Communications Students in University of Santo Tomas and The Factors That Affect Their Intention To Use A Learning Management System

University of Santo Tomas
Faculty of Arts and Letters
Undergraduate Thesis BA in Communication Program
2021-2022
COMMUNICATIONS STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS AND THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT THEIR
INTENTION TO USE A LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
John Gabriel S. Faustino and Zachary Israel V. Mirpuri
Recommended citation:
Faustino, J. & Mirpuri, Z. (2022). Communications Students in University of Santo Tomas and the Factors
that Affect their Intention to Use a Learning Management System (Undergraduate thesis). University of
Santo Tomas, Manila, Philippines.
UST was acknowledged a Center of Development in Communication Arts by the Commission on

Higher Education (CHEd) on January 2016 – December 2021
ABSTRACT
In the past years, online learning has been a tool used by learning
institutions to accompany face-to-face learning, a practice known as blended
learning. However, schools and universities in the Philippines have switched to
full-time online implementation of courses as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
There has been recent research on online classes and the use of learning
management systems, but there is a need for more research on students’ number
of devices and how it can affect their intention to use a Learning Management
System. There is also a need to study students and the factors that affect their
intention to use Learning Management Systems in the context of a global
pandemic. The researchers used the Technology Acceptance Model as a basis for
the research’s theoretical framework, and this was implemented in the online
survey they conducted that was answered specifically by 250 Communication
students in the University of Santo Tomas. The answers were gathered using
Google Forms and were analyzed by the Jamovi software. The researchers will
determine what specific factors affect students’ intention to use an LMS, and they
will determine if the number of devices moderates the relationships of different
factors with the intention to use an LMS.
Keywords: Learning Management System, Online Learning, COVID-19

Pandemic, Technology Acceptance Model, Communications students
ii
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
This is to declare that the content of this thesis is a product of our

work despite the assistance we have sought from other materials and
persons, all of which we have cited, in terms of content, style and
presentation.
We declare that we have written this thesis with utmost faithfulness

to the Thomasian Code of Honor.
AFFIX CANDIDATES’ SIGNATURE ABOVE PRINTED NAME BELOW:
John Gabriel S. Faustino
Zachary Israel V. Mirpuri
Date: ____________________4/12/2022_
______________Noel Sajid I. Murad

Adviser’s Signature over Printed Name
Date: ____________________4/12/2022_
iii
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL FOR DEFENSE
This Thesis entitled
COMMUNICATIONS STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITY OF SANTO

TOMAS AND THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT THEIR INTENTION
TO USE A LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
prepared and submitted by
John Gabriel S. Faustino

Zachary Israel V. Mirpuri
has been ACCEPTED AND APPROVED for Oral Examination, for the fulfillment the
requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts major in Communications Program.
Prof. Noel Sajid I. Murad, MMC

Adviser
Prof. Anna Cielo T. Perez, MA

Thesis Coordinator, Department of Communication and Media Studies
ADVISER’S GRADE: __________

(written and countersigned)
Date: _______________
iv
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS
Department of Communication and Media Studies
This is to certify that the Thesis Draft entitled COMMUNICATIONS STUDENTS IN

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS AND THE FACTORS THAT AFFECT THEIR
INTENTION TO USE A LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, submitted by John
Gabriel S. Faustino and
Zachary Israel V. Mirpuri for Bachelor of Arts in Communications has passed the
Originality Screening required by the Faculty of Arts and Letters, through SafeAssign
with a Similarity Threshold of 7%.
Prof. Anna Cielo T. Perez, MA

Thesis Coordinator
Date: 4/12/2022_______
v
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis has been a taxing yet cultivating and joyous journey for the two of us. As
victorious as it may be to finish it finally, we would not make it without the help of everyone who
contributed to this study. First of all, we would like to thank God for guiding us through this trying
challenge and letting this thesis see completion. We would also like to give our utmost gratitude
to everyone we met through this journey – particularly to those unfamiliar names and faces who
shed their time and efforts to bring this paper to the finish line with us. We thank you for serving
as one of our rays of hope in times of doubt and demotivation.
Our greatest gratitude and respect go to our thesis adviser Prof. Noel Sajid I. Murad, MMC,
for being an ideal adviser, mentor, and friend. You taught us not only to finish this paper with your
words of encouragement but also to have a laugh and fun through the process. We cannot thank
you enough for the wisdom and knowledge you’ve imparted to us and for not giving up on
explaining things we cannot fully understand by ourselves, with patience and enthusiasm. It is
truly an accomplishment that we would never make without you. We would also like to make this
thesis a tribute to our departed former thesis adviser, Dr. Samuel Jr. T. Ramos, who also
contributed to our study, especially in its early phase. May he truly rest in peace.
To Prof. Beyan Atta Mohamed Hagos, Ph.D., and our panelists, Prof. Faye Martel-Abugan,
M.A. and Prof Anna Cielo T. Perez, MA., who provided a number of helpful comments and
suggestions, we would also like to thank you.
vii
This acknowledgment will not be completed without mentioning our beloved families. We
thank the Faustino and Mirpuri families for the unending love and support they gave us through
the making of this thesis.
Lastly, to our beloved friends, who helped us disseminate our survey questionnaires and
kept us motivated as we did this thesis, we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
viii
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 1
RESEARCH PROBLEM ................................................................................................................... 2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 2
OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................... 3
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 4
SCOPE AND LIMITATION ............................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 8
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................. 8
Technology in Online and Onsite Learning ................................................................................... 8
Online Learning............................................................................................................................ 13
The COVID-19 Pandemic Online Learning Setup....................................................................... 15
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ....................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 3: FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 37
RESEARCH DESIGN ..................................................................................................................... 37
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ........................................................................................................ 37
SAMPLING/PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 39
DATA COLLECTION..................................................................................................................... 39
PRE-TEST........................................................................................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 43
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................ 43
DESCRIPTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 43
DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 48
SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 60
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 60
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 62
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 63
ix
TABLES AND FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Study based on TAM ........................................................... 30

Figure 2A. Conceptual Framework of the Study based on TAM and 3-TUM . .................................. 32
Figure 2B. Conceptual Framework of the Study based on TAM and 3-TUM. ................................... 33
Figure 3. Operational Framework of the Study ................................................................................... 34
TABLES
Table 1. .Construct Definition and Reference for Survey Questionnaire ............................................ 38

