Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

An exploration of eLearning adoption in the educational ecosystem

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Teaching and learning processes have not experienced major changes during the last centuries. However, eLearning platforms may transform these processes, turning the classroom from a teacher-centered and standardized space into a student-centered, customizable and highly scalable environment. These changes impact many different stakeholders such as parents, teachers, universities, software developers and textbook publishers. Therefore, to fully understand the adoption process of an innovation such as eLearning, using traditional technology adoption models that center on a single stakeholder (the end-user) may not be enough. Perspectives from multiple stakeholders must be considered. These stakeholders may come from different industries that make up an ecosystem. Hence, this study aims to explore eLearning adoption through an ecosystem perspective. In order to do so, 58 in-depth interviews were conducted with representatives from 6 different ecosystem stakeholders in the Brazilian higher education ecosystem. Using discourse analysis, the study identified 10 general constructs that simultaneously influence distinct stakeholders in the Brazilian higher education ecosystem in their intention to adopt eLearning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016, November). Right tech, wrong time. Harvard Business Review.

  • Alak, B., & Alnawas, I. (2011). Measuring the acceptance and adoption of E-learning by academic staff. Knowledge management & E-learning, 3(2), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.34105/j.kmel.2011.03.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Gahtani, S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Appl. Comput. Inform., 12(2016), 27–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alharthi, A. D., Spichkova, M., & Hamilton, M. (2019). Sustainability requirements for eLearning systems: A systematic literature review and analysis. Requirements Eng, 24, 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0299-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANATEL (2014). Limites mínimos de velocidade da banda larga ficam mais rigorosos. https://www.anatel.gov.br/Portal/exibir?acao=1&codNot=35544. Accessed 28 May 2020.

  • Arkorful, V., & Abaidoo, N. (2015). The role of e-learning, advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in higher education. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 12(1), 29–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austen, H. (2013, August 1) The educator’s dilemma: Engaging students in knowledge creation. Rotman Management Magazine.

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Carcary, M. (2011). Evidence analysis using CAQDAS: Insights from a qualitative researcher. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 9(1), 10–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, R., & Hsiang, C. (2007). Study on the critical success factors for corporations embarking knowledge community-based e-learning. Information Sciences, 177(2), 570–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2006.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesser, W. D. (2011). The E-textbook revolution. Library Technology Reports, 47(8), 28–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chien, T. C. (2012). Computer self-efficacy and factors influencing eLearning effectiveness. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(7), 670–686. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591211255539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M. (1997). The Innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C, M., & Eyring, Henry J. (2012). The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of higher education. Forum for The Future of Higher Education.

  • Cox, M. J. (2012). Formal to informal learning with IT: Research challenges and issues for eLearning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00483.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J, W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H., & Hogarth, R. (2012). Rethinking management education [working paper no 72]. Chicago: Booth Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. (2007). Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G., & Schoemaker, P. (2000). A different game. In G. S. Day, P. J. H. Schoemaker, & R. E. Gunther (Eds.), Wharton on managing emerging technologies (chap. 1). NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G., & Schoemaker, P. (2006). Peripheral vision: Detecting the weak signals that will make or break your company. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of IT in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of IT in primary and secondary education (pp. 43–62). Boston: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dominici, G., & Palumbo, F. (2012). How to build an eLearning product: Factors for student/customer satisfaction. Business Horizons, 56(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, S. (2011). Relationships among eLearning systems and eLearning outcomes: A path analysis model. Human Systems Management, 30(4), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2011-0752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2015). Broadband speeds in Europe are not delivering on their promises; broadband prices are declining. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/broadband-speeds-europe-are-not-delivering-their-promisses-broadband-prices-are-declining. Accessed 28 May 2020.

  • Eze, S., Chinedu-Eze, V., & Bello, A. (2018). The utilisation of e-learning facilities in the educational delivery system of Nigeria: A study of M-University. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0116-z.

  • FCC - Federal Communications Commission (2018). Eighth Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report: A Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the United States. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-eighth-report. Accessed 28 May 2020.

  • Fernández-Rodríguez, J., Rainer, J., & Miralles, F. (2014). Essential features in eLearning: Efficiency and quality. La Pensée, 76(7), 305–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gašević, D., Dawson, S., & Siemens, G. (2015). Let's not forget: Learning analytics are about learning. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0822-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). March. Harvard Business Review: Strategy as Ecology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalisky, A., Boker, E., & Schuman, L. (2012). Architecture for dynamic eLearning environments based on student activity. Business Education & Accreditation, 4(2), p113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattimani, S. F., & Naik, R. R. (2012). E-Learning Technology in the ICT Era: Application to Technical Education. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 32(6), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.32.6.2842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirabolghasemi, M., Choshaly, S. H., & Iahad, N. A. (2019). Using the HOT-fit model to predict the determinants of E-learning readiness in higher education: A developing Country’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 24, 3555–3576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an IT innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–239. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, H. L., Freund, L., Jantzi, L., & Sinanan, S. (2014). Investigating a peer-to-peer community service learning model for LIS education. Journal of Education for Library & Information Science, 55(4), 322–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019). Education at a Glance: Country Note - Brazil. https://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a-glance/EAG2019_CN_BRA.pdf. Accessed 20 January 2020.

  • Osigweh, Y. (1989). Concept fallibility in organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.2307/258560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pange, A., & Pange, J. (2011). Is e-learning based on learning theories? A literature review. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 80, 62–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reisel, J. R., Jablonski, M. R., Munson, E., & Hosseini, H. (2014). Peer-led team learning in mathematics courses for freshmen engineering and computer science students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 15(2), 7–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyes, J. (2015). The skinny on big data in education: Learning analytics simplified. Techtrends Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 59(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-015-0842-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, S. L. (2020). Analysis of global higher education. In M. David & M. Amey (Eds.), The SAGE encyclopedia of higher education. SAGE Publications.

  • Rodrigues, H., Almeida, F., Figueiredo, V., & Lopes, S. L. (2019). Tracking e-learning through published papers: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 136(1), 87–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an Inclusive Definition of E-Learning: An Approach to the Conceptual FrameworkInternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 145–159.

  • Schönfelder, W. (2011). CAQDAS and qualitative syllogism logic. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1514.

  • Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for eLearning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers & Education, 49(2), 396–413.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (2003). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, G., & Hardaker, G. (2014). Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning. Education + Training, 56(2/3), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2012-0123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, R. A. (2008). Exploratory research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of 16 qualitative research methods. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2014). Business ecosystems. In M. Augier & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Entry in Palgrave encyclopedia of management. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137294678.0190.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toh, Y., Jamaludin, A., & Hung, W. (2014). Ecological leadership: Going beyond system leadership for diffusing school-based innovations in the crucible of change for 21st century learning. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 23, 835–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., & Matsumoto, Y. (2018). A review of the ecosystem concept – Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032.

  • Van de Ven, A. (2007). Engaged scholarship: Creating knowledge for science and practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, T. (2009). Rethinking teaching with information and communication technologies (ICTs) in architectural education. Teaching Teacher Education, 25(8), 1132–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R, K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, [Calif.]: Sage.

  • Young, J. R. (2013). The object formerly known as the textbook. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 59(21), A16–A17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yurek, J. (2015). Ultra high definition: Beyond pixel count. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 4(4), 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2015.2463296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 807–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by Grupo Globo.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escola Superior de Propaganda & Marketing (ESPM/RJ), R. do Rosário, 90 - Centro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 20041-002, Brazil

    Marco Aurélio de Souza Rodrigues

  2. COPPEAD Graduate School of Business, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rua Pascoal Lemme, 355 - Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 21941-918, Brazil

    Paula Chimenti & Antonio Roberto Ramos Nogueira

Authors
  1. Marco Aurélio de Souza Rodrigues
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Chimenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Roberto Ramos Nogueira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MR, PC and AN offered valuable contributions to the conception and design of the research. MR and PC were also involved in data acquisition, analysis and interpretation. MR, PC and AR revised the manuscript critically. All authors have approved the submitted version. All authors have agreed both to be personally accountable for their contributions and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are appropriately investigated, resolved and the resolution documented in the literature.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Aurélio de Souza Rodrigues.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 3 Proposed constructs and their categories
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Souza Rodrigues, M.A., Chimenti, P. & Nogueira, A.R.R. An exploration of eLearning adoption in the educational ecosystem. Educ Inf Technol 26, 585–615 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10276-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10276-3

Keywords