21st International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA, 16-18 March 2022

Exploring factors influencing the e-learning system

success: a student perspective

Teodora Lolic, Veljko Ilic*, Sonja Ristic, Danijela Ciric Lalic, Sara Havzi
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad
Novi Sad, Serbia
teodora.lolic@uns.ac.rs, veljko.ilic.miep@uns.ac.rs, sdristic@uns.ac.rs, danijela.ciric@uns.ac.rs, havzisara@uns.ac.rs

Abstract—This paper presents research aimed at examining the

crucial factors influencing the e-learning system’s success at the A. E-learning systems
University of Novi Sad, Serbia. To assess and analyze the Learning through the e-learning systems is one of many
experience in using the system data were collected from 863 education methods that allows flexible learner-centered
2022 21st International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH) | 978-1-6654-3778-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/INFOTEH53737.2022.9751341

students. Collected data were analyzed using different statistical
methods. Results led us to the identification of essential factors
for measuring the acceptance of an e-learning system.
Furthermore, the combination of DeLone and McLean, UTAUT,
and the Workforce agility model led us to the definition of new
relations among e-learning system success factors. Accordingly,
in the end, we provided results including new model and
relationships within, together with the implications for using our
findings.
Keywords- E-learning; UTAUT; D&M; WA; IS Acceptance
I. INTRODUCTION
Covid-19 emergence has affected almost every area of
peoples’ lives and thus has completely changed the way of
living. The unexpected closure of educational institutions
because of the Covid-19 pandemic prompted the authorities to
suggest adopting alternatives to traditional learning methods to
ensure students are not left without studying [1].
Consequently, e-learning has become the most popular way
to teach and transfer knowledge, and researchers have focused
on exploring new ways to improve it. Accordingly, our
motivation arises to investigate the factors that affect the
performance of e-learning systems, observing the constructs
from different models of technology acceptance mentioned
later in the paper. The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
Sect. two sets the groundwork for the rest of the paper. It
presents the authors’ previous work and explains key concepts
such as e-learning and our intended models. In sect. three, we
set hypotheses examined later in the paper according to the
topic. Sect. four presents and discusses the methodology used
to analyze data, data collection procedure, and basic
demographics to categorize participants. Sect. five shows the
statistical data analysis of the obtained results. In sect. six, the
discussion takes place. Finally, sect. seven represents the
paper’s conclusion, together with the future work implied.
II. BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
This section sets theoretical background followed by
previous research which led to hypotheses development.
education. E-learning provides an inter-disciplinary approach
to information technology and educational engineering. Both
teachers and students have benefited from e-learning [6]. There
are different technologies that instructors can use as tools for e-
learning. Still, with the internet’s increased development, the
concept of e-learning has been completed and generally refers
to cases in which learning is done through the internet [7].
E-learning has become a mandatory learning method for all
educational institutions due to Covid-19 [8]. This change
opened many doors for researchers worldwide to analyze how
effective current e-learning methods are.
Observing the past two decades, traditional learning was
enriched with a whole range of new learning principles. We are
witnessing this change of the conventional learning
encompassed with mobile learning (m-learning), Massive Open
Online Courses (MOOCs), Personal Learning Environments
(PLEs), Flipped classrooms, learning entertained by games,
etc. These concepts have affected the learning environment
digitalization through the years [9-13].
For the past thirty years, researchers have been debating the
success of information systems (IS) [3]. The research began
with the DeLone & McLean IS Success Model. Since then,
model updates have been proposed, and many other models for
measuring IS success [14]. For this research, in conformity
with our previous study, three of them are found to be the most
suitable: The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology (UTAUT); The DeLone & McLean IS Succes
Model and Workforce Agility (WA).
1) UTAUT
UTAUT is a framework devised by Venkatesh et al. to
predict technology acceptance in organizational settings.
