Accepted Manuscript

Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The

General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning approach

Chang Ching-Ter, Chia-Rong Su, Jeyhun Hajiyev

PII: S0360-1315(17)30093-3
DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010
Reference: CAE 3166

To appear in: Computers & Education

Received Date: 19 December 2016

Revised Date: 10 April 2017
Accepted Date: 13 April 2017

Please cite this article as: Ching-Ter C., Su C.-R. & Hajiyev J., Examining the students’ behavioral
intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-
learning approach, Computers & Education (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The General
Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning approach

Jeyhun Hajiyev*

PT
Department of Information Management, Chang Gung University. 259
Wen-Hwa 1st Road, Kwei-Shan Tao-Yuan, Taiwan.

RI
Email: ceyhunhajiyev@gmail.com

SC
Biography

Jeyhun Hajiyev is a Ph.D student in Graduate Institute of Business and Management, Chang

U
Gung University in Taiwan and received Master’s degree in College of Informatics, Department
AN
of Information Management at Yuan Ze University. His main research interests cover the areas

of e-learning, m-learning, e-government and customer online behavior.

M
D
TE

Ching-Ter Chang1
Department of Information Management, Chang Gung University. 259 Wen-
Hwa 1st Road, Kwei-Shan Tao-Yuan, Taiwan. Email:
EP

chingter@mail.cgu.edu.tw

Department of Thoracic Medicine, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou

Taoyuan, Taiwan, R.O.C
C

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ming Chi University

AC

of Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C

Biography
Ching-Ter Chang received M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the department of Information Management,

National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan, R.O.C. in 1992 and 1997. He is currently a full professor of

1
First author
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Chang Gung University, Tao-Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C. His research interests include decision-making,

supply chain management, mathematical programming, and digital applications. His publications appear

in several journals including IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy

Systems, European Journal of Operational Research, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews,

PT
Omera, Transportation Research Part A, Transportation Research Part E, Forest Ecology and

Management, Annals of Forest Science, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Neural Networks,

RI
Knowledge-based Systems, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Computers and Operations

SC
Research, Computers and Industrial Engineering, International Journal of Production Economics,

Applied Mathematical Modelling, Applied Soft Computing, Engineering Computations, International

U
Journal of Systems Science, Quality and Quantity, Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research,
AN
Journal of Educational Computing Research, International Journal of advanced manufacturing

technology, Applied Mathematics and Computation and so on.

M
D

Chia-Rong Su2
Department of Information Management, Chang Gung University. 259
TE

Wen-Hwa 1st Road, Kwei-Shan Tao-Yuan, Taiwan.

Email: sugathomas@gmail.com
C EP

Biography
AC

Chia-Rong Su is a Ph.D. student in Graduate Institute of Business and Management, Chang

Gung University in Taiwan and received Master’s degree in Department of Information

Management at St John's University. His main research interests cover Information security,

2
Second author
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

MODM & MCDM, Big data analysis.

Acknowledgement

PT
This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the
grant MOST 104-2410-H-412-003, MOST 104-2410-H-182-021-MY2T and Chang Gung

RI
Memorial Hospital (BMRP 574) during the study completion.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan. The

General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning approach

PT
Abstract

Azerbaijan has successfully incorporated modern Information Communication

RI
Technologies (ICT) in the education system. The major goal is to raise the standard of

SC
education. The factors that affect university students’ behavioral intention (BI) to use e-

learning for educational purposes in Azerbaijan are worthy of study. This is an empirical

U
study of the use of the General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning
AN
(GETAMEL) developed by Abdullah and Ward (2016) in order to determine the factors
M

that affect undergraduate students’ BI to use an e-learning system. The data was collected

from 714 undergraduate and masters students using a convenient sampling technique and
D

the responses were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). It is seen that
TE

the Subjective norm (SN), Experience (EXP) and Enjoyment (ENJOY) positively and
EP

significantly influence students’ perceived usefulness (PU) of e-learning, while Computer

anxiety (CA) has a negatively effect. EXP, ENJOY and Self-efficacy (SE) positively and
C
AC

significantly affect their perceived ease of use (PEOU) of e-learning. It is also seen that

SN has a positive and significant impact on BI to use e-learning, while Technological

innovation (TI) significantly moderates the relationship between SN and PU, PU and BI

to use e-learning. This study is the first to determine a negative and significant

relationship between CA and PU, in the context of students’ e-learning. This study is also

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

one of the very few that uses the GETAMEL model for e-learning settings. The results

have significant practical implications for educational institutions and decision-makers, in

terms of the design of the e-learning system in universities.

PT
RI
Keywords: Country-specific developments, interactive learning environments,

SC
teaching/learning strategies

1. Introduction
U
AN
The rapid evolution of information technology have created new applications, such as
M

e-banking, e-commence, e-learning and e-health (Alsabawy et al., 2016). E-learning is a

common application that is widely used in the educational sector (Islam, 2016). The main
D

objective of ICT is to reduce the limitations on time and location, in the context of higher
TE

education. It allows access to desired information, without limitations (Althunibat, 2015).

EP

The Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan implemented the State Programs for

“Provision of ICT for Education” in 2005-2007 and for “Informatization of the

C

Educational System” in 2008-2012 (Muradkhanli & Atabeyli, 2012). E-learning centers

AC

were launched in several universities, in order to support learners in the e-learning

process. Three universities - Khazar University, Azerbaijan Tourism University and

Qafqaz University - were the initiators in building e-learning teams and crucial

institutional frameworks for the implementation of e-learning pilot projects. Universities

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

in Azerbaijan need to develop an effective e-learning system through the Azerbaijan e-

Learning Network experience, which shares the skills and expertise that has been

amassed in terms of e-learning design and the support of online teaching (Muradkhanli &

PT
Atabeyli, 2012), because the e-learning system constitutes a major investment in

RI
infrastructure for universities (Alsabawy et al., 2016).

SC
1.1. Research problem

U
Crawford and Persaud (2013) asserted that even if extensive funds are allocated, some
AN
organizations still fail to achieve any of the anticipated benefits from e-learning projects.
M

Lee et al. (2011) defined e-learning system as an information system that integrates a

wide variety of instructional materials, such as audio, video or text media, via chat
D

sessions, online discussions, e-mail, quizzes and assignments. From the students’
TE

perspective, the major benefits of e-learning are academic performance, career

EP

development, and social value (Alsabawy et al., 2016). E-learning systems rely heavily

on digital media and telecommunications, so shortcomings can negatively impact user

C

satisfaction. Universities / Institutes require support to design for participation when

AC

intervening to resolve e-learning implementation problems, as well as for increasing the

benefits of using virtual learning environments (VLE), which problem is addressed by

ensuring an appropriate design before students arrive. 1 VLE refers to a system that

1
http://elearning.edu.az/

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

delivers learning materials to students through the Internet (Oxford University Press,

2015). This platform uses student assessment and tracking features and can be accessed

on and off-campus to provide support for student learning at any time (Phungsuk,

PT
Viriyavejakul, & Ratanaolarn, 2017). According to Muradkhanli and Atabeyli (2012), the

RI
major challenges of implementing e-learning in Azerbaijan are the accessibility of the

SC
Internet for learners, safety and infrastructure, technical skills, support by university

administration, lack of expertise in instructional the design and development of content,

U
training of instructions, staff and students and learners’ motivation, in terms of students’
AN
willingness to be sufficiently responsible to work alone. E-learning users are willing to
M

receive high quality educational services (Alsabawy et al., 2016). Therefore, this research

addresses the following questions:

D
TE

RQ1. What factors determine the students’ BI to use e-learning for educational purposes?
EP

RQ2. Do technical skills, in other words the TI of students, have a moderating role to

increase their BI towards e-learning system?

C

RQ2. Could the GETAMEL model be applied to the e-learning system of Azerbaijan, in
AC

order to overcome the challenges of implementing e-learning and offer a comprehensive

e-learning system?