Table 2. Pre-test Reliability Analysis .................................................................................................. 41
Table 3. Pre-test Reliability Analysis w/ changes for ICE and SMI.................................................... 42
Table 4. Frequencies of Gender ........................................................................................................... 43
Table 5. Frequencies of Age ................................................................................................................ 44
Table 6. Frequencies of Year Level ..................................................................................................... 44
Table 7. Frequencies of Device Types split by Year Level ................................................................. 45
Table 8. Frequencies of Device Types split by Gender ....................................................................... 46
Table 9. Frequencies of Internet Connection Types split by Year Level............................................. 47
Table 10. Frequencies of Internet Connection Types split by Gender................................................. 48
Table 11. Independent Sampes T-Test (Gender as grouping variable) ................................................ 49
Table 12. One-Way ANOVA (Year Level as grouping variable) ....................................................... 50
Table 13. Correlation Matrix ............................................................................................................... 51
Table 14. Model Fit Measures ............................................................................................................. 52
Table 15. Model Coefficients - ITU..................................................................................................... 53
Table 16. Model Coefficients - PU ...................................................................................................... 53
Table 17. Model Coefficients - PEOU ................................................................................................. 54
Table 18. Model Coefficients - PE....................................................................................................... 54
Table 19. Moderation Estimates (PEOU) ............................................................................................ 55
Table 20. Moderation Estimates (PE) .................................................................................................. 55
Table 21. Moderation Estimates (PU).................................................................................................. 55
Table 22. Hypothesis Summary ........................................................................................................... 56
x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH
In the past years, online learning has been used as a tool by universities and schools in the
Philippines and globally to aid face-to-face learning and adapt to modern times. This is referred to
as blended learning, where there is a mix of face-to-face and online learning activities. This is done
to cater to students’ different learning styles and allow them to work before and after school in
ways that full-time standard learning cannot typically achieve (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2011).
On the other hand, full-time online schools like the University of the Philippines offer
courses that can be achieved entirely in the comfort of one’s home, with only the occasional visit
to a facility to take exams. This can be done until students finish their courses online and receive
their degrees (Katigbak, 2018).
However, as the world is faced with a global pandemic - the COVID-19 virus that has
spread quickly and has taken the lives of countless people across the globe, and with strict
quarantine rules that do not allow for close contact of any one person to another, it has become
impossible to conduct face-to-face learning, and in turn, blended learning in the Philippines as of
October 2020. As a result, many schools and universities have turned to full-time online
implementation of their courses, despite teachers and students being unready for the said courses
as ACT Philippines Secretary-General Raymond Basilio explained that the Philippines is not yet
ready for schools opening in August 2020 (Hernando-Malipot, 2020).
1
Students also have “technological, individual, domestic, institutional, and community
barriers” (Baticulon et al., 2020).
RESEARCH PROBLEM
Communication students in the University of Santo Tomas have been adjusting to the
current learning system that the institution has implemented. This also means that they have
utilized electronic devices that they already have bought before or during the pandemic to take
online courses.
There has been relevant and recent research on online classes and the use of learning
management systems (Garcia, 2017; Fernandez & Murad, 2022; Joaquin et al., 2020). However,
the pandemic and the relative surge of online classes had only happened recently in our history in
2020. Furthermore, there is minimal research on the number of devices students use and how this
can affect their intention to use a Learning Management System (LMS). Thus, there is a need for
more research on students and their intention to use LMS in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic, and the researchers aim to fill that gap in the literature.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. How do differences in the Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and
Perceived Enjoyment (PE) of UST AB Communication students towards Blackboard, a Learning
Management System (LMS), impact their Intention to Use (ITU) it?
2
2. How do the external factors of Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE), Social Media Influence
(SMI), and System Interactivity (SI) affect the PU, PEOU, PE, and ITU of UST AB
Communication students towards Blackboard?
3. How does the UST AB Communications students’ device quantity affect their intention to use
Blackboard?
4. Is learning over an LMS a more viable consideration for UST AB Communication students?
OBJECTIVES
1. To profile the UST AB Communication student participants of the study according to:
a. Demographics (gender, age, year level, residence)
b. Device Ownership
c. Internet Connection Used
d. Level of LMS use (light, moderate, heavy)
2. To determine the impact of Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and
Perceived Enjoyment (PE) on the Intention to Use (ITU) Blackboard.
3. To determine the impact of external factors, namely Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE),
Social Media Influence (SMI), and System Interactivity (SI) on PU, PEOU, PE, and ITU of UST
AB Communication towards Blackboard
3
4.To determine if the number of devices moderates the relationship of PEOU, PU, and PE with
ITU Blackboard
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will provide results that correlate to students’ intention to use a learning
management system, specifically Blackboard. As most of the universities and learning
institutions are currently proceeding with their modalities online, this study benefits the
following various sectors as follows:
Communication Majors
Communication Majors rely heavily on devices to conduct projects and studies---as outputs
often involve video editing, photoshop, graphic designs, radio production, and the like. Thus, this
study is beneficial to them as it is essential to know if the impact of Perceived Usefulness (PU),
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and Perceived Enjoyment (PE) on the Intention to Use (ITU)
“Blackboard” affects their studies drastically or in any way, not only in an online learning setup
but also in traditional face-to-face learning.
Students
With this study, students can determine what factors influence their intention to use
Learning Management Systems like Blackboard.
Same as the Communication Majors, the impact of Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived
Ease of Use (PEOU), and Perceived Enjoyment (PE) and external factors such as Internet
4
Connectivity Experience (ICE), Social Media Influence (SMI), and System Interactivity (SI) on
the Intention to Use (ITU) an LMS can be a significant basis of their academic performance and
their behavior towards the said LMS.
Teachers/Professors
This study will be beneficial to teachers and course professors, especially those who are
new to this kind of online learning setup. The research outcome can help them adjust their teaching
techniques and learning outputs they will give to the students to be all-inclusive despite their
learning devices.
Parents
This research benefits the parents significantly as they are among the affected individuals
of this online learning setup. This study can determine the factors on their children’s behavior
towards the LMS they use and help encourage them. Additionally, they will be able to pinpoint
the factors that have the most impact on their children’s Intention To Use (ITU) a LMS and start
building a solution around it.
Administrators
This study may be used as a basis for the school administrators to enhance the learning
process for the current online learning setup. They can look at premium features of their choice of
LMS and see if these additional affordances help their scholars and students deliver better outputs
and results in online classes.
5
Curriculum Planners
This study will also benefit those who plan for the curriculum to develop different
pedagogy styles for the teachers to make better online learning that is inclusive to all students.
Government
Knowing the factors’ impact on students’ Intention to Use an LMS, this study can be of
help for some government sectors such as Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and
Department of Education (DepEd) in syllabi planning and in addressing students’ needs in an
online learning setup.
Society
This study would benefit society because conducting successful online classes enables
students to meet learning outcomes intended by their teachers with the purpose of making society
a better place.
Researchers
This research may be beneficial for present and future researchers. Since this is a
pioneering study on the moderating effect of the number of devices on the relationship between
variables leading to the intention to use an LMS, future researchers may 1) explore for mediation
effects of no of devices, 2) moderation and mediation effects of type of devices, and 3) see if these
results still hold true for other Communication students using other kinds of LMS.
6
SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The respondents being studied in the research are limited to Communication Major
students of the University of Santo Tomas using Blackboard as an LMS only. Therefore, the result
and conclusions drawn from the study may only apply to them and not to Communication students
using other LMS platforms from different universities.
Furthermore, the researchers considered three external factors namely Internet
Connectivity Experience (ICE), Social Media Influence (SMI), and System Interactivity (SI)
which could affect the students’ intention to use an LMS. Other possible external factors are not
covered in the paper.
7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section on “Technology in Online and
Onsite Learning” discusses the state of technology in online and onsite learning, such as
smartphones, laptops, tablets, and desktops. The second section on “Online Learning” mostly
discusses how online learning has changed in the COVID-19 pandemic. The third section on the
“Technology Acceptance Model” explores the original TAM framework formulated by F. Davis
1986. It discusses the three main factors of TAM (PEOU, PU, PE). This section also explores
three external factors that can contribute significantly to the framework (ICE, SI, SMI). Lastly,
the fourth section discusses some of the gaps in the literature that the present researchers would
like to address in this present study.
RESEARCH AND EVALUATION
Technology in Online and Onsite Learning
The technology of education incorporates two structures namely software and
hardware innovation/technology. First, smartphones are a group of technological
instruments that have significant applications needed in the necessities of life, and it has an
inconceivable limit. One of the capacities is it can work like a computer, and ease the users
to bring it everywhere. In the interim, the smartphone is a telephone that brings leading
abilities; as a type of the capacity of the Wireless Mobile Device (WMD) that can work as
a computer by offering features, for example, personal digital assistants (PDAs), web
access, email, and Global Positioning System (GPS), so it makes the users simpler to find
8
the information or data needs (Dewi & Haryanto 2019). With this in light, it is evident that
access to a smartphone is necessary to learning, whether it is a face-to-face type of learning
or online/LMS-based.
A study by Sung, Chang, and Liu (2016) performed a meta-analysis and research
synthesis on the effects of mobile devices like laptops, mobile phones, and personal digital
assistants in students’ learning performance. The researchers analyzed around 110 journal
articles published between 1993 and 2013 to find the effects of mobile devices. Their
analysis showed that using mobile devices in education had a better effect on learning
compared to desktops and computers or not using mobile devices at all as an intervention.
However, they also found that there still is much room for improvement in the utilization
of mobile devices in education so that the effect can be much more significant than it
currently is. This can be done through “longer intervention durations, closer integration of
technology and the curriculum, and further assessment of higher-level skills” (Sung et al.,
2016).
A study by Young (2008) has recommended that any student, including the "at-
risk" student, who has technology incorporated into the educational plan, might see a
positive change in classroom grades, GPA, and attendance. Technology use in learning
permits students to be more independent. Students may utilize peer instructing, and
instructors may work more as facilitators than teachers (Means, 1997). Students are
permitted to work independently, at their movement and pace, when working on computer
projects and ventures. These students may not be hesitant to fail when their failure is
personal rather than in a huge classroom discussion setup (Young, 2008). Furthermore, any
9
student, including the "at-risk" student, who had technology coordinated into the
educational plan, could see a positive change in homeroom evaluations, inspiration, and
participation. The student evaluation had a positive increase in students’ grades when the
instructor incorporated technology into the educational program with reasonable arranging
and appropriate preparation (Young, 2008). Students utilized technology as an apparatus
to gather, arrange, and investigate information; to improve introductions; to lead
recreations; and to tackle complex issues. The exploration tended to the mentality of the
students when technology was brought into the class and discovered intuitive learning with
technology expanded student cooperation and improved their disposition toward the class
(Young, 2008).
Matthew Andrew et al. (2018) conducted a study that surveyed students about
technology and their preferences in order to understand the best implementation in the
classroom or any learning environment. Data was gathered from two universities in the
United Arab Emirates from an English-language Foundation Studies program and a first-
year General Studies program. The study aimed to have a comprehensive account of
learning tools and what students prefer for learning. Their results showed that respondents
enjoyed learning how to use new technology and believe that it improves learning. As for
the most preferred learning device, books/paper were the most cited by respondents. A
close second was laptops, while tablets and smartphones were much less preferred. The
results also showed that respondents preferred a mixed type of learning - a combination of
traditional devices like paper and books with digital technology like laptops and phones.
Moreover, researchers Mary Stritto and Katie Linder (2018) conducted a detailed
study that looked at the device preferences of students regarding accessing online courses
10
and multimedia learning. Their Ecampus research Unit surveyed over 2000 students in
Oregon State in the spring of 2017. They had key findings to help more people understand
what type of devices students own and their preferences for online classes and courses.
They found that over 99% of students owned laptops, and almost 100% owned a
smartphone. Only 35% of students owned a desktop computer, and less than half owned
some sort of tablet. Few students borrowed devices, with less than 10% of students
borrowing tablets, desktops, laptops, and smartphones. In terms of the students’ device
preferences, most of them preferred to use their laptops to access their learning
management system homepage, video content, learning simulations, and games.
On the other hand, less than 10% of students preferred smartphones and tablets for
video viewing and learning simulations. It is important to note that students viewed their
preferred devices as the ideal devices to use when viewing video content and learning
simulations and games. Students’ reasons for choosing their preferred devices were the
following - convenience, ease of use, and effectiveness; and laptops and desktops were the
most preferred for these same reasons, while smartphones were the least likely to be chosen
as the preferred device.
This study provides important insight, information, and data on what students
prefer when taking online classes, despite being conducted in the United States of America
with a drastically different economic and technological state than that of the Philippines.
Furthermore, it gives the researchers of this study a glimpse of what UST Communication