UTAUT (Fig. 1) advances to integrate the dominant constructs
of eight prior models that range from human behavior to
computer science [15]. UTAUT constructs observed in this
work are:
• Performance Expectancy (PE),
• Effort Expectancy (EE),

978-1-6654-3778-3/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Mississippi State University Libraries. Downloaded on March 26,2023 at 10:24:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 • Social Influence (SI),
• Facilitating Conditions (FC),
• Behavioral Intention (BI),
• Use Behavior (UB).
Figure 1. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology [16]
Performance Expectancy is defined as the degree to which
an individual believes that using the system will help them in
better learning performance [16]. Effort Expectancy is defined
as the degree of ease associated with the use of the system [16].
Social Influence is defined as the degree to which an individual
perceives that significant others believe they should use an e-
learning system. The construct contains a notion that an
individual’s behavior is influenced by how one believes others
will view them as a result of using an e-learning platform [17].
Construct Facilitating Conditions represent the
organizational and technical infrastructure supporting the
system’s use [18].
Behavioral Intention refers to the motivational factors that
influence a given behavior where the stronger the intention to
perform the behavior, the more likely the behavior will be
performed [19].
2) The DeLone & McLean IS Success Model (D&M)
To provide a general and comprehensive definition of
information systems success covering different evaluation
perspectives, authors DeLone and McLean reviewed the
existing definitions of IS success and their corresponding
measures. Thus, they created a multidimensional measuring
model with interdependencies between the different success
categories [20]. D&M model is presented in Fig. 2.
The success dimension Service Quality (SeQ) represents
the quality of the support that the users receive from the IS
department and information technology (IT) support personnel,
such as, for example, training, hotline, or helpdesk. This
construct enhances the updated D&M IS Success Model that
was not part of the original model [21].
System Quality (SQ) constitutes the desirable
characteristics of an IS and, thus, subsumes measures of the IS
itself. These measures typically focus on usability aspects and
performance characteristics of the system under examination
[22].
Authorized licensed use limited to: Mississippi State University Libraries. Downloaded on March 26,2023 at 10:24:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The success dimension Net Benefits (NB) constitutes how
IS contributes to the different stakeholders’ success. This
construct subsumes the former individual impact and
organizational impact of the original D&M IS Success Model.
Figure 2. DeLone & McLean updated model [12]
The effects on System Use (SU) at the organizational level
are largely uninvestigated. The impact of User Satisfaction on
System Use in an organizational context, for example, has not
been covered by a single study. Only the effect of System
Quality has been covered in a sufficiently high number of
studies. The results, however, are somewhat inconclusive as
positive, negative, mixed, and non-significant relations were
found [21].
3) Workforce Agility
Workforce Agility (WA) can be defined as the speed of
action and flexibility to change [8]. Workforces can be
considered agile if they proactively innovate and develop their
skills, even before they need those skills. [23]. An agile
workforce should be flexible, efficient, and fast in any work
environment. [24]. In 2008, Sherehy et al. [25] suggested a
model of Workforce Agility based on The Theory of Work
Adjustment and Person-environment-correspondence
counseling [26]. This model has three factors: proactivity,
adaptability, and resilience.
Proactivity refers to the situation where a person initiates
activities that positively affect the work environment. Some
examples are predicting problems associated with workplace
changes, actuating activities actions that lead to solving
change-related problems and work refinements, solving issues
related to change, etc.
Adaptability can be defined as a person’s ability to change
itself and its behavior to fit in a new work environment as best
as possible. Adaptability implies constant learning of new
skills, technologies, and procedures. It also means professional
flexibility, including persons’ ability to take a different role,
easy role switching, and the ability to work on various tasks in
other teams simultaneously [23].
Resilience indicates a persons’ ability to function under
constant stress despite work environment changes efficiently.
This factor includes the following traits: a positive attitude
towards changes, new ideas, and technologies, built up a
tolerance to unpredicted and uncertain situations, different
opinions and approaches, stress resistance.
B. Previous research results
One of the main things directly correlated with the e-
learning system’s success is students’ motivation to use it. An
empirical study of the factors influencing students using e-
learning systems was conducted at the University of Novi Sad
(UNS). Students were asked to rate their experience on the e-
learning system called “Moodle eLLab.”. Authors’ [3] have
examined four measures’ (Performance Expectancy, Effort
Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions)
influencing students’ Behavioral Intention. The results have
shown that only Social Influence out of the four mentioned
factors does not affect students’ Behavioral Intention.
Another study [4] presented research regarding students’
acceptance of the e-learning system at the Faculty of Technical
Sciences – FTN, University of Novi Sad. Factors from the
Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology -
UTAUT were examined to identify the influence on students’
System Usage. They have shown that all the experimental
factors affect System Usage.
To explore the changes in the acceptance and use of the e-
learning system, Lolic et al. [5] conducted longitudinal
research about students’ acceptance of the e-learning system.
More precisely, the study observed 291 participants in the three
years of e-learning system use. In this paper, the UTAUT
model showed weakness through time. Instead of strengthening
the Performance Expectancy in later usage, this factor became
weaker. It also proposes an extended UTAUT model, adding
User satisfaction as an essential factor, contributing to system
acceptance.
III. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Having all the previously presented models and their
factors in mind, we propose eight following hypotheses:
A. H1: Behavioral Intention has a positive effect on the Use
Behavior
Some researchers studied the relationship between BI and
UB, where BI led to UB [3]. In [27], researchers examined the
integration of e-learning systems in Iraq and found that BI
significantly affects students’ UB. Researchers developed a
reward system within another research [28] and voluntary
usage of e-learning systems. Students were motivated to finish
their online tasks to get extra points in this reward system.
Therefore, we assume students will try harder to make specific
user behavior with the increase of BI.
B. H2: Use Behavior has a positive effect on the System
Usage
Previous research [29-30] has shown a strong and
significant relationship between UB and SU. These two papers
consider education in developing countries (Peru and Nigeria)
where students do not have access to traditional education and
are forced to use e-learning and mobile learning platforms.
Inspired by this, we also investigate the influence of UB on SU
in the e-learning environment.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Mississippi State University Libraries. Downloaded on March 26,2023 at 10:24:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
C. H3: Information Quality (IQ) has a positive effect on the
System Usage
Research articles have not devoted much attention to the
link between IQ and SU. The definition in [21] states that IQ is
often seen as a critical antecedent of User satisfaction;
therefore, we wanted to test its effect on SU.
D. H4: System Quality has a positive effect on the System
Usage
The success dimension SeQ constitutes the desirable
characteristics of an IS and, thus, subsumes measures of the IS
itself. These measures typically focus on usability aspects and
performance characteristics of the system under examination
[21]. A prevalent measure is perceived ease of use, positively
affecting SU.
E. H5: Service Quality has a positive effect on the System
Usage
Providing information is an essential service of an IS
department, and it should be concerned with the quality of
service it delivers. Thus, we believe that an IS unit’s
effectiveness can be partially assessed by its capability to
provide quality service to its users. [31] Similarly, we think
that SeQ has a meaningful contribution to SU.
F. H6: Workforce Agility has a positive effect on the System
Usage
Adapting employees’ skills to new demands that the
workspace imposes affects their satisfaction. Satisfaction
results from matching users’ needs and abilities with
workplaces’ demands. In the end, satisfaction and feeling of
accomplishment contribute to their results [23]. To investigate
the influence of the students’ agility in the e-learning
environment, we test the relationship between WA and SU.
G. H7: Use Behavior has a positive effect on the Net Benefits
UB is the habit or rut of a person to use information
technology [32]. Keeping in mind that this factor depends on
all the other factors in the UTAUT model and shows e-learning
systems acceptance, we assume that it positively affects NB.
H. H8: System Use has a positive effect on the Net Benefits
When users of the system have the intention to use the
system, that implies their satisfaction in usage. On the other
hand, we assume that SU will contribute to NB eventually. Due
to the previous research, we propose testing the influence of
SU on NB.
IV. METHODOLOGY
This research aims to investigate which factors influence
students’ usage of the e-learning system. The goal is to
discover relationships that imply possibilities for improving the
system and the whole learning process.
A. Measures
The indicators and constructs of the conceptual model have
been determined based on previous research on information
systems’ success [16, 21, 23, 33-34].
B. Participants
The research was conducted on a sample of UNS students
in 2020. Data collection was done electronically through an
online survey. There were 863 respondents, but after applying
the non-engaged bias method, we finally included 821
responses. The demographic characteristics of the examinees
were divided into seven groups: age, gender, study program,
daily internet usage, daily internet usage for educational
purposes, years of experience in e-learning, and everyday use
of the e-learning system. The descriptive analysis of the
respondents is summarized in Table 1.
Next, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to
statistically confirm a definition of dimensions by manifest
variables. We used this analysis to confirm the conceptual
model and hypotheses. A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
[37] has been conducted based on the CFA.
A. Identifying the factor structure
On the e-learning-supported courses, students needed to use
the system to access materials, do tests, commit projects, and
communicate with their teachers, especially because of Covid-
19.
For this reason, the dimension Voluntariness of Use from
the UTAUT model is not being observed because its role is
insignificant for this research. Following that, we have
researched the relationships between other constructs of the
UTAUT model.

C. Sample and data collection procedure
This e-learning platform was developed in the framework
of the Erasmus+ MILETUS project, where the University of
Novi Sad was one of the partners. Since 2018, the platform has
been used for various training courses within the project and
the selected academic courses of the Faculty of Technical
Sciences and the Faculty of Technology starting with the
summer semester of 2018/2019. The service is available to all
interested teachers, associates, and students of UNS [35].
The questionnaire was sent to 1622 students. In the end,
863 valid replies were collected, which is a 53.2 % response
rate. Only fully filled questionnaires were considered. First
data screening showed that 42 participants had a standard
deviation below 0.5. This removed them from further analysis
to minimize non-engage bias [36], leaving us with 821
questionnaires to analyze.
In this analysis, 39.6% of participants declared themselves
female, while 60.4% were male. Participants were split into
four age groups: younger than 23 (91.6%); between 24 and 28
(6.9%); between 29 and 33 (1%) and older than 33 (0.5%).
V. RESULTS
We analyzed the results after the data collection and the
non-engagement bias method. First, we did Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) to identify the structure of factors by
examining the correlation matrices.
TABLE I. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Factor analysis was done iteratively until an adequate
model and factor structure that satisfies all the criteria shown in
the previous steps was made. At the end of the factor analysis
process, we eliminated seven factors from UTAUT and D&M
and 17 other indicators because they have built other constructs
that are not important for this research. The final model
consisted of 7 factors and 35 indicators/variables.
B. Reliability and validity assessment
Calculated Cronbach’s alpha values for each dimension are:
BI = 0.977, WA = 0.895, NB = 0.959, UB = 0.871, SeQ =
0.978, SU = 0.869 and SQ = 0.913. Cronbach’s alpha is used to
determine reliability of measurement instruments. According to
Hair [39], minimal criteria for each dimension to be valid is
0.60, concluding that all our dimensions satisfy aforementioned
criteria.
Furthermore, reliability and convergent validity of factors
are estimated using Composite Reliability (CR) and Average
Variance Extracted (AVE). All coefficients of Cronbach’s
alpha values and CR values satisfy a minimal criteria value of -
0.70, as suggested by [39]. All the measured CR values were
higher than AVE for each factor, which means that all of the
factors in the measurement model have adequate convergent
validity. Average variations are above 0.50. According to [38],
more than half of the variations observed as indicators were
calculated with their factor hypothesis. Discriminant value can
be estimated by testing AVE, MSV, and ASV. According to
[39], if MSV has the highest value of those three, it leads to
discriminant importance.

Mean SD α CR AVE MSV ASV BI WA NB UB SeQ SU SQ

BI 3.64 1.37 .977 .977 .935 .517 .364 .967
WA 3.62 .87 .895 .901 .536 .437 .330 .579 .732
NB 3.08 1.20 .959 .939 .720 .517 .383 .719 .661 .849
UB 3.43 .94 .871 .859 .549 .484 .369 .696 .608 .636 .741
SeQ 3.81 1.01 .978 .982 .915 .289 .249 .466 .520 .533 .538 .956
SU 3.55 1.03 .869 .904 .702 .349 .285 .583 .539 .585 .591 .409 .838
SQ 3.87 1.01 .913 .932 .820 .315 .281 .540 .528 .560 .561 .516 .467 .906

Authorized licensed use limited to: Mississippi State University Libraries. Downloaded on March 26,2023 at 10:24:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 To recapitulate, the measurement model had adequate Hypothesis 1: BI has a positive effect on UB is confirmed.
reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. All of Results of this model indicate that BI is the most crucial
the mentioned results are presented in Table 1. component from the aspect of measurement of technology
acceptance and usage. BI has an indirect effect on NB through
C. Structural model UB and SU.
The model consists of eight constructs. The goal was to Hypothesis 2: UB has a positive effect on SU is confirmed.
examine relationships between constructs suggested by the This indicates that different materials like quizzes,
model using the collected data. All constructs had suitability assignments, video materials, etc., have an impact on whether
indexes which are shown in Table 2. students will have success using the platform or not.
Hypothesis 3: IQ has a positive effect on SU is denied.
TABLE II. SUITABILITY INDEXES Presented research showed IQ has no significant influence on
SU. Observing the participants’ responses, descriptive statistics
showed that students find IQ an essential factor. On the other
Model Χ2/df GFI NFI CFI RMSEA PCLOSE
Meas.
hand, since students are learning from the materials provided
model
1.981 .938 .967 .983 .035 1.000 on the e-learning platform, they see all this information as
Struc.
2.743 .917 .953 .970 .046 .985
necessary; therefore, it does not influence the actual use. The
model presence of this factor resulted as non-significant in the EFA
Less, Closer to analysis.
Recom.
the >0.90 >0.90 >0.95 >0.08 1, the
value
better better Hypothesis 4: SQ has a positive effect on SU is confirmed.
Looking at the Table 2, we can conclude that all the values Logically, when users encounter problems while using the e-
are in the acceptable range, which further indicates a good learning platform, it will reduce their chance of returning to it.
Also, if the platform is complicated for the student to use, they
fitting of models. will most likely avoid using it for materials.
All paths, coefficients, p-values, z-results and explanation Hypothesis 5: SeQ has a positive effect on SU is confirmed.
of variance are shown in Fig. 3. All obtained values for path Human beings are social species. That means if the IT service
coefficients are above recommended values of 0.20 [40], is caring and willing to help when cooperating with students,
except one path (between IQ and SU). students will have an easier time learning to use and using the
platform.
VI. DISCUSSION Hypothesis 6: WA has a positive effect on SU is confirmed.
Research instrument used in this paper was tested with EFA If students’ skills are proactively adapted to use the platform,
This analysis indicatedthe existence of five strong dimensions they will have a much easier use, fulfilling their tasks more
of acceptance and usage of information systems. As previously manageable. This results in greater SU among students because
said, all of these dimensions were taken from 3 pre-chosen they will use the platform to make their work easier.
models: UTAUT, The DeLone & McLean IS Succession Hypothesis 7: UB has a positive effect on NB is confirmed.
Model and the Workforce Agility model. Like UBs’ effect on SU, materials like video lessons, quizzes,
results have shown a high degree of reliability and validity and introductions positively affect NB.
of dimension relationships in a proposed measurement model, Hypothesis 8: SU has a positive effect on NB is confirmed.
apart from one relationship between IQ and SU, marked with a Results have shown that if more users interact with the
dashed line in Fig. 3. platform (number of transactions, number of site visits, etc.),
NB benefits are more significant.
Designers of e-learning systems should pay special
attention to the expectations of the system when it comes to
SU. Students should be conscious that the usage of e-learning VII. CONCLUSION
systems will be useful in their learning process and that it will In this paper, we present the results of research on factors
upgrade their performance and make their learning easier [4]. that influence the e-learning system success from a student
perspective Three IS Success models were combined (UTAUT,
D&M, and WA) to analyze data from 863 students currently
studying at UNS.
Research results confirmed seven out of eight proposed
hypotheses. It must be emphasized that some of them were
completely new and not tested anywhere before.
Acknowledging this, we think these results can serve as a
starting point for the subsequent research papers about other
new and unresearched relations. The research results could be
used also as a reference point for other researchers regarding
the measurement of IS quality and IQ.
Figure 3. Structural model Furthermore, the model created and tested for this research
can be used to estimate the acceptance and usage of e-learning

Authorized licensed use limited to: Mississippi State University Libraries. Downloaded on March 26,2023 at 10:24:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
systems from the students’ perspective. This research should
provide feedback to professors and system developers on
which aspects of the system they should focus.
REFERENCES
[1] Maatuk, A. M., Elberkawi, E. K., Aljawarneh, S., Rashaideh, H., &
Alharbi, H. (2021). The COVID-19 Pandemic and E-learning:
Challenges and Opportunities from the Perspective of Students and
Instructors. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 1-18.
[2] Ehlers, U.‐D.; Hilera, J. R. Special Issue on quality in e‐learning. Journal
of Computer Assisted Learning, 2012, 28.1: 1-3.
[3] Lolic, T., Dionísio, R., Ciric, D., Ristic, S., & Stefanovic, D. (2020,
March). Factors Influencing Students Usage of an e-Learning System:
Evidence from IT Students. In Proceedings on 25th International Joint
Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management–
IJCIEOM: The Next Generation of Production and Service Systems (p.
205). Springer Nature.
[4] Lolić, T., Ristić, S., Stefanović, D., & Marjanović, U. (2018).
Acceptance of e-learning system at Faculty of Technical Sciences. In
Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems
(pp. 47-54). Faculty of Organization and Informatics Varazdin.
[5] Lolic, T., Stefanovic, D., Dionisio, R., Маrjanovic, U., Havzi, S. (2021).
Assessing Engineering Students’ Acceptance of an E- Leaning System:
A Longitudinal Study, Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 3, no. 37, pp. 1-12. ISSN:
0949-149X/91.
[6] Lee, J. K., & Lee, W. K. (2008). The relationship of e-Learner’s self-
regulatory efficacy and perception of e-Learning environmental quality.
Computers in human Behavior, 24(1), 32-47.
[7] Hassanzadeh, A., Kanaani, F., & Elahi, S. (2012). A model for
measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert systems
with Applications, 39(12), 10959-10966.
[8] Breu, K., Hemingway, C. J., Strathern, M., & Bridger, D. (2002).
Workforce agility: the new employee strategy for the knowledge
economy. Journal of Information technology, 17(1), 21-31.
[9] Lolic, T., Stefanovic, D., Dionisio, R., Dakic, D., & Havzi, S. (2020).
Learning Environment Digital Transformation: Systematic Literature
Review. In Inf. Syst. Conf (pp. 1-9).
[10] Rakic, S., Pavlovic, M., Softic, M., Lalic, B., and Marjanovic, U. “An
Evaluation of Student Performance at e-Learning Platform,” in: J.
František (Ed.), 17th International Conference on Emerging eLearning
Technologies and Applications (ICETA), 2019, pp. 681–686, doi:
10.1109/ICETA48886.2019.9040066.
[11] Lalic, B., Majstorovic, V., Marjanovic, U., Delić, M., and Tasic, N. “The
Effect of Industry 4.0 Concepts and E-learning on Manufacturing Firm
Performance: Evidence from Transitional Economy,” in: H. Lödding, R.
Riedel, K.-D. Thoben, G. von Cieminski, D. Kiritsis (Eds.), IFIP WG
5.7 International Conference APMS, 2017, vol. 513, pp. 298–305, doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-66923-6_35.
[12] Marjanovic, U., Delić, M., and Lalic, B. “Developing a model to assess
the success of e-learning systems: evidence from a manufacturing
company in transitional economy,” Inf. Syst. E-bus. Manag., vol. 14, no.
2, pp. 253–272, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s10257-015-0282-7.
[13] Rakic, S., Softic, S., Vilkas, M., Lalic, B., and Marjanovic, U.“Key
Indicators for Student Performance at the E-Learning Platform: An Sna
Approach,” in ICETA 2018 - 16th IEEE International Conference on
Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications, Proceed-ings,
2018. https://doi.org/10.1109/iceta.2018.8572236.
[14] Stefanovic, D., Spasojevic, I., Havzi, S., Lolic, T., & Ristic, S. (2020,
January). Information systems success models in the e-learning context:
A systematic literature review. In Annals of DAAAM and Proceedings
of the International DAAAM Symposium (Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 555-564).
[15] Chang, A. (2012). UTAUT and UTAUT 2: A review and agenda for
future research. The Winners, 13(2), 10-114.
[16] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
quarterly, 425-478.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Mississippi State University Libraries. Downloaded on March 26,2023 at 10:24:32 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[17] Kijsanayotin, B., Pannarunothai, S., & Speedie, S. M. (2009). Factors
influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand’s
community health centers: Applying the UTAUT model. International
journal of medical informatics, 78(6), 404-416.
[18] Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Applying the UTAUT to understand factors
affecting the use of English e-learning websites in Taiwan. Sage Open,
3(4), 2158244013503837.
[19] Behavioral change models. The Theory of Planned Behavior. (n.d.).
Retrieved October 8, 2021, from https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-
modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/BehavioralChangeTheories3.html.
[20] DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success:
The quest for the dependent variable. Information systems research,
3(1), 60-95.
[21] Urbach, N., & Müller, B. (2012). The updated DeLone and McLean
model of information systems success. In Information systems theory
(pp. 1-18). Springer, New York, NY.
[22] Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 319-340.
[23] Lolić, T. (2021). The extended information systems success model.
University of Novi Sad.
[24] Forsythe, C. (1997). Human factors in agile manufacturing: a brief
overview with emphasis on communications and information
infrastructure. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing &
Service Industries, 7(1), 3-10.
[25] Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W., & Layer, J. K. (2007). A review of
enterprise agility: Concepts, frameworks, and attributes. International
Journal of industrial ergonomics, 37(5), 445-460.
[26] Dawis, R. V. (2005). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment.
[27] Ameen, N., Willis, R., Abdullah, M. N., & Shah, M. (2019). Towards
the successful integration of e‐learning systems in higher education in
Iraq: A student perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology,
50(3), 1434-1446.
[28] Estriegana, R., Medina-Merodio, J. A., & Barchino, R. (2019). Student
acceptance of virtual laboratory and practical work: An extension of the
technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 135, 1-14.
[29] Maldonado, U. P. T., Khan, G. F., Moon, J., & Rho, J. J. (2011).
E‐learning motivation and educational portal acceptance in developing
countries. Online Information Review.
[30] Chaka, J. G., & Govender, I. (2017). Students’ perceptions and readiness
towards mobile learning in colleges of education: A Nigerian
perspective. South African Journal of Education, 37(1), 1-12.
[31] Pitt, L. F., Watson, R. T., & Kavan, C. B. (1995). Service quality: a
measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS quarterly, 173-187.
[32] Handoko, B. L. (2019). Technology acceptance model in higher
education online business. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 22(5),
1-9.
[33] 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.
[34] Vicki McKinney, Kanghyun Yoon, Fatemeh “Mariam” Zahedi (2002)
The Measurement of Web-Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation and
Disconfirmation Approach. Information Systems Research 13(3):296-
315.
[35] Platforma za e-učenje uns-A / e-learning platform of the uns. SOVA.
(n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2021, from
https://sova.uns.ac.rs/login/index.php.
[36] Nunnally, J. C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill
education.
[37] Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics,
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
[38] Straub, D. (2012). Editor’s comments: does MIS have native theories?.
MIS quarterly, iii-xii.
[39] Hair Jr, J. F. Multivariate Data Analysis Joseph F. Hair Jr. William C.
Black Barry J. Babin Rolph E. Anderson Seventh Edition.
[40] Chin, W. Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS
Q.[Internet]. 1998 [Access Jun 10, 2015]; 22 (1): 7-1