1.2. Research objectives

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

E-learning scholars have previously extended the technology acceptance model

(TAM), using various external factors for decades, which has resulted in numerous

external factors and an extended TAM in the context of e-learning adoption studies

PT
(Abdullah & Ward, 2016; Lefievre, 2012; Martin, 2012; Williams & Williams, 2009).

RI
The TAM has been predominantly used to identify the factors that affect learners’

SC
decision to use a new learning system, including computer self-efficacy, social influence,

perceived enjoyment, computer anxiety and experience. The major purpose of the TAM

U
is to explain the individual’s behavior towards the adoption of technology. The central
AN
variables of the TAM, which are PEOU and PU, are affected by external factors and
M

impact an individual’s negative or positive attitudes toward technology use. Alsabawy et

al. (2016) posited that PU is a major element in the measurement of the acceptance and
D

success of an e-learning system and that there is a lack of evidence as to the effect of IT
TE

infrastructure services on the usefulness of an e-learning system. Attitude also influences

EP

BI towards the use of the technology, which in its turn leads to actual use. Former studies

confirmed the validity and importance of the TAM to predict technology acceptance
C

behavior (Abdullah et al., 2016; Al-Gahtani, 2016). King and He (2006) also reported
AC

that the TAM is a robust model. Abdullah and Ward (2016) developed the GETAMEL

model using comprehensive meta-analysis of the 107 studies, in order to classify the most

frequently used five external factors for the TAM. The authors hypothesized the

relationship between the five external factors - SE (used in 51 studies), SN / Social

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

influence (SI) (used in 32 studies), ENJOY (used in 23 studies), CA (used in 19 studies),

and EXP (used in 13 studies), for TAM and PEOU, as well as the PU for e-learning.

The GETAMEL model was further validated by Abdullah et al. (2016), who

PT
determined the BI of students to use e-portfolios. An e-portfolio is “a collection of digital

RI
artefacts that demonstrates what a person knows and can do. It is used in academic

SC
assessment, career planning, and for documenting and demonstrating students’ learning

and growth over time” (Xuesong, Olfman, & Firpo, 2011). However, to the authors’ best

U
knowledge, there have been no empirical studies using the GETAMEL model to
AN
determine the factors that influence the BI of students to use an e-learning system,
M

particularly in Azerbaijan. The GETAMEL is the most modern model that has been

validated for e-learning and m-learning, so the recent study uses this model to predict the
D

BI to use VLEs in Azerbaijan. M-learning refers to learning through the use of small
TE

computing mobile devices, including smartphones and portable handheld devices

EP

(Mcconatha, Praul, & Lynch, 2008). TI is defined as the willingness of an individual to

try new information technologies (Agrawal & Prasad, 1998). The authors showed that the
C

existence of TI in technology acceptance occurs via the relationship of TI with beliefs.

AC

This study also uses TI as a moderating variable in the relationships between SN and PU,

between PU and BI and between PEOU and BI. According to Midgley and Dowling

(1987), TI is a key moderator for the antecedents and the consequences of perceptions.

Therefore, TI moderates the input and output processes for the TAM model. Based on

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

former studies in the context of consumer behavior, technology use among students,

undergraduate students’ acceptance of e-books and mobile learning in higher education,

TI is included as a moderating variable, in order to determine whether the TI level alters

PT
the BI of university students to use e-learning (Nysveen, Pedersen, & Thorjornsen, 2005;

RI
Raman, 2011; Ngafeeson & Sun, 2015; Al-Emran, 2016). An e-book was defined by

SC
Ngafeeson and Sun (2015) as “a piece of electronic text, regardless of size or digital

object used, made available digitally for any device that uses a screen for the purpose of

instruction and learning.”

U
AN
In summary, this study intends to use the GETAMEL in order to examine which
M

external factors impact undergraduate students’ PEOU and PU of e-learning system and

their BI towards the use of e-learning system for educational purpose, which will enhance
D

students’ e-learning process. In addition, this research aims to answer the question
TE

whether TI facilitates students’ BI towards the use of e-learning system. By using the
EP

quantitative statistical analysis methods, the hypothesized relationships between the study

variables are tested, which helps answering the addressed questions of the research.
C

The major contribution of this study is that because Azerbaijan is in the early stages of
AC

ICT and Internet penetration into society and within its educational institutions, this

method will provide significant insights for e-learning system designers, decision makers

in higher education institutions and government organizations, such as the Ministry of

Education, to implement initiatives to extend e-learning and to create an appropriate

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

infrastructure that facilitates the learning process and motivates the active inclusion of all

students in an interactive learning process. It will also serve as a guide for e-learning

system designers, in terms of the factors that are important to the functionality, usefulness

PT
and facility of the e-learning system. Identification of the factors that create a positive

RI
attitude and intention for undergraduate students to adopt e-learning are vital in terms of

SC
the deployment of an e-learning environment and infrastructure in the universities.

2. Theoretical framework
U
AN
According to the E-learning Market Trends & Forecast 2014-2016 Report by Docebo
M

(2014), of the 85 countries included in the study, Vietnam, Malaysia, Romania,

Azerbaijan, Thailand, Kenya, Slovakia, the Philippines, India and China are the countries
D

with the highest growth rates. They have experienced over 30% growth, which is more
TE

than four times the average worldwide growth rate. Azerbaijan has the fourth highest e-
EP

learning growth rate in the world and the highest in Eastern Europe. The Russian

Federation is the most mature market in Eastern Europe because of the rapid growth of
C

online learning in an academic context.

AC

2.1. The General Extended Technology acceptance model for e-learning

(GETAMEL)

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abdullah and Ward (2016) discovered that SE, SN, ENJOY, CA and EXP are the most

commonly used confirmed external factors for the TAM of 152 different external

variables. This paper uses these five commonly used and confirmed external factors as

PT
external variables for the proposed GETAMEL. Abdullah et al. (2016) applied the

RI
GETAMEL to study undergraduate students’ e-portfolio adoption using these five

SC
external factors. Their findings show that SN and ENJOY positively and significantly

influence PU, while EXP, SN, ENJOY and SE positively influence PEOU. CA is not a

U
significant predictor. This study uses and empirically tests the GETAMEL in the context
AN
of e-learning in Azerbaijan, by determining the effects of the five external variables (SE,
M

SN, ENJOY, ICT anxiety and Prior Experience) on students’ PEOU and PU for mobile

learning and determines how students’ attitudes can influence their BI to use e-learning
D

for educational purposes. TI is considered to have a moderating effect in the relationships

TE

between SN and PU and between PU and PEOU and BI.

EP

2.2. Research hypotheses based on external variables

C

2.2.1. Subjective norm (SN)

AC

According to Abdullah and Ward (2016), SN / SI has been used in 32 studies, in 27 of

which its relationship with TAM is confirmed. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) referred to SN

as “a person’s perception that most people who are important to him think he should or

should not perform the behavior in question.” SN is defined as “the extent to which a

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

student perceives pressure from members of his or her environment to use e-learning

systems” (Aguda-Peregrina, Hernandez-Garcia, & Pascual-Miguel, 2014) in the e-

learning use context. In a previous study, SN and social influence were shown to be

PT
similar and both are related to the influence of social factors on technology use

RI
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003). Venkatesh and Davis (2000) proposed the

SC
TAM2 model, which predicts that SN to has an influence on PU and intention to use

technology. The results of their study showed that it is negatively related to PU, but that it

U
positively and significantly impacts intention to use technology. Mathieson (1991)
AN
showed that SN has no significant effect on intention, but Taylor and Todd (1995)
M

discovered a significant impact. Abdullah et al. (2016) found that SN is significant

predictor of PEOU, but not significant in determining the PU for e-portfolio adoption
D

among the students. Abdullah and Ward (2016) found that 19 of 22 studies found a
TE

significant and positive link between SN and PU (Al-Ammari & Hamad, 2008; Karaali,
EP

Gumussoy, & Calisir, 2011; Rejon-Guardia, Sanchez-Fernandez, & Munoz-Leiva, 2013).

