in the Saudi Arabian higher education context. Telematics and Informatics, 34(2), 664-678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.10.008
  11. Alkhawaja, M. I., & Abd Halim, M. S. B. (2019). Challenges of e-learning system adoption in Jordan higher education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 9(9), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i9/6317
  12. Alkhawaja, M. I., Sobihah, M., & Awang, Z. (2020). Exploring and developing an instrument for measuring system quality construct in the context of e-learning. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 403-413. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v10-i11/7953
  13. Alla, M., Faryadi, Q., & Fabil, N. B. (2015). The impact of system quality in e-learning system. International Journal of Computer Science and Electronics Engineering, 3(1), 37-42.
  14. Almaiah, M. A. (2018). Acceptance and usage of a mobile information system services in University of Jordan. Education and Information Technologies, 23(5), 1873-1895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9694-6
  15. Almaiah, M. A., & Al Mulhem, A. (2019). Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use of mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2), 1433-1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9840-1
  16. Almaiah, M. A., & Alismaiel, O. A. (2019). Examination of factors influencing the use of mobile learning system: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 885-909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9810-7
  17. Almaiah, M. A., & Alyoussef, I. Y. (2019). Analysis of the effect of course design, course content support, course assessment and instructor characteristics on the actual use of E-learning system. IEEE Access, 7, 171907-171922. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2956349
  18. Almaiah, M. A., Al-Khasawneh, A., & Althunibat, A. (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the e-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 5261-5280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y
  19. 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 Computers in Education, 3(4), 453-485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0074-1
  20. Almarabeh, T. (2014). Students' perceptions of e-learning at the University of Jordan. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(3), 31-35. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i3.3347
  21. Al-Rahmi, W. M., Yahaya, N., Aldraiweesh, A. A., Alamri, M. M., Aljarboa, N. A., Alturki, U., & Aljeraiwi, A. A. (2019). Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use e-learning systems. IEEE Access, 7, 26797-26809. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2899368
  22. Alshurideh, M., Salloum, S. A., Al Kurdi, B., Monem, A. A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Understanding the quality determinants that influence the intention to use the mobile learning platforms: A practical study. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, 13(11), 157-183. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v13i11.10300
  23. Ameen, A., Alfalasi, K., Gazem, N. A., & Isaac, O. (2019). Impact of system quality, information quality, and service quality on actual usage of smart government. Presented at the 2019 First International Conference of Intelligent Computing and Engineering (ICOICE). Hadhramout University, Mukalla, Yemen, December 15-16.
  24. Amin, M., Akter, A., & Azhar, A. (2016). Factors affecting private university students’ intention to adopt e-learning system in Bangladesh. DIU Journal of Business and Economics, 10(2), 10-25. http://dspace.library.daffodilvarsity.edu.bd:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/1549
  25. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723327
  26. Bagozzi, R. P., Davis, F. D., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45(7), 659-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500702
  27. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  28. Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843-855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010
  29. Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Latent variables in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 56-67). The Guilford Press.
  30. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084
  31. Bouchrika, I. (2020). 51 LMS Statistics: 2019/2020 Data, trends & predictions. Guide2Research. https://www.guide2research.com/research/lms-statistics
  32. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  33. Butler, B. S., & Gray, P. H. (2006). Reliability, mindfulness, and information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 211-224. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148728
  34. Calisir, F., Altin Gumussoy, C., Bayraktaroglu, A. E., & Karaali, D. (2014). Predicting the intention to use a web‐based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality, image, and the technology acceptance model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(5), 515-531. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20548
  35. Chao, C.-M. (2019). Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1652. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652
  36. Cheng, Y.-M. (2012). The effects of information systems quality on nurses’ acceptance of the electronic learning system. Journal of Nursing Research, 20(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0b013e31824777aa
  37. 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-05-2013-0015
  38. Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.001
  39. Costa, C. J., Ferreira, E., Bento, F., & Aparicio, M. (2016). Enterprise resource planning adoption and satisfaction determinants. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 659-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.090
  40. Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning management systems in higher education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives: Research report. EDUCAUSE. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2014/9/ers1414-pdf.pdf
  41. Davcik, S. N. (2014). The use and misuse of structural equation modeling in management research: A review and critique. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 11(1), 47-81. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-07-2013-0043
  42. Davis, F. 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
  43. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60
  44. Dreheeb, A. E., Basir, N., & Fabil, N. (2016). Impact of system quality on users' satisfaction in continuation of the use of e-learning system. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 6(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.17706/ijeeee.2016.6.1.13-20
  45. Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (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 & Teaching, 11(2), 210-232.