students might prefer with their online learning devices because online learning platforms
are still similar despite the difference in location.
11
Namaddu and Watts (2020) studied the device preferences for video lecture
viewing for students in London, UK. First-year undergraduate students were given new
tablet devices, but also had 24/7 access to computers in their university. 21 video lectures
were given to the students throughout the academic year. The researchers could track the
students’ device usage by examining Youtube Analytics, which shows if a user is watching
on a mobile device, tablet, television, or computer. The results showed that students
preferred using the tablets for video lecture viewing at the beginning of the year. However,
as the academic year passed, more and more students started using personal computers as
the device for video-lecture viewing. Around two-thirds of the way in the academic year,
computers became the preferred device. By the end of the year, less than thirty percent of
views came from tablet users. To conclude the article, the researchers recommended that
these findings should be considered, when contemplating initiatives to deliver new
technology such as tablets to large groups of students (Namaddu and Watts 2020).
Expanding on how smartphones are now one of the learning tools in classes, a
critical part of the utilization of smartphones in online schooling is their capacity to help
the utilization of various learning approaches for students (Miller, 2018). A few students
may like to become familiar with the material in components that are much of the time
rehashed, a methodology smartphones can uphold (Miller, 2018). A few students may
likewise have time limitations due to work or different responsibilities, which expect them
to access the internet Learning Management System (LMS) when they have accessible time
paying little mind to their actual area (Miller, 2018). Practically speaking, though
smartphone technology is adaptable enough to help fluctuated ways to deal with learning,
specific gadget types, for example, smartphones or tablets, can be more steady in achieving
12
explicit instructive errands than others (Kukulska-Hulme & Traxler, 2005). Colleges need
to create web-based learning programs that can uphold student utilization of smartphones,
which can improve the learning experience. To give students applications and other
technology important to utilize the smartphone, in any case, schools and colleges must
comprehend the distinctions in components, for example, commitment and learning results.
There is, notwithstanding, generous vulnerability concerning the ideal ways for schools
and colleges to join the utilization of smartphones in their online courses and LMS, which
this examination tries to cure (Kuo et al., 2015).
Online Learning
Online courses are often associated with extensive use of technology (Abramenka
2015). A few researchers accept that course organization impacts students’ success
(Dunbar, 2004; Jagger et.al, 2013). These researchers are fundamentally worried about
recognizing the best devices to use for fruitful learning in online courses (Dunbar, 2004),
and contend that student specialized and non-scholastic aptitudes are behind their
accomplishment in online courses. Grundmann (2010) claimed that the absence of
laboratory and hands-on experience inside the arrangement of online courses is seen as a
significant drawback, explicitly for students in the field of science. Be that as it may, he
likewise found the format of instruction (online or traditional) doesn't influence the fruitful
accomplishment of learning results for science-related lessons.
A study by Acharya (2018) examines end users' attitudes about the adoption of an
e-learning system, with a particular focus on digital learning system features. The
researchers looked at how respondents felt about offline material, community-built
13
technology, the Windows operating system, and the availability of maintenance services.
These findings form a solid foundation for future initiatives targeted at expanding the use
of e-learning systems. From the study, respondents indicated a preference for community-
based services based on the estimation findings. Furthermore, respondents' choices among
the assigned levels favor offline media, suggesting low internet penetration as well as
insufficient bandwidth, dependability, and latency of connection, which are common in
developing nations. However, large-scale deployment of e-learning systems, as well as
their maintenance and the increased difficulty of updating offline information, may raise
costs, making them less accessible to end users. In this regard, government policies
fostering digital content creation as well as actions to offer stable network connections will
contribute to increased well-being. For the implementation of a system that incorporates
the recognized preference structure more quickly, the policy makers and government alike
should initially consider urging offline-based digital content and then upgrading intranet
for the future iterations of e-learning systems in a much larger spectrum (Hervatis et al.,
2016).
Social limitations are another region that one should be aware of when planning an
online course. Instructive technology keeps on speaking to the rule culture, restricting
people excluded from the “dominate culture” (Oswal & Meloncon, 2014). Another
limitation that has been brought to the cutting edge is the issue of the 'have' versus 'the
have-nots.’ Technology is a zone that can be effectively underestimated when it is
interlaced into everyday life. However, technology isn't immeasurably utilized for some
because of the absence of financial intentions to increase access. Expanding the proportion
of computers and other electronic gadgets to students will eventually prompt the distraught
14
to access the worldwide information accessible on the web. "Knowledge of technology can
overcome any barrier between the rich and poor people, the accomplished and the
unworldly" (Chaney, 2001, p. 28).
The COVID-19 Pandemic Online Learning Setup
An article written by Hodges et al. (2020), makes a case for Emergency
Remote Teaching - an alternative in delivering quality education in which face-to-
face classes are unavailable because of crises - like the COVID-19 pandemic. The
primary purpose of this is to create temporary access to instruction and teaching
that is quick, instant, and reliable. An example of this is mobile learning, blended
learning, and radio learning. The researchers explain that in the current situation,
this is more ideal than what is currently being done in many universities - a
completely online learning experience, which has had troubles and obstacles
because of the unfamiliarity of faculty and even some students to the platforms and
technologies needed to master this type of education. As mentioned in the article,
“Typical planning, preparation, and development time for a fully online university
course is six to nine months before the course is delivered.” (Hodges et al. 2020).
Faculty and students cannot instantly become experts in online teaching and
learning, and thus, a smooth transition to a fully online learning experience is
unlikely to occur. This article has insight into the definitions and the needed
resources and planning of online learning that will contribute to the topic.
15
Adnan and Anwar (2020) examined the perspectives of Pakistani
undergraduate and postgraduate students regarding online education and distance
learning as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. They found many problems that
students faced, which is especially prominent in an underdeveloped country like
Pakistan. More than half of the respondents had major problems with internet
connectivity (Adnan and Anwar 2020). Another notable result is that more than
seventy percent of respondents were against the notion that online learning was
more motivating than face-to-face or conventional learning. Other major challenges
highlighted in the study are the lack of proper resources and the devices needed for
online learning (Adnan and Anwar 2020).
Joaquin et al. (2020) provided the general situation on the higher education
sector in the Philippines and how universities are handling the COVID-19
pandemic as of October 2020. It provides an overview of what the major
universities in Metro Manila are doing and how they continue implementing
courses and programs despite the lack of face-to-face classes. For example, Ateneo
de Manila University has gone with a completely asynchronous learning approach
for its students, while the University of Santo Tomas has a mix of synchronous and
asynchronous learning activities. It also summarizes the different issues schools in
the country continue to experience as this new type of learning is adopted, one of
which is the fact that access to the internet and learning devices is a privilege only
a little more than half of Filipino citizens have. Joaquin et al. (2020) conclude that
certain factors need to be considered as the country goes into a new mode of
16
learning like teacher capacity, situation and context of the learner, the efficiency of
the learning environment, and issues like the internet and devices. They also
concluded with the information that the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
is making moves so that learning is more effective in the pandemic.
Mohammadi (2015) investigated users' perceptions of e-learning systems
using an integrated model of IS success model and TAM, and studied the quality
elements impacting users' intentions and satisfaction towards the usage of e-
learning, as well as the impacts of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use.
The researchers incorporated usefulness as a mediator in the link between ease of
use and intention to better understand the users' behavioral patterns. The research,
which took place at four public institutions in Tehran, found that system quality
had the most beneficial influence on user satisfaction and e-learning intention. As
a result, creating a visually pleasing, user-friendly, fundamentally structured,
adaptable, environmentally appealing, reliable, and secure application that
optimizes reaction time and includes interactive features is advised. It should be
created in a in a way that piques the students' attention and interests.
A study by Mailizar, Burg, and Maulina (2021) presents a paradigm for
evaluating university students' intentions to use e-learning amidst the pandemic.
For the study, the technology acceptance model (TAM) was used, with system
quality and e-learning experience as external components. The findings revealed
that system quality had a significant impact on students' perceptions of e-learning's
17
utility and attitudes toward it. Meanwhile, previous e-learning experience had no
effect on students' perceptions of e-learning's use or utility. Moreover, students'
intentions to use e-learning during the epidemic were significantly influenced by
their attitudes regarding e-learning. The study reveals that system quality and
students' attitudes about e-learning are essential for students who are unfamiliar
with e-learning at the university to be willing to continue utilizing it throughout the
pandemic. As a result of the research, it is vital to guarantee that the university's e-
learning system is of high quality. Additionally, the institution must maintain a
good student attitude toward e-learning, since this is the most important factor in
predicting student's e-learning consumption. Lastly, the study found that students'
attitudes were strongly influenced by their perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness of e-learning. Based on such links, the study concluded that the quality
of the e-learning system is critical for ensuring the long-term usage of e-learning
throughout the pandemic and well beyond (Mailizar et al., 2021). Thus, universities
should continue to enhance the system's quality.
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975,1977) recommended that the quick determinant of
conduct is the intention, or what they called behavioral intention. The construct catches
stimulating factors, for example, how much exertion an individual is willing to apply to
carry out or perform a particular behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA) model proposes that few variables go before conduct or behavior, explicitly
mentalities or attitudes and subjective norms (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen,
18
1975). Also, the model is based on two fundamental suppositions - first, individuals or
humans are rational beings and, second, their social activities are under volitional control.
Rational infers that people utilize information accessible to them, and the model depends
on the reason that social collaborations are generally guided by reasoning and behavior
(Ajzen, 1991). Demeanor toward a behavior is a great or positive assessment or negative
assessment of carrying out the behavior. Subjective norms allude to a person's impression
of the prevailing difficulties felt either possibly in support of playing out a specific behavior
and how one's social circle or the individuals who impact one's choices see the behavior.
Fundamentally, the model helps to clarify an individual's behavior and is applicable in
numerous fields.
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), created by F. Davis (1986) is a
derivative of the TRA model. In particular, the model backs the examination of a person's
"determinants of computer utilization conduct" (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989, p.
983). In light of TRA, the TAM was changed and "specifically tailored for modeling user
acceptance of information systems" (Davis et al., 1989, p. 985). The TAM model derives
that a person's social aim to utilize a system is dictated by two convictions - perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000, p.186-187), the two
primary segments of the model which has been broadly used to quantify the utilization of
various data innovations/technologies and is presently being utilized as a framework to
measure the effectiveness of various variables (Arbaugh, 2005; Martins & Kellermanns,
2004; Manochehri & Sharif, 2010; Unal & Unal, 2011).
19
Making an integrative exploration structure that broadens a model habitually
utilized in the Information Systems field, the Technology Acceptance Model, along with
factors utilized in the education field, an empirical study by Galy et al. (2011) investigates
the variables impacting student execution as reflected by their last course level.
The Technology Acceptance Model clarifies computer acknowledgment by and
large terms (Davis, 1986). The model estimates the effect of external factors such as
Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE), Social Media Influence (SMI), Integrated
Multimedia Instruction (IMI), Perceived Quality of Life (PQWL), and System Interactivity
(SI) on inside convictions, mentalities, and goals (Garcia, 2017). Perceived Usefulness and
Perceived Ease of Use, two fundamental developments in the model, allude to a person's
view of how the appropriation of another innovation /technology will expand their
effectiveness and the person's impression of how simple the technology will be to utilize.
The lower the apparent exertion is, the simpler the technology will be to embrace.
Technology Acceptance Model is an important factor to understand as most of the related
literature about the study utilizes the said model.
Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use (PU & PEOU)
Davis (1989) stated that it is necessary to provide indicators for system use'
prediction and explanation. According to Venkatesh and Davis, Perceived
Usefulness (PU) is defined as the degree to which a person feels that adopting the
system will help him or her perform better at work, and Perceived Ease of Use
20
(PEOU) is the degree to which someone feels that utilizing the system will be easy
or free of effort. Past studies have researched PU and PEOU broadly (Adams,
Nelson, & Todd, 1992; Agarwal & Karahanna, 2000; Davis, 1989; Davis & Wong,
2007; Gibson, Harris, & Colaric, 2008; Igbaria, Guimaraes, & Davis, 1995; Saadé,
2007; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Davis (1989) is credited with explaining the factors or variables and
discovered quantifiable connections with self-reported indicators of usage
behavior. Moreover, the investigation discovered clients showed a readiness to
manage troubles experienced with framework use.
Although the construct's connections are very much tried, Adams et al.
(1992) discovered that user experience may impact the relationship between PEOU
and utilization. The construct was also found to strongly affect PU and computer
use while considering client preparing, framework quality, and computer
experience (Igbaria et al., 1995).
Agarwal and Karahanna (2000) emphasized the significance of researching
user response to technology practice, and stressed the significance of user
perceptions. Moreover, preparing and training have been found to directly influence
user perceptions of technology (Venkatesh, 1999). It is recommended that with the
development of technology, the benefit of recognizing the pertinence of user
experience on usage should be investigated. Permitting that PEOU is a solid pointer
of user acceptance, there is still the need to add to the studies concerning the
determinants of this construct (Venkatesh 2000). The author likewise proposed the
21
need to upgrade technology acceptance by further researching PEOU considering
the conditions to improve positive insight while perceiving the strength of the user's
perception. For instance, students were found to assign a value of handiness or
utility to various course content. Content seen as valuable or of high utility was
visited more often as possible than support material with no apparent utility, such
as external references (Landry, Griffeth, & Hartman, 2006; Saadé & Bahli, 2005).
As previous studies have confirmed the correlations between PEOU and
PU, as well as PEOU, PU, and BI or the Behavioral Intention to use e-learning
(Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000; Lin,