Other studies also found that SN has a positive and significant impact on PEOU for e-
C

learning (Motaghian et al., 2013). This study incorporates the relationship between SN
AC

and PU and PEOU and the BI to use e-learning suggested by Abdullah and Ward (2016)

and Venkatesh and Davis (2000) and hypothesizes that:

H1. SN positively and significantly influences PU for e-learning.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

H2. SN positively and significantly influences PEOU for e-learning.

H3. SN positively and significantly influences BI to use e-learning.

PT
2.2.2. Experience (EXP)

RI
Literature on e-learning acceptance confirms that experience affects both learners’

SC
PEOU (De Smet et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2011, 2013; Purnomo & Lee, 2013) and PU (Lee

et al., 2013; Martin, 2012; Purnomo & Lee, 2013; Rezaei et al., 2008) for e-learning.

U
Individuals who have more experience using computers, the Internet and email and
AN
saving and locating files tend to have more favorable feelings towards the ease of use and
M

usefulness of an e-learning system (Lee et al., 2013, 184; Purnomo & Lee, 2013).

Another study showed that computer experience impacts learners' intention to use
D

different e-learning systems and technologies (Premchaiswadi et al., 2012; Williams &
TE

Williams, 2009; De Smet et al., 2012). According to Abdullah and Ward (2016), EXP is
EP

the fifth most commonly used external factor for the TAM, in the context of e-learning

acceptance or use, and this variable was included as the external factor for the TAM in
C

the GETAMEL framework. This study proposes that:

AC

H4. EXP positively and significantly influences PU for e-learning.

H5. EXP positively and significantly influences PEOU for e-learning.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2.3. Perceived enjoyment (ENJOY)

The conception of ENJOY is in agreement with intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,

2000) and in the setting of information systems use it is defined as “the extent to which

PT
the activity of using a specific system is perceived to be enjoyable in its own right, aside

RI
from any performance consequences resulting from system use” (Park, Son, et al., 2012).

SC
It is important in explaining e-learning adoption. Abdullah and Ward (2016) also

identified previous studies that showed that perceived ENJOY significantly influences

U
both PEOU and PU for e-learning. Other studies also show that ENJOY increases
AN
students' intention to use e-learning (e.g. Cheng, 2012; Yang & Lin, 2011; Zare &
M

Yazdanparast, 2013). According to Abdullah and Ward (2016), eight out of eleven

studies (73%) found a significant positive relationship between ENJOY and PEOU for e-
D

learning. In terms of the relationship between ENJOY and PU, eight out of eight studies
TE

(100%) showed a significant and positive link between the two constructs. If a student
EP

finds the use of an e-learning system to be enjoyable, he/she is more likely to have a

positive attitude towards the ease of use and usefulness of a system (Al-Aulamie et al.,
C

2012; Chen et al., 2013; Zare & Yazdanparast, 2013) and a greater intention to use the
AC

system (Lee et al., 2005; Cheng, 2011, 2012). In all user types and e-learning settings, the

average effect of ENJOY on PEOU is 0.260. The average effect of ENJOY on students'

PEOU for e-learning system is 0.341, which is a medium effect, in terms of the

guidelines that were proposed by Cohen (1992). Across all user types and e-learning

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

types, the average effect of ENJOY on PU is 0.418. The average effect of ENJOY on

students' PU for e-learning systems is 0.452, which is almost a large effect in terms of the

guidelines that were proposed by Cohen (1992). Previous studies show that Perceived

PT
ENJOY also has a significant influence on PU and PEOU in an e-learning context.

RI
Therefore:

SC
H6. ENJOY positively and significantly influences PU for e-learning.

U
H7. ENJOY positively and significantly influences PEOU for e-learning.
AN
M

2.2.4. Computer anxiety (CA)

Anxiety about technology use is identified as an important determinant for new

D

technology adoption. Venkatesh et al. (2003) referred it as “evoking anxious or emotional

TE

reactions when it comes to performing a behavior.” CA is an emotional reaction, which

EP

usually results from a fear of having a negative outcome after using the computer (i.e.

damaging the equipment or looking foolish). Igbaria and Parasuraman (1989) explained
C

CA as “the tendency of an individual to be uneasy, apprehensive, or fearful about the

AC

current or future use of computers in general.” According to Alenezi et al. (2010), CA

plays a large role in e-learning adoption in higher education settings. Abdullah and Ward

(2016) found that 59% of studies prove the negative influence of CA on a learner’s

PEOU in an e-learning context. The average effect of the independent variable on

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

dependent variables is -.199 in the study of Abdullah and Ward (2016). Therefore, this

relationship is included in the proposed model. However, the relationship between CA

and PU is not included because only two out of seven studies found a significant negative

PT
link between the variables in all types of e-learning and user context. The average effect

RI
of CA on PU is .002 and on students’ PU for an e-learning systems is .070. Abdullah et

SC
al. (2016) did not test the relationship between CA and PU in their study of e-portfolios.

While, it is agreed that anxiety plays a role in the adoption of mobile technology, its role

U
has yet to be tested empirically (Chu et al., 2008). Mac Callum et al. (2014) compared the
AN
role of ICT literacy and anxiety in the adoption of mobile learning and found that in a
M

student model, there is a significant path between ICT anxiety and PU opposed to the

educator model. Therefore,

D
TE

H8. CA negatively and significantly influences PU for e-learning.

EP

H9. CA negatively and significantly influences PEOU for e-learning.

C

2.2.5. Self-efficacy (SE)

AC

Abdullah and Ward (2016) found that SE is the most common external factor for the

TAM model. 51 studies used this factor and in 45, its relationship with the TAM is

confirmed. Perceived SE is “belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the

courses of action required to produce given attainments.” (Bandura, 1997). It is related

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

not to the number of skills that a learner has, but to the learner’s belief that he/she can do

with what he/she has, under a variety of circumstances or situations (Bandura, 1997;

Rogers et al., 2008). Previous studies have found that perceived SE is positively predicted

PT
with achievement-related behaviors, such as motivation, effectiveness, or positive

RI
attitudes (Bandura, 1986; Liaw, 2008). In m-learning environments, a high degree of

SC
perceived SE leads to improved behavioral withholding (Liaw, 2008). Previous research

has showed that improved SE is highly correlated with the PU for using learning

U
technologies and that male learners have more positive attitudes towards communication
AN
with other learners in technology-based learning environments (Chu & Chu, 2010; Liaw,
M

2008). It was also found that learners’ SE influences their attitudes and ability to acquire

skills, to select activities and to continue on a course of action in m-learning

D

environments. According to Abdullah and Ward (2016), of 41 studies of the impact of SE

TE

on PEOU for e-learning, and 33 confirm its positive and significant relationship with the
EP

latter variable. Abdullah et al. (2016) also found that SE has a positive influence on

PEOU, but a negative influence on PU, in e-portfolios adoption. Therefore, this study
C

presents the following hypotheses:

AC

H10. SE positively and significantly influences PU for e-learning.

H11. SE positively and significantly influences PEOU for e-learning.

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2.6. The TAM variables

The relationships between PEOU and PU and between PEOU and PU and BI have

been validated by previous studies (Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989; Venkatesh & Davis,

PT
2000; Lin et al., 2011). PEOU and PU are the most important constructs for the TAM

RI
(Chen et al., 2013). They directly influence e-learning use intention (Al-Gahtani, 2016;

SC
Hsia et al., 2014; Tarhini et al., 2014). The inclusion of external variables in the TAM

allows studies to determine technology adoption behavior, and to identify the specific

U
reasons for the selection of a suitable technology, which also causes scholars and
AN
practitioners to take corrective steps (Davis et al., 1989). There is also a relationship
M

between PEOU and PU, which shows that PEOU is a determinant of PU. The strong

relationship between PEOU and PU denotes that those who think that a new technology
D

is easy to use also find it very useful (Davis, 1985, 1989; Davis et al., 1989). Therefore,
TE

PEOU is likely to have a direct influence on PU.

EP

H12. PEOU positively and significantly influences PU.

C

H13. PU positively and significantly influences BI to use e-learning.

AC

H14. PEOU positively and significantly influences BI to use e-learning.

2.2.7. TI as a moderator

TI has been conceptualized as a trait (Midgley & Dowling, 1987). In terms of the

existence of TI in technology use, Agarwal and Prasad (1998) showed that this happens

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

through TI’s relationships with beliefs or perceptions. While concurring with Midgley

and Dowling (1987) that the trait-behavior model is an inadequate representation of

technology adoption behavior, it was proposed that TI is a key moderator for antecedents

PT
and the consequence of perceptions in technology use. In other words, TI moderates the

RI
input processes (antecedents) for the TAM model and the output processes. More

SC
specifically, in the proposed model, TI moderates the relationships between SN and PU

and between PU and PEOU and BI to use e-learning. Therefore, it is proposed that:

U
AN
H15. TI moderates the relationship between SN and PU.
M

H16. TI moderates the relationship between PU and BI to use e-learning.

H17. TI moderates the relationship between PEOU and BI to use e-learning.

D
TE

3. Research methodology
EP

In this study, the research model (see Fig. 1) is developed by extensively reviewing the

previous literature, with particular reference to the two most recent studies (Abdullah &
C

Ward, 2016; Abdullah et al., 2016). The five external variables that were identified by
AC

Abdullah and Ward (2016) are included. TI is a moderating variable because of its

relevancy to the TAM (Midgley & Dowling, 1987; Ngafeeson & Sun, 2015). In this

study, “BI to use e-learning” is used to show the actual influence on the use of e-learning.

Former studies also asserted that BI might be combined with use behavior and termed

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

“BI to use” because these two factors have been proven to be related (Alshehri et al.,

2013). The UTAUT was developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003) to predict user acceptance

and behavior, using four determinants: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social

PT
influence and facilitating conditions. From the theoretical point of view, “UTAUT

RI
provides a refined view of how the determinants of intention and behavior evolve over

SC
time.” Kurfali et al. (2017) also combined BI and actual use in their Unified Theory of

Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model to predict e-government use

behavior.
U
AN
This study uses a quantitative method to collect the data. An online survey was
M

administered because this ensures a geographical distribution in the most cost- and time-

efficient way (Kurfali et al., 2017). Since this was the first time that this type of study had
D

been conducted in Azerbaijan using the TAM, an initial survey questionnaire based on
TE

former studies and was created and translated into Azeri and then refined using the results
EP

of the pre-test, which had 17 respondents. The pre-testing results allowed the construction

of the final version of the questionnaire. The final version of the questionnaire comprised
C

30, questions including 4 questions that were related to the demographic profile of
AC

respondents (see Appendix A). Items for the external factors of TAM were taken from

Abdullah et al. (2016), because this study validated the items for e-portfolio adoption,

which is strongly related to the e-learning context. The items for the TAM variables were

taken from Davis (1989), Venkatesh and Bala (2008) and Venkatesh and Davis (2000).

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Finally, the items for TI were taken from Ngafeeson and Sun (2015). This study focused

on the TAM for e-book acceptance among undergraduate students, so the wording for

items for the TI was changed to ensure relevance to this study. A 5-point Likert scale -

PT
(1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree - was used to measure the responses.

RI
Cronbach’s Alpha was used for reliability analysis and the results show that alpha values

for all variables exceed 0.7, so the final questionnaire is reliable.2

SC
AMOS 23 software was used to analyze the data using the SEM technique. As

U
suggested by Hair et al. (1998), this study initially evaluated the measurement model
AN
which was followed by the structural model in the second stage. The analysis comprised
M

of an analysis of construct validity (convergent and discriminant validity), model testing

with model fitting and hypothesis testing.

D
TE
C EP
AC

2
Reliability test was used again after the data collection finished, and the final outcomes are presented in
the Results section.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TI

SN H3
H1

PT
H15 H16 H17
H2
EXP H4

RI
PU
H5
H13
H6 BI to use

SC
ENJOY H12
H7 e-learning
H14
H8 PEOU

U
H9
CA
AN
H10 H11

SE Direct effect
M

Moderating effect
D

Figure 1. Conceptual model

TE

3.1. Survey

To determine the factors that affect BI to use e-learning among university students in
EP

Azerbaijan, an online survey was used. The survey items were taken from the studies by
C

Abdullah et al. (2016), Davis (1989), Venkatesh and Bala (2008), Venkatesh and Davis
AC

(2000) and Ngafeeson and Sun (2015) (see Appendix A) and translated into Azeri. A

convenient sampling technique was used for the survey process, for the universities that

had successfully implemented an e-learning system in the educational units. As

previously mentioned, Khazar University, Qafqaz University and Azerbaijan Tourism

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

University were the first to establish e-learning teams and crucial institutional

frameworks for the implementation of e-learning pilot projects. The Azerbaijan e-

Learning Coordination Council was then founded and the Azerbaijan e-Learning

PT
Network was created, with the addition of four new educational institutions: Azerbaijan

RI
University of Architecture and Construction and Nakhchivan State University.

SC
3.2. Pre-test

U
The study questionnaire was pre-tested using 17 respondents from the most
AN
experienced group of users of e-learning in Khazar University and the Baku State
M

University. The questions that relate to the items for SN, CA and SE were re-worded,

based on the respondents’ feedback. The quality of the survey was improved and the
D

subjects’ understanding of the final questionnaire was improved. As stated previously,

TE

Cronbach’s Alpha was used for reliability analysis and the results show that the alpha
EP

values of all variables exceed 0.7, so the final questionnaire is reliable.

C

3.3. Data collection

AC

In total, there were 763 respondents to the online survey. Because of unfinished

responses, 49 questionnaires were discarded. 714 complete questionnaires (93.6%) were

used for the analysis of the conceptual model. Table 1 shows that 57.8% of the students

who participated in the study were males. The majority of the respondents were 22-25

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

years old and in the second year of study at university. 47.1% had 3 to 6 years of

computer literacy, which allows confidence in the responses to the use of e-learning in

education.

PT
Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents

RI
Demographic profile (N = 714) Frequency Percentage
(%)

SC
Gender
Male 413 57.8
Female 301 42.2

U
Age
18-21 years old 178 24.9
AN
22-25 years old 395 55.3
26+ years old 141 19.7
M

Year of study
Year 1 109 15.3
Year 2 386 54.1
D

Year 3 126 17.6

Final year 93 13.0
TE

Experience in using mobile

devices
EP

Less than 1 year 37 5.2

1 to 3 years 177 24.8
3 to 6 years 336 47.1
More than 6 years 164 23.0
C
AC

4. Data analysis and results

4.1. Measurement

All of the constructs for this study were initially tested for reliability, convergent

validity and discriminant validity. According to Hair et al. (2010), a reliability test is “an

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

assessment of the degree of consistency between multiple measurements of a variable”,

and this must be conducted before an assessment of its validity. This study uses the

Cronbach’s alpha (α) to test the internal consistency of the study constructs (construct

PT
reliability) (Nunnally, 1978; Robert & Wortzel, 1979). The Cronbach’s alpha (α) results

RI
show that two constructs demonstrate excellent reliability (ENJOY – 0.91 and SE –

SC
0.90) and seven constructs demonstrate high reliability (SN – 0.82, EXP – 0.84, CA –

0.79, PU – 0.81, PEOU – 0.86, BI – 0.79 and TI – 0.83) based on the four cut-off points

U
suggested by Hinton et al. (2004). The four cut-off points are: (1) excellent reliability
AN
(0.90 and above); (2) high reliability (0.70 – 0.90); (3) moderate reliability (0.50 – 0.70)
M

and (4) low reliability (0.50 and below). The higher Cronbach’s Alpha values mean that

all constructs are internally consistent (see Table 2). The item reliability for the
D

underlying items for each construct was measured using standardized factor loadings
TE

(Shih, 2004). The results show that all of the loading of items are greater than 0.72, which
EP

is higher than the 0.5 level. The factor loading for only 4 items – CA3, PEOU1, BI1 and

TI1 - ranges between 0.72 and 0.79. The items, SE2, TI3, CA2, PU1 and BI2, are highly
C

loaded to their underlying constructs and show higher item reliability.

AC

A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to measure the scale validity

(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The indicator factor loadings must be significant and

higher than the 0.7 acceptance level, composite reliability (CR) must be higher than 0.7,

and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct must exceed the acceptance

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

level of 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006). As seen in Table 2, both of the

conditions are met, which means that this study has adequate convergent validity.

Discriminant validity is usually verified using the square root of the AVE for each

PT
construct that has a higher correlation with other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

RI
Table 3 demonstrates that the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than its

SC
correlation values with other constructs, so there is good discriminant validity.

The fit of the measurement model was evaluated using CFA. Hair et al. (2006)

U
suggested several measures of model-fit to estimate the measurement model: (1) Chi-
AN
square/degree of freedom (χ2/df), (2) the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), (3) the comparative
M

fit index (CFI), (4) the root mean square error for approximation (RMSEA) and (5) the

standardized root mean residual (SRMR). The results for the measurement of model fit
D

show that all model-fit indices are acceptable, as shown in Table 4. It is concluded that
TE

this measurement model adequately explains the data.

EP

Table 2. The Measurement model

Standardized factor
C

Items Mean STD loading α CR AVE

SN 0.82 0.81 0.68
AC

SN1 3.16 0.95 0.84

SN2 2.88 1.07 0.81
EXP 0.84 0.86 0.67
EXP1 2.86 1.22 0.86
EXP2 2.67 0.91 0.80
EXP3 3.11 1.32 0.79
ENJOY 0.91 0.87 0.70
ENJOY1 2.85 1.05 0.83
ENJOY2 2.34 1.09 0.87
24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

ENJOY3 2.96 0.92 0.80

CA 0.79 0.87 0.68
CA1 3.45 0.96 0.87
CA2 3.17 1.11 0.88
CA3 2.95 1.15 0.72
SE 0.90 0.88 0.71

PT
SE1 2.67 1.08 0.84
SE2 3.03 1.02 0.89
SE3 3.05 1.21 0.80

RI
PU 0.81 0.90 0.76
PU1 2.59 1.36 0.88
PU2 2.91 1.33 0.86

SC
PU3 2.83 1.23 0.87
PEOU 0.79 0.84 0.64
PEOU1 3.13 0.88 0.76
2.79 1.05 0.84

U
PEOU2
PEOU3 2.84 1.06 0.80
AN
BI 0.79 0.86 0.68
BI1 2.91 1.06 0.73
BI2 3.02 1.00 0.88
BI3 2.79 0.89 0.85
M

TI 0.83 0.89 0.73

TI1 2.87 0.89 0.79
TI2 3.01 0.98 0.87
D

TI3 2.92 1.39 0.89

Note: SN = Subjective norm, EXP = Experience, ENJOY = Enjoyment,
TE

CA = Computer anxiety, SE = Self efficacy, PU = Perceived usefulness,

PEOU = Perceive ease of use, BI = Behavioral intention to use e-learning,
TI = Technology innovativeness
EP

Table 3. Discriminant validity

SN EXP ENJOY CA SE PU PEOU BI TI
C

SN 0.825
EXP 0.109 0.819
AC

ENJOY 0.193 0.403 0.837

CA - 0.338 0.302 0.825
0.149
SE 0.305 0.277 0.351 0.487 0.843
PU 0.123 0.387 0.427 0.067 0.491 0.872
PEOU 0.472 0.352 0.186 0.034 0.540 0.461 0.800
BI 0.301 0.387 0.378 0.125 0.361 0.608 0.703 0.825
TI 0.276 0.411 0.362 0.094 0.282 0.321 0.214 0.597 0.854

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Note: Diagonal values are square root of AVEs of constructs

4.2. Testing the measurement model

PT
Several indices were tested in this study. These were proposed by Hair et al. (2006) to

obtain a comprehensive model fit. The measurement model testing included χ 2 / d.f

RI
(degrees of freedom), by considering that χ2 is too sensitive for a large sample size

SC
(Bentler & Bonett, 1980). The Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the comparative fit index

U
(CFI), the root mean square error for approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root
AN
mean residual (SRMR) were also used. The results for the fit indices for the proposed

model are shown in Table 4. These show that the measurement mode has a good fit.
M

Table 4. Measurement model fit indices

D

Model fit Model Recommended

indices values Source
TE

χ2 / d.f 1.873 < 3.00

TLI 0.925 ≥ 0.90
Kline (2005), McDonald and Ho
CFI 0.943 ≥ 0.90 (2002)
EP

RMSEA 0.061 < 0.08

SRMR 0.037 < 0.05
C

4.3. Structural model

AC

Testing the structural model also showed that it has a good model fit (χ2 / d.f = 1.914,

TLI = 0.936, CFI = 0.929, RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.046). When it had been shown

that there was a good model fit, the study hypotheses were tested using AMOS 23.0.

Figure 2 shows the results of the hypotheses.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

SN (SN) (β = .213, p < 0.01), Experience (XP) (β = .181, p < 0.01) and ENJOY

(ENJOY) (β = .321, p < 0.001) are found to have positive and significant impact on PU

(PU), but CA (CA) (β = -.191, p < 0.05) is negatively related to PU (PU) and SE (SF) is

PT
found not to be related to PU (β = .026, p = 0.152). Therefore, H1, H4, H6 and H8 are

RI
supported, but H10 is rejected. SN is also found to be positively and significantly related

to BI to use e-learning (BI) (β = .437, p < 0.001). Therefore, H3 was supported. EXP (

SC
β = .496, p < 0.001), ENJOY (β = .239, p < 0.05) and SF (β = .246, p < 0.01) are

U
positively and significantly related to PEOU (PEOU), but CA negatively and
AN
significantly influences students’ belief in the ease of use of e-learning (β = - .151, p <

0.05). SN does not have an impact on PEOU (β = .025, p = 0.716). H5, H7, H9 and H11
M

are supported, but H2 is rejected.

D

PEOU (β = .046, p = 0.473) does not significantly impact PU. However, Students’
TE

perceptions of PEOU (β = .305, p < 0.05) and PU (β = .241, p < 0.01) for e-learning
EP

positively and significantly affect their BI to use it for educational purposes. Therefore,

H13 and H14 are supported, but H12 is rejected.

C
AC

4.4. Moderation analysis

TI was tested as a moderator. A moderator is a qualitative or quantitative variable that

affects the direction and/or strength of the relationship between an independent or

predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable. Using the method of Baron and

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Kenny (1986), the moderating effect of TI was tested in the relationships between SN and

PU and between PU and PEOU and BI. SN is shown to be an independent variable, but

PU is a dependent variable in the first moderation analysis. It is shown that TI has a

PT
significant moderating impact on the proposed relationships (H15). In the second

RI
moderation analysis, TI is found to have a moderating effect on the relationship between

PU and BI to use e-learning, but it does not moderate the relationship between PEOU (β

SC
= .031, p = 0.625) and BI, so H16 is supported, but H17 is not. Table 5 shows the total

U
effect of TI items and this result shows that these items together (SN * TI) (β = .386, p <
AN
0.001) and (PU * TI) (β = .419, p < 0.001) strongly impact the BI of students towards
M

the use of e-learning.

D
TE
C EP
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TI

SN .437***
.213**

PT
.386*** .419** .031

.025
EXP .181**

RI
.496*** PU
.241**
.321*** BI to use

SC
ENJOY .239* .046
e-learning

-.191* .205*
PEOU

U
-.151*
CA
AN
.246**
.026

SE
M

Supported
D

*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 Not supported

TE

Figure 2. Structural model

Table 5 Moderation analysis results

EP

Step Predictor Moderator Outcome β - values

Step 1 SN No PU .213**
Step 2 TI No PU .228**
C

Step 3 SN * TI Yes PU .386***

Step 4 PU No BI .241**
AC

Step 5 PEOU No BI .205*

Step 6 TI No BI .189*
Step 7 PU * TI Yes BI .419**
Step 8 PEOU * TI Yes BI 0.031
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5. Discussion and implications

This study validates the GETAMEL model in the context of e-learning for students’

educational purposes in universities. It is found that SN, EXP and ENJOY significantly

PT
and positively influence the university students’ belief in the usefulness of e-learning, but

RI
CA negatively affects their perception of e-learning as useful. Therefore, this study’s

SC
findings for ENJOY only comply with the findings of Abdullah et al. (2016), who

determined that ENJOY is highly significant in students’ perception of the usefulness of

U
e-portfolios. This study found that SE and EXP negatively affect PU for e-portfolios, but
AN
SN has no significant impact. Abdullah et al. (2013) showed that in the e-learning
M

domain, SN is not related to social influence toward the decision making, but to peers’

and teachers’ opinions and educational institution policies may affect the likelihood that
D

students use an e-learning system. Therefore, in Azerbaijani universities, if students

TE

perceive that influential individuals think that they should use e-learning system, they
EP

perceive the system to be more useful for educational purposes (Cheng, 2011; Van Raaji

& Schepers, 2008). This study finds that the relationship between SN and PU is in
C

agreement with the results of the studies by Lee (2006), Al-Ammari and Hamad (2008)
AC

and Farahat (2012). The study’s findings on the relationship between EXP and PU are

similar to those of Abbad et al. (2009), but not similar to those of Pituch and Lee (2006),

Rezaei et al. (2008), Lau and Woods (2008), or Williams and Williams (2009). The

outcome of the relationship between ENJOY and PU was also confirmed to be positive

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and significant in the previous studies (Al-Gahtani, 2014; Shyu & Huang, 2011; Chen et

al., 2013; Martinez-Torres et al., 2008; Al-Ammary et al., 2014). This study finds that

CA creates negative perceptions of the usefulness of the use of an e-learning system,

PT
which is in agreement with the findings of Purnomo and Lee (2013) and Park, Son et al.

RI
(2012), in the context of employee e-learning, but not in agreement with the results of

SC
Saade and Kira (2006) or Liu (2010), who had found that CA does not influence students’

e-learning. These findings show that EXP, SN and the feeling, ENJOY, create more

U
positive perceptions for students of the usefulness of e-learning for educational purposes.
AN
However, the greater the anxiety about using new technology, the less useful is e-learning
M

for students in an education process.

This study finds that EXP, ENJOY and SE create a more positive belief in the ease of
D

use of e-learning, but SN does not significantly influence students’ beliefs. CA is a

TE

significant and negative predictor of their belief in the ease of using the e-learning
EP

system. Abdullah et al. (2016) found that SE, EXP, ENJOY and SN have a positive

impact on student’s intent to adopt e-portfolios. Therefore, the results of that study are in
C

agreement with those for this study. The positive and significant impact of SE, EXP and
AC

ENJOY on PEOU is similar to that noted by previous studies (Abbad et al., 2009; Al-

Ammari & Hamad, 2008; Lee, 2006; Park, 2009, Al-Gahtani, 2014; Shyu & Huang,

2011; Chen et al., 2013). The insignificant impact of SN on PEOU is confirmed in the

studies of Park (2009) and Park and Nam et al. (2012). CA is also proven to be a negative

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

predictor of the perception that an e-learning system is easy to use, in Azerbaijani

settings, which is in agreement with the results of the studies by Al-Gahtani (2014),

Agudo-Peregrina et al. (2013), Lefievre (2012) and Ali et al. (2013), but Abdullah et al.

PT
(2016) found that it is not a significant predictor of PEOU. That is to say that the

RI
experience, feeling of enjoyment and self-confidence of students allows them to easily

SC
use e-learning, but anxiety about new technology creates a negative perception of the

ease of use for an e-learning system.

U
The link between SN and BI was suggested by Venkatesh and Davis (2000), in the
AN
context of the new technology acceptance. The authors showed that SN significantly

predicts the intention to use the technology in mandatory settings (β = .31**, n = 43; β
M

= .28**, n = 36), but not in voluntary settings (β = .11, n = 38; β = .10, n = 39). This
D

study’s findings for the relationship between SN and BI is similar to these findings, so
TE

university students might choose to use e-learning, even though they are not themselves
EP

motivated toward the behavior or its outcomes. Therefore, they comply with their

referents in their behavior, because they think that they should use an e-learning system.
C

Taylor and Todd (1995) found a significant impact, but Mathieson (1991) found no
AC

significant impact for SN on intention.

PEOU does not significantly influence PU, which is not in agreement with the results

of Abdullah et al. (2016). The results of this study, in terms of the effect of PU and

PEOU on BI to use e-learning is in agreement with these results.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In light of previous studies by Abdullah and Ward (2016) and more modern research

by Abdullah et al. (2016), TI was tested as a moderator. It is found to significantly

moderate the relationship between SN and PU and between PU and BI. The findings for

PT
its moderating effect on SN to PU and PEOU to BI are similar to those of Ngafeeson and

RI
Sun (2015). Even if students think that their peers’ and teachers’ opinions on the

SC
usefulness of the e-learning system are important, their innovation also increases their

belief in system usefulness. If students think that a system is easy to use, their level of

U
innovation does not play an important role in the decision to use the e-learning system.
AN
The findings of this study show that the GETAMEL model can be successfully
M

applied in the e-learning system for Azerbaijan education. It is also shown that the

factors, SN, EXP and ENJOY, allow educators and decision makers to design an e-
D

learning system to increase students’ perception of the system usefulness. EXP, ENJOY
TE

and SE are also the main factors in creating the feeling that a system is easy to use. As
EP

mentioned previously, the major challenges for e-learning system deployment are student

motivation and technical factors. Using these factors to design an e-learning system
C

significantly increases student motivation to use the e-learning system for educational
AC

purposes. However, anxiety toward using a new technology reduces motivation to use the

system. Therefore, decision makers must focus on reducing the anxiety of the students

toward the technology. This study concludes that training educators is a necessary step

for eliminating anxiety. TI increases the level of students’ BI to use e-learning for those

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

who think that the system is useful, so the training of students and educators must focus

on increasing students’ orientation towards the use of technology.

This study is one of the very few that validates the GETAMEL for students’

PT
perceptions and intention to use an e-learning system for educational purposes in

RI
Azerbaijan. The major theoretical implications are that there is a negative and significant

SC
link between CA and PU and PEOU. However, the majority of previous studies found

this relationship to be insignificant and Abdullah et al. (2016) did not include the

U
relationship between CA and PU in their study. Studies that determine a significant link
AN
are related to employee e-learning. This study is the first to gather empirical evidence in
M

student e-learning settings. This study also tests TI, because it is necessary to test its

effect on the acceptance of new technology for students in an e-learning system. Future
D

studies might use the same model for different settings, in order to test and compare
TE

human behavior in terms of discipline, gender, age or culture.

EP

6. Conclusion
C

The major objective of the study was to explore the factors determining undergraduate
AC

students’ attitudes towards usefulness and easiness of the e-learning system, as well as

their BI to use it for educational purpose. Additionally, it was aimed to answer the

question whether TI facilitates their BI towards the use of e-learning system. This study

demonstrates that the GETAMEL model with the inclusion of the most commonly used

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

external factors explains and predicts the attitude of undergraduate students to the use of

e-learning as an educational tool, to facilitate their learning process and increase

efficiency. Positive attitudes towards e-learning also increase the intention to adopt this

PT
learning type in universities. In terms of the academic and practical implications of this

RI
research, it is shown that the external factors that were identified by Abdullah and Ward

SC
(2016) and employed by Abdullah et al. (2016) also apply to e-learning in Azerbaijan.

This study finds a significant relationship between the following variables:

• SN and PU (positive)
U
AN
• EXP and PU, PEOU (positive)
M

• ENJOY and PU, PEOU (positive)

•
D

CA and PU, PEOU (negative)

•
TE

SE and PEOU (positive)

• PU, PEOU and BI (positive)

EP

• TI with SN and PU (positive)

•
C

TI with PU and BI (positive)

AC

Therefore, EXP, SN, ENJOY, CA and SE are significant factors that affect the

perception of an e-learning system’s usefulness, ease of use and usage intention.

Therefore, educational institutions must consider these factors when designing an e-

learning system. Educational institutions and decision makers must also the anxiety

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

toward the use of new technologies in a young generation by providing training and

technical support. Designers of e-learning systems must increase the usefulness and ease

of use of e-learning system by making them user-friendly and functional. Innovation

PT
must also be increased, in order to create more positive attitudes towards the use of e-

RI
learning. Therefore, the government initiatives have an immense role to play. Increasing

SC
Internet penetration clearly allows students to become familiar with new technologies and

makes them more willing to use them for educational purposes. The findings of this study

U
are a guide for planning an e-learning strategy for leading universities in Azerbaijan,
AN
which will increase the quality of education and allow equal participation by all students,
M

regardless of location or time, by giving an access to study materials, lectures and

learning resources.
D
TE

7. Limitations and future research

EP

This study is cross-sectional in nature, and was conducted within a short period of

time. Students’ perceptions of the ease of use and usefulness of e-learning can alter over
C

time as new knowledge and experience is accumulated. A longitudinal study using the
AC

GETAMEL and the findings of this study might consider changes in users’ perception

and behavior in different periods. The studies by Abdullah and Ward (2016) demonstrate

significantly different results for the influence of external variables on PU, PEOU and

intention to use e-learning for students, teachers and employees. Therefore, future study

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

might use the GETAMEL model for a comparative study, in order to differentiate the

external factors and their influence on e-learning for different subjects.

PT
Appendix A. Instrument development
Subjective norm (SN) (Abdullah et al., 2016)

RI
SN1. People who influence my behavior would think that I should use the e-learning
SN2. People who are important to me would think that I should use e-learning
Experience (EXP) (Abdullah et al., 2016)

SC
EXP1. I enjoy using computers
EXP2. I am comfortable using the internet
EXP3. I am comfortable saving and locating files
Enjoyment (ENJOY) (Abdullah et al., 2016)

U
ENJOY1. I find using e-learning enjoyable
ENJOY2. The actual process of using the e-learning is pleasant
AN
ENJOY3. I have fun using the e-learning
Computer anxiety (CA) (Abdullah et al., 2016)
CA1. Computers do not scare me at all
M

CA2. Computers make me feel uncomfortable

CA3. Working with computer makes me nervous
Self-efficacy (SE) (Abdullah et al., 2016)
D

SE1. I am confident of using the e-learning even if there is no one around to show me
how to do it
TE

SE2. I am confident of using the e-learning even if I have never used such a system
before
SE3. I am confident of using the e-learning even if I have only the software manuals for
reference
EP

Perceived usefulness (PU) (Davis, 1989)

PU1. Using the e-learning would allow me to accomplish learning tasks more quickly
PU2. Using the e-learning would improve my learning performance
PU3. Using the e-learning would enhance my effectiveness in learning
C

Perceive ease of use (PEOU) (Davis, 1989)

PEOU1. Learning to use the e-learning would be easy for me
AC

PEOU2. I would find it easy to get the e-learning to do what I want it to do

PEOU3. My interaction with the e-learning would be clear and understandable
Behavioral intention (BI) (Venkatesh & Bala; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
BI1. Assuming I had access to the e-learning, I intend to use it
BI2. Given that I had access to the e-learning, I predict that I would use it
BI3. I plan to use the e-learning in the future
Technology innovativeness (TI) (Ngafeeson & Sun, 2015)
TI1. If I heard about a new information technology, I would look for ways to try it out
TI2. Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new information technologies

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

TI3. I like to experiment with new information technologies

References

Abbad, M. M., Morris, D., & de Nahlik, C. (2009). Looking under the Bonnet: factors affecting
student adoption of E-learning systems in Jordan. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 10(2), 1-25. Retrieved from:
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

PT
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.036.
Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly

RI
used external variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived
Usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 75-90.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal

SC
innovativeness in the domain of informational technology. Information Systems Research, 9
(2), 204-215.
Agudo-Peregrina, A. F., Hernandez-García, A., & Pascual-Miguel, F. J. (2014). Behavioral
intention, use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: differences

U
between
higher education and lifelong learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 301-314.
AN
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.035.
Al-Ammari, J., & Hamad, S. (2008). Factors influencing the adoption of e-learning at University
of Bahrain. In Second International Conference and Exhibition for Zain E-learning Center
(pp. 28-30). Retrieved from:
M

https://uqu.edu.sa/files2/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/30/papers/f82.pdf.
Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2014). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: a
structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001.
D

Al-Ammary, J. H., Al-Sherooqi, A. K., & Al-Sherooqi, H. K. (2014). .The acceptance of social
networking as a learning tools at University of Bahrain. International Journal of Information
TE

and Education Technology, 4(2), 208-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJIET, 2014.V4.400.

Alenezi, A. R. (2012). E-learning acceptance: technological key factors for the successful
students' engagement in E-learning system. In EEE'12 -The 2012 International Conference on
e-learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government (pp. 16-19).
EP

Retrieved from http://world-comp.org/p2012/EEE4759.pdf.

Al-Aulamie, A., Mansour, A., Daly, H., & Adjei, O. (2012). The effect of intrinsic motivation on
learners’ behavioural intention to use e-learning systems. In International Conference on
Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) IEEE (pp. 1-4).
C

Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

Al-Emran., Elsheri, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of
AC

mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93-102

Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: a
structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 12(1), 27-50.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001.
Alenezi, A. R., Abdul Karim, A. M., & Veloo, A. (2010). An empirical investigation into the
role of enjoyment, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy and internet experience in
influencing the students’ intention to use e-learning: a case study from Saudi Arabian
Governmental Universities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4),
22-34. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2016). Determinants of perceived usefulness of e-

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 843-858.

Alshehri, M., Drew, S., & AlGhamdi, R. (2013). Analysis of citizens’ acceptance for e-
government services: Applying the UTAUT model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.3157.
Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning
in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior 52, 65-71.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review
and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 10 (3), 411-423.

PT
Bandura, A. (1997). Self- efficacy: The exercise of control. United States of America: W.H.
Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

RI
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
Psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

SC
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of
Covariance structures. Psychological Bulleting, 88, 588-600.
Chen, Y., Lin, Y., Yeh, R., & Lou, S. (2013). Examining factors affecting college students’
intention to use web-based instruction systems: towards an integrated model. Turkish Online

U
Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 12(2), 111-121. Retrieved from:
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Cheng, Y. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of e-learning acceptance. Information Systems
AN
Journal, 21(3), 269-299. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Cheng, Y. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Research,
22(3), 361-390. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Chu, H.-C., Hwang, G.-J., Huang, S.-X., & Wu, T.-T. (2008). A knowledge engineering approach
M

to developing e-libraries for mobile learning. The Electronic Library, 26(3), 303–317.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02640470810879464.
Chu, R. J., & Chu, A. Z. (2010). Multi-level analysis of peer support, internet self-efficacy and e
D

Learning outcomes – The contextual effects of collectivism and group potency. Computers &
Education, 55(1), 145–154.
TE

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Crawford, C., & Persaud, C. (2013). Community colleges online. Journal of College Teaching &
Learning (TLC), 10(1), 75-82.
EP

Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end user
information systems: Theory and result. Doctoral dissertation (pp. 1-291). Sloan School of
Management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from:
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192.
C

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.
AC

Davis, F. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: theory and results. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, MIT Sloan
School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1003.
De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching
instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by
secondary school teachers. Computers & Education, 58(2), 688. Retrieved from:
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Docebo. (2014). E-learning market trends & forecast 2014-2016 report. Retrieved from:

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

https://www.docebo.com/landing/contactform/elearning-market-trends-and-forecast-2014-
2016 docebo-report.pdf.
Farahat, T. (2012). Applying the technology acceptance model to online learning in the Egyptian
Universities. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 95-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.012.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

PT
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Hair, J. R., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
Anlysis (6th Ed.). Pearson-Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

RI
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. London, UK:

SC
Routledge.
Hsia, J., Chang, C., & Tseng, A. (2014). Effects of individuals’ locus of control and computer
self-efficacy on their e-learning acceptance in high-tech companies. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 33(1), 51-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.702284.

U
Igbaria, M., & Parasuraman, S. (1989). A path analytic study of individual characteristics,
computer anxiety and attitudes toward microcomputers. Journal of Management, 15(3),
373-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920638901500302.
AN
Islam, A. K. M. N. (2016). E-learning system use and its outcomes: Moderating role of perceived
compatibility. Telematics and Informatics, 33(1), 48-55.
Karaali, D., Gumussoy, C. A., & Calisir, F. (2011). Factors affecting the intention to use a web-
based learning system among blue-collar workers in the automotive industry. Computers in
M

Human Behavior, 27(1), 343-354. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information
& Management, 43(6), 740-755.
D

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
TE

Kurfali, M., Arifoglu, A., Tokdemir, G., & Pacin, Y. (2017). Adoption of e-government services
in Turkey, Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 168-178.
Lau, S., & Woods, P. C. (2008). An empirical study of learning object acceptance in multimedia
learning environment. Communications of the IBIMA, 5(1), 1-6. Retrieved from:
EP

https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Lee, Y. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning
system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517-541.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14684520610706406.
C

Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of internet-based learning
medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & Management, 42(8),
AC

1095-1104. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y., & Chen, Y. (2013). An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning
systems: applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour and Information
Technology, 32(2), 173-189. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Lee, Y., Hsieh, Y., & Ma, C. (2011). A model of organizational employees’ e-learning systems
acceptance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(3), 355-366. Retrieved from:
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Lefievre, V. (2012). Gender differences in acceptance by students of training software for office
tools. In Athens: ATINER’S Conference Paper Series, No: EDU 2012-0138. Retrieved
from: http://www.atiner.gr/papers/EDU2012-0138.pdf.
Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Edu-cation,
51(2), 864-73.
Lin, F., Fofanah, S. S., & Liang, D. (2011). Assessing citizen adoption of e-Government
initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information
systems success,
Government Information Quarterly, 28 (2011), 271-279.
Liu, X. (2010). Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:

PT
an exploratory study of educational wikis. Communication Education, 59(1), 52-69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520903431745.
Mac Callum, K., Jeffrey, L., & Kinshuk. (2014). Comparing the role of ICT literacy and anxiety
in the adoption of mobile learning. Computers in Human Behavior 39, 8-19.

RI
Martin, R. G. (2012). Factors affecting the usefulness of social networking in e-Learning at
German University of Technology in Oman. International Journal of e-Education, e-
Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(6), 498-502.

SC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2012.V2.171.
Martinez-Torres, M. R., Marin, S. L. T., Garcia, F. B., Vazquez, S. G., Oliva, M. A., & Torres,
T. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory
teaching, according to the European higher education area. Behaviour & Information

U
Technology, 27(6), 495-505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01449290600958965.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model
with the theory of planned behaviour. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
AN
Mcconatha, D., Praul, M., & Lynch, M. J. (2008). Mobile learning in higher education: An
empirical assessment of a new educational tool. Online Submission, 7(3).
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64 - 82.
M

Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1987), “A longitudinal study of product form innovation: the
interaction between predispositions and social messages”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 611-25.
D

Motaghian, H., Hassanzadeh, A., & Moghadam, D. K. (2013). Factors affecting university
instructors’ adoption of web-based learning systems: case study of Iran. Computers &
TE

Education, 61, 158-167. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.

Muradkhanli, L., & Atabeyli, B. (2012). Implementaton of eLearning in Azerbaijan. Retrieved
from:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6398528
Ngafeeson, M.N., & Sun, J. (2015). The effects of technology innovativeness and system
EP

exposure on student acceptance of e-textbooks. Journal of Information Technology

Education: Research, 14, 55-71.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Nysveen, H., Pedersen, P.E. and Thorbjornsen, H. (2005). Explaining intention to use mobile chat
C

services: Moderating effects of gender. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(5), 247–256.

Oxford University Press. (2015). Learn about virtual learning environment/Course Management
AC

System content. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/o54enla.

Park, Y., Son, H., & Kim, C. (2012). Investigating the determinants of construction
professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: an extension of the technology acceptance
model. Automation in Construction, 22, 377-386. Retrieved from:
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Phungsuk, R., Viriyavejakul, C., & Ratanaolarn, T. (2017). Development of a problem-based
learning model via a virtual learning environment. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 1-10.
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use.
Computers & Education, 47(2), 222-244. Retrieved from:https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Purnomo, S. H., & Lee, Y. (2013). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia:
an empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138-153.

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266666912448258.
Raman, A. (2011). The usage of technology among education students in University Utara
Malaysia: An application of extended Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal
of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology 7(3), 4-
17.
Rejon-Guardia, F., Sanchez-Fern_andez, J., & Munoz-Leiva, F. (2013). The acceptance of
microblogging in the learning process: the mBAM model. Journal of Technology and

PT
Science Education, 3(1), 31-47. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Rezaei, M., Mohammadi, H. M., Asadi, A., & Kalantary, K. (2008). Predicting ELearning
application in agricultural higher education using technology acceptance model. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 98(1), 85-95. Retrieved from:

RI
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499474.pdf.
Robert, M. L., & Wortzel, L. H. (1979). New lifestyle determinants of women’s food shopping
behavior. Journal of Marketing, 43 (3), 28-39.

SC
Rodgers, W. M., Conner, M., & Murray, T. C. (2008). Distinguishing among perceived control,
perceived difficulty, and self‐efficacy as determinants of intentions and behaviors. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 607-630.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and

U
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Saad_e, R. G., & Kira, D. (2006). The emotional state of technology acceptance. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 529-539. Retrieved from:
AN
http://proceedings.informingscience.org/InSITE2006/IISITSaad145.pdf.
Shih, H-P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the Web.
Information & Management, 41, 351-368.
Shyu, S. H., & Huang, J. (2011). Elucidating usage of e-government learning: a perspective of
M

the extended technology acceptance model. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4),

491-502. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning
D

users’ behavior in developing countries: a structural equation model. Computers in Human

Behavior, 41, 153-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.020.
TE

Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013a). User acceptance towards web-based learning systems:
investigating the role of social, organizational and individual factors in European higher
education. Computer Science, 17, 189-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.026.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS quarterly,
EP

561-570.
Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning
environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852. Retrieved from:
https://library3.hud.ac.uk/summon/.
C

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance
Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186-204
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Williams, M., & Williams, J. (2009). Evaluating a model of business school students’ acceptance
of web-based course management systems. International Journal of Management Education,
8(3), 59-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.3794/ijme.83.264.
Xuesong, Z., Olfman, L., & Firpo, D. (2011). An information systems design theory for
collaborative ePortfolio systems. In 44th Hawaii International Conference System Sciences
(pp. 1-10).

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Yang, S. C., & Lin, C. H. (2011). Factors affecting the intention to use Facebook to support
problem-based learning among employees in a Taiwanese manufacturing company. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(22), 9014-9022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.1191.
Zare, H., & Yazdanparast, S. (2013). The causal Model of effective factors on intention to use of
information technology among payamnoor and traditional universities students. Life Science
Journal, 10(2), 46-50. Retrieved from:

PT
http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1002/008_B00896life1002_46_50.pdf.

RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

• The GETAMEL model successfully applies to e-learning acceptance domain

• Computer anxiety negatively affects perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use

PT
• Subjective norm does not have an impact on perceived ease of use of e-learning system

• Self-efficacy does not affect perceived usefulness of e-learning system

RI
• perceived ease of use does not affect perceived usefulness of e-learning system

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC