Abstract
This research studies on the e-learning services acceptance in higher education institutions in Brunei Darussalam. This research has seven hypotheses, relating to independent, intermediary, and dependent variables. The independent variables include lecturer’s characteristics, design of learning contents, teaching materials, and playfulness; while the intermediary variables are perceived benefits and perceived ease of use. On the other hand, the dependent variable in this research is the intention to use e-learning. Multiple regression analysis were conducted to test the hypotheses proposed. Data analysis from this research has confirmed that the lecturer’s characteristics, teaching materials, perceived ease of use and the intention to use e-learning corresponds to the perceived benefits. Meanwhile, the design of learning content and the intention to use e-learning are positively related to the perceived ease of use and lastly, the variable playfulness is positively related to the intention to use e-learning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.
Al-Adwan, A., Smedley, J., & Al-Adwan, A. (2013). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(2), 4–18.
Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. In Babson survey research group. Available at: Accessed 19 December 2017. https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/digital-learning-compass-distance-education-enrollment-report-2017/&sa=D&ust=1513687335504000&usg=AFQjCNF3B3U7IMMUwo4HPn6lHsrh_Mgp9Q
Anderson, T., Liam, R., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Anshari, A., Almunawar, M. N., Shahrill, M., Wicaksono, D. K., & Huda, M. (2017). Smartphones usage in the classrooms: Learning aid or interference? Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 3063–3079.
Asabere, N., & Enguah, S. (2012). Use of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) in Tertiary Education in Ghana: A Case Study of Electronic Learning (E-learning). International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Research, 2(1), 62–68.
Becker, K., Newton, C., & Sawang, S. (2013). A learner perspective on barriers to e-learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(2), 211–233.
Bell, J. (2007). E-learning: Your flexible development friend? Development and Learning in Organizations. An International Journal, 21(6), 7–9.
Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305.
Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 505–515.
Cantoni, V., Cellario, M., & Porta, M. (2004). Perspectives and challenges in elearning: Towards natural interaction paradigms. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 15, 333–345.
Cole, A., Anderson, C., Bunton, T., Cherney, M., Cronin Fisher, V., Draeger Jr., R., Featherston, M., Motel, L., Nicolini, K., Peck, B., & Allen, M. (2017). Student predisposition to instructor feedback and perceptions of teaching presence predict motivation toward online courses. Online Learning, 21(4).
Connolly, T. M., MacArthur, E., Stansfield, M., & McLellan, E. (2007). A quasi-experimental study of three online learning courses in computing. Computers & Education, 49(2), 345–359.
Dahlstrom, E., Brooks, D. C., & Bichsel, J. (2014). The current ecosystem of learning Management Systems in Education: Student, faculty, and IT perspectives. In Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006). Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33(4), 256–259.
El Mansour, B., & Mupinga, D. M. (2007). Students’ positive and negative experiences in hybrid and online classes. College Student Journal, 41(1), 242–248.
Elkaseh, A. M., Wong, K. W., & Fung, C. C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural equation modelling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192–199.
Fathema, N., Shannon, D. and Ross, M., 2015. Expanding The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Examine Faculty Use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) In Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Online Learning & Teaching, 11(2).
Fenech, T. (1998). Using perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness to predict acceptance of the world wide web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30(1–7), 629–630.
Fisher, S. L., & Howell, A. W. (2004). Beyond user acceptance: An examination of employee reactions to information technology systems. Human Resource Management, 43(2), 245–258.
Fleming, J., Becker, K., & Newton, C. (2017). Factors for successful e-learning: Does age matter? Education and Training, 59(1), 76–89.
Freire, L., Arezes, P., Campos, J., Jacobs, K., & Soares, M. M. (2012). A literature review about usability evaluation methods for e-learning platforms. Work, 41, 1038–1044. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0281-1038.
GoConqr. (2017). Online learning report. Available at: https://info.goconqr.com/files/2017/02/2017-GoConqr-Online-Learning-Report.pdf. Accessed 19th December 2017.
Gogan, M., Sirbu, R., & Draghici, A. (2015). Aspects concerning the use of the moodle platform – Case study. Procedia Technology. 19, 1142–1148. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2015.02.163. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Honey, P. (2001). E-learning: A performance appraisal and some suggestions for improvement. The Learning Organization, 8(5), 200–203.
Hošková-Mayerová, Š., & Rosická, Z. (2015). E-learning pros and cons: Active learning culture? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 958–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.702 Accessed 18 December 2017.
Hussein R., Aditiawarman, U., & Mohamed, N. (2007) E-learning acceptance in a developing country: A case of the Indonesian Open University Faculty of ICT. In German e-Science Conference.
Hussin, H., Bunyarit, F., & Hussein, R. (2009). Instructional design and e-learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(1), 4–19.
Landry, B. J. L., Griffeth, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring student perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 87–99.
Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information Management, 42(8), 1095–1104.
Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320–1329.
Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfactions, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(4), 864–873.
Mainka, C., & Benzies, A. (2006). E-learning: Vision to reality. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3(2), 101–111.
McGill, T. J., & Hobbs, V. J. (2008). How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00253.
Moore, M. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7.
Nakamura, H, Hanamitsu, N & Minamizawa, K. (2015). A(touch)ment: A smartphone extension for instantly sharing visual and tactile experience. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. Vol. 11, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 223-224, 6th augmented human international conference, AH 2015, Singapore, Singapore, 15/3/9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2735711.2735782.
Ngampornchai, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Students’ acceptance and readiness for e-learning in northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1).
Ong, C. S., Lai, J. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information Management, 41(6), 795–804.
Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., & Thomas, B. (2004). E-learning and retention: Key factors influencing student withdrawal. Education and Training, 46(6–7), 335–342.
Pattnayak, J., & Pattnaik, S. (2016). Integration of web services with e-learning for knowledge society. Procedia Computer Science., 92, 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.340. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Pearson. (2016). Digital appetite vs. what’s on the table: Student attitudes toward digital course materials in 2016. https://www.pearsoned.com/wp-content/uploads/transition-to-digital-infographic.pdf. Accessed 18th December 2017.
Pituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education. [Online] 47 (2), 222–244. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Roca, J., & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1585–1604.
Sánchez-Franco, M., Martínez-López, F., & Martín-Velicia, F. (2009). Exploring the impact of individualism and uncertainty avoidance in Web-based electronic learning: An empirical analysis in European higher education. Computers & Education. 52 (3), 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.006. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Sawang, S., Newton, C., & Jamieson, K. (2013). Increasing learners’ satisfaction/intention to adopt more e-learning. Education and Training, 55(1), 83–105.
Singh, A., & Singh, L. (2017). E-learning for employability skills: Students perspective. Procedia Computer Science., 122, 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.386. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Song, S. M. (2010). E-learning: Investigating students’ acceptance of online learning in hospitality programs. Iowa State University.
Sun, P., Tsai, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.
Teo, T. (2011). Modeling the determinants of pre-service teachers' perceived usefulness of e-learning. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 124–140.
Tîrziu, A., & Vrabie, C. (2015) Education 2.0: E-Learning methods. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 186, 376–380. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.213. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(11), 115–139.
Versteijlen, M., Perez Salgado, F., Janssen Groesbeek, M., & Counotte, A. (2017). Pros and cons of online education as a measure to reduce carbon emissions in higher education in the Netherlands. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 80–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.004. Accessed 18 December 2017.
Zhang, D., Zhao, J., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75–79.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
E-Learning Services Acceptance in Higher Educational Institutes: A Case Study in Brunei Darussalam. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dear Respondents, Your participation in our survey is greatly appreciated. This research aims to examine the E-learning acceptance in Higher Educational Institutes in Brunei Darussalam. To help us, you are requested to answer truthfully. All answers will be confidential and there is no way this form can be traced back to you. | |||||
SECTION A | |||||
Age (please specify) | |||||
Gender (please tick one) | Male | Female | |||
Current Higher Educational Institute (Please tick one) | UBD | UNISSA | UTB | KUPU SB | Politeknik Brunei |
Level of Education (i.e. Advanced Diploma, Bachelor’s degree) | |||||
Year | |||||
Major | |||||
SECTION B | |||||
E-Learning is learning utilising electronic technologies to access educational curriculum outside of a traditional classroom. | |||||
Are you aware of e-learning? (Please tick one) | Yes | No | |||
Have you ever used e-learning during your course of studies? (Please tick one) | Yes | No | |||
If No, why? i.e. not available or unwilling to use. | |||||
Please tick which tools you have used (you can tick more than one) | Instructure Canvas | ||||
Moodle | |||||
LMS | |||||
Blackboard | |||||
Desire2Learn | |||||
Others (please specify) | |||||
How long have you been using e-learning? (an estimation is expected) | |||||
How many modules which you have taken have utilised e-learning? Name a few (or if possible all) of the modules. | |||||
Which of these have been utilised when e-learning is applied on the modules that you have taken? (You can tick more than one) | Online lecture notes | ||||
Online quizzes | |||||
Online announcements | |||||
Online assignments | |||||
Electronic student–student and student–instructor communication | |||||
Audio and video streaming | |||||
Threaded discussions | |||||
Video conferencing | |||||
Others (please specify) | |||||
How often do you use the tools? (please tick one) | Several times a day | About once a day | 2–3 times a week | Once a week | |
SECTION C: Lecturer’s Characteristics | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. The tutor provides high-quality instruction | |||||
2. The tutor provides information on learning progress. | |||||
3. The tutor delivers instructions clearly. | |||||
4. The tutor’s measurement of student performance is fair. | |||||
SECTION D: Teaching Materials | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. E-learning provides me with sufficient teaching materials. | |||||
2. E-learning provides me with teaching materials that fit with the learning objectives | |||||
SECTION E: Design of Learning Contents | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. The level of difficulty of the learning contents is appropriate | |||||
2. The delivery schedule of learning contents is flexible | |||||
3.E-learning provides individualised learning management | |||||
4. E-learning provides a variety of learning methods | |||||
SECTION F: Playfulness | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. I feel e-learning helps me improve my creativity | |||||
2. I feel e-learning helps me improve my imagination by obtaining information | |||||
3. I feel I can have a variety of experiences without any interference | |||||
4. I feel e-learning is fun regardless of usage purposes | |||||
SECTION G: Perceived Benefits | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. E-learning improves my learning outcomes | |||||
2. E-learning is very useful to me | |||||
3. E-learning helps me accomplish my learning effectively | |||||
SECTION H: Perceived Ease of Use | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. E-learning study methods are easy to understand | |||||
2. E-learning is easy to use | |||||
SECTION I: Intention to use e-learning services | |||||
The traditional face-to-face learning methods include required attendance, regular textbook, and presence of instructor during the scheduled class time and office hours. | |||||
Please tick one for each. | STRONGLY DISAGREE | DISAGREE | NEUTRAL | AGREE | STRONGLY AGREE |
1. I prefer e-learning to traditional learning | |||||
2. I am willing to participate in other e-learning opportunities | |||||
3. I think e-learning should be implemented in other classes | |||||
4. I will recommend e-learning classes to other students | |||||
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
H.A. Rajak, A.N., Pg Abu Bakar, D.N.N., Lajim, N.D.A. et al. E-learning services acceptance in higher educational institutes: A case study in Brunei. Educ Inf Technol 23, 2341–2361 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9720-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9720-8