Fofanah, & Liang, 2011; C.-T. Chang et al., 2017), we therefore hypothesize the
following:
H1: PEOU will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication
students towards an LMS.
H3: PU will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
H6: PEOU will have a significant effect on the PU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
Perceived Enjoyment (PE)
Another factor that is of utmost importance is Perceived Enjoyment. It is
defined by Davis and Warshaw (1992) as “the extent to which the activity of using
22
the computer is perceived to be enjoyable in its own right, apart from any
performance consequences that may be anticipated.” Enjoyment can mean
motivation and the pleasure gained in using a certain device for completing certain
tasks and homework in online classes. According to Ryan and Deci (2000), the
conception of “enjoy” is in harmony with intrinsic motivation. In the information
systems’ setting, it is defined as the degree to which the act of utilizing a certain
system is considered delightful in and of itself, regardless of any performance
repercussions that may come from system use (Park, Son, & Kim 2012). It is vital
in e-learning adoption explanations.
A study by Abdullah and Ward (2016) has shown that Perceived Enjoyment
(PE) significantly impacts Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and Perceived
Usefulness (PU) for e-learning. The study also stated that eight out of eleven studies
(73%) found a significant positive relationship between enjoyment and PEOU for
e-learning. Eight out of eight studies (100%) showed a significant and positive link
between the constructs, Perceived Enjoyment (PE) and Perceived Usefulness (PU).
(Abdullah and Ward, 2016) Concerning e-learning systems, a student is more likely
to have a positive attitude concerning ease of use and a system’s usefulness if they
find it enjoyable (Al-Aulamie, Mansour, Daly, & Adjei, 2012; Chen, Lin, Yeh, &
Lou, 2013; Zare & Yazdanparast, 2013). Furthermore, a study by Chang et al.
(2017) stated that the “average effect of enjoyment on students' PU for e-learning
systems is 0.452.” In terms of Cohen's (1992) proposed guidelines, this is almost a
significant influence. Perceived Enjoyment has been shown to have a considerable
23
impact on PU and PEOU in the context of e-learning in previous investigations.
Therefore, we hypothesize that :
H2: PE will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
H4: PE will have a significant effect on PU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
H5: PE will have a significant effect on PEOU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE)
The first external factor that will be considered is that of Internet Connectivity
Experience (ICE). Garcia (2017) describes ICE as “the performance of the
internet connection in terms of its speed and reliability that affects user’s
experience.” Internet Connectivity has improved throughout the years in the
Philippines. In 2016, the country used to be known for having the slowest internet
speed in the world, with an average speed of only 4.5 Mbps. (Akamai, 2016)
According to Ookla July 2021 assessments, the country is on the 72nd rank for
mobile internet with an average download speed of 33.69 Mbps. (Barreiro Jr.,
2021) After five years, Philippine internet speeds have drastically improved,
being ranked in the middle of the pack of the world. Despite this fact, a recent poll
conducted by an independent research firm showed that unstable internet is still
considered the main problem of distance learning. The poll, which was conducted
24
by iOptions Ventures Corporation in June 2021, revealed that 67% of parents,
87% of teachers, and 71% of students found that unstable mobile/internet
connection hindered their online learning (Madarang, 2021). This is also proof
that ICE has a significant effect on the Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) of an LMS.
We therefore hypothesize the following:
H7: ICE will have a significant effect on the PEOU of UST Communication
H8: ICE will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication
System Interactivity (SI)
The second external factor that is of great importance is System Interactivity (SI).
According to Abbad, Morris, and Nahlik (2009), “System interactivity refers to
students’ perceptions of the system’s ability to provide interactive communication
between instructor and students and among students.” Simply put, the LMS
should provide students with helpful interactions among their fellow students and
teachers.
In Abbad, Morris, and Nahlik’s study (2009), they expected SI to be a factor that
could affect students’ adoption of learning systems, but that was not the case for
them. Furthermore, they found no evidence that SI did affect students’ and their
adoption of e-learning. However, for Garcia (2017), a well-designed LMS can
positively affect its users and for the adoption of online learning as long as it can
25
provide helpful interaction between the following: learner-instructor, learner-
learner, and learner-content. According to Garcia (2017), it would become a
decisive element in improving positive feelings for LMS. This means that it can
also have a significant effect on the perceived enjoyment of an LMS. We
therefore hypothesize the following:
H9: SI will have a significant effect on PE of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
H10: SI will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
Social Media Influence (SMI)
The third external factor affecting students’ ability to use Learning Management
Systems is called Social Media Influence (SMI). Garcia (2017) describes it as the
“degree to which social networking sites (SNS) influence the use of other
internet technologies.” Garcia also claims that just like ICE, SMI has not been
considered a factor in other research because the number of Social Media users in
their respective countries isn’t high enough to make a meaningful change in E-
learning and LMS adoption. This could probably be up for debate, especially in a
country like the Philippines, wherein the average Filipino spends 4 hours and 15
minutes on social media, making them the top worldwide in social media usage as
of February 2021(Chua, 2021). Furthermore, Garcia (2017) finds that there is
much discussion on whether or not social media sites can be an alternative to
LMS. There is also the fact that social media can shift a user’s attention from
26
LMS, making them spend less time learning. Garcia (2017) also states that SMI
has an effect on Perceived Usefulness (PU) because “there are features of LMS
specifically in terms of building social connections among learners and
educators that are based on SNS.” We therefore hypothesize the following:
H11: SMI will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication
H12: SMI will have a significant effect on PU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS.
Number of Devices
According to a study by Estira (2020), students who have a greater number of
device types also have a higher level of readiness in terms of online education.
Specifically, it increases the students' confidence in usage of the internet and
computer devices for online learning, it increases their motivation for online
learning, and increases their readiness for self-directed learning. These results can
be interpreted to mean a higher number of devices means a better intention to use
Learning Management Systems like Blackboard. This also leads back to the three
variables that affect ITU namely Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of
Use (PEOU), and Perceived Enjoyment. We therefore hypothesize the following:
H13: The number of devices moderates the relationship between PEOU and ITU
of UST Communication students towards an LMS.
27
H14: The number of devices moderates the relationship between PE and ITU of
UST Communication students towards an LMS.
H15: The number of devices moderates the relationship between PU and ITU of
UST Communication students towards an LMS.
There were several findings that were gained from the review of related literature. There
is the discussion of the technology used in online learning by Dewi & Haryanto (2019), Young
(2008), Means (1997), and Miller (2018).
Different papers from researchers such as Sung et al. (2016), Andrew et al. (2018), Stritto
and Linder (2018), and Namaddu and Watts (2020) analyze the device preferences of students
for general and online learning.
There is also the discussion of online courses before the pandemic, [Abramenka (2015),
Dunbar (2004), Jagger et.al (2013), Grundmann (2010), Oswal & Meloncon (2014), Chaney
(2001)] as well as the complicated online learning setup that is still occurring during the
pandemic in the Philippines and across the globe. [Hodges et al. (2020), Adnan & Anwar (2020),
Joaquin et al. (2020)]
In these studies about the current state of online learning and learning management
systems, there are very few that study a student's intention to use a Learning Management
System, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. [Hodges et al. (2020), Adnan & Anwar
(2020), Joaquin et al. (2020)] Furthermore, there is only one research that claims that a
student’s number of devices can contribute to their Intention to Use an LMS (Estira, 2020). As a
result, there is the need for more validation and data on students’ and their intention to use an
28
LMS in the context of the pandemic. There is also the need to study a student’s number of
devices and if that can influence their intention to use an LMS.
29
CHAPTER 3: FRAMEWORK
In this study, e-learning devices are characterized as the electronic conveyance of learning
materials and instruction over the Internet (Welsh et al., 2003). The use of discussion forums or
threads, and chats are examples of e-learning instruments (Nam & Smith-Jackson, 2007; Saadé,
2007). Regarding e-learning, a student's probability of utilizing a LMS, for example, Blackboard,
or any of the neo-technologies can be determined by the student's demeanor toward its perceived
ease of use and technology utilization.
Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Study based on TAM (Davis, 1989)
Considering this study’s focus on students’ intention to use Learning Management
Systems, the original TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) by Davis (1986) is the main
30
theoretical framework of this study. TAM provides a broad and general explanation of computer
acceptance and thus applies to students’ acceptance of Learning Management Systems. As seen in
Figure 1, TAM proposes that Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use are relevant in the
intention to use computers and computer acceptance in general (Davis, 1989).
Davis’ TAM puts design features as the external variables, which he based on the Fishbein
paradigm. He finds that external variables are not theorized to have a direct effect on intention to
use, or on attitude and behavior, but rather indirectly affect those variables through perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use. Davis then says that Perceived Ease of Use has a significant
direct effect on Perceived Usefulness since an easy to use system can increase job performance for
a user. Davis also says that according to TAM, a user’s attitude toward a system is a determinant
of whether or not he uses it, and that it is a function of both Perceived Usefulness and Perceived
Ease of Use.
31
Figure 2A. Conceptual Framework of the Study based on TAM and 3-TUM (Garcia, 2017).
The research model in this study (Fig. 2A) is developed by extensively evaluating the previous
literature, with specific reference to the two recent studies (Abdullah & Ward, 2016; Abdullah et
al., 2016). External variables ICE, SI, and SMI are external variables that are included in the study.
A former study by (Garcia, 2017) stated that it would directly affect PEOU, PU, PE, and ITU
variables. The study by Estira (2020) showed that the greater number of device types owned by
the student results in a higher level of readiness of business administration students when it comes
to online learning. Because of this, Number of Devices is a moderating variable as it can strengthen
the relationship and direction of PEOU, PU, and PE towards ITU. In this study, “ITU to use
Learning Management System (LMS)” is used to show the actual influence on the use of LMS.
32
Figure 2B. Conceptual Framework of the Study based on TAM and 3-TUM (Faustino & Mirpuri, 2022).
33
Figure 3. Operational Framework of the Study
Figure 3 shows the operational framework of the study that the present researchers will utilize.
Under Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), four items were adapted from the studies of Davis, 1989
and Fernandez & Murad, 2022 which will lead to the hypothesis that PEOU will have a significant
effect on the Intention To Use of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H1).
Furthermore, this will also lead to the hypothesis that PEOU will have a significant effect on the
Perceived Usefulness of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H6). Under Perceived
Enjoyment (PE), three items were adapted from the studies of Abdullah et al., 2016 and Fernandez
34
& Murad, 2022 which will lead to three hypotheses; that PE will have a significant effect on the
ITU of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H2), that PE will have a significant effect
on PU of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H4), and that PE will have a significant
effect on PEOU of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H5). Under Perceived
Usefulness (PU), four items were adapted from the studies of Davis, 1989 and Fernandez & Murad,
2022 which will lead to the hypothesis that PU will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST
Communication students towards an LMS (H3). Under Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE),
three items were adapted from the study of Fernandez & Murad, 2022. This will lead to the
hypotheses that ICE will have a significant effect on the PEOU of UST Communication students
towards an LMS (H7) and that ICE will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST
Communication students towards an LMS (H8). Under System Interactivity (SI), three items were
adapted from the study of Fernandez & Murad, 2022. This will lead to the hypotheses that SI will
have a significant effect on PE of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H9) and that SI
will have a significant effect on the ITU UST Communication students towards an LMS (H10).
Under Social Media Influence (SMI), three items were adapted from the study of Fernandez &
Murad, 2022. This will lead to the hypotheses that SMI will have a significant effect on the ITU
of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H11) and that SMI will have a significant effect
on PU of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H12). Under Intention to Use (ITU),
three items were adapted from the studies of Venkatesh & Bala, 2008 and Venkatesh & Davis,
2000 to know the degree to which a user accepts and uses the Learning Management System (LMS
- Blackboard) as part of the learning process. Lastly, looking how scanned literature is on the
Number of Devices by Estira 2020 and the Intention to Use, the present researchers will also be
asking four moderating questions under PEOU construct, three moderating questions under PU
35
construct, and three moderating questions under the PE construct, having ten moderating questions
in total. These will be labeled as MPEOU, MPU, and MPE which will lead to three hypotheses;
that the number of devices moderates the relationship between PEOU and ITU of UST
Communication students towards an LMS (H13), that the number of devices moderates the
relationship between PE and ITU of UST Communication students towards an LMS (H14), and
that the number of devices moderates the relationship between PU and ITU of UST
Communication students towards an LMS (H15). This will also serve as the present researchers’
unique contribution to the present studies and literature.
36
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH DESIGN
The research uses a quantitative approach as its design, as the researchers will make use
of statistics and computations, and even statistical programs to determine the Communication
students’ intention to use an LMS. The researchers will specifically use a correlational research
design. This is because the research will attempt to determine the relationship between several
TAM variables (those being Perceived Enjoyment, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived
Usefulness) and the main dependent variable (the students’ Intention to Use an LMS). Since no
variables will be manipulated and are only identified within the participants, it is correlational.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The majority of TAM research has relied on survey techniques to acquire data. This study's
survey procedure is comparable to that of past TAM studies, allowing for consistency and
comparison with past studies. To boost response rate and quality while lowering respondents'
"frustration level," a 5-point Likert-type scale was adopted to measure students' level of agreement
or disagreement with 33 items (Babakus & Mangold, 1992). For a variety of reasons, a five-point
scale was chosen over a seven-point scale, one of which was the opportunity to compare reliability
coefficients with previous research adopting five-point Likert Scales (Saleh & Ryan, 1991). The
survey items were adapted from previous studies (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000;
Venkatesh & Bala, 2008; Abdullah et al., 2016; Estira, 2020; Fernandez & Murad, 2022) and
moderating questions on the effect of number of devices on the relationship between PEOU, PU,
and PE with ITU were added to make them more specifically relevant to the research. Table 2
37
shows each construct’s definition and reference for the survey. Appendix A determines the survey
items utilized in the last assessment of the model.
Table 1. .Construct Definition and Reference for Survey Questionnaire
Constructs Definition Items (33 Source/s

items)
Perceived Enjoyment The extent to which the 3 items (Abdullah et al.,

activity of using a Learning 2016; Fernandez &
(PE) Management System (LMS - Murad, 2022)
Blackboard) is perceived to
be enjoyable in its own right.
Perceived Usefulness The degree to which a person 4 items (Davis, 1989;
(PU) believes that using a Fernandez & Murad,
particular system would 2022)
enhance his or her job
performance.
Perceived Ease of The degree to which a person 4 items (Davis, 1989;
Use (PEOU) believes that using a Fernandez & Murad,
particular system would be 2022)
free from effort.
Intention to Use The degree to which a user 3 items (Venkatesh & Bala,
(ITU) accepts and uses the Learning 2008; Venkatesh &
Management System (LMS - Davis, 2000)
Blackboard) as part of the
learning process.
Internet Connectivity The performance of the 3 items (Fernandez &
Experience (ICE) internet connection in terms Murad, 2022)
of its speed and reliability
that affects the user's
experience.
System Interactivity Users’ perceptions of the 3 items (Fernandez &
(SI) system’s ability to provide Murad, 2022)
interactive communication
between its users.
38
Social Media The degree to which social 3 items (Fernandez &
Influence (SMI) networking sites influence the Murad, 2022)
usage of other internet
technologies.
Number of Devices The quantity of learning 4 items (Estira, 2020)
(MPE, MPU, device the student has (MPEOU)
MPEOU) 3 items (MPE)
3 items (MPU)
SAMPLING/PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY
The sampling method that will be used is purposive convenience sampling, in which the
subject will be AB Communications students of the University of Santo Tomas. Given that the
study is conducted in the COVID-19 pandemic setup, all of the students in the said course are
using a LMS, specifically Blackboard. To get a good sample size with high confidence level, the
number of respondents will be based on the total population of AB Communications students in
University of Santo Tomas which is 649. Therefore, the study will have 250 respondents for 5%
margin of error and 95% confidence level (Krejcie & Morgan 1970). Participation in the study is
voluntary, and 250 AB Communications students agreed to take part and answered the Google
Forms online. The survey was available from October 25 to November 12, 2021. During the
time period specified, no survey was returned suggesting a response rate of 100 percent. Because
all of the questions must be answered, there is no such thing as an incomplete questionnaire, hence
all 250 responses are regarded as genuine preliminary data.
DATA COLLECTION
To determine the factors that affect the intention to use an LMS among UST
Communications students, an online survey was used. The researchers administered the survey
using Google Forms. The survey was sent to students using social media messaging, specifically
39
over Facebook Messenger. The help of the student association of the UST Communication
Students was utilized for the distribution of the survey. Presidents of each section were asked to
distribute the survey to their respective classmates in order to get respondents from all batches. A
consent form was attached to the form, and the respondents had the option to either agree or reject
the conditions stated in the consent form. The survey was available from October 25 to
November 5, 2021. However, the researcher’s target survey respondent count didn’t reach the
desired amount by November 5, hence the extension of the data gathering deadline to November
12, 2021.
PRE-TEST
A pre-test with 32 respondents was carried out before the actual survey. This was done in
order to determine the reliability of the initial survey instrument. A reliability test using the
Jamovi program was done on sets of questions under each variable. Table 3 shows the results of
the reliability analysis, with the main determining factor being Cronbach’s ɑ.
40
Table 2. Pre-test Reliability Analysis
Variable Number of Mean Standard Cronbach’s ɑ

Items Deviation
Perceived 3 items 3.53 0.791 0.900

Enjoyment (PE)
Enjoyment with
moderating
variable (MPE)
Usefulness (PU)
Usefulness with
moderating
variable (MPU)
Perceived Ease of 4 items 3.92 0.598 0.856
Use (PEOU)
Perceived Ease of 4 items 4.03 0.434 0.710
Use with
moderating
variable
(MPEOU)
Intention to Use 3 items 3.97 0.614 0.829
(ITU)
Internet 3 items 4.20 0.464 0.605

Connectivity
Experience (ICE)
System 3 items 3.69 0.692 0.905
Interactivity (SI)
Social Media 3 items 3.77 0.644 0.614
Influence (SMI)
41
`
The reliability coefficient of a set of questions is only considered acceptable when the
Cronbach’s ɑ is more than 0.70. (UCLA, 2021) As seen on Table 2, variables ICE and SMI have
Cronbach’s ɑ that are lower than 0.70. To fix this, one item was removed from each variable.
These were ICE3 and SMI2 (see Appendix A). Table 3 shows the new Cronbach ɑ values for
variables ICE and SMI after the necessary changes were made. As a result, all variables and their
Cronbach’s ɑ exceed 0.70, which means the final questionnaire is reliable.
Table 3. Pre-test Reliability Analysis w/ changes for ICE and SMI
Variable Number of Item Mean Standard Cronbach’s

Items Deleted Deviation ɑ
Internet 2 items ICE3 4.15 0.566 0.734

Connectivity
Experience
(ICE)
Social Media 2 items SMI2 3.56 0.891 0.737

Influence
(SMI)
42
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the analysis and discussion of the data gathered from the survey,
which was answered by 250 UST Communication. The data is presented through tables that were
made using the Jamovi 2.2.3 software. Analysis was made according to the information that the
Jamovi software formulated.
DESCRIPTIVES
The respondents of the survey are all composed of Communications students from the
University of Santo Tomas.
There were significantly more female respondents compared to male respondents. As seen
in Table 4, there were 167 female respondents and only 83 male respondents.
43
In terms of age, the respondents ranged from ages 17-24. However, most of the respondents
were 20 to 22-year-olds. Those age groups were equivalent to 67.65% of all respondents.
Respondents in year levels were relatively unequal. As seen in table 6, almost 40% of
respondents were 4th-year college students - only one shy of 100 students. The second-most
number of respondents is the 1st year students, who only totalled 24.8% of respondents.
44
Device type frequencies were split by two groups - year level and gender. As seen in Table
7, most students from all year levels own a smartphone and a laptop. There were 33 students from
1st year, 25 students from 2nd year, 20 students from 3rd year, and 44 students from 4th year who
had the ‘smartphone, laptop’ combination. That is a total of 122 students or 48.8 % of all
respondents. The second-most device type combination split by year level is the ‘smartphone,
laptop, tablet’ combination. There were 14 students from 1st year, 9 from 2nd year, 13 from 3rd
year, and 21 from 4th year who owned a smartphone, laptop, and tablet. That totals 57 students or
only 22.8% of all respondents. All other device type combinations had less than 20 students for all
year levels, excluding the ‘smartphone, laptop, desktop’ combination.
45
In table 8, device type combinations are split by gender. As seen in the table, there are a
significant number of females who use smartphones and laptops. 76 females have this device type
combination compared to only 46 males. Another statistical outlier is that of the smartphone,
laptop, and tablet combination. 50 females own a smartphone, laptop, and tablet, compared to 7
males.
46
Internet connection types were also split by year level and gender. As seen in table 9, most
students only have two types of internet connection: an internet connection at home and mobile
data. There were 35 students from 1st year, 20 from 2nd year, 23 from 3rd year, and 62 from 4th
year who had this type of internet connection. The second-most internet connection type
combination is the ‘internet connection at home’. There were 23 students from 1st year, 22 from
2nd year, 24 from 3rd year, and 25 from 4th year who only used a home internet connection. All
other categories had only less than 10 students each.
47
Table 10 shows the internet connection type frequencies when split by gender. It shows
similar results to table 9, wherein there is an abundance of students who only have a home internet
connection, and those who have home internet and mobile data. In both of these categories, more
females use these internet connection types compared to males. 57 females only used home internet
compared to 27 males. 90 females used mobile data and home internet compared to 50 males.
DATA ANALYSIS
This section consists of different statistical tests done to analyze the data collected from
the researchers’ survey. It contains the following data analysis tests and tools which were all done
on the Jamovi software: T-test, One-way ANOVA, Correlational Matrix, Linear Regression, and
Moderation.
48
T-test
The first analysis is the Independent Samples T-test, which is used to measure the
difference between the means of two categorical groups for different variables.
Table 11 measures the difference in the means of male and female UST Communication
students who answered the survey, according to the variables indicated in the conceptual
framework of this study (refer to Figure 2A). By looking at the p-values at the table, one can
determine whether or not there is a significant difference between means of males and females.
According to McLeod (2019), “a p-value less than 0.05 (typically ≤ 0.05) is statistically
significant.” This rule is also applied to other tests in this data analysis. Once this rule is applied
to table 11, it can be seen that there is a significant difference in the means of males and females
when it comes to the Intention to Use (ITU) variable. There is no significant difference in the
means of males and females in all other variables.
49
One-Way ANOVA
The next test is the One-Way ANOVA test, which is used to determine the difference in
the means of three or more grouping variables. The grouping variable that was utilized in table 12
is the year levels of the UST Communication students.
When applying the rule that states that a p-value less than 0.05 is statistically significant,
it can be seen that almost all p-values in table 12 are lower than 0.05. This indicates that there are
significant differences in the means of UST Communication students' year levels in relation to all
variables stated in this study’s conceptual framework, excluding System Interactivity (SI), and
Social Media Influence (SMI).
Correlational Matrix
The third test conducted is the correlational matrix, which is used to determine the
relationship between two variables as well as their relationship strength. By observing the p-value,
one can determine whether or not two variables have a significant relationship. The rule that states
that a p-value less than 0.05 is statistically significant is once again applied here. The Pearson’s r
value is used to determine relationship strength. If the Pearson’s r value is between 0 and 0.2, the
strength of the relationship is very weak. If it is between 0.2 and 0.4, it is weak. If it is between
50
0.4 and 0.6, it is moderate. If it is between 0.6 and 0.8, it is strong, and if it is between 0.8 and 1.0,
it is very strong. All variable relationships tested in table 13 are taken from the conceptual
framework in Chapter 3. As seen in table 13, all variable relationships have a p-value of <.001,
which means that their relationships are all significant. All correlational relationships range from
very weak to strong.
The variables that have a very weak relationship are the following: SMI - ICE. The
variables that have a weak relationship are the following: ICE - PE, ICE - PU, ICE - PEOU, SI -
ICE, SMI - PE, SMI - PEOU, SMI - ITU. The variables that have a moderate relationship are the
following: PEOU - PE, PEOU - PU, ITU - PE, ITU - PU, ITU - PEOU, ICE - ITU, SI - PE, SI -
PU, SI - PEOU, SI - ITU, SMI - PU, SMI - SI. The variable that has a strong relationship is: PE -
PU
51
Linear Regression
The fourth test conducted is linear regression. This test is done to determine whether one
variable can affect another in a causal manner. As a result of the nature of the test, it is the
appropriate tool to determine if hypotheses 1 to 13 (see chapter 2) would be accepted or rejected
according to the collected data from the survey. Linear regression also calculates how much
independent variables can predict the main dependent variable, which is the Intention to Use an
LMS.
Table 14 calculates the R2 value, which tells how much the independent variables in table
15 can predict the outcome of the main dependent variable – the Intention to Use an LMS (ITU).
With this information, it can be said that PEOU, PE, PU, ICE, SI, and SMI can influence a UST
Communication student’s Intention to Use and LMS by 42.8%.
Table 15 shows the relationships of the variables in the researchers’ conceptual framework
and their linear relationship to Intention to Use (ITU), the dependent variable. If their p-value is
lower than 0.05, it means that these independent variables have a significant effect on the ITU.
Only SI has a p-value higher than 0.50, which means it has no significant effect on the ITU. Table
15 accepts the following hypotheses: H1, H2, H3, H8. It rejects the following hypothesis: H10,
H11.
52
Table 16 was conducted in order to determine the linear relationships of PEOU, PE, and
SMI towards PU. All three independent variables have a p-value lower than 0.05, which means
that they significantly affect PU. The information in this table accepts the following hypotheses:
H4, H6, H12.
Table 17 was conducted in order to determine the linear relationships of PE and ICE
towards PEOU. Both PE and ICE have a p-value lower than 0.05, which means that they
significantly affect PU. The information in this table accepts the following hypotheses: H5, H7.
53
Table 18 was conducted in order to determine the linear relationship of SI towards PE. SI
has a p-value lower than 0.05, which means that it has a significant effect on PE. The information
in this table accepts the following hypothesis: H9.
Moderation
The final test is the moderation test. It calculates whether or not a variable moderates the
relationship between two other variables. For this study, the moderating variable that will be tested
is the number of devices. This variable is assumed to moderate the relationships of PEOU, PE, and
PU towards ITU. This is also indicated in chapter 2 as the following hypotheses: H13, H14, H15.
If the p-value is higher than 0.05, the variable does not moderate any relationship.
54
Table 19 shows the calculation of PEU and the moderating variable which is the no. of
devices (shown as MPEOU). The table shows that PEOU ✻ MPEOU has a p-value of 0.209,
which is higher than 0.05. This means that the no. of devices variable does not have a significant
effect on PEOU – ITU.
Table 20 shows the calculation of PE and the moderating variable which is the no. of
devices (MPE). PE ✻ MPE has a p-value of 0.486, which is higher than 0.05. This means that the
no. of devices variable does not have a significant effect on PE – ITU.
55
Table 21 shows the calculation of PU and the moderating variable which is the no. of
devices (MPU). PU ✻ MPU has a p-value of 0.486, which is higher than 0.05. This means that the
no. of devices variable does not have a significant effect on PU – ITU.
SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES
H1: PEOU will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
56
According to the linear regression test in table 15, PEOU has a p-value of 0.034 in relation
to ITU, which is lower than 0.05. This means that H1 is accepted.
H2. PE will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students towards an LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 15, PE has a p-value of 0.035 in relation to ITU,
which is lower than 0.05. This means that H2 is accepted.
H3. PU will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 15, PU has a p-value of < 0.001 in relation
to ITU, which is lower than 0.05. This means that H3 is accepted.
H4. PE will have a significant effect on PU of UST Communication students towards an LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 16, PE has a p-value of < 0.001 in relation
to PU, which is lower than 0.05. This means that H4 is accepted.
H5. PE will have a significant effect on PEOU of UST Communication students towards an LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 17, PE has a p-value of < 0.001 in relation
to PEOU, which is lower than 0.05. This means that H5 is accepted.
H6. PEOU will have a significant effect on the PU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
57
According to the linear regression test in table 16, PEOU has a p-value of < 0.001 in
relation to PU, which is lower than 0.05. This means that H6 is accepted.
H7. ICE will have a significant effect on the PEOU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 17, ICE has a p-value of 0.035 in relation to PEOU,
H8. ICE will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 15, ICE has a p-value of < 0.001 in relation to ITU,
H9. SI will have a significant effect on PE of UST Communication students towards an LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 18, SI has a p-value of < 0.001 in relation to PE,
H10. SI will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 15, SI has a p-value of 0.690 in relation to ITU,
which is higher than 0.05. This means that H10 is rejected.
H11. SMI will have a significant effect on the ITU of UST Communication students towards an
LMS.
58
According to the linear regression test in table 15, SMI has a p-value of 0.324 in relation to ITU,
H12. SMI will have a significant effect on PU of UST Communication students towards an LMS.
According to the linear regression test in table 16, SMI has a p-value of < 0.001 in relation to PU,
H13. The number of devices moderates the relationship between PEOU and ITU of UST
Communication students towards an LMS.
According to the moderating test in table 19, PEOU ✻ MPEOU has a p-value of
0.209, which is higher than 0.05. This means that H13 is rejected.
H14. The number of devices moderates the relationship between PE and ITU of UST
According to the moderating test in table 20, PE ✻ MPE has a p-value of 0.486,
H15. The number of devices moderates the relationship between PU and ITU of UST
According to the moderating test in table 21, PU ✻ MPU has a p-value of 0.486,
59
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter contains a summary of the main research findings of the study, the conclusions
derived from those said findings, and the implications and recommendations for future uses.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This section summarizes the findings gained from the research and analysis of the study. It
also answers the four research questions stated in Chapter 1 of this study.
Based on linear regression tests from analyzing survey results of UST AB Communications
students, Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and Perceived Enjoyment
(PE) all have a significant effect on the intention to use an LMS, specifically Blackboard. These
results are in adherence to Davis’ Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1986). They also follow
the findings of other studies that tackle the correlations of PU, PEOU, and PE towards Behavioral
Intention to use e-learning. (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis,
2000; Lin, Fofanah, & Liang, 2011; C.-T. Chang et al., 2017)
Regarding the study’s second research question, several hypotheses involve this. The
hypotheses can be seen in figures 2A and 2B, as well as Table 22 of this study.
For Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE), the hypotheses proposed that this external
factor would significantly affect both Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) as well as the Intention to
Use (ITU). These two hypotheses were derived from studies by Madarang (2021) and Garcia
(2017), respectively. The data analysis of the survey results proved that these two hypotheses were
60
correct. Internet Connectivity significantly affects the Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and the
Intention to Use (ITU) of UST AB Communication students when it comes to Blackboard.
For Social Media Influence (SMI), the hypotheses here were that this external factor would
significantly affect Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Intention to Use (ITU). Based on the data
analysis in this study and the context of UST AB Communication students, SMI does have a
significant effect on Perceived Usefulness (PU), which backs up claims by Garcia (2017).
However, it does not significantly affect Intention to Use (ITU), which does not follow claims by
Garcia (2017).
Two hypotheses were formulated for System Interactivity (SI). Based on research by
Abbad, Morris, and Nahlik (2009) and Garcia (2017), it was hypothesized that System Interactivity
(SI) would have a significant effect on both Perceived Enjoyment and the Intention to Use (ITU).
Based on data analysis, System Interactivity (SI) had a significant effect on the Perceived
Enjoyment of UST AB Communication students when it came to Blackboard, but not the Intention
to Use (ITU) Blackboard.
The writers of this thesis added a unique contribution to the TAM and 3-TUM framework
(Garcia, 2017), which was the moderating variable of device quantity. It was hypothesized that
device quantity would moderate the relationships between PEOU, PE, and PU towards ITU, but
this was not the case according to the data. Based on the analysis, none of the relationships between
the moderating variable and the primary factors had a significant relationship.
Based on the data from the survey responses of UST AB Communication students, learning
over an LMS (specifically Blackboard) is a viable consideration for this group of respondents.
Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), and Perceived Enjoyment (PE) all
61
need to be taken into consideration so that the UST AB Communication students can have more
intention to use the LMS.
CONCLUSIONS
This section provides conclusions formulated from this study's findings and data analysis.
1. UST AB Communication students find that Perceived Ease of Use is essential for their intention
to use Blackboard. This means that there is importance in the Blackboard website and its system
being easy to navigate and use.
2. UST AB Communication students find importance in Perceived Usefulness relating to their
Intention to Use Blackboard. It is essential that their Learning Management System would help
them perform better in their academics and schoolwork.
3. UST AB Communication students need to be able to enjoy using Blackboard so that their
Intention to Use it would improve. Perceived Enjoyment can improve motivation to complete tasks
and homework for online classes.
4. The Internet Connectivity of a UST AB Communication student affects their Perceived Ease of
Use and Intention to Use Blackboard. The stability and speed of their internet can drastically
change their motivation to complete certain tasks. In fact, with bad internet, students cannot attend
classes, which can change their Intention to Use Blackboard and their academic performance.
5. Social Media Influence does not affect a UST AB Communication student’s Intention to Use
Blackboard. This could be because students don’t like to mix social media and academics. This is
62
proven by a study by Dahlstrom & Bichsel (2014), in which they found that 73% of students agreed
or strongly agreed that they like to keep their academic and social lives separate.
6. System Interactivity does not affect a UST AB Communication student’s Intention to Use
Blackboard. To recap, “System interactivity refers to students’ perceptions of the system’s ability
to provide interactive communication between instructor and students and among students.”
(Abbad, Morris, and Nahlik, 2009) This just means that Blackboard should provide helpful
interactions among students and teachers. Curiously the same study made by Abbad, Morris, &
Nahlik (2009) found no evidence that system interactivity affects students’ adoption of e-learning
technology.
7. The researchers of this study hypothesized that the moderating variable “Quantity of Devices”
would significantly affect the UST AB Communication students' Intention to Use Blackboard. The
addition of this moderating variable was from a study by Estira (2020). However, the data analysis
rejected the initial hypothesis. This could be due to the fact that students can get distracted by
phones. A study by Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2012) found that students who were not using their
mobile phones wrote down 62% more information in their notes, took more detailed notes, were
able to recall more information from the lecture, and scored higher grades than students who used
phones. A study by Ward et al. (2017) states that the mere presence of these devices reduces
available cognitive capacity. Almost half of the respondents have a smartphone and a laptop only
further proves this.
IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Theoretical
63
There are a few theoretical implications for this study. For one, there is the fact that external
factors like Social Media Influence do have a significant effect on the Intention to Use of a
Learning Management System. As a result, it is recommended that future researchers look at other
external variables to add to the TAM and 3-TUM framework and whether these variables can
significantly affect ITU.
Another theoretical implication is that the quantity of devices does not affect a student’s
Intention to Use a Learning Management System. Future researchers can then explore an
alternative to the moderating variable for the framework which is referred to as the quality of
devices. This would mean that researchers will look into whether a learning device’s speed,
efficiency, and general ability to run an LMS smoothly and properly would have an effect on a
student’s Intention to Use an LMS.
Methodological
This study employed the TAM and 3-TUM framework to study UST AB Communication
students in their intention to use a Learning Management System, which is Blackboard. Therefore,
the researchers of this study recommend that future researchers open up a bigger sample size that
is not limited to only one program and one university. They can replicate this study design with
different schools, programs, and learning management systems.
This study utilized a quantitative research design. Future researchers can do mixed-
methods research, combining quantitative and qualitative research designs to get deeper and more
holistic data on the intention to use an LMS given this COVID-19 pandemic context. Another
option for future researchers is to conduct a longitudinal study to see if there are changes in this
intention from students throughout their academic years.
64
Practical
There are a couple of practical implications formulated from the research. Firstly, it is clear
that Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Enjoyment all contribute to the
UST AB Communication students’ Intention to Use Blackboard. Therefore, administrators and
professors who use Blackboard should note these factors when designing their course materials
and modules over LMS for their students. Courses should be designed over LMS in a way that
makes learning material easy to navigate. These learning materials would also need to be rich in
educational content while also having an element of fun that would encourage students to engage
with the course.
Another important implication is that Internet Connectivity has a considerable effect on
students’ Intention to Use Blackboard. As mentioned in Chapter 2 of this study, the Philippines
has a reputation for being a country with slow and unstable internet. Tasks, modules, and other
requirements must be submitted in Blackboard, a platform that tends to favor students with good
internet connections. Thus, UST administrators need to find a way to cater to students with
unreliable internet because there are currently limited options for that group. If possible, they could
provide an allowance for internet data, especially for those with less access to wi-fi. Administrators
and professors may consider other alternatives like email submissions (which requires lower
internet bandwidth). They can even consider offline submissions if the situation calls for it.
Furthermore, UST can consider hyflex learning, in which there is a mix of online and offline
teaching styles. Students have the option to attend face-to-face classes or take the course fully
online.
65
The responsibility also falls on the Philippine government, in terms of internet connection.
The Philippine administration can take initiative to make Internet Service Providers offer stable
network connections for the well-being of students who rely on it nationally. The government
should use its power and influence to mandate Internet providers to better their
66
REFERENCES:
Abbad, M. M., Morris, D., & de Nahlik, C. (2009). Looking under the Bonnet: Factors
Affecting Student Adoption of E-Learning Systems in Jordan. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(2).
https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i2.596
Abdullah, F., Ward, R., & Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most
commonly 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.
Abramenka, Vladimir, "Students’ Motivations and Barriers to Online Education" (2015).
Masters Theses. 776. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/776
Acharya, B., & Lee, J. (2018). Users’ perspective on the adoption of e-learning in
developing countries: The case of nepal with a conjoint-based discrete choice
approach. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1733–1743.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.05.002
Adams, D., Nelson, R., & Todd, P. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage
of information technology: A replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227-247.
Adnan, M., & Anwar, K. (2020). Online learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic:
Students perspectives. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 1(2), 45–51.
https://doi.org/10.33902/jpsp.2020261309
I
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive
absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4),
665-694.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918.
Akamai (2016). State of the Internet Q4 2016 Report. Akamai Content Delivery
Network. Retrieved from
https://www.akamai.com/kr/ko/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q4-
2016-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.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) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. Retrieved from: https://library3.hud.ac.uk/
summon/.
Andrew, M., Taylorson, J., J Langille, D., Grange, A., & Williams, N. (2018). Student
Attitudes towards Technology and Their Preferences for Learning Tools/Devices
at Two Universities in the UAE. Journal of Information Technology Education:
Research, 17, 309–344. https://doi.org/10.28945/4111
II
Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). Is there an optimal design for on-line MBA courses? Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 4, 135-149.
Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERVQUAL scale to hospital
services: an empirical investigation. Health services research, 26(6), 767–786.
Barreiro, V., Jr. (2021, August 18). PH rises 3 ranks in mobile broadband internet speeds
in July 2021 – Ookla. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/technology/philippines-
mobile-fixed-broadband-internet-speed-rankings-ookla-july-2021
Baticulon, R. E., Alberto, N. R. I., Baron, M. B. C., Mabulay, R. E. C., Rizada, L. G. T.,
Sy, J. J., Tiu, C. J. S., Clarion, C. A., & Reyes, J. C. B. (2020). Barriers to online
learning in the time of COVID-19: A national survey of medical students in the
Philippines. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.16.20155747
Chaney E. G. (2001). Web-based instruction in a Rural High School: A Collaborative
Inquiry into Its Effectiveness and Desirability. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 20-35.
Chang, C.-T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C.-R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral
intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The General Extended Technology
Acceptance Model for e-learning approach. Computers & Education, 111, 128–
143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.04.010
Chua, K. (2021, January 31). PH remains top in social media, internet usage worldwide –
report. Rappler. https://www.rappler.com/technology/internet-culture/hootsuite-
we-are-social-2021-philippines-top-social-media-internet-usage
III
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Dahlstrom, Eden, and Jacqueline Bichsel (2014). ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students
and Information Technology, 2014. Research report. Louisville, CO: ECAR,
October 2014. Available from http://www.educause.edu/ecar.
Davis, F. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation
to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14),
1111–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology:
A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
Dello Stritto, M. E. & Linder, K. E. (2018). Student device preferences for online course
access and multimedia learning. Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University Ecampus
Research Unit.
Dewi Ratnasari and Haryanto, (2019), “Analysis of Utilization of Gadgets as Effective
Learning Media in Innovation Education to Improve Student Learning
IV
Achievement” in International Conference on Meaningful Education, KnE Social
Sciences, pages 460–467. DOI 10.18502/kss.v3i17.4671
Dunbar, A. E. (2004). Genesis of an online course. Issues in Accounting Education,
19(3), 321-343.
Estira, K. L. (2020). Online Distance Learning Readiness of Business Administration
Students in One State University in the Philippines. Journal of Critical Reviews,
7(12), 826–832. https://doi.org/10.31838/jcr.07.12.146
Fernandez, K., & Murad, N. S. (2022). Exploring the Factors that Influence Filipino
Professionals in the Adoption of MOOCs for Data Science. 9th NBMC
Conference Proceedings, 676-685. ISSN 2345-8720
Galy, E., Downey, C., & Johnson, J. (2011). The Effect of Using E-Learning Tools
in Online and Campus-based Classrooms on Student Performance, 10.
Garcia, M. (2017). E-Learning Technology Adoption in the Philippines: An Investigation
of Factors Affecting Filipino College Students’ Acceptance of Learning
Management Systems. The International Journal of E-Learning and Educational
Technologies in the Digital Media, 3(3), 118–130.
https://doi.org/10.17781/p002374
Gilbert, Brittany, "Online Learning Revealing the Benefits and Challenges" (2015).
Education Masters. Paper 303.
V
Grundmann, O., Wielbo, D., & Tebbett, I. (2010). The implementation and growth of an
international online forensic science graduate program at the university of florida.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(1), 34-40.
Hernando-Malipot, M. (2020, July 25). ACT says schools, teachers ‘not ready’ for Aug.
24. Manila Bulletin. https://mb.com.ph/2020/07/25/act-says-schools-teachers-not-
ready-for-aug-24/
Hervatis, V., Kyaw, B.M., Semwal, M., Dunleavy, G., Tudor Car, L., Zary, N., Car, J.,
Offline and computer-based eLearning interventions for medical students'
education Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2016.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & ond, A. (2020, March 27). The
Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning.
EDUCAUSE. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-
emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T., & Davis, G. (1995). Testing the determinants of
microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 1(4), 87-114.
Joaquin, J. J. B., Biana, H. T., & Dacela, M. A. (2020). The Philippine Higher Education
Sector in the Time of COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 5.
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.576371
Katigbak, K. (2018, September 14). 10 Schools Offering Online Courses In The
Philippines 10 Schools Offering Online Courses In The Philippines.
VI
Edukasyon.Ph. https://portal.edukasyon.ph/blog/schools-offering-online-courses-
in-the-philippines
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
Kukulska-Hulme, A. and Traxler, J. eds. (2005). Mobile learning: A handbook for
educators and trainers. Open and Flexible Learning Series. London, UK:
Routledge
Kuo, Y. Y., Luo, J., & Brielmaier, J. (2015). Investigating Students’ Use of Lecture
Videos in Online Courses: A Case Study for Understanding Learning Behaviors
via Data Mining. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning, 2015,
November (pp. 231-237). Springer, Cham.
Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student
learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917
Landry, B., Griffeth, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring student perceptions of
Blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 4(1), 87-99.
Madarang, R. C. S. (2021, June 3). New poll says unstable internet remains top challenge
in distance learning. Interaksyon. https://interaksyon.philstar.com/politics-
VII
issues/2021/06/03/193126/new-poll-says-unstable-internet-remain-top-challenge-
in-distance-learning/
Mailizar, M., Burg, D., & Maulina, S. (2021). Examining university students’
behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An
extended tam model. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 7057–7077.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5
Mcleod, S. (2019). Value and statistical significance . Simply Psychology. Retrieved
November 30, 2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/p-value.html.
Means, B., Blando, J., Olson, K., Middleton, T., Morocco, C., Rernz, A., et al. (1993).
Using technology to support education reform. Washington, DC: Department of
Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement.
Miller, B. (2018). SMARTPHONES FOR ONLINE STUDY: EFFECTS ON
LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT. SMARTPHONES FOR ONLINE STUDY:
EFFECTS ON LEARNING AND ENGAGEMENT.
Mohammadi, H. (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration
of Tam and is success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359–374.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044
Nam, C. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2007). Web-based learning environment: A theory-
based design process for development and evaluation. Journal of Information
Technology Education, 6, 23-43. Retrieved from
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol6/JITEv6p023-043Nam145.pdf
VIII
Namuddu, J., & Watts, P. N. (2020). Choice of device to view video lectures: an analysis
of two independent cohorts of first-year university students. Research in Learning
Technology, 28(0). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2324
Oswal, S. K., & Meloncon, L. (2014). Paying Attention to Accessibility When Designing
Online Courses in Technical and Professional Communication. Journal of
Business and Technical Communication, 28(3) 271-300. Doi:1050651914524780.
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/.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analysing service quality in the hospitality industry using
the SERVQUAL model. The Service Industries Journal, 11(3), 324–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069100000049
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Liu, T.-C. (2016). The effects of integrating mobile devices
with teaching and learning on students’ learning performance: A meta-analysis
and research synthesis. Computers & Education, 94, 252–275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.11.008
IX
Use of Technology in Teaching and Learning | U.S. Department of Education. (2011).
U.S Department of Education. Retrieved October 2, 2020, from
https://www.ed.gov/oii-news/use-technology-teaching-and-learning
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (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.
UCLA: Statistical Consulting Group.(2021). What does Cronbach’s alpha mean?
https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachs-alpha-mean/
Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence
of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the
Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154.
https://doi.org/10.1086/691462
Welsh, E., Wanberg, C., Brown, K., & Simmering, M. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses,
empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and
Development, 7(4), 245–258.
Young, R. (2008). Using Technology Tools in the Public School Classroom. Using
Technology Tools in the Public School Classroom.
X
APPENDIX
A. Survey Questionnaire for “Communications Students in University of Santo Tomas and

the Factors that Affect their Intention to Use a Learning Management System”
Consent Form
You are invited to participate in research on "Communications Students and the Factors
that Affect their Intention to Use a Learning Management System."
The goal of this research is to discover what factors can affect a students’ intention to use
an LMS.
This study is being conducted by John Gabriel Faustino and Zachary Israel Mirpuri.
There is 1 qualification to participate in this study:
(1) A Communications Major student at the University of Santo Tomas
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you agree to participate in this study, you would
answer the survey for about 5 minutes.
The survey includes questions about your attitude towards the Learning Management
System specifically Blackboard and the type of device you use for LMS that you
currently own.
Participating in this study may not benefit you directly, but it will help us learn about
UST Communications Majors’ acceptance to LMS and if having multiple devices
moderates this relationship significantly.
The information you will share with us if you participate in this study will be kept
completely confidential to the full extent of the law.
Your answers will be collected using Google Forms, and analyzed using Jamovi
software. For identifying information, your names, IP addresses, and emails will not be
collected. The researchers will only ask for your year and section. Your information will
XI
be kept in a confidential Excel file that only the researchers will have access to. While the
researchers will keep your information confidential, there are some risks of data breaches
when sending information over the internet that are beyond the control of the
researchers.
Please note: You must be 18 or older to participate in this study. If you have any
questions about this study, please contact:
John Gabriel Faustino (09271828014/johngabriel.faustino.ab@ust.edu.ph) and
Zachary Israel Mirpuri (09475750522/ zacharyisrael.mirpuri.ab@ust.edu.ph).
If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact Asst.
Prof. Anna Cielo T. Perez, thesis coordinator for Communication Arts of the Department
of Communication and Media Studies of the faculty of Arts and Letters, University of
Santo Tomas.
Descriptives
Gender:
Male
Female
Email (Optional):
(type email)
Age:
(type age)
Year Level and Section:

(ex. 4COM5)
XII
City of Residence:
(Type City)
Device Ownership: (check all that apply)
Smartphone
Laptop
Desktop
Tablet
No Device of any Kind
Internet Connection Used: (check all that apply)
Mobile Data
Internet Connection at Home
Internet Connection outside Home
Pocket Wifi
Constructs
Number of Devices (Estira, 2020)
Device Ownership: (check all that apply)
Smartphone
Laptop
Desktop
Tablet
No Device of any Kind
Perceived Enjoyment (PE)

PE1. I find using a Learning Management System enjoyable.
PE2. The actual process of using a Learning Management System is pleasant.
PE3. I have fun using a Learning Management System.
PE4. I like navigating and interacting with Learning Management System websites.
XIII
MPE1. Having more than one device to access a Learning Management System is more
enjoyable.
MPE2. Having more than one device to access a Learning Management System is more
pleasant.
MPE3. Having more than one device to access a Learning Management System is more fun.
Perceived usefulness (PU)

PU1. Using a Learning Management System would allow me to accomplish learning tasks more
quickly.
PU2. Using a Learning Management System would improve my learning performance.
PU3. Using a Learning Management System would enhance my effectiveness in learning.
PU4. I found a Learning Management System useful.
MPU1. Having more than one device to access a Learning Management System helps me
accomplish tasks more quickly.
MPU2. Having more than one device to access a Learning Management System improves my
learning performance.
MPU3. Having more than one device to access a Learning Management System enhances my
effectiveness in learning.
Perceived ease of use (PEOU)

PEOU1. I found a Learning Management System easy to use.
PEOU2. Learning to use a Learning Management System would be easy for me.
PEOU3. My interaction with a Learning Management System would be clear and
understandable.
PEOU4. It would be easy for me to find information at a Learning Management System.
MPEOU1. Having more than one device makes it easier for me to use a Learning Management
System.
MPEOU2. Having more than one device makes it easier for me to learn how to use a Learning
Management System.
MPEOU3. Having more than one device makes it clear and understandable for me to interact in
a Learning Management System.
XIV
MPEOU4. Having more than one device makes it easier for me to find information in a
Learning Management System.
Intention To Use (ITU) )

ITU1. Assuming I had access to a Learning Management System, I intend to use it.
ITU2. Given that I had access to a Learning Management System, I predict that I would use it.
ITU3. I plan to use a Learning Management System in the future.
Internet Connectivity Experience (ICE)

ICE1. I enjoy accessing a Learning Management System if I have a reliable internet connection.
ICE2. I would enjoy exploring more Learning Management Systems if I have a faster internet
connection.
ICE3. I don’t like a Learning Management System if I have a slow internet connection.
System Interactivity (SI)

SI1. I enjoy engaging with users on a learning management system.
SI2. I enjoy being part of and engaging in a learning management system community where I
can learn and thrive in.
SI3. I take part in a learning management system community to help other users or just interact
with them.
Social Media Influence (SMI)

SMI1. I’m interested in trying a Learning Management System when I see it in Social Media.
SMI2. I search for new things to explore in the internet through Social Media.
SMI3. I am influenced to access new Learning Management Systems if its on my Social

Media feed.
XV
XVI

Communications Students in University of Santo Tomas and The Factors That Affect Their Intention To Use A Learning Management System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Communications Students in University of Santo Tomas and The Factors That Affect Their Intention To Use A Learning Management System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Arts and Letters

Undergraduate Thesis BA in Communication Program

John Gabriel S. Faustino and Zachary Israel V. Mirpuri

UST was acknowledged a Center of Development in Communication Arts by the Commission on

Keywords: Learning Management System, Online Learning, COVID-19

This is to declare that the content of this thesis is a product of our

We declare that we have written this thesis with utmost faithfulness

AFFIX CANDIDATES’ SIGNATURE ABOVE PRINTED NAME BELOW:

John Gabriel S. Faustino

Zachary Israel V. Mirpuri

______________Noel Sajid I. Murad

This Thesis entitled

COMMUNICATIONS STUDENTS IN UNIVERSITY OF SANTO

prepared and submitted by

John Gabriel S. Faustino

Prof. Noel Sajid I. Murad, MMC

Prof. Anna Cielo T. Perez, MA

ADVISER’S GRADE: __________

This is to certify that the Thesis Draft entitled COMMUNICATIONS STUDENTS IN

Prof. Anna Cielo T. Perez, MA

as one of our rays of hope in times of doubt and demotivation.

suggestions, we would also like to thank you.

the making of this thesis.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework of the Study based on TAM ........................................................... 30

Table 1. .Construct Definition and Reference for Survey Questionnaire ............................................ 38

BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH

their degrees (Katigbak, 2018).

ready for schools opening in August 2020 (Hernando-Malipot, 2020).

barriers” (Baticulon et al., 2020).

Perceived Enjoyment (PE) of UST AB Communication students towards Blackboard, a Learning

Management System (LMS), impact their Intention to Use (ITU) it?

Communication students towards Blackboard?

a. Demographics (gender, age, year level, residence)

c. Internet Connection Used

d. Level of LMS use (light, moderate, heavy)

Perceived Enjoyment (PE) on the Intention to Use (ITU) Blackboard.

AB Communication towards Blackboard

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

management system, specifically Blackboard. As most of the universities and learning

following various sectors as follows:

but also in traditional face-to-face learning.

Learning Management Systems like Blackboard.

their behavior towards the said LMS.

building a solution around it.

and results in online classes.

Department of Education (DepEd) in syllabi planning and in addressing students’ needs in an

online learning setup.

using other LMS platforms from different universities.

Furthermore, the researchers considered three external factors namely Internet

covered in the paper.

like to address in this present study.

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

Technology in Online and Onsite Learning

The technology of education incorporates two structures namely software and

hardware innovation/technology. First, smartphones are a group of technological

access to a smartphone is necessary to learning, whether it is a face-to-face type of learning

and appropriate preparation (Young, 2008). Students utilized technology as an apparatus

to gather, arrange, and investigate information; to improve introductions; to lead

management system homepage, video content, learning simulations, and games.

as the preferred device.