Cogent Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/oaed20

Evaluating the effects and outcome of

technological innovation on a web-based e-
learning system

Asare Yaw Obeng & Alfred Coleman |

To cite this article: Asare Yaw Obeng & Alfred Coleman | (2020) Evaluating the effects and
outcome of technological innovation on a web-based e-learning system, Cogent Education, 7:1,
1836729, DOI: 10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access

article is distributed under a Creative
Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Published online: 26 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1624

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oaed20
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

INFORMATION & COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION |

Received: 30 July 2020
Accepted: 08 October 2020
*Corresponding author: Asare Yaw
Obeng, Kumasi Technical University,
Kumasi, Ghana
E-mail: 51842475@mylife.unisa.ac.za
Reviewing editor:
Shuyan Wang, Instrcution, The
University of Southern Mississippi,
United States
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Evaluating the effects and outcome of
technological innovation on a web-based
e-learning system
Asare Yaw Obeng1* and Alfred Coleman2
Abstract: The advancements in technological innovations have had a substantial
impact on the Internet infrastructure, Web technology, and the usefulness of
e-learning systems. This requires a discrete initiative to exploit the full capabilities of
technological innovation to improve the functional characteristics of e-learning
systems, the ensuing benefits, and to sustain educational challenges. A context-
based model that incorporates explicit and widely accepted determinants of infor­
mation systems success, technology acceptance, e-learning success models, and
technological innovation has been developed. Empirically, the model has been
validated using a logistic regression method and 458 valid responses. Findings
indicate a unit increase in the level of technological innovation results in 55 times
improvement in the features of e-learning systems and 3 times in e-learning out­
come. Also, a unit increase in the features of e-learning systems results in three
times improvement in the outcome of e-learning system. Risk minimization and
achieving learning goals are the most important positive benefits of e-learning
systems to students. The factor with the highest positive impact on e-learning

ABOUT THE AUTHOR PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Asare Yaw Obeng received his PhD in
Information Systems from the University of
South Africa. Currently, he is a lecturer at Kumasi
Technical University, Ghana, Computer Science
Department. His research interests include IS/IT-
technological innovation, IS-business value, and
information systems strategy. He holds MSc. in
Information Systems from the University of
North West, USA.
Prof. Alfred Coleman is Associate professor in
School of Computing, college of Science, engi­
neering and Technology, University of South
Africa. Prof Coleman hold PHD in Information
Technology. His research focus area includes,
Health Informatics, Business informatics and
Knowledge management. He is currently the
acting Chair of department (COD) in the school
of Computing.
In this pandemic era of COVID-19, the educa­
tional systems globally are affected making web-
based electronic learning systems learning pre­
ferences to sustain educational challenges. This
requires a discrete initiative to exploit and provide
unique insights on significant factors to improve
its usefulness. This study identified and evaluated
specific factors that impact the usefulness of an
e-learning system. Using survey data from 458
participants, relationships among technological
innovation, quality factors of information sys­
tems, technology acceptance factors, user beliefs,
and e-learning benefits were assessed. Our find­
ings show that a unit improvement in the levels of
technological innovation results in 55 times
improvement in the features of e-learning sys­
tems which in turn improves the outcome of
e-learning 3 times. Risk minimization and achiev­
ing learning goals were the most important posi­
tive benefits of e-learning systems to students.
61% of students were satisfied with the useful­
ness, and would strongly recommend e-learning
system(s) to others.

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

systems is improved software service. 52% of students indicated e-learning systems

are innovative. 61% specified that the usefulness and performance of e-learning
system(s) are satisfactory and would strongly recommend them to others.

Subjects: Information & Communications Technology in Education

Keywords: e-learning outcome; information systems success model; technology-mediated

context model; technology acceptance model; technological innovation; web-based
e-learning

1. Introduction
Technology advancements have had a profound impact on the learning and teaching activities of
education. Several learners have embraced technology-driven educational activities (Alkandari,
2015). This has necessitated employing the most suitable and advanced technology for effective
e-learning delivery, engaging learners, boosting learners’ motivation, and improving satisfaction
and learning productivity (Kangas et al., 2017). As a technology-mediated learning management
system, e-learning is considered an essential learning medium in the higher educational sector to
support educational services (Al-Fraihat et al., 2017).

A significant volume of research has been conducted to identify, examine, and evaluate impor­
tant factors that influence an e-learning system with the intent of advancing and maximizing its
usefulness (Fathema et al., 2015; Mtebe & Raphael, 2018). Eom and Ashill (2018) are of the view
that developing a comprehensive model that cuts across multiple levels to understand synergistic
effects of the key determinants of a successful e-learning system is imperative. However, research­
ers face the challenge of dealing with an excessive number of important factors that determine
the success of an e-learning system in literature (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020). Due to the fact that the
core factors that determine the success of an e-learning system differ in their importance in
a specific context, a research that focuses on exploiting the dynamic capabilities of technological
innovation to advance the functional characteristics of e-learning systems, ensuing benefits, and
to sustain educational challenges is necessary. Technological innovation is making an e-learning
system a learning preference since it facilitates the development of value-added and interactive
features, components, services, and methods of accessing an e-learning system.

To help create an effective and innovative teaching and learning environment, this study
proposes a context-based model that incorporates explicit factors of widely accepted models
and specific factors of technological innovation that are of recent concern in the e-learning
domain.

2. Related work

2.1. A web-based e-learning system

The Web as a techno-social system is the largest transformable-information construct. The Web is
the most prominent part of the Internet and provides one of the most popular services of the
Internet. Enhanced content, ease of use, availability, attractive design, offering value proposition,
using analytical tools, regular updates are among the critical success factors of a website. An ease
of use of a web’s interfaces is a quality attribute, hence, an essential condition for a useful Website
(Nielsen, 2012). The major quality attributes include ease to learn, effectiveness, ease to recall,
minimal errors made, fulfilment, and utility (design’s functionality) (Nielsen, 2012). Presently, the
Internet is promoting self-paced learning across the globe, and has made it easy to obtain
different formats of learning resources, to teach and regulate courses, and to expand interactive
communication and collaboration tools (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020). An e-learning system could be
virtual-based, web-based, computer-based, or digital-based (Abdellatief et al., 2011). Generally,

Page 2 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

authors have proposed technology-driven, delivery-system-oriented, communication-oriented and

educational paradigm as the main types of e-learning elements (Arkorful & Abaidoo, 2015). Some
popular web-based e-learning systems available are WebBoard, Blackboard, Glow, Google class­
room, Code academy, MOODLE, and Sakai.

The evolution of the Web and continuous advancements in technology have resulted in several
definitions of e-learning. E-learning is defined by Choudhury & Pattnaik as “the transfer of knowl­
edge and skills, in a well-designed course content that has established accreditations, through an
electronic media like the Internet, Web 4.0, intranets, and extranets.” (Choudhury & Pattnaik,
2020, p. 2). An e-learning system is a type of information system (IS) that supports improving
technical system qualities including dependability, accessibility, and usability of a system (Al-
Fraihat et al., 2020), service quality enhancement through technology interface (Parasuraman,
2010), and improvement of information quality (Anderson et al., 2014). Quality features influence
the processing and delivery of information and the adoption of e-learning as a learning tool (Adel,
2017). Choudhury and Pattnaik (2020) reviewed 138 articles published between 2000 and 2018
and identified certain critical success factors of e-learning that pertain to various e-learning
stakeholders. Some of these critical success factors include updated technology, appropriate
course and interface design, social presence, computer literacy, technology, and application
interoperability, course customization, interactivity, ease of use and autonomy, collaboration
among stakeholders, and motivation. From this same research, Choudhury and Pattnaik (2020)
identified lack of management’ support, and continuous innovations and fast technology
advancement (for instance, matching state-of-the-art designs and technology) are as some
challenges in e-learning.

2.2. Integrating web with e-learning

Web tools have been used progressively in educational contexts. Web 1.0 to web 5.0 has really
transformed the delivery of learning electronically. According to Wentling et al. (2000), Internet-
based learning was introduced with Web 1.0 where knowledge acquisition and distribution were
essential in the year 2000. As at 2016, complete degree programmes were delivered online and
remote interaction with an instructor was possible as at 2018 (Ali et al., 2018). Web 2.0 is a read-
write web that facilitates designing new models of e-learning and creation of knowledge systems
(Aghaei et al., 2012). For instance, developers use HTML/CSS, JavaScript, and PHP to develop the
dynamic features of a web-based e-learning system to address new trends of adaptation. With
this, characteristics of learners and their learning styles can be understood to generate persona­
lized and adaptive user interfaces and recommend course contents (Kolekar et al., 2018). Flex,
Asynchronous JavaScript and XML are some of the basic development approaches that developers
use to create the applications of web 2.0.

For Web 3.0 (Semantic Web), the core software technology is intelligently learning and under­
standing semantics where service and process quality such as search personalization is improved
(Vieira & Isaías, 2015). For Web 4.0 and Web 5.0, there is synergy between humans and machines,
emotional dimensions are added to enhance interactions, and are considered autonomous
(Parvathia & Mariselvi, 2017). Since e-learning is a technology-mediated learning process, and
web technology has had a profound impact on the learning and teaching methods of education,
successful development, and implementation of an e-learning system as well as delivery of
services mainly depend on innovation activities.

2.3. Technological innovation support for e-learning

Technological innovation is a significant source of sustainability (Eidizadeh et al., 2017) and a long-
term business strategy (Su & Tang, 2016) that thrives on the capabilities of information technology
(Bassellier & Benbasat, 2004). Rapid diffusion of IT drives a technological innovation effort to
promote information dissemination, firm-wide networking, collaboration, and improvements in
communication (OECD, 2010). Innovation capabilities are unique and valuable resources of
a firm that leverage structural resource differences to achieve quality among competing firms

Page 3 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

(Benitez-Amado & Walczuch, 2012). Technological innovation facilitates the development of fea­
tures, components, services, and methods of accessing an e-learning system (Obeng & Boachie,
2018).

Process and product innovations constitute technological innovation. A new or significantly

enhanced features of goods and/or services is referred to as product innovation (OECD, 2005).
Thus, technical specifications, software components, usability, and other features are improved.
Primarily, work on product innovation is effectiveness-driven that addresses market needs
(Bergfors & Larsson, 2009). A new or significantly enhanced technique, equipment and/or software
for production or service delivery is referred to as process innovation (OECD, 2005). As a distinct
initiative, process innovation requires change management of core organizational operations.
Through process innovation, services are automated.

Ding and Straub (2008) are of the view that, in a fully automated IT-service delivery context (see
Figure 1), services are delivered through IT artefacts electronically (online) with minimal human
involvement. In a web-based e-learning system, the service channel between the learner and
service provider is considered an information technology artefact. In such a self-service context,
quality of system and information are offered by an IT artefact that are considered integral parts
of service quality (Ding & Straub, 2008) and influence the learner’s perception of service quality.
Practically, IT facilitates quality user-interface design that exhibits good screen layouts and explicit
instructional support for a self-paced e-learning tool that makes users comfortable to use the tool
(Liu et al., 2010).

Technological innovation has positive impact on perceived usefulness, intent to use (Ngafeeson
& Sun, 2015), perceived satisfaction (Joo et al., 2014), and the adoption of electronic learning
technology. Continuous developments in Internet infrastructure, innovations, and the World Wide
Web technology have made electronic learning systems more flexible, usable, interactive and
a learning preference (Alkandari, 2015; Wang et al., 2019). Using a context-based model that
incorporates explicit factors of technology acceptance and adoption, information systems success,
and user satisfaction models, the study focuses on identifying and evaluating specific factors of
technological innovation that impacts a web-based electronic learning system.

3. Conceptual model development

Main approaches, perspectives, and measurements that had been used to evaluate the success of
IS and e-learning were adopted to develop the proposed conceptual model to assess the effect of
technological innovation on a specific context of an e-learning system. A web-based e-learning
system is a type of information system. Several models have been created by researchers

Figure 1. Automated IT service

delivery.

Page 4 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

purposely to emphasize the need for appropriate and more consistent success metrics and to
explain what makes some IS successful (Delone & McLean, 2003; Petter et al., 2008). According to
DeLone and McLean (1992), Delone & McLean (2003)), models help determine, understand, and
provide sparing explanation if there is existence of causal relationships among dimensions of
success. For Davis (1989), models are important for their theoretical and practical values by
providing better measures to predict and explain system use. We adopted models to use tested
and proven measures, able to compare and validate findings, and to contribute to further devel­
opment and validation of the measures.

The following themes were used to develop the model (Figure 2):

● Technological innovation (product and process innovation)

● Electronic learning system
○ system quality, service quality, information quality
○ perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness
○ acceptance/usage
● Outcome of using an electronic learning system (benefits)

A context model was necessary to identify and evaluate specific factors that contribute to the
usefulness of an electronic learning system. Since an electronic learning system is an information
system and technology, quality factors would describe its features, user benefit would determine
usefulness and satisfaction perceived from such technology, and acceptance will deal with usage
of that technology. Constructs/predictors and determinants are found in Appendix A.

3.1. Constructs adopted from existing models

Using IS success model to assess the usefulness of an electronic learning system is well accepted
among researchers (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020). However, there are conflicting findings among some
studies. For instance, in 2007, Lin conducted a study that showed a significant effect of quality
factors on the actual use of an online learning system, while in 2018, a study conducted by Cidral
et al found an insignificant association among quality dimensions and use. According to Eom
(2015), improving the explanatory power of IS success model requires the understanding of quality

Figure 2. A conceptual model to

evaluate effects of technologi­
cal innovation on e-learning
systems.

Page 5 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

factors of an electronic learning system, hence, a further research is necessary. The constructs of
DeLone and McLean IS success model (Delone & McLean, 2003) and other constructs/factors from
widely accepted models and theories were adopted for the study to reflect the context of electro­
nic learning. An ease of use, ease to learn, response time, understandability, availability, and
reliability are considered some essential quality factors of a system. Information quality is con­
cerned with content design quality, usability, completeness, accuracy, relevance, and timeliness
while service quality focuses on help provision, accuracy, reliability, flexibility, responsiveness, and
accessibility.

We embraced perceived usefulness and perceived satisfaction components of Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM) into our model. We did so because TAM3 focuses on the determinants
that influence perceived usefulness and perceived satisfaction of a given innovation (Venkatesh
et al., 2017). Acceptance, in terms of actual system use was added to our model by operationaliz­
ing it as a factor that determines a successful electronic learning system. Benefits was added as
a factor that determines the outcome of using electronic learning systems (Abdullah & Ward,
2016; Seddon, 1997). Other important constructs developed by OECD (2005), Gorla et al. (2010),
Cheng (2012), Salloum et al. (2019), Al-Fraihat et al. (2020), and Choudhury and Pattnaik (2020)
were included in this study.

3.2. Purpose of study

Core factors that determine the success of an e-learning system differ in their importance in
a specific context. Purposely, this study focuses on exploiting the dynamic capabilities of techno­
logical innovation to advance the functional characteristics of e-learning systems and ensuing
benefits by developing and testing a proposed context-based model. In an attempt to shape this
purpose of study, the researchers sought answers to questions below and used the hypotheses
that follow to drive these research questions.

(1) How does technological innovation impact e-learning systems?

(2) What factor(s) determine usefulness e-learning systems?
(3) What important benefit(s) do the users of e-learning systems receive?

3.3. Research hypotheses

H1: Technological Innovation (TI) impacts positively on E-learning System (eLSuc)

H1a: Technological Innovation (TI) impacts positively on E-learning Outcome (eLOC)
H1b: Product innovation (PDI) is strongly associated with TI
H1c: Process innovation (PRI) is strongly associated with TI

H2: E-learning System (eLSuc) impacts positively on e-learning Outcome (eLOC)

H2a: Quality factors positively determine the usefulness of e-learning system
H2b: Perceived user beliefs positively determine the usefulness of e-learning system
H2c: Acceptance and use positively determine the usefulness of e-learning system

H3: E-learning Outcome (eLOC) impacts positively on E-learning System (eLSuc)

H3a: Using e-learning system results in positive benefits (BF) to the learner

4. Methods
The study followed a causal-comparative quantitative approach to test the theoretical model and
related hypotheses, establish cause–effect relationships among variables, understand trends in the
data, and generalized results after comparing findings with past studies (Creswell, 2012). Cross-
sectional survey approach was used to collect reliable and accurate data quickly.

Page 6 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

4.1. Collection of data and preparation

Empirically proven and measured items used to develop the questionnaire were obtained from
literature reviews of e-learning, information systems success, and technology acceptance. As
a complementary step, and to affirm measurement items of the study, we solicited opinions of
persons and peers who are knowledgeable in e-learning (Walker & Fraser, 2005). These experts
were tasked to assess whether each item on the 3-point scaled questionnaire was vital, significant
(but not vital), and insignificant. Sections to solicit additional inputs from the experts were
provided. Responses from the experts showed either the item was essential or important. The
results of the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient test of variables after incorporating the views of the
experts was.77. With this, the reliability of the measurements was confirmed.

Purposive sampling approach was used to select participants studying at various tertiary educa­
tional institutes in Ghana since they can provide the necessary information to the study. The fine-
tuned questionnaires were administered using both personal (face-to-face) and online approaches.
Trained research assistants were engaged to administer the questionnaire between September
and November, 2019. For the data collection in April 2020, a web-based questionnaire was used to
minimize the risk associated with printed documents due to COVID-19.

The first part of the questionnaire constitutes the respondents’ data and their general views of
electronic learning systems. Technological innovation, electronic learning system, and the benefits
of using an e-learning system were captured at the second, third, and last sections, respectively.
A total of 473 responses out of 600 questionnaires were received (online 291 out of 418, personal
182). A response rate was 76.3% based on 458 responses that were considered valid for further
analysis. The characteristics of sampled respondents are shown on Table 1.

5. Data analysis results

Analysis to evaluate the impact of technological innovation on a web-based electronic learning
system was performed using a logistic regression approach. Correlation matrix was performed to
find significant relationships among dependent variables. This could contribute to obtaining better
results from the regression models. There is moderate to strong correlations, and the variables did
contribute significantly (see Table 2) with no outlier(s).

5.1. The establishment of binary logistic regression model

The essence of using the logistic regression analysis method was to understand whether there is
a linear or nonlinear relationship between dependent variables of innovative product and process of
an electronic learning system (TI), usefulness of an electronic learning system (eLSuc), an outcome
of an e-learning system (eLOC) and 42 independent variables (see Appendix A). The following
represents the mathematical equation of a logistic regression:
n o
p
ln 1 p ¼ β0 þ β1 X1 þ β2 X2 þ . . . þ βn X2 þ e (1)

where ln {p/1—p} is the “log odds” of K, n represents the number of independent variables,
p represents the proportion of successes, β0 the constant (an intercept), β1 (i = 1, …, n) the
regression parameters (coefficient), X1 to X2 the independent variables (continuous or categorical)
and e the error (or residual) of the equation.

5.2. Statistical tests of relationships between variables

The output of the binary logistic regression analysis of the dependent variables (TI, eLSuc, eLOC)
and predictors that are statistically significant are given in Table 3. The output of statistical
analysis between TI & eLSuc → eLOC and TI & eLOC → eLSuc are included in Table 3.

In Table 3, β is the coefficient of independent variable which is tested with Wald to identify the
influence of each independent variable on dependent variable. The Wald measure on Table 3
shows TI predicts an event significantly since p < .05. The value of β = 4.012 signifies a change in

Page 7 of 21
 Table 1. Characteristics of respondents
Characteristics Frequency & Percentage
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Gender N % Age N % CE N %
Male 310 67.7 <21 129 28 Diploma 153 33.4
Female 145 31.7 21–30 174 38 UG 200 43.7
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729

MV 3 .6 >30+ 149 33 PG 94 20.5

MV 6 1 PhD 6 1.3
MV 5 1.1
MV (Missing values), CE (Course Enrolled), UG (Undergraduate), PG (Postgraduate)

Page 8 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Table 2. Pearson correlations

Correlations
TI eLSuc eLOC
TI Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N 447
eLSuc Pearson Correlation .716** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 440 446
eLOC Pearson Correlation .420** .405** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000
N 435 433 445
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
TI: Technological innovation, eLSuc: Usefulness of e-learning system, eLOC: Outcome of using e-learning system

the logit for a one-unit increase in TI. An Odd ratio of Exp(B) 55.239 indicates that, the odds for the
features of an e-learning system increase 55.239 times when the level of TI increases by 1 unit.

Including intercept in the model was important since the test was significant (p < .05). The
following results are also identified on Table 3. The Odd ratio of 5.173 for TI → eLOC is slightly
higher than that of eLSuc → eLOC (3.354) with p values (.000, .007) respectively, indicates each
contributes significantly to eLOC. This implies, TI may contribute to eLOC 5 times compared to 3
times of eLSuc. PRI3 (p < .000, Odd ratio = 2.744) positively contributes the highest to TI; IQ6
(p < .001, Odd ratio = 4.377) positively contributes slightly higher than SeQ1, SQ3, and SQ4 to
eLSuc; and BF6 (p < .000, Odd ratio = 3.025) positively contributes the highest to eLOC (see
Appendix A).

5.3. Statistics of the overall model evaluation & goodness-of-fit (GoF)

The predictors consistently distinguished Yes from No of TI & eLOC → eLSuc (x2 = 157.805, p < .000,
df = 2) since a test of the constant only and full models was statistically significant. The Nagelkerke
R2 (54.1%) of the model explains the variance in eLSuc. For a GoF test, the .933 value of Hosmer-
Lemeshow is insignificant (p > .05), indicating that the model is fit to the data. For TI & eLSuc →
eLOC model, the chi-square = 64.562, p < .000, df = 2, and Nagelkerke R2 .247 (24.7%) (see Table 4).
The chi-square of 55.841, p < .000, df = 8, Nagelkerke R2 .241 (24.1%) for PDI & PRI → TI, chi-square
= 178.993, p < .000, df = 36, Nagelkerke R2 .748 (74.8%) for SQ, IQ, SeQ, PU2, PS, Use → eLSuc and
BF → eLOC’s chi-square of 68.307, p < .000 with df = 6, Nagelkerke R2 .273 (27.3%) are obtained (see
Appendix A).

5.4. Predictive accuracy and descriptive statistics

Classification tables were employed to predictive and evaluate the accuracy of the logistic regres­
sion model.

5.4.1. Predicting overall success

The overall success of 93.0% was predicted correctly (97.5% for “Yes” TI & eLOC impact eLSuc and
67.2% for “Not” impact eLSuc) as shown in Table 5. Thus, the model with predictors is improved
and significantly better compared with the constant model only correct classification of 85.0%. On
Table 5, 87.4% (95.3% for “Yes” TI & eLSuc impact eLOC and 41.3% for “Not” impact eLOC) was the
overall success prediction. Thus, the model with predictors minimally and significantly predicts
better than the constant model only correct classification of 85.3%.

Page 9 of 21
 Table 3. Logistic Regression Output: Statistical tests of path and hypothesis of dependent variables
Logistic Regression
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

95% CI for EXP(B)

2 β
H Path β SE(β) Wald χ df ρ e (OR) Lower Upper Out
come
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729

H1b PDI → TI −.076 .026 8.581 1 .003 .927 .881 .975 Confirmed
H1c PRI → TI −.125 .050 6.381 1 .012 .882 .801 .972 Confirmed
Constant −8.145 1.295 39.570 1 .000 .000
H2a SQ → eLSuc −.003 .001 4.594 1 .032 .997 .994 1.000 Confirmed
H2a IQ → eLSuc −.023 .009 6.774 1 .009 .977 .961 .994 Confirmed
H2a SeQ → eLSuc .009 .003 10.654 1 .001 1.009 1.004 1.014 Confirmed
H2b PU → eLSuc −.074 .025 8.556 1 .003 .929 .884 .976 Confirmed
H2b PS → eLSuc .023 .011 4.299 1 .038 1.023 1.001 1.046 Confirmed
H2c Use → eLSuc .024 .012 4.225 1 .040 1.025 1.001 1.049 Confirmed
Cons −10.574 4.440 5.672 1 .017 .000
tant
H1 TI → eLSuc 4.012 .444 81.644 1 .000 55.239 23.138 131.873 Confirmed
H3 eLOC → eLSuc 1.210 .451 7.189 1 .007 3.354 1.385 8.125 Confirmed
Constant −8.226 .759 117.501 1 .000 .000
H1a TI → eLOC 1.643 .469 12.284 1 .000 5.173 2.063 12.967 Confirmed
H2 eLSuc → eLOC 1.210 .451 7.189 1 .007 3.354 1.385 8.125 Confirmed
Constant −5.268 .496 112.559 1 .000 .005
H3a BF1 → eLOC .424 .115 13.561 1 .000 1.528 1.219 1.914 Confirmed
H3a BF2 → eLOC .486 .122 15.865 1 .000 1.625 1.280 2.064 Confirmed
H3a BF3 → eLOC −.307 .145 4.474 1 .034 .736 .553 .978 Confirmed
H3a BF4 → eLOC −.557 .171 10.640 1 .001 .573 .410 .801 Confirmed
H3a BF5 → eLOC −.020 .134 .023 1 .879 .980 .753 1.275 Not
H3a BF6 → eLOC 1.107 .292 14.397 1 .000 3.025 1.708 5.360 Confirmed
Constant −3.834 .827 21.467 1 .000 .022

Page 10 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Table 4. Overall Models Evaluation & Goodness-of-Fit Statistics

Goodness-of-Fit Statistics (TI & eLOC → eLSuc)
Test Categories χ2 df ρ
Overall model Score test 157.805 2 .000
evaluation
Wald test 164.465 1 .000
Goodness-of-fit test Hosmer & .007 1 .933
Lemeshow
Goodness-of-Fit Statistics (TI & eLSuc → eLOC)
Test Categories χ2 df ρ
Overall model Score test 64.562 2 .000
evaluation
Wald test 165.812 1 .000
Goodness-of-fit test Hosmer & .019 1 .889
Lemeshow

5.4.2. Predicting a probability

Assignment rules of the indicator variable Y for the result of a test sample under the action of a set
of independent variables are as follows:

Y ¼ 1; TI or eLSuc or eLOC;
(2)
0; notTI or eLSuc or eLOC

where P is the probability of TI or eLSuc or eLOC occurrence and Q is the probability of non-
occurrence of TI or eLSuc or eLOC, the logistic regression’s computational formula of P becomes:

eβ0 þ β1 x1 þ β2 x2 þ � � � þ þβm xm
P¼ (3)
1 þ eβ0 þ β1 x1 þ β2 x2 þ � � � þ þβm xm

β0 is the constant term unrelated to the factors xi, β1, β2, …, βm are regression coefficients which
are the contributions of factor xi to P, and e (natural logarithms’ base, approximately 2.72).

With formula P + Q = 1, we could get the formula to calculate the probability of non-occurrence
of TI:

1
Q¼ (4)
eβ0 þ β1 x1 þ β2 x2 þ � � � þ þβm xm

Using the β values (logistic coefficients) in Table 3, the predictive calculation formula becomes:

eð 8:226þ4:012xTIÞ
p¼ (5)
1 þ eð 8:226þ4:012xTIÞ

Imagine a user who performs 3 e-learning activities per day within 1 h. Using the above predictive
formula would determine whether the user decides that an e-learning system is useful (choosing
YES). For a user to use an e-learning system to perform 3 important educational activities in 1
h would mainly depend on the innovative design, features, services, and methods of accessing that
e-learning system. Substituting in the above assumptions, we get:

eð 8:226þ4:012x3Þ
p¼ (6)
1 þ eð 8:226þ4:012x3Þ

e3:81
¼
1 þ e3:81
¼ 0:978

Page 11 of 21
 Table 5. Classification table that predicts the impact of dependent variables
TI & eLOC → eLSuc TI & eLSuc → eLOC
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Observed Predicted Observed Predicted

eLSuc % correct eLOC % correct
Yes No Yes No
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729

eLSuc Yes 355 9 97.5 eLOC Yes 348 17 95.3

No 21 43 67.2 No 37 26 41.3
Overall % correct 93.0 Overall % correct 87.4
Sensitivity = 355/(355 + 9) = 97.5%; Specificity = 43/(21 + 43) = 67.1%; False positive = 21/ Sensitivity = 348/(348 + 17) = 95.3%; Specificity = 26/(37 + 26) = 41.3%; False positive = 37/
(21 + 43) = 32.8%; False negative = 9/(355 + 9) = 2.47% (37 + 26) = 58.7%; False negative = 17/(348 + 17) = 4.65%

Page 12 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Hence, the likelihood that a user who completes three e-learning activities daily within an hour will
decide an e-learning system is innovative is 97.8%. This affirms the correct prediction shown in
Table 5.

5.4.3. Descriptive statistics

Using different e-learning systems over a long period of time has influence on determining
whether an e-learning system is innovative or not. Hence, 52% ((225/380) * 87.9) of valid cases
responded Yes to NoES (two, three), LoU (<1-2 yrs, >2 yrs), and TI (see Table 6) confirms that
e-learning systems were innovative as respondents indicated (see Table 5).

Recommendation of an e-learning system to others reflects the intent of future use. The out­
come (benefit) of using an electronic learning system determines its usefulness. 61% ((262/427) *
100) of valid cases responded Yes to eLSuc, eLOC, and RES (see Table 7), which confirms electronic
learning systems were efficient and useful to the respondents (see Table 5).

6. Discussion and conclusion

The study focused on developing a context-based model to identify and evaluate specific factors of
technological innovation that contributes to successful delivery, effective use, and positively
impacts on learners of a web-based electronic learning system. Since a web-based electronic
learning system is considered an information system, explicit and widely approved factors of
technology acceptance and adoption, information systems success, and user satisfaction models
were incorporated into the context-based model. Relationships and consequential effects among
technological innovation (TI), an e-learning system (eLSuc) and the outcome of using an e-learning
system (eLOC) were evaluated. Technological innovation impacts positively on the features of
e-learning systems and the outcome of e-learning systems. Improvement in the features of
e-learning systems results in positive outcomes of e-learning systems. The most important positive
benefits of e-learning systems to students were risk minimization and achieving learning goals.

Table 6. LoU * NoES * TI

Crosstabulation
LoU TI Total
Yes No
< 1 year NoES One Count 81 13 94
Two Count 68 8 76
Three Count 22 3 25
1-2 years NoES One Count 30 9 39
Two Count 75 10 85
Three Count 10 3 13
> 2 years NoES One Count 41 3 44
Two Count 40 3 43
Three Count 10 0 10
Total Count 380 49 429
% of Total 87.9% 12.1% 100.0%
NoES * TI * Valid Cases Missing Cases Total
LoU
N % N % N %
429 93.7% 29 6.3% 458 100.0%
NoES (Number of e-learning systems used), TI (Innovative products and processes), LoU (Length of using e-learning
system)

Page 13 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Table 7. eLOC * RES * eLSuc

Crosstabulation
eLOC eLSuc
Total
Yes
No
Yes RES Yes Count 262
28 290
% of Total 76.4%
8.2% 84.6%
RES * eLSuc * eLOC Valid Cases Missing Cases Total
N % N % N %
427 93.2 31 6.8 458 100
RES (Recommend e-learning system), eLSuc (Usefulness of e-learning system), eLOC (Outcome of e-learning system)

Improved software service is the factor that impacts positively and highest on web-based e-learn­
ing systems.

We used logistic regression method to analyze the relationships between TI, eLSuc, eLOC, and 42
independent variables. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient test result of .77 indicates reliability of the
measurements. The variables did contribute significantly with moderate to strong correlations
without outlier(s). Statistically, the model was fit to the data since the predictors consistently
distinguished Yes from No of TI & eLOC → eLSuc (p < .000), the Nagelkerke R2 explains 54.1%
variance in eLSuc, and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test was p = .933. For TI & eLSuc → eLOC, the
p < .000, Nagelkerke R2 of .247, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test of p = .889 suggest the model was
appropriately derived from the data. The overall success of 93.0% (TI & eLOC impact on eLSuc) and
87.4% (TI & eLSuc impact on eLOC) were correctly predicted.

H1 and H1a are statistically confirmed. However, TI impacts positively (p = 000, OR = 55.239,
β = 4.012) on eLSuc higher than on eLOC (p = 000, OR = 5.173). This implies that, when TI level
increases by 1 unit, features of eLSuc improve 55 times. This result is aligned with the findings of
Alkandari (2015) and Wang et al. (2019) who are of the view that innovations have made
e-learning systems more flexible, usable, interactive, and learning preferences. Technology inno­
vativeness influences the acceptance of an electronic learning system (Campbell & Ma, 2015), and
through an innovative technology interface, e-learning features such as system reliability, avail­
ability, and ease of use are improved (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020). For the positive impact of TI
(β = 1.643) on eLOC, Damanpour (2010) asserts that pursuing technological innovation effort
results in operational cost reduction and timely delivery of service that eventually maximize
value for customers. Statistically, hypotheses H1b and H1c are confirmed. The negative β values
indicate that decrease in the effort of product and process innovations would result in less
innovative product and/or service. Improved software service contributed positively and highest
(p = 000, OR = 2.744) to TI. Improved accessibility is not statistically confirmed (p = .495).

H2 is statistically confirmed (p = 007, OR = 3.354, β = 1.210). This implies that, when eLSuc level
increases by 1 unit, eLOC improves 3 times. According to Tseng et al. (2015), ease of use and
satisfaction of customers are improved when IT-facilitated innovative products and services are
offered. H2a (SQ p = .032, IQ p = .009, SeQ p = .001) is statistically confirmed. According to Adel
(2017), quality attributes impact the acceptance and adoption of an electronic learning technology
which in turn improves the satisfaction of users and continues use of that technology (Dreheeb
et al., 2016). The results also support findings of Cidral et al. (2018) where technical quality
features of a system contribute to effective functioning, total satisfaction, and usefulness.
Statistically, H2b (PU p = .003, PS p = .038) is confirmed. This result supports the findings of

Page 14 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Davis (1989) and Chen and Tseng (2012) that acceptance of an e-learning system is positively
influenced by a perceived ease of use and usefulness. H2c (Use p = .040) is statistically confirmed.
According to Davis (1989) and Van Raaij and Schepers (2008), the degree at which a learner
accepts and use an electronic learning system determines the success of the system. Their findings
support our result. An ease of use (p = 001, OR = 4.156), system understandability (p = .000,
OR = 4.128), relevance of information (p = .000, OR = 4.377), and service responsiveness (p = .003,
OR = 4.197) contributed the highest to e-learning success.

H3 is statistically confirmed (p = 007, OR = 3.354) where eLOC impacts positively on eLSuc. In

education, online learning has yielded significant outcomes in relation to successful course deliv­
ery, effective use of systems, and positive benefits to learners (Al-Fraihat et al., 2020). Our findings
affirm this. Statistically, hypothesis H3a is confirmed. Chang (2015) identified that e-learning leads
to cost savings and improves learning while Yengin et al. (2011) found user satisfaction and net
benefits as major determinants effective e-learning system. Our results corroborate with these
findings. Achieving learning goals contributed highest (p = 000, OR = 3.025) to eLOC. Improving
productivity is not statistically confirmed (p = .879).

Using different e-learning systems over a period of time results in achieving more benefits (Cidral
et al., 2018) and has influenced on determining whether e-learning system is innovative and useful
or not. 52% of valid cases responded of using two or three different forms of e-learning systems
and for a period of over one year, hence e-learning systems used were innovative. 61% of valid
cases responded that, usefulness and performance of e-learning system(s) are satisfactory, they
have obtained important benefit(s) from using it, and would strongly recommend its use. This
affirms the position of Kang et al (2018) who found that, usefulness, helpfulness, and overall
satisfaction of an electronic learning system influence users to recommend usage.

7. Contributions of the study

This study aimed at identifying and evaluating specific factors of technological innovation that
impact the usefulness of an e-learning system. Academically, this research impacts on the learning
and teaching aspects of education and contributes to the ongoing research on technology-
mediated learning and teaching methods. The main components of IS success model by DeLone
and McLean and Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM3) were incorporated into the developed
and tested context-based model. This offers further empirical investigation of the model in a quest
to obtain comprehensive understanding and advancing research on specific technology-mediated
learning and teaching theories.

When conducting this research, the educational systems globally were affected by COVID-19,
higher educational institutes had no choice than to use Online Learning Management Systems
(LMS) (e.g., Sakai, Moodle, Blackboard), and there was high implementation cost associated with
technology-mediated learning and teaching processes. The study provides insights on significant
issues that could contribute to the improvement of the usefulness of electronic learning systems.
For instance, technological innovations have made e-learning systems more flexible, usable,
interactive and a learning preference as the study indicates. In addition, acceptance of online
learning is influenced by technological innovations, and through an innovative technology inter­
face, the accessibility, dependability, and ease of use features of an e-learning system are
improved. Thus, there should be discrete initiative to exploit the unique capabilities of technolo­
gical innovations to boost the functional characteristics of online learning systems and the ensuing
benefits.

8. Research limitations and future work

Technological innovation was the focus of the study. We recommend including other categories of
innovation and as well extend the investigation to other tertiary institutions in developed coun­
tries. Students were the participants for the study. Including other stakeholders (e.g., instructors,
designers, implementers) in future research could enhance the findings. The proposed model could

Page 15 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729
be used as the base for further study since it does not capture complete determinants and
dimensions of the variables involved.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Author details
Asare Yaw Obeng1
E-mail: 51842475@mylife.unisa.ac.za
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8977-6942
Alfred Coleman2
1
Computer Science, Kumasi Technical University, Kumasi,
Ghana.
2
School of Computing, University of South Africa, Florida,
1710.
Citation information
Cite this article as: Evaluating the effects and outcome of
technological innovation on a web-based e-learning
system, Asare Yaw Obeng & Alfred Coleman, Cogent
Education (2020), 7: 1836729.
References
Abdellatief, M., Sultan, A. B. M., Jabar, M. A., & Abdullah, R.
(2011). A technique for quality evaluation of
e-learning from developers’ perspective. American
Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3
(1), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajebasp.2011.
157.164
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
Adel, R. (2017). Manage perceived e-learning quality in
Egyptian context. Total Quality Management and
Business Excellence, 28(5), 600–613. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14783363.2015.1103174
Aghaei, S., Nematbakhsh, M. A., & Farsani, H. K. (2012).
Evolution of the world wide web: From web 1.0 to
web 4.0. International Journal of Web & Semantic
Technology, 3(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5121/
ijwest.2012.3101
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masádeh, R., & 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
Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., & Sinclair, J. (2017). Identifying
success factors for e-learning in higher education.
International conference on e-learning (pp. 247–
255). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Ali, S., Uppal, M., & Gulliver, S. (2018). A conceptual fra­
mework highlighting e- learning implementation
barriers. Information Technology & People, 31(1),
156–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0246
Alkandari, B. (2015). An investigation of the factors
affecting students’ acceptance and intention to use
Elearning systems at Kuwait university: Developing
a technology acceptance model in E-learning envir­
onments [Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan
University].
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation
and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the science
review, prospective commentary, and guiding
framework. Journal of Management, 40(5),
1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0149206314527128
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.
Bassellier, G., & Benbasat, I. (2004). Business competence
of information technology professionals: Conceptual
development and influence on IT-business
partnerships. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 394–673. https://
doi.org/10.2307/25148659
Benitez-Amado, J., & Walczuch, R. M. (2012). Information
technology, the organizational capability of proactive
corporate environmental strategy and firm perfor­
mance: A resource-based analysis. European Journal
of Information Systems, 21(6), 664–679. https://doi.
org/10.1057/ejis.2012.14
Bergfors, M. E., & Larsson, A. (2009). Product and process
innovation in process industry: A new perspective on
development. Journal of Strategy and Management, 2(3),
261–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554250910982499
Campbell, C., & Ma, J. J. (2015). Looking forward, looking
back: Drawing on the past to shape the future of
marketing. Proceedings of the 2013 World Marketing
Congress.
Chang, V. (2015). The role and effectiveness of e-learning
for the industry. Lambert.
Chen, H. R., & Tseng, H. F. (2012). Factors that influence
acceptance of web-based E-learning systems for the
in-service education of junior high school teachers in
Taiwan. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(3),
398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.
2011.11.007
Cheng, Y.-M. (2012). The effects of information systems
quality on nurses’ acceptance of the electronic
learning system. Journal of Nursing Research, 20(1),
19-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.
0b013e31824777aa
Choudhury, S., & Pattnaik, S. (2020). Emerging themes in
e-learning: A review from the stakeholders’ perspec­
tive. Computers & Education, 144, 103657. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103657
Cidral, W. A., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M.
(2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian
empirical study. Computers and Education, 122,
273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.12.
001
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning,
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualita­
tive research (4th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Damanpour, F. (2010). An integration of research findings
of effects of firm size and market competition on
product and process innovations. British Journal of
Management, 21(4), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00628.x
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
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (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
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information sys­
tems success: The quest for the dependent variable.
Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95. https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.3.1.60
Ding, Y., & Straub, D. (2008). Quality of IS in services:
Theory and validation of constructs for service, infor­
mation, and system. ICIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper
101.
Page 16 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729
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
Elearning, 6(1), 13–25. doi: 10.17706/
ijeeee.2016.6.1.13-20
Eidizadeh, R., Salehzadeh, R., & Esfahani, A. C. (2017).
Analysing the role of business intelligence, knowl­
edge sharing and organisational innovation on gain­
ing competitive advantage. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 29(4), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JWL-07-2016-0070
Eom, S. (2015). Effects of self-efficacy and self-regulated
learning on LMS user satisfaction and LMS
effectiveness. AMCIS 2015 Proceedings.
Eom, S. B., & Ashill, N. J. (2018). A system’s view of e-
learning success model. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 16(1), 42–76. https://doi.org/
10.1111/dsji.12144
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. Journal of Online
Learning & Teaching, 11(2), 210-232.
Gorla, N., Somers, T. M., & Wong, B. (2010). Organizational
impact of system quality, information quality, and
service quality. Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 19(3), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsis.2010.05.001
Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (2014). Integrating user
interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM
for mobile learning in Cyber University. Journal of
Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 143–158.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-014-9081-2
Kang, J., Chun, H., Lee, S., Ha, J., Song, H. J., Kwon, I. H.,
Han, H. J., jeong, H., Kwon, H. N., Kim, T. H. (2018).
Development of an Observation Processing Package
for Data Assimilation in KIAPS. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Atmospheric Sciences, 54,303–318. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13143-018-0030–2
Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., & Ruokamo, H.
(2017). Teachers’ engagement and students’ satis­
faction with a playful learning environment. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 63, 274–284. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.018
Kolekar, S. V., Pai, R. M., & Manohara Pai, M. M. (2018).
Adaptive user interface for moodle based e-learning
system using learning styles. 3rd international con­
ference on computer science and computational
intelligence. Procedia Computer Science, 135,
606–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.
226
Lin, H. F. (2007). Measuring online learning systems suc­
cess: Applying the updated DeLone and McLean
model. Cyber Psychology and Behaviour, 10(6),
817–820. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9948
Liu, L. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., D., W., & Kuo, C. H. (2010).
Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that
affect intention to use an online learning community.
Computers & Education, 54(2), 600–610. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009
Mtebe, J. S., & Raphael, C. (2018). Key factors in learners’
satisfaction with the e-learning system at the
University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 4. https://
doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2993
Ngafeeson, M. N., & Sun, J. (2015). The effects of tech­
nology innovativeness and system exposure on stu­
dent acceptance of e-textbooks. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 14(1),
55–71. https://doi.org/10.28945/2101
Nielsen, J. (2012). Usability 101: Introduction to Usability.
Retrieved February 10, 2020, from https://www.
nngroup.com/articles/usability-101-introduction-to-
usability/
Obeng, A. Y., & Boachie, E. (2018). The impact of IT-
technological innovation on the productivity of
a bank’s employee. Cogent Business & Management,
5(1), 1470449. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.
2018.1470449
OECD. (2005). Oslo manual: proposed guidelines for col­
lecting and interpreting technological innovation data
(3rd ed.).
OECD. (2010). OECD information technology outlook 2010,
organisation for economic co-operation and
development.
Parasuraman, A. (2010). Service productivity, quality and
innovation: Implications for service-design practice
and research. International Journal of Quality and
Service Sciences, 2(3), 277–286. https://doi.org/10.
1108/17566691011090026
Parvathia, M., & Mariselvi, R. (2017). A bird’s eye on the
evolution – Web 1.0 to Web 5.0: Lib 1.0 to Lib 5.0.
International Journal of Advance Research Trends in
Engineering and Technology, 4(4), 167–176.
Petter, S., DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (2008). Measuring
information systems success: Models, dimensions,
measures, and interrelationships. European Journal
of Information Systems, 17(3), 236–263. https://doi.
org/10.1057/ejis.2008.15
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
Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of
the DeLone and McLean model of IS success.
Information Systems Research, 8(3), 240–253. https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.8.3.240
Su, Z., & Tang, J. (2016). Product innovation, cost-cutting
and firm economic performance in the post-crisis
context: Canadian micro evidence. Journal of
Centrum Cathedra, 9(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.
1108/JCC-08-2016-0009
Tseng, M.-L., Lin, Y. H., Lim, M. K., & Teehankee, B. L.
(2015). Using a hybrid method to evaluate service
innovation in the hotel industry. Applied Soft
Computing, 28, 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
asoc.2014.11.048
Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance
and use of a virtual learning environment in China.
Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001
Venkatesh, V., Windeler, J. B., Bartol, K. M., &
Williamson, I. O. (2017). Person-organization and
person-job fit perceptions of new IT employees: Work
outcomes and gender differences. 41(2), 525-558.
doi: 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.2.09
Vieira, J., & Isaías, P. (2015). Web 3.0 in web develop­
ment. In T. Issa & P. Isaia (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence
Technologies and the Evolution of Web 3.0 (pp.
209–228). IGI Global.
Walker, S. L., & Fraser, B. J. (2005). Development and
validation of an instrument for assessing distance
education learning environments in higher educa­
tion: The distance education learning environments
survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research, 8
(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-
1568-3
Wang, L.-Y.-K., Lew, S.-L., Lau, S.-H., & Leow, M.-C. (2019).
Usability factors predicting continuance of intention
to use cloud e-learning application. Heliyon, 5(6),
Page 17 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

e01788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.
e01788
Wentling, T. L., Waight, C., Gallahar, J., Fleur, J. L., & Wang.
(2000). E-learning: A review of literature. Knowledge
and Learning Systems Group, NCSA, 9, 1-73
Yengin, I., Karahoca, A., & Karahoca, D. (2011). E-learning
success model for instructors’ satisfactions in per­
spective of interaction and usability outcomes.
Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1396–1403. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procs.2011.01.021

Appendix A.
Variables and Logistic Regression Analysis Results

Predi Determi β SE(β) Wald χ2 df ρ eβ (OR) Out

ctors nants come
TI
PDI1 Improved .427 .193 4.876 1 .027 1.532 Confir
technical med
specifica
tions
PDI2 Improved .804 .213 14.221 1 .000 2.234 Confir
compon med
ents
PDI3 User .843 .225 14.031 1 .000 2.324 Confir
friend med
liness
PRI1 Improved .156 .228 .465 1 .495 1.168 Not
access
ibility
PRI2 Improved .466 .212 4.809 1 .028 1.593 Confir
techni med
ques
PRI3 Improved 1.009 .221 20.898 1 .000 2.744 Confir
software med
service
eLSuc
SQ1 Ease to 1.031 .291 12.516 1 .000 2.804 Confir
learn med
SQ2 System 1.290 .420 9.446 1 .002 3.632 Confir
response med
time
SQ3 Ease of 1.424 .417 11.671 1 .001 4.156 Confi
use rmed
SQ4 System 1.418 .369 14.790 1 .000 4.128 Confir
under med
stand
ability
SQ5 System −.450 .319 1.992 1 .158 .638 Not
avail
ability
SQ6 System −.152 .299 .260 1 .610 .859 Not
reliability
IQ1 Content .696 .308 5.097 1 .024 2.005 Confir
design med
quality
IQ2 Usability .263 .315 .697 1 .404 1.301 Not
of infor
mation
IQ3 Complete .118 .323 .134 1 .715 1.126 Not
ness of
infor
mation

(Continued)

Page 18 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

Predi Determi β SE(β) Wald χ2 df ρ eβ (OR) Out

ctors nants come
IQ4 Accuracy .887 .361 6.047 1 .014 2.428 Confir
of infor med
mation
IQ5 Time .365 .385 .902 1 .342 1.441 Not
liness of
infor
mation
IQ6 Relevance 1.476 .395 13.953 1 .000 4.377 Confir
of infor med
mation
SeQ1 Service 1.434 .478 9.010 1 .003 4.197 Confir
responsi med
veness
SeQ2 Service −.842 .346 5.909 1 .015 .431 Confir
relia med
bility
SeQ3 Service −.195 .359 .294 1 .587 .823 Not
help
provision
SeQ4 Service −.194 .378 .262 1 .608 .824 Not
flexibility
SeQ5 Service −.706 .339 4.331 1 .037 .494 Confir
accuracy med
SeQ6 Service −1.580 .463 11.624 1 .001 .206 Confir
accessi med
bility
PU1 Accom .448 .420 1.135 1 .287 1.565 Not
plishing
tasks
quickly
PU2 Improv 1.062 .355 8.938 1 .003 2.892 Confir
ing med
learning
perfor
mance
PU3 Effective .106 .309 .117 1 .733 1.111 Not
learning
PU4 Overall 1.218 .386 9.981 1 .002 3.380 Confir
useful med
ness
PS1 Provision −1.357 .427 10.102 1 .001 .257 Confir
of educa med
tional
needs
PS2 Overall −.028 .266 .011 1 .916 .972 Not
satis
faction of
useful
ness
PS3 Perfor .663 .316 4.406 1 .036 1.941 Confir
mance med
satis
faction
PS4 Enjoyable −.814 .348 5.489 1 .019 .443 Confir
exper med
ience

(Continued)

Page 19 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

(Continued)

Predi Determi β SE(β) Wald χ2 df ρ eβ (OR) Out

ctors nants come
Use1 Freq −.817 .341 5.749 1 .016 .442 Confir
uency of med
use
Use2 Depen −.897 .319 7.896 1 .005 .408 Confir
dence on med
system
Use3 Duration .404 .280 2.081 1 .149 1.498 Not
of system
use
Use4 Suitability −2.204 .580 14.453 1 .000 .110 Confir
of system med
use
eLOC
BF1 Easier .424 .115 13.561 1 .000 1.528 Confir
inter med
action
and
communi
cation
BF2 Risk .486 .122 15.865 1 .000 1.625 Confir
minimi med
zation
BF3 Improv −.307 .145 4.474 1 .034 .736 Confir
ing med
learning
pro
cess
BF4 Time and −.557 .171 10.640 1 .001 .573 Confir
cost med
saving
BF5 Improv −.020 .134 .023 1 .879 .980 Not
ing
produc
tivity
BF6 Achiev 1.107 .292 14.397 1 .000 3.025 Confir
ing med
learning
goals
CI = Confidence interval; df = Degree of freedom; OR = Odds ratio; SE = Standard error

Page 20 of 21
Yaw Obeng & Coleman, Cogent Education (2020), 7: 1836729
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1836729

© 2020 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Cogent Education (ISSN: 2331-186X) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
• Download and citation statistics for your article
• Rapid online publication
• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
• Retention of full copyright of your article
• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com

Page 21 of 21