  46. Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65-116.
  47. Fornell, C., & 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/10.1177/002224378101800104
  48. Freeze, R. D., Alshare, K. A., Lane, P. L., & Wen, H. J. (2010). IS success model in e-learning context based on students' perceptions. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 173-184. https://aisel.aisnet.org/jise/vol21/iss2/4
  49. Ghazal, S., Aldowah, H., & Umar, I. (2017). Critical factors to learning management system acceptance and satisfaction in a blended learning environment. In F. Saeed, N. Gazem, S. Patnaik, A. Saed Balaid, & F. Mohammed (Eds.), Recent trends in information and communication technology. IRICT 2017. Lecture notes on data engineering and communications technologies (vol 5, pp. 688-698). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59427-9_71
  50. Hadullo, K., Oboko, R., & Omwenga, E. (2017). A model for evaluating e-learning systems quality in higher education in developing countries. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 13(2), 185-204. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/180643/
  51. Hair, J. F., Gabriel, M., & Patel, V. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, 13(2), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v13i2.2718
  52. Hariguna, T., Lai, M.-T., Hung, C.-W., & Chen, S.-C. (2017). Understanding information system quality on public e-government service intention: An empirical study. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 11(2-3), 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2017.083290
  53. Harrati, N., Bouchrika, I., Tari, A., & Ladjailia, A. (2016). Exploring user satisfaction for e-learning systems via usage-based metrics and system usability scale analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 463-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb. 2016.03.051
  54. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360
  55. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf
  56. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12028
  57. Islam, A. (2012). The role of perceived system quality as educators’ motivation to continue e-learning system use. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 4(1), 25-43. https://aisel.aisnet.org/thci/vol4/iss1/2
  58. Islam, A. (2016). E-learning system use and its outcomes: Moderating role of perceived compatibility. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.010
  59. Jaber, O. A. (2016). An examination of variables influencing the acceptance and usage of E-learning systems in Jordanian higher education institutions [PhD dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University]. https://repository.cardiffmet.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10369/7995/Omar%20Jaber%20PHD%20Final%20To%20Submit%20-%20July%202016%20-%20FINAL%20-%20PDF.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  60. Kanwal, F., & Rehman, M. (2017). Factors affecting e-learning adoption in developing countries–empirical evidence from Pakistan’s higher education sector. IEEE Access, 5, 10968-10978. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2714379
  61. Khasawneh, M., & Yaseen, A. B. (2017). Critical success factors for e-learning satisfaction, Jordanian Universities’ experience. Journal of Business & Management, 5(1), 56-69. https://doi.org/10.25255/jbm.2017.5.1.56.69
  62. Khawaldeh, F. (2017). The effectiveness of applying the Baldrige Quality Standards in higher education to achieve competitive advantage: Case study on Jordanian private universities. International Journal of Business and Management, 12(11), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v12n11p218
  63. Kiron, D., Prentice, P. K., & Ferguson, R. B. (2014). The analytics mandate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(4), 1-25.
  64. Koohang, A., & Paliszkiewicz, J. (2016). E-learning courseware usability: Building a theoretical model. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 56(1), 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2015.11645801
  65. Lai, Y. H. (2019). The application of meta-analytic SEM on exploring factors that influence teachers' usage of interactive whiteboard. Pedagogical Research, 4(3), em0038. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/5854
  66. Larmuseau, C., Evens, M., Elen, J., Van Den Noortgate, W., Desmet, P., & Depaepe, F. (2018). The relationship between acceptance, actual use of a virtual learning environment and performance: An ecological approach. Journal of Computers in Education, 5(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-018-0098-9
  67. Liao, C.-H., & Huang, W.-L. (2009). Community adaptability, computer and internet self-efficacy, and intention of blended e-learning. International Journal of Society Systems Science, 1(3), 209-226. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijsss.2009.022816
  68. Ma'arop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of blended learning in higher learning institutions: A review of the literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41-52, EJ1093338. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n3p41
  69. Maphosa, V. (2021). Teachers’ perspectives on remote-based teaching and learning in the COVID-19 era: Rethinking technology availability and suitability in Zimbabwe. European Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Education, 2(1), e02105. https://doi.org/10.30935/ejimed/9684
  70. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044
  71. Mwakyusa, W. P., & Mwalyagile, N. V. (2016). Impediments of e-learning adoption in higher learning institutions of Tanzania: An empirical review. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 152-160. EJ1118921.
  72. Noh, M. J., & Lee, K. T. (2016). An analysis of the relationship between quality and user acceptance in smartphone apps. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 14(2), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0283-6
  73. Pham, L., Limbu, Y. B., Bui, T. K., Nguyen, H. T., & Pham, H. T. (2019). Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0136-3
  74. Pieters, R. (2017). Meaningful mediation analysis: Plausible causal inference and informative communication. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3), 692-716. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx081
  75. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. 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
  76. Ren, J.-F., Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Modelling quality dynamics on business value and firm performance in big data analytics environment. International Journal of Production Research, 55(17), 5011-5026. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1154209
  77. Rui-Hsin, K., & Lin, C.-T. (2018). The usage intention of e-learning for police education and training. Policing: An International Journal, 41(1), 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-10-2016-0157
  78. Salloum, S. A., Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., & Tarhini, A. (2019). Factors affecting the e-learning acceptance: A case study from UAE. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 509-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9786-3
  79. Sarrab, M., Elbasir, M., & Alnaeli, S. (2016). Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile learning services: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(A), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.003
  80. Sharma, S. K. (2019). Integrating cognitive antecedents into TAM to explain mobile banking behavioral intention: A SEM-neural network modeling. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(4), 815-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9775-x
  81. Stoyanov, S., & Kirchner, P. (2004). Expert concept mapping method for defining the characteristics of adaptive e-learning: ALFANET project case. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504838
  82. Tarhini, A., Masa’deh, R., Al-Busaidi Kamla, A., Mohammed Ashraf, B., & Maqableh, M. (2017). Factors influencing students’ adoption of e-learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of International Education in Business, 10(2), 164-182. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-09-2016-0032
  83. Udo, G. J., Bagchi, K. K., & Kirs, P. J. (2011). Using SERVQUAL to assess the quality of e-learning experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1272-1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.01.009
  84. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., & Ackerman, P. L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision-making processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(1), 33-60. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2896
  85. William, H. D., & Ephraim, R. M. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of management information systems, 19(4), 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
  86. Wong, G. K. (2015). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers of primary mathematics in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6), 713-735, https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1890
  87. Yakubu, M. N., & Dasuki, S. (2018). Assessing eLearning systems success in Nigeria: An application of the DeLone and McLean information systems success model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 17, 183-203. https://doi.org/10.28945/4077
  88. Zuama, R. A., Hudin, J. M., Puspitasari, D., Hermaliani, E. H., & Riana, D. (2017, August 8-10). Quality dimensions of DeLone-McLean model to measure students' accounting computer satisfaction: An empirical test on accounting system information. In 2017 5th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), 2017, (pp. 1-6), Denpasar, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.1109/CITSM. 2017.8089318