Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Students’ acceptance of file sharing systems as a tool for sharing course materials: The case of Google Drive

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

Abstract

Students’ perceptions about both ease of use and usefulness are fundamental factors in determining their acceptance and successful use of technology in higher education. File sharing systems are one of these technologies and can be used to manage and deliver course materials and coordinate virtual teams. The aim of this study is to explore how Google Drive is accepted as a system for handling course materials and uncover the factors that influence and contribute to students’ intentions to use it. The research approach is based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). The participants for this study comprised 119 students at Sultan Qaboos University. The Students’ Acceptance of Google Drive Questionnaire was develop by the author based on the TAM. The results indicated that students perceived Google Drive as an easy-to-use and useful system for storing and sharing course materials, and they favored its use in university teaching. The results of a multiple regression analysis confirmed that students’ prior experience with Google Drive is a good predictor of students’ perceived ease of use and usefulness. In addition, perceived ease of use and usefulness significantly influenced attitudes toward the system and behavioral intentions to use Google Drive.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using the technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(2), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apple, J., Reis-Bergan, M., Adams, H., & Saunders, G. (2011). Online tools to promote student collaboration. In D. S. Dunn, J. H. Wilson, J. Freeman, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Getting connected: best practices for technology enhanced teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 239–252). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, N. (2001). International standards for HCI and usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 533–552.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., & Hocutt, D. (2015). Learning to use, useful for learning: a usability study of Google apps for education. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(4), 160–181 Retrieved from http://uxpajournal.org/usability-study-google-apps-education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 9–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., Bagozzi, P., & Warshaw, R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekeyser, S., & Watson, R. (2006). Extending Google docs to collaborate on research papers [technical report]. The University of Southern Queensland. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90.3176&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  • Dodd, B. J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2012). Use of signaling to integrate desktop virtual reality and online learning management systems. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1099–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4) Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no4/edwards_1210.htm.

  • Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2000). Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 345–352). New York: ACM.

  • Google (2013, August 19). Head back to school with Drive: student edition. Google Blog. Retrieved from https://drive.googleblog.com/2013/08/drivebts-teachers.html

  • Hair, F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, L., & Black, C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill.

  • Harrison, P. J., Seeman, B. J., Behm, R., Saba, F., Molise, G., & Williams, D. (1991). Development of a distance education assessment instrument. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(4), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, D. (2014, April 17). The benefits and dangers of choosing cloud-based file sharing. StateTech. Retrieved from http://www.statetechmagazine.com/article/2014/04/benefits-and-dangers-choosing-cloud-based-file-sharing.

  • ISO 9241. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals. Part 11: Guidance on usability. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=16883.

  • Kossman, R. (2012). Everything you need to know about cloud-based file sharing. Retrieved from http://searchcloudstorage.techtarget.com/feature/Everything-you-need-to-know-about-cloud-based-file-sharing.

  • Lederer, L., Maupin, J., Sena, P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the world wide web. Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, M., & Ting, H. (2012). E-shopping: an analysis of the technology acceptance model. Modern Applied Science, 6(4), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, L., Jurić, B., & Barać, L. (2013). Moodle and Elgg functionalities comparison: advantages and disadvantages. Proceedings from Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, Varaždin, the roatia, September 18–20. Retrieved from http://www.ceciis.foi.hr/app/public/conferences/1/papers2013/635.pdf

  • Lord, N. (2016, October 12). Communicating the data security risks of file sharing & cloud storage. Digital Guardian, Retrieved from https://digitalguardian.com/blog/communicating-data-security-risks-file-sharing-cloud-storage.

  • Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G., & Pieterse, E. (2012). Facebook groups as LMS: a case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 33–48 Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1294/2337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mijuskovic, A. & Ferati, M. (2015). User awareness of existing privacy and security risks when storing data in the cloud. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning’15, (pp 268–273), 11–12 September. Retrieved from http://elearning-conf.eu/docs/cp15/paper-43.pdf.

  • Miller, M. (2008). Cloud computing: web-based applications that change the way you work and collaborate online. Indiana: QUE Publishing.

  • Miller-Cochran, K., & Rodrigo, L. (2006). Determining effective distance learning designs through usability testing. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 91–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi, O. (2006). Factors of online learning adoption: a comparative juxtaposition of the theory of planned behaviour and the technology acceptance model. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 571–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, S., Molyneaux, H., & Gibson, K. (2010). A framework for analyzing social interaction using broadband visual communication technologies. In T. Dumova & R. Fiordo (Eds.), Handbook of research on social interaction technologies and collaboration software: concepts and trends (pp. 528–541). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas, C. (2014). How to use Google forms in eLearning. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/7-tips-use-google-forms-elearning

  • Park, Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 123–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozanski, P., & Haake, R. (2003). Curriculum and content: the many facets of HCI. Lafayette, IN: Paper presented at the 4th conference on information technology curriculum on information technology education.

  • Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

  • Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, S. (2015). 15 ways to maximize your productivity with Google Drive. Retrieved from https://www.bettercloud.com/monitor/google-drive-productivity.

  • Stantchev, V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Soto-Acosta, P., & Misra, S. (2014). Learning management systems and cloud file hosting services: a study on students’ acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 612–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. (2012). Google docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359–375.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. South Valley University, Qena, Egypt

    Alaa Sadik

  2. Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman

    Alaa Sadik

Authors
  1. Alaa Sadik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alaa Sadik.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

1.1 Students’ acceptance of Google Drive questionnaire (SAGD)

  1. 1.

    Demographics and experience (EXP = 4)

    1. 1.1.

      How frequently do you use the Internet?

      - Very infrequently - Somewhat infrequently - Occasionally - Somewhat frequently - Very frequently

    2. 1.2.

      What is your preferred way for sharing course materials with classmates?

      - File sharing systems - LMS - E-mail - Social networks - Other

    3. 1.3.

      What is your preferred file sharing system?

      - Google Drive - Dropbox - FileCloud - SQU Drive - Other

    4. 1.4.

      How frequently do you use Google drive?

      - Never - Rarely - Sometimes - Often - Very Often

  2. 2.

    Perceived ease of use (EOU = 8)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

  1. 2.1.

    Often I become confused when I use Google Drive.

  2. 2.2.

    Using Google Drive is often frustrating.

  3. 2.3.

    It takes a long time to learn how to perform a task with Google Drive.

  4. 2.4.

    Often I need to consult the course instructor or my classmates when I use Google Drive.

  5. 2.5.

    I find it easy to do my assignments via Google drive.

  6. 2.6.

    Using Google drive, I can complete and submit my assignment quickly.

  7. 2.7.

    Google drive is simple.

  8. 2.8.

    Overall, I find Google Drive easy to use.

  9. 3.

    Perceived usefulness (USF = 8)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

  1. 3.1.

    Studying this course would be difficult without using Google Drive.

  2. 3.2.

    Google Drive gives me greater control over sharing course materials.

  3. 3.3.

    Using Google Drive saves my time.

  4. 3.4.

    Google Drive enables me to access course materials more quickly.

  5. 3.5.

    Google Drive increases my productivity.

  6. 3.6.

    Using Google drive increases the quality of my work.

  7. 3.7.

    Instructors should use Google drive in their courses

  8. 3.8.

    Overall, using Google Drive is useful for sharing course materials.

  9. 4.

    Attitude (ATT = 4)

All things considered, using Google Drive in my study is:

  1. 4.1.

    Good/bad idea

  2. 4.2.

    Wise/foolish idea

  3. 4.3.

    Favorable/unfavorable idea

  4. 4.4.

    Positive/negative idea

  5. 5.

    Behavioral intention to use (BIU = 4)

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

  1. 5.1.

    I will continue using Google Drive in other courses in the future.

  2. 5.2.

    I will frequently use Google Drive to perform my study-related Internet tasks.

  3. 5.3.

    I will strongly recommend Google Drive to my students.

  4. 5.4.

    I will use Google Drive many ways in my life.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadik, A. Students’ acceptance of file sharing systems as a tool for sharing course materials: The case of Google Drive. Educ Inf Technol 22, 2455–2470 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9556-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9556-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation