The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1744-0084.htm
IJWIS
10,1
2
Received 19 May 2013
Revised 19 May 2013
Accepted 3 December 2013
International Journal of Web
Information Systems
Vol. 10 No. 1, 2014
pp. 2-23
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1744-0084
DOI 10.1108/IJWIS-05-2013-0015
Roles of interactivity and usage
experience in e-learning
acceptance: a longitudinal study
Yung-Ming Cheng
Department of Business Administration,
Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung City, Taiwan
Abstract
Purpose – This study’s purposes were to longitudinally examine how interactivity factors as the
antecedents to learner beliefs affected learners’ intention to use the e-learning system and explore
whether the effects on learners’ usage intention of the e-learning system would change over time with
increasing learners’ usage experience of the system.
Design/methodology/approach – This study gathered sample data from students at a
comprehensive university in Taiwan. The sample data were collected in a two-stage survey and
were analyzed by using the longitudinal methodology. A total of 252 students agreed to participate in
this study, and 225 students effectively participated in both data collections, with a usable response
rate of 89.29 percent. Data were analyzed by using structural equation modelling and multiple group
analysis.
Findings – Interactivity factors (controllability, responsiveness, two-way communication, and
personalization) indirectly affected students’ intention to use the e-learning system via the extrinsic
motivators (perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU)) and intrinsic motivator
(perceived enjoyment (PE)). Besides, students’ experience in using the e-learning system moderated the
effects of PU, PEOU, and PE on intention to use the system.
Originality/value – Based on the extended technology acceptance model, the empirical evidence on
capturing both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators for completely explaining interactivity antecedents
of learners’ e-learning acceptance is well documented in this study. Besides, it should be noted that this
study contributes significantly to the body of research on evaluating whether the effects of learners’
beliefs on their usage intention of the e-learning system may change over time with increasing
experience in using the system.
Keywords Interactivity, Extended technology acceptance model, A longitudinal study,
E-learning acceptance, Usage experience
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The transition to internet technologies and web-based applications in education
provides unprecedented opportunities to help instructors effectively deliver the learning
materials to learners, and educate anyone, anytime, anywhere (Baylari and Montazer,
2009; Zhang et al., 2012). Hence, electronic learning (e-learning) can overcome the
limitations of traditional face-to-face learning and expand the educational territories
without time, distance, and space barriers (Baylari and Montazer, 2009; Lee et al., 2009;
Borup et al., 2012), thus it has become a potential alternative to the traditional
The author would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their insightful
comments and valuable suggestions.
classroom settings (Liu et al., 2010). As compared with traditional learning, e-learning Roles of
is a more flexible method for learning, and it is particularly suited to individuals with interactivity and
high self-control that allows them to learn at remote locations based on their own
needs (Yu et al., 2007; Baylari and Montazer, 2009; Zhang et al., 2012). Nowadays, usage experience
e-learning has become a very popular and powerful tool and has been widely
implemented by institutions for teaching and learning (Liu et al., 2010; Paechter
and Maier, 2010; Lin, 2012), and the view of learner-centered paradigm is widely 3
being popularized in educational practices during the e-learning acceptance process
(Lee et al., 2009).
However, while e-learning can help learners overcome traditional learning barriers
from geographic isolation, learners’ psychological sense of distance may still continue
to threaten their learning online, since their psychological sense of distance is
determined not by location, but by the quantity and quality of online interactions
(Moore, 1980; Borup et al., 2012). Under this condition, e-learning systems should
exhibit dynamic contents, with taking interactivity into account (Baylari and
Montazer, 2009; Smith et al., 2011). Essentially, interactivity in computer-mediated
environments may cause users’ perceived utilitarian and hedonic values of information
system (IS)/information technology (IT) offered (Cyr et al., 2009; Yoo et al., 2010), and it
can improve users’ usage intention of IS/IT (Lee et al., 2006; Chang and Wang, 2008),
but the extent to which interactivity factors affect learners’ e-learning acceptance has
seldom been examined. Besides, while the antecedents of initial adoption intention may
not be the same as those of continued usage intention with increasing users’ usage
experience (Kim et al., 2009), there is a dearth of knowledge about the effects of
learners’ beliefs of the e-learning system on their usage intention under different levels
of experience in using the system. Accordingly, this study’s purposes were to
longitudinally examine how interactivity factors as the antecedents to learner beliefs
affected learners’ intention to use the e-learning system and explore whether the effects
on learners’ usage intention of the e-learning system would change over time with
increasing learners’ usage experience of the system.

Theoretical background, hypotheses, and research model

Extended technology acceptance model
The technology acceptance model (TAM), proposed by Davis (1989) and Davis et al.
(1989), has been one of the most widely applied models in IS/IT acceptance studies and
has received extensive empirical support (Venkatesh, 2006; Lee et al., 2009).
Essentially, TAM examines IS/IT acceptance primarily from the instrumental aspect
(Agarwal and Karahanna, 2000; Lee et al., 2005), and it proposes that two particular
beliefs, perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEOU), are the key drivers
for explaining user acceptance of specific type of system (Davis et al., 1989). PU is
defined as “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would
enhance his/her job performance”, and PEOU is defined as “the degree to which a
person believes that using a particular system would be free of physical and mental
effort” (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Davis et al. (1992) further ascertained the importance of
perceived enjoyment (PE) in explaining computer acceptance, and they found that PE
and PU mediated the influence of PEOU on intention to use the computer. PE refers to
the degree to which the activity of using a particular system is perceived to be
personally enjoyable in its own right apart from the instrumental value of the specific
IJWIS type of system (Davis et al., 1992; Teo et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2005). Essentially, PU and
10,1 PEOU reflect the extrinsic motivational aspect of IS/IT usage, whereas PE reflects the
intrinsic motivational aspect of IS/IT usage (Davis et al., 1992). Hence, incorporating
extrinsic motivators (i.e. PU and PEOU) and intrinsic motivator (i.e. PE) into TAM may
provide better explanation of IS/IT acceptance (Teo et al., 1999; Van der Heijden, 2004;
Lee et al., 2005). Such an extended TAM posits that three key beliefs, PU, PEOU, and
4 PE, are of primary relevance for IS/IT acceptance. In the e-learning context, PU, PEOU,
and PE can affect the usage intention of the e-learning system (Roca and Gagné, 2008;
Chatzoglou et al., 2009; Lee et al., 2009), and PEOU determines PU and PE, which in
turn lead to the usage intention of the e-learning system (Lee et al., 2005;
Sánchez-Franco et al., 2009). Hence, this study hypothesizes:
H1. PEOU will positively affect PU of the e-learning system.
H2. PEOU will positively affect PE of the e-learning system.
H3. PU will positively affect intention to use the e-learning system.
H4. PEOU will positively affect intention to use the e-learning system.
H5. PE will positively affect intention to use the e-learning system.

Interactivity antecedents to user beliefs

Interactivity is the most critical element in technology-enhanced learning
environments (Spector et al., 2001), thus the effect of interactivity in increasing
learning has important implications for the design of e-learning systems (Evans and
Gibbons, 2007). Interactivity refers to users’ perceptions of two-way communication,
level of control, navigation, responsiveness, sense of place, time sensitivity, and user
activity (McMillan, 2000; McMillan and Hwang, 2002). Based on previous studies
(McMillan and Hwang, 2002; Liu, 2003; Pituch and Lee, 2006; Wu, 2006; Song and
Zinkhan, 2008; Cyr et al., 2009; Yoo et al., 2010), controllability, responsiveness,
two-way communication, and personalization can be regarded as the key elements of
interactivity. The impacts of these four elements of interactivity on learner beliefs of
the e-learning system are further detailed below.
Controllability. Controllability refers to the user’s ability to control the content,
timing, and sequence of communication (McMillan and Hwang, 2002; Cyr et al., 2009;
Yoo et al., 2010). If users experience better control and access to web site content, they
will perceive effectiveness and efficiency in using the web site (Cyr et al., 2009);
effectiveness is similar to the concept of PU, and efficiency is related to the concept of
PEOU (Davis, 1989; Cyr et al., 2009), thus controllability significantly affects PU and
PEOU. Pianesi et al. (2009) suggested that a greater controllability could generate a
higher instrumental value, and they confirmed that a more controllable adaptive
museum guide would be perceived as easier to use. Besides, Cyr et al. (2009) showed
that if users were allowed control and access to web site content, then this situation
would be more likely to result in higher level of users’ enjoyment. As the definition of
controllability presented above, in the e-learning context, controllability refers to the
learner’s ability to control the content, timing, and sequence of communication via the
e-learning system. If learners perceive that their ability to control the content, timing,
and sequence of communication via the e-learning system is flexible and manageable,
they will feel that the system is more useful and easier to use (Pituch and Lee, 2006).
Furthermore, as Cyr et al. (2009) noted above, this study infers that controllability has a Roles of
significantly positive impact on PE of the e-learning system. Hence, this study interactivity and
hypothesizes:
usage experience
H6a. Controllability will positively affect PU of the e-learning system.
H6b. Controllability will positively affect PEOU of the e-learning system.
5
H6c. Controllability will positively affect PE of the e-learning system.
Responsiveness. Responsiveness refers to how the user perceives that an interactive
medium responds to his/her input (Wu, 2006; Cyr et al., 2009). In online retailing
environments, responsiveness can effectively boost instrumental benefits (i.e. PU,
PEOU) to create customers’ perceived utilitarian value (Cyr et al., 2009; Yoo et al., 2010),
so e-retailers should promptly respond to customers’ requests to enhance customers’
perceived utilitarian value (Yoo et al., 2010). Liao and Tsou (2009) proved that if users
perceived higher quality of SkypeOut (i.e. response time), they would perceive it as
more effortless to use. Besides, to enhance customers’ enjoyment on the web site, online
firms should employ a variety of formats to present their products and information and
promptly respond to customers’ needs ( Jiang and Izak, 2007; Cyr et al., 2009). In the
e-learning context, responsiveness is defined as the extent to which a learner perceives
that the response from the e-learning system is fast, consistent, and reasonable (Bailey
and Pearson, 1983; Pituch and Lee, 2006). If learners perceive that the response from
the e-learning system is fast, consistent, and reasonable, this system response will be
perceived as useful and easy to use among learners (Pituch and Lee, 2006). Moreover,
according to the views of previous studies (Jiang and Izak, 2007; Cyr et al., 2009), this
study infers that responsiveness has a significantly positive impact on PE of the
e-learning system. Hence, this study hypothesizes:
H7a. Responsiveness will positively affect PU of the e-learning system.
H7b. Responsiveness will positively affect PEOU of the e-learning system.
H7c. Responsiveness will positively affect PE of the e-learning system.
Two-way communication. Two-way communication refers to the ability for reciprocal
communication between the source and the receiver (McMillan and Hwang, 2002;
Yoo et al., 2010). Chang and Wang (2008) showed that interactivity that integrating
direction of communication, user control, and time had significant positive effects on
PU, PEOU, and flow experience. Yoo et al. (2010) specified that bi-directionality had a
significant positive effect on hedonic value creation in e-retailing environments,
because the attribute of two-way communication can enhance more enjoyment to users’
e-shopping experience. In the e-learning context, two-way communication refers to the
ability for reciprocal communication between instructors and learners via the
e-learning system (Palloff and Pratt, 1999; Pituch and Lee, 2006). If learners perceive
that the communication between instructors and learners via the e-learning system is
bi-directional and reciprocal, they will feel that the system is more useful and easier to
use (Pituch and Lee, 2006). Besides, as Yoo et al. (2010) noted above, this study infers
that two-way communication has a significantly positive impact on PE of the
e-learning system. Hence, this study hypothesizes:
IJWIS H8a. Two-way communication will positively affect PU of the e-learning system.
10,1 H8b. Two-way communication will positively affect PEOU of the e-learning
system.
H8c. Two-way communication will positively affect PE of the e-learning system.
Personalization. Personalization refers to the extent to which a user perceives how his/her
6 communicative counterpart’s responses are tailored to his/her communicative behaviors
(Wu, 2006; Cyr et al., 2009). Essentially, personalized services can offer customized and
value-added content to customers and make their choice more effective, thus it is logical to
assume that such personalized services will make the web site more useful (Hanson, 2000;
Nysveen and Pedersen, 2004). Personalized services that offered on a web site can also help
customers navigate the web site and find the products/services that customers prefer, and
such personalized services will be perceived as easy to use among customers (Hanson,
2000; Windham and Orton, 2000; Nysveen and Pedersen, 2004). Besides, Pianesi et al. (2009)
advocated that personalization would bring about intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. As
the definition of personalization presented above, in the e-learning context, personalization
involves delivering customized content for the individual learner via the e-learning system.
That is, the personalized e-learning system can take the individual need of each learner into
account (Baylari and Montazer, 2009), thus it may presume that the personalized
applications can make the e-learning system more useful. Next, the personalized e-learning
system can also provide learners with powerful guidance mechanisms (e.g. adaptive
presentation, adaptive navigation support, curriculum sequencing, etc.) to assist them in
efficient learning (Papanikolaou et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2006), thus such an e-learning
system will be perceived as easy to use among learners. Furthermore, as Pianesi et al. (2009)
argued above, this study infers that personalization has a significantly positive impact on
PE of the e-learning system. Hence, this study hypothesizes:
H9a. Personalization will positively affect PU of the e-learning system.
H9b. Personalization will positively affect PEOU of the e-learning system.
H9c. Personalization will positively affect PE of the e-learning system.

Moderating effects of usage experience

As the cognitive dissonance theory noted, users may continuously blend prior beliefs
with new information in accordance with their usage experience with
products/services (Cummings and Venkatesan, 1976; Kim et al., 2009). Hence, effects
of users’ beliefs on their usage intention may change over time with increasing
experience in using the IS/IT (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Castañeda et al., 2007;
Kim et al., 2009).
Davis (1989) found that the effect of PEOU of IT on behavioral intention became
weaker as users gradually acquired experience. Venkatesh (2000) and Venkatesh and
Davis (2000) all found that the effect of PU of the target system on behavioral intention
was more significant positive over time and the effect of PEOU on PU appeared to have
positively increased with users’ experience after use of the target system as well, while
PEOU gradually lost its positive effect on behavioral intention with increasing users’
experience in using the target system in voluntary settings. The effect of usage
experience is also examined in the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,
and usage experience negatively moderates the effect of effort expectancy on Roles of
behavioral intention to use the IS/IT (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Al-Gahtani et al., 2007). interactivity and
Essentially, the result just corresponds to the findings of previous studies (Davis, 1989;
Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000), because effort expectancy is similar to usage experience
the concept of PEOU (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Hu et al. (2003) showed that teachers’ PU
of Microsoft PowerPointe had a more significant positive effect on their usage
intention over time and the effect of PEOU on PU appeared to have strengthened with 7
teachers’ experience after use of PowerPointe. Fusilier and Durlabhji (2005) also found
that the effect of PU on usage intention had positively increased with students’
experience after use of the internet. Kim et al. (2009) showed that the path from users’
PE of mobile data service (MDS) to continued usage intention was stronger than the
path from that to adoption intention, and the finding signified that the effect of PE on
behavioral intention appeared to have positively strengthened with users’ experience
after use of MDS; besides, they showed that PEOU had a more significant positive
effect on PU over time and the effect of PEOU on PE also appeared to have increased
with users’ experience after use of MDS. Hence, this study hypothesizes:
H10a. Usage experience will positively moderate the effect of PU on intention to
use the e-learning system.
H10b. Usage experience will negatively moderate the effect of PEOU on intention
to use the e-learning system.
H10c. Usage experience will positively moderate the effect of PE on intention to
use the e-learning system.
H10d. Usage experience will positively moderate the effect of PEOU on PU of the
e-learning system.
H10e. Usage experience will positively moderate the effect of PEOU on PE of the
e-learning system.

Research model
Based on the extended TAM, this study presents four interactivity antecedents and one
usage experience moderator that lead to learners’ usage intention of the e-learning
system. The research model used in this study is depicted in Figure 1.

Methodology
Sample
The learning management system (LMS) has been one of the most commonly used
types of e-learning systems in institutions, it can process, store, and disseminate
learning materials and support administration and communication associated with
teaching and learning (McGill and Klobas, 2009; Hershkovitz and Nachmias, 2011), and
it allows users to control their training pace according to their individual needs
(Baylari and Montazer, 2009). Hence, the e-learning examined in this study is the LMS
with a blend of asynchronous and synchronous technologies. This study gathered
sample data from students at a comprehensive university in Taiwan, and this selected
university had implemented the LMS with a blend of asynchronous and synchronous
technologies in some courses at least one year ago. Participants for this study were
IJWIS Perceived
Controllability H6a
10,1 usefulness
H3
H6b
H1 Usage
H6c H10a
experience

8 H7a H10d
Responsiveness
H7b

H7c H10e H10b

Perceived Intention
H4
ease of use to use
H8a H10c

Two-way H8b
communication
H8c

H9a H2
H9b
H5
Figure 1. Perceived
The research model Personalization H9c
enjoyment

students that had the opportunity to take courses via the LMS with a blend of
asynchronous and synchronous technologies in the same semester.

Measures and pre-test

In this study, responses to the items in controllability, responsiveness, two-way
communication, personalization, PU, PEOU, PE, and intention to use were measured on a
seven-point Likert scale from 1 ( ¼ “strongly disagree”) to 7 ( ¼ “strongly agree”) with
4 labeled as neutral. To ensure content validity of the scales, items chose for the constructs
in this study were adapted and revised from previous research. Besides, this study’s
targeted subjects must have no experience in using the LMS with a blend of asynchronous
and synchronous technologies before course commencement; and usage experience was
coded as a dichotomous variable with values of 1 for the course commencement and 2 for
the course completion. This study gathered pre-test sample data from a comprehensive
university in Taiwan, and this selected university had implemented the LMS with a blend
of asynchronous and synchronous technologies in some courses at least one year ago.
Following a convenience sampling method, the questionnaire was pre-tested on
50 first-time users and 50 experienced users, respectively. All pre-test participants
surveyed in this study were undergraduate students from this comprehensive university.
The respondents were asked to identify any ambiguities in the meanings, and the
questionnaire was revised based on their comments. The instrument’s reliability was
evaluated, and the Cronbach’s a values (ranging from 0.82 to 0.96) exceeded common
requirements for exploratory research, indicating a satisfactory level of reliability
(Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 1998). The final items are listed in Table I along with
 Roles of
Construct Item Measure Source
interactivity and
Controllability CON1 I am in control of my navigation through Liu (2003)
(CON) the e-learning system
usage experience
CON2 When I use the e-learning system, I can Wu (2006)
choose freely what I want to see
CON3 I have control over the pace of my learning
through the e-learning system 9
Responsiveness RES1 When I am using the e-learning system, Liu (2003)
(RES) system response is fast
RES2 I can acquire the learning contents I want Pituch and Lee
without any delay through the e-learning system (2006)
RES3 The e-learning system is very quick in responding Song and Zinkhan
to my request (2008)
Two-way TWC1 The e-learning system can facilitate two-way Liu (2003)
communication (TWC) communication between learners and the instructor
TWC2 The e-learning system can facilitate concurrent Song and Zinkhan
communication between learners and the instructor (2008)
TWC3 The e-learning system is effective in gathering
learners’ feedback
TWC4 It is easy to offer feedback to the instructor
through the e-learning system
Personalization PER1 The e-learning system can provide the learners Papanikolaou et al.
(PER) with the most suitable, individually planned, (2002)
sequence of learning contents to learn
PER2 Learning materials within the e-learning system Wu (2006)
can be adaptively generated or assembled from
different pieces for each learner
PER3 The e-learning system can help learners to find the
most relevant path in the hyperspace
PER4 The e-learning system can provide the
personalized communication channel between
learners and the instructor
Perceived usefulness PU1 Using the e-learning system enhances my Davis (1989)
(PU) learning effectiveness
PU2 Using the e-learning system gives me greater Ngai et al. (2007)
control over learning
PU3 I find the e-learning system to be useful
in my learning
Perceived ease of use PEOU1 Interacting with the e-learning system does not Davis (1989)
(PEOU) require a lot of my mental effort
PEOU2 My interaction with the e-learning system is Ngai et al. (2007)
clear and understandable
PEOU3 I find the e-learning system to be easy to use
Perceived enjoyment PE1 I find using the e-learning system to be enjoyable Davis et al. (1992)
(PE)
PE2 The actual process of using the e-learning Lee et al. (2005)
system is pleasant
PE3 I have fun using the e-learning system
Intention to use ITU1 I will use the e-learning system on a regular Bhattacherjee
(ITU) basis in the future (2001)
ITU2 I will frequently use the e-learning system Roca et al. (2006)
in the future Table I.
ITU3 I will strongly recommend others to use the Construct measurement
e-learning system and sources
IJWIS their sources. Besides, the subjects who had participated in the pre-test were excluded
10,1 from the final data collection and subsequent study.

Data collection
The empirical data were collected in a two-stage survey and were analyzed using the
longitudinal methodology. The measurements of students’ reactions were made during
10 a one-semester period of time in this study. The first stage of data collection was
conducted during the first week of the semester (T1: course commencement) and the
second stage of data collection was conducted during the last week of the semester
(T2: course completion). This study’s targeted subjects must have no experience in using
the LMS with a blend of asynchronous and synchronous technologies before the first
stage of data collection, and these subjects were definitely informed of this study’s
purpose prior to each stage of data collection. 252 targeted subjects that took courses
via the LMS with a blend of asynchronous and synchronous technologies in the
same semester agreed to participate in this study. In the first stage of data
collection, 20 received questionnaires were discarded due to partial portions of missing
values, 232 received questionnaires were usable; in the second stage of data collection,
14 received questionnaires were discarded due to partial portions of missing values,
238 received questionnaires were usable. Finally, a total of 225 targeted subjects
(89.29 percent) effectively participated in both data collections.

Data analysis
The data analysis of this study followed a two-step approach for structural equation
modeling (SEM) method recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). First,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to develop the measurement model.
Second, to explore the causal relationships among all constructs, the structural model
for the research model depicted in Figure 1 was tested by using SEM. Further, this
study examined the existence of the moderating effects on the structural model by
performing the multiple group analysis (MGA). The statistical analysis software
packages used to perform these processes were AMOS 5.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL,
USA) and SPSS 8.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results
Descriptive characteristics of the usable respondents
The total of 225 targeted subjects effectively participated in both data collections. Among
them, 96 respondents (42.67 percent) were males, and 129 respondents (57.33 percent) were
females. Next, 209 respondents (92.89 percent) were undergraduate students, and
16 respondents (7.11 percent) were graduate students. As to the distribution of
undergraduate year, 26 respondents were sophomores (11.56 percent), 86 respondents
were juniors (38.22 percent), and 97 respondents were seniors (43.11 percent). Additionally,
the distribution of age was as follows: under 21 (12.89 percent), 21-30 (67.11 percent), 31-40
(16.89 percent), 41-50 (2.22 percent), 51-60 (0.89 percent), and over 60 (0.00 percent).

Results of structural modeling analysis

Measurement model. Based on both data collections, three analyses were conducted to
assess the measurement model at T1 and T2 in this study. First, squared multiple
correlation (SMC) for each item, and composite reliability (CR) and average variance
extracted (AVE) for each construct were used in this study to test the reliability of all Roles of
constructs (Nunnally, 1978; Hair et al., 1998; Holmes-Smith, 2001). At T1 and T2, the interactivity and
results of CFA showed that the SMC values for all items were greater than 0.5, which
indicated a good reliability level (Holmes-Smith, 2001); the values of CR and AVE for usage experience
all constructs exceeded the minimum acceptable values of 0.7 and 0.5 (Nunnally, 1978;
Hair et al., 1998; Holmes-Smith, 2001), indicating a good reliability level and
subsequently yielding very consistent results. Hence, the results of CFA demonstrated 11
an acceptable level of reliability for all constructs at T1 and T2. Besides, at T1 and T2,
the reliability coefficients of all constructs assessed by the Cronbach’s a value
exceeded the 0.7 cut-off value as recommended by Nunnally (1978) and Hair et al.
(1998). The reports are listed in Table II.
Second, according to Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) rule, at T1 and T2, the results
of CFA showed that the t-value of every item exceeded the 1.96 value ( p , 0.05), so the
evidence of convergent validity was obtained as the items significantly represented
their constructs. That is, the measurement model yields a good convergent validity.
The reports are listed in Table II. Furthermore, to test for discriminant validity, the
procedure described by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was used in this study. At T1 and
T2, the results of CFA showed that the AVE of each construct was greater than the
squared correlation for each pair of constructs, indicating that each construct was
distinct (Tables II and III).
Third, the most common rules used in performing the CFA for measurement model
and testing the structural model include stipulating that the goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
should be greater than 0.9, the adjusted GFI (AGFI) should be greater than 0.8, the
incremental fix index (IFI) should be greater than 0.9, the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
should be greater than 0.9, the comparative fit index (CFI) should be greater than 0.9, the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be less than 0.08, and the
x 2/df should be less than 3 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Adams et al., 1992; Hair et al., 1998;
Byrne, 2001). The overall fit indices of measurement model at T1 were x 2 ¼ 288.755,
df ¼ 271, x 2 /df ¼ 1.066, p , 0.001, GFI ¼ 0.914, AGFI ¼ 0.888, IFI ¼ 0.994,
TLI ¼ 0.993, CFI ¼ 0.994, and RMSEA ¼ 0.041. The overall fit indices of
measurement model at T2 were x 2 ¼ 307.476, df ¼ 271, x 2/df ¼ 1.135, p , 0.001,
GFI ¼ 0.910, AGFI ¼ 0.885, IFI ¼ 0.991, TLI ¼ 0.989, CFI ¼ 0.990, and
RMSEA ¼ 0.048. Thus, at T1 and T2, the results of CFA showed that the indices
were over their respective common acceptance levels.
Structural model. The following step is to test the structural model for the research
model depicted in Figure 1. Based on the data collection at T1, the overall fit indices for
the structural model at T1 were x 2 ¼ 353.114, df ¼ 282, x 2/df ¼ 1.252, p , 0.001,
GFI ¼ 0.900, AGFI ¼ 0.875, IFI ¼ 0.978, TLI ¼ 0.974, CFI ¼ 0.977, and
RMSEA ¼ 0.075. The results of structural modeling analysis at T1 are shown in
Figure 2(a). Based on the data collection at T2, the overall fit indices for the structural
model at T2 were x 2 ¼ 346.111, df ¼ 282, x 2/df ¼ 1.227, p , 0.001, GFI ¼ 0.901,
AGFI ¼ 0.876, IFI ¼ 0.983, TLI ¼ 0.981, CFI ¼ 0.983, and RMSEA ¼ 0.070. The
results of structural modeling analysis at T2 are shown in Figure 2(b). According to the
views of previous studies (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Adams et al., 1992; Hair et al., 1998;
Byrne, 2001), at T1 and T2, the fit indices for the structural model were quite acceptable.
Hypothesis testing. The results of structural modeling analysis for T1 and T2 are
separately presented in Figure 2(a) and (b). Properties of the causal paths, including
 12
10,1
IJWIS

Table II.

reliability test
Results of CFA,
validity analysis, and
Course commencement (T1) Course completion (T2)
Construct Estimate Standardized path Cronbach’s Estimate Standardized path Cronbach’s
item (t-value) coefficients SMC CR AVE a (t-value) coefficients SMC CR AVE a
CON 0.883 0.718 0.868 0.852 0.658 0.846
CON1 1a 0.808 0.649 1a 0.677 0.688
CON2 1.160 (6.474) 0.872 0.757 1.797 (8.168) 0.720 0.736
CON3 0.852 (10.650) 0.688 0.517 1.717 (8.295) 0.759 0.780
RES 0.880 0.714 0.859 0.906 0.766 0.877
RES1 1a 0.868 0.740 1a 0.628 0.528
RES2 0.916 (7.328) 0.782 0.659 1.186 (8.532) 0.782 0.660
RES3 0.727 (6.924) 0.608 0.506 1.608 (8.289) 0.912 0.834
TWC 0.888 0.668 0.852 0.942 0.804 0.905
TWC1 1a 0.603 0.516 1a 0.862 0.743
TWC2 1.192 (7.358) 0.703 0.664 1.009 (19.784) 0.940 0.884
TWC3 1.618 (9.988) 0.852 0.808 0.987 (18.278) 0.896 0.803
TWC4 1.185 (7.139) 0.678 0.616 0.727 (11.359) 0.668 0.552
PER 0.890 0.671 0.871 0.904 0.703 0.866
PER1 1a 0.808 0.735 1a 0.738 0.701
PER2 0.938 (6.381) 0.742 0.651 1.275 (10.805) 0.825 0.808
PER3 0.819 (7.875) 0.668 0.593 1.029 (10.500) 0.785 0.762
PER4 0.766 (6.177) 0.602 0.512 0.886 (8.519) 0.654 0.569
PU 0.943 0.846 0.957 0.922 0.799 0.931
PU1 1a 0.915 0.840 1a 0.885 0.806
PU2 1.084 (25.810) 0.951 0.906 1.069 (20.558) 0.945 0.899
PU3 1.064 (25.951) 0.948 0.900 0.998 (18.482) 0.872 0.793
PEOU 0.929 0.814 0.893 0.918 0.789 0.922
PEOU1 1a 0.837 0.846 1a 0.920 0.872
PEOU2 1.058 (15.114) 0.872 0.882 0.961 (20.447) 0.852 0.849
PEOU3 1.057 (14.887) 0.852 0.862 0.967 (17.907) 0.902 0.859
PE 0.891 0.732 0.905 0.930 0.817 0.889
PE1 1a 0.903 0.817 1a 0.827 0.830
PE2 0.990 (20.204) 0.930 0.866 1.205 (14.877) 0.883 0.888
PE3 0.968 (15.613) 0.845 0.753 1.091 (14.169) 0.834 0.837
ITU 0.926 0.806 0.931 0.948 0.859 0.961
ITU1 1a 0.879 0.782 1a 0.919 0.851
ITU2 1.082 (21.216) 0.953 0.915 1.056 (25.143) 0.933 0.877
ITU3 0.968 (18.615) 0.877 0.781 1.105 (28.332) 0.971 0.945
Note: aThe loading was fixed
 Course commencement (T1) Course completion (T2)
Variance Variance
Construct CON RES TWC PER PU PEOU PE ITU Construct CON RES TWC PER PU PEOU PE ITU

CON 0.718 CON 0.658

RES 0.028 0.714 RES 0.054 0.766
TWC 0.013 0.012 0.668 TWC 0.020 0.091 0.804
PER 0.035 0.017 0.048 0.671 PER 0.042 0.029 0.018 0.703
PU 0.070 0.083 0.076 0.082 0.846 PU 0.130 0.086 0.070 0.123 0.799
PEOU 0.050 0.053 0.128 0.087 0.138 0.814 PEOU 0.047 0.034 0.046 0.128 0.340 0.789
PE 0.024 0.050 0.048 0.080 0.284 0.154 0.732 PE 0.138 0.044 0.098 0.134 0.361 0.160 0.817
ITU 0.035 0.215 0.062 0.073 0.341 0.312 0.318 0.806 ITU 0.050 0.056 0.102 0.095 0.372 0.216 0.242 0.859
Note: The italic values along the diagonal line are the AVE values for the constructs, and the other values are the squared correlations for each pair of
constructs
usage experience

the measurement model

interactivity and

Discriminant validity for

Table III.
13
Roles of
IJWIS
10,1 Controllability
0.268
(3.764)
Perceived
usefulness
0.236
0.148 (3.236)
0.322
(2.045) 0.329
(5.194)
(5.538)
14 0.249
(3.269)
Responsiveness 0.198
(2.535)
0.189
(2.432)
Perceived 0.337 Intention
ease of use (5.145) to use
0.150
(1.979)
0.285
Two-way (3.194)
communication 0.148
(1.961)
0.272
0.215 (4.481)
0.277
(2.613)
(3.505) 0.271
(3.314)

0.263 Perceived
Personalization (3.112) enjoyment

(a)

0.289 Perceived
Controllability (4.277) usefulness
0.202
0.346 (2.692)
(4.463) 0.395
(5.927) 0.417
(5.564)
0.197
(3.125)
Responsiveness 0.153
(2.290)
0.127
(2.025)
Perceived 0.146 Intention
ease of use (1.995) to use
0.119
(2.129)
0.144
Two-way (2.170)
communication 0.206
(3.228)
0.383
0.170 (5.388)
0.218 (2.343)
(3.148) 0.356
(4.532)

0.297 Perceived
Personalization (3.968) enjoyment

(b)
Figure 2. Notes: Standardized path coefficients are reported (t-values in parentheses);
Results of structural absolute t-value > 1.96, p < 0.05; absolute t-value > 2.58, p < 0.01; absolute
modeling analysis at: t-value > 3.29, p < 0.001
(a) T1 and (b) T2
standardized path coefficients (b) and t-values, are shown in the two figures. On the Roles of
part of interactivity antecedents to student beliefs, first, the effects of controllability on interactivity and
PU, PEOU, and PE were significant (T1: b ¼ 0.268, 0.236, and 0.148, respectively;
p , 0.05; T2: b ¼ 0.289, 0.202, and 0.346, respectively; p , 0.01); hence, H6a-H6c are usage experience
supported. Second, the effects of responsiveness on PU, PEOU, and PE were significant
(T1: b ¼ 0.249, 0.198, and 0.189, respectively; p , 0.05; T2: b ¼ 0.197, 0.153, and 0.127,
respectively; p , 0.05); hence, H7a-H7c are supported. Third, the effects of two-way 15
communication on PU, PEOU, and PE were significant (T1: b ¼ 0.150, 0.285, and 0.148,
respectively; p , 0.05; T2: b ¼ 0.119, 0.144, and 0.206, respectively; p , 0.05); hence,
H8a-H8c are supported. Fourth, the effects of personalization on PU, PEOU, and PE
were significant (T1: b ¼ 0.277, 0.271, and 0.263, respectively; p , 0.01; T2: b ¼ 0.218,
0.356, and 0.297, respectively; p , 0.01); hence, H9a-H9c are supported. On the part of
relationships between student beliefs and usage intention, first, the effects of PEOU on
PU and PE were significant (T1: b ¼ 0.322 and 0.215, respectively; p , 0.01; T2:
b ¼ 0.395 and 0.170, respectively; p , 0.05); hence, H1 and H2 are supported. Second,
the effects of PU, PEOU, and PE on intention to use were significant (T1: b ¼ 0.329,
0.337, and 0.272, respectively; p , 0.001; T2: b ¼ 0.417, 0.146, and 0.383, respectively;
p , 0.05); hence, H3-H5 are supported.

Moderating effects of usage experience

MGA can be used to examine the existence of the moderating effects on the structural
model by analyzing the signification of the differences between parameters considered
by the structural model between the groups proposed (Singh, 1995; Byrne, 2001;
Arbuckle, 2003). For the formation of the groups, usage experience was coded as a
dichotomous variable with values of 1 for the course commencement and 2 for the
course completion. Further, the comparison between the estimated coefficients for both
groups and each pair of variables was carried out using a measurement of the
signification of the differences between unstandardized coefficients using a t-test for
independent samples. Table IV shows the t-test results for comparison of the groups
based on different levels of usage experience.
As can be seen, significant differences in the unstandardized coefficients of PU
(t-value ¼ 2.554, p , 0.05), PEOU (t-value ¼ 2 3.118, p , 0.01), and PE
(t-value ¼ 2.827, p , 0.01) affecting intention to use can be observed via the
moderating effects of usage experience, thus H10a-H10c are supported. However,
insignificant differences in the unstandardized coefficients of PEOU (t-value ¼ 0.809,
p . 0.05) affecting PU and PEOU (t-value ¼ 2 1.148, p . 0.05) affecting PE can be
observed via the moderating effects of usage experience, thus H10d and H10e are
rejected. Hence, the effects of PU and PE on intention to use were significant, positive,
and supported by responses from both data collections (i.e. T1 and T2), and the two
effects appeared to have strengthened with increasing usage experience. However, the
effect of PEOU on intention to use was also significant, positive, and supported by
responses from both data collections (i.e. T1 and T2), but this effect appeared to have
weakened with increasing usage experience.

Implications and suggestions

At T1 and T2, this study showed that interactivity factors (i.e. controllability,
responsiveness, two-way communication, and personalization) had positive strong
 16
10,1
IJWIS

experience
Table IV.

based on usage
Comparison of the groups
Course
commencement Course
(T1) completion (T2) Difference between t-value for difference Hypothesis
Causal relationship B t-value B t-value parameters (T2-T1) between parameters (T2-T1) testing results

CON ! PU 0.410 3.764 0.506 4.277 0.096 0.597

CON ! PEOU 0.465 3.236 0.339 2.692 20.126 20.659
CON ! PE 0.246 2.045 0.572 4.463 0.326 1.858
RES ! PU 0.478 3.269 0.321 3.125 20.157 20.879
RES ! PEOU 0.387 2.535 0.265 2.290 20.122 20.637
RES ! PE 0.312 2.432 0.180 2.025 20.132 20.847
TWC ! PU 0.483 1.979 0.146 2.129 20.337 21.329
TWC ! PEOU 0.571 3.194 0.212 2.170 20.359 21.759
TWC ! PE 0.204 1.961 0.355 3.228 0.151 0.997
PER ! PU 0.424 3.505 0.263 3.148 20.161 21.093
PER ! PEOU 0.252 3.314 0.520 4.532 0.268 1.944
PER ! PE 0.321 3.112 0.437 3.968 0.116 0.769
PU ! ITU 0.292 5.538 0.598 5.564 0.306 * 2.554 H10a is supported
PEOU ! ITU 0.480 5.145 0.128 1.995 20.352 * * 23.118 H10b is supported
PE ! ITU 0.222 4.481 0.535 5.388 0.313 * * 2.827 H10c is supported
PEOU ! PU 0.268 5.194 0.329 5.927 0.061 0.809 H10d is rejected
PEOU ! PE 0.376 2.613 0.187 2.343 20.189 21.148 H10e is rejected
Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01 and * * *p , 0.001; B – unstandardized coefficients; absolute t-value . 1.96, p , 0.05; absolute
t-value . 2.58, p , 0.01; absolute t-value . 3.29, p , 0.001
effects on students’ beliefs (i.e. PU, PEOU, and PE) of the e-learning system, and this Roles of
study’s results strongly revealed the saliency of the extended TAM in understanding interactivity and
students’ intention to use the e-learning system. Synthetically speaking, interactivity
factors indirectly affected students’ intention to use the e-learning system via the usage experience
extrinsic motivators (i.e. PU and PEOU) and intrinsic motivator (i.e. PE). The results
implicate that e-learning providers should develop interactivity-based mechanisms to
reflect extrinsic as well as intrinsic motivational aspects in system design to increase 17
the learners’ involvement (Lee et al., 2005; Chang and Wang, 2008), and further use
such system features to facilitate learners’ intention to use the e-learning system
(Lee et al., 2005, 2009). Detailed suggestions are proposed below. First, to make learners
feel learning via the e-learning system useful, easy to use, and enjoyable, e-learning
providers should create a friendly environment that is beneficial for e-learning to
cultivate learners’ interest in learning. In such an environment, course designers may
make good use of multimedia tools (e.g. multimedia tutorial, multimedia animation,
multimedia simulation game, multimedia storytelling and quizzing, etc.) to create the
adaptive multimedia courseware to interact with learners; and instructors may make
full use of creative methods (e.g. creative games, creative problem solving training,
heuristic methods, etc.) to facilitate learners’ understanding, absorption, and memory
of the course content (Lee et al., 2005; Lee, 2006). However, it is essential to keep web
access controllable, thus system designers should simultaneously take the bandwidth
of the infrastructure that delivers the interactivity into account to ensure that access is
not slowed down by the increased interactivity (Chang and Wang, 2008). Second,
system designers should provide learners with more controllable mechanisms in
relation to learners’ learning to facilitate learners’ e-learning acceptance. For example,
a well-designed and user-friendly interface should be developed to support the
actions necessary to achieve the goals of learners (Liu et al., 2010); besides, an
interactive video may also be embedded in the e-learning system to provide learners’
individual control over the learning process and enhance learners’ self-directed and
self-paced learning (Berge, 2002; Zhang et al., 2006). Hence, to facilitate learners’
learning via the e-learning system, system designers should endeavor to develop more
self-controlled learning mechanisms to make learners feel the e-learning system more
effective navigation, easier to use, and more enjoyable. Third, system designers should
install more bi-directional and responsive mechanisms (e.g. a discussion room, email,
instant messenger, message board, online chat room, and video conferencing, etc.) in
the e-learning system. Thus, instructors may make use of these communication tools to
interact with learners and make learners feel connected to others within an interactive
e-learning environment (Lee et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2010). Fourth, course designers and
instructors may design learner-centered programs taking learners’ learning needs,
styles, and knowledge levels into account to enhance learners’ interest in learning via
the e-learning system (Chatzoglou et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2010). To achieve this action,
system designers should endeavor to provide learners with more personalized
mechanisms (e.g. adaptive navigation support, adaptive presentation of web-based
contents, problem-solving support, individualized sequence of course units, etc.) to
encourage learners’ e-learning acceptance. However, system designers should take
different levels of learners’ ability into consideration when they install personalized
mechanisms in the e-learning system (Chen et al., 2005; Baylari and Montazer, 2009).
IJWIS As for the moderating effects of experience in using the e-learning system, first,
10,1 interactivity factors (i.e. controllability, responsiveness, two-way communication, and
personalization) played a consistent role in influencing students’ beliefs of the system
regardless of whether students are less experienced or more experienced in using the
system. Next, students’ experience in using the e-learning system moderated the effects
of PU, PEOU, and PE on intention to use the system. Detailed implications and
18 suggestions are proposed below. First, the effect of students’ PU (extrinsic motivator)
on their intention to use the e-learning system appeared to have strengthened with
increasing their usage experience. Second, students’ PEOU (extrinsic motivator) could
also facilitate their intention to use the e-learning system, but this effect would become
weaker with increasing their usage experience. That is because users’ understanding of
how to use the target system may increase by means of their usage experience with the
system (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Third, the effect of
students’ PE (intrinsic motivator) on their intention to use the e-learning system
appeared to have strengthened with increasing their usage experience as well. That is,
students’ enjoyable usage experience with the e-learning system could drive them to
increase the intention of the system usage with increasing their usage experience.
Synthetically speaking, these results implicate that learners in e-learning system usage
are usually motivated more extrinsically than intrinsically at the initial usage stage,
but the intrinsic motivator will gradually play a key role in increasing usage intention
of the system with increasing their usage experience. As advocated by Kim et al. (2009),
in IT usage, the extrinsic motivator has a more powerful effect than an intrinsic
motivator at the initial usage stage, but the importance of the intrinsic motivator will
increase at the post-usage stage. Hence, this study suggests that e-learning providers
may try to regard learners’ usage experience of the e-learning system as the criterion
for segmentation in an interactive e-learning environment, and further tailor their
services to learners’ needs in accordance with various levels of learners’ experience in
using the e-learning system. As for learners with less experience at the initial usage
stage, usefulness and ease-of-use of the e-learning system should be thought of as
reflecting the instrumental value on usage intention in this stage. By contrast, when
learners gradually increase their experience in using the e-learning system at the
post-usage stage, to boost such learners’ usage intention of the e-learning system,
e-learning providers should endeavor to stimulate learners’ intrinsic motivation rather
than extrinsic motivation in this stage; that is, the hedonic features of the e-learning
system should be enhanced in this stage by providing such learners with more
interactive mechanisms.

Conclusions
This study longitudinally explored whether interactivity factors as the antecedents to
learner beliefs affected learners’ intention to use the e-learning system and examined
the extended TAM with increasing learners’ experience in using the system. Based on
both data collections, first, interactivity antecedents, controllability, responsiveness,
two-way communication, and personalization, all have significant effects on PU,
PEOU, and PE; PU, PEOU, and PE, respectively, exhibit significant strong impacts on
intention to use the e-learning system; and PEOU also indirectly affects intention to use
the e-learning system via PU and PE. Next, experience in using the e-learning system
can moderate the effects of PU, PEOU, and PE on intention to use the system except the
effects of PEOU on PU and PE of the system. Hence, based on the extended TAM, the Roles of
empirical evidence on capturing both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators for completely interactivity and
explaining interactivity antecedents of learners’ e-learning acceptance is well
documented in this study. Besides, it should be noted that this study contributes usage experience
significantly to the body of research on evaluating whether the effects of learners’
beliefs on their usage intention of the e-learning system may change over time with
increasing experience in using the system. 19
A major limitation of this study is that data were collected from a comprehensive
university in Taiwan only. Given this study’s limited scope, further research may
generalize this study’s sample to the respondents of other national cultural
backgrounds. Besides, this study conducted a longitudinal observational design to
examine students’ e-learning acceptance, and the design did not involve experimental
manipulation of theoretical constructs. As compared to the non-experimental methods,
the experimental method can allow for precise control of variables (Cook and Campbell,
1979; Nysveen and Pedersen, 2004), and enhance causal interpretations of key
variables’ relationships (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). Hence, further research may use
the experimental method to isolate one key construct which has been selected in order
to observe its effect on other constructs.

References
Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of
information technology: a replication”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 227-247.
Agarwal, R. and Karahanna, E. (2000), “Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption
and beliefs about information technology usage”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 665-694.
Al-Gahtani, S.S., Hubona, G.S. and Wang, J. (2007), “Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia:
culture and the acceptance and use of IT”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 8,
pp. 681-691.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Arbuckle, J.L. (2003), AMOS 5.0: Update to the AMOS User’s Guide, Smallwaters Corporation,
Chicago, IL.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bailey, J.E. and Pearson, S.W. (1983), “Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing
computer user satisfaction”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 530-545.
Baylari, A. and Montazer, G.A. (2009), “Design a personalized e-learning system based on item
response theory and artificial neural network approach”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 8013-8021.
Berge, Z.L. (2002), “Active, interactive, and reflective e-learning”, The Quarterly Review of
Distance Education, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 181-190.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce
service continuance”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 201-214.
Borup, J., West, R.E. and Graham, C.R. (2012), “Improving online social presence through
asynchronous video”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 195-203.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
IJWIS Castañeda, J.A., Muñoz-Leiva, F. and Luque, T. (2007), “Web acceptance model (WAM):
moderating effects of user experience”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 4,
10,1 pp. 384-396.
Chang, H.H. and Wang, I.C. (2008), “An investigation of user communication behavior in
computer mediated environments”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 2336-2356.
20 Chatzoglou, P.D., Sarigiannidis, L., Vraimaki, E. and Diamantidis, A. (2009), “Investigating Greek
employees’ intention to use web-based training”, Computers & Education, Vol. 53 No. 3,
pp. 877-889.
Chen, C.-M., Lee, H.-M. and Chen, Y.-H. (2005), “Personalized e-learning system using item
response theory”, Computers & Education, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 237-255.
Chen, C.-M., Liu, C.-Y. and Chang, M.-H. (2006), “Personalized curriculum sequencing utilizing
modified item response theory for web-based instruction”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 378-396.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979), Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field
Settings, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Cummings, W.H. and Venkatesan, M. (1976), “Cognitive dissonance and consumer behavior:
a review of the evidence”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 303-308.
Cyr, D., Head, M. and Ivanov, A. (2009), “Perceived interactivity leading to e-loyalty:
development of a model for cognitive-affective user responses”, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 850-869.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 982-1003.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1992), “Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use
computers in the workplace”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 14,
pp. 1111-1132.
Evans, C. and Gibbons, N.J. (2007), “The interactivity effect in multimedia learning”, Computers
& Education, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1147-1160.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fusilier, M. and Durlabhji, S. (2005), “An exploration of student internet use in India: the
technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behaviour”, Campus-Wide
Information Systems, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 233-246.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis with
Readings, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hanson, W. (2000), Principles of Internet Marketing, South-Western College, Cincinnati, OH.
Hershkovitz, A. and Nachmias, R. (2011), “Online persistence in higher education web-supported
courses”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 98-106.
Holmes-Smith, P. (2001), Introduction to Structural Equation Modeling Using LISREL,
ACSPRI-Winter Training Program, Perth.
Hu, P.J.-H., Clark, T.H.K. and Ma, W.W. (2003), “Examining technology acceptance by school
teachers: a longitudinal study”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 227-241.
Jiang, Z. and Izak, B. (2007), “Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online
product presentations”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 454-470.
Kim, B., Choi, M. and Han, I. (2009), “User behaviors toward mobile data services: the role of Roles of
perceived fee and prior experience”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 8528-8536. interactivity and
Lee, B.-C., Yoon, J.-O. and Lee, I. (2009), “Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: usage experience
theories and results”, Computers & Education, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1320-1329.
Lee, H.-H., Fiore, A.M. and Kim, J. (2006), “The role of the technology acceptance model in
explaining effects of image interactivity technology on consumer responses”, International 21
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 621-644.
Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K. and Chen, Z. (2005), “Acceptance of internet-based learning medium:
the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 8,
pp. 1095-1104.
Lee, Y.-C. (2006), “An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an
e-learning system”, Online Information Review, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 517-541.
Liao, C.-H. and Tsou, C.-W. (2009), “User acceptance of computer-mediated communication: the
SkypeOut case”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 4595-4603.
Lin, W.-S. (2012), “Perceived fit and satisfaction on web learning performance: IS continuance
intention and task-technology fit perspectives”, International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, Vol. 70 No. 7, pp. 498-507.
Liu, I.-F., Chen, M.C., Sun, Y.S., Wible, D. and Kuo, C.-H. (2010), “Extending the TAM model to
explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community”,
Computers & Education, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 600-610.
Liu, Y. (2003), “Developing a scale to measure the interactivity of websites”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 207-216.
McGill, T.J. and Klobas, J.E. (2009), “A task-technology fit view of learning management system
impact”, Computers & Education, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 496-508.
McMillan, S.J. (2000), “Interactivity is in the eye of the beholder: function, perception,
involvement, and attitude toward the web site”, in Shaver, M.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, pp. 71-78.
McMillan, S.J. and Hwang, J.-S. (2002), “Measures of perceived interactivity: an exploration of the
role of direction of communication, user control, and time in shaping perceptions of
interactivity”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 29-42.
Moore, M.G. (1980), “Independent study”, in Boyd, R.D. and Apps, J. (Eds), Redefining the
Discipline of Adult Education, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 16-31.
Ngai, E.W.T., Poon, J.K.L. and Chan, Y.H.C. (2007), “Empirical examination of the adoption of
WebCT using TAM”, Computers & Education, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 250-267.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nysveen, H. and Pedersen, P.E. (2004), “An exploratory study of customers’ perception of
company web sites offering various interactive applications: moderating effects of
customers’ internet experience”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 137-150.
Paechter, M. and Maier, B. (2010), “Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences
in e-learning”, The Internet and Higher Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 292-297.
Palloff, R.M. and Pratt, K. (1999), Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective
Strategies for the Online Classroom, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Papanikolaou, K.A., Grigoriadou, M., Magoulas, G.D. and Kornilakis, H. (2002), “Towards new
forms of knowledge communication: the adaptive dimension of a web-based learning
environment”, Computers & Education, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 333-360.
IJWIS Pianesi, F., Graziola, I., Zancanaro, M. and Goren-Bar, D. (2009), “The motivational and control
structure underlying the acceptance of adaptive museum guides – an empirical study”,
10,1 Interacting with Computers, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 186-200.
Pituch, K.A. and Lee, Y.-K. (2006), “The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use”,
Computers & Education, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 222-244.
Roca, J.C. and Gagné, M. (2008), “Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the
22 workplace: a self-determination theory perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 1585-1604.
Roca, J.C., Chiu, C.-M. and Martı́nez, F.J. (2006), “Understanding e-learning continuance intention:
an extension of the technology acceptance model”, International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 683-696.
Sánchez-Franco, M.J., Martı́nez-López, F.J. and Martı́n-Velicia, F.A. (2009), “Exploring the impact
of individualism and uncertainty avoidance in web-based electronic learning: an
empirical analysis in European higher education”, Computers & Education, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 588-598.
Singh, J. (1995), “Measurement issues in cross-national research”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 597-619.
Smith, G.G., Sorensen, C., Gump, A., Heindel, A.J., Caris, M. and Martinez, C.D. (2011),
“Overcoming student resistance to group work: online versus face-to-face”, The Internet
and Higher Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 121-128.
Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2008), “Determinants of perceived web site interactivity”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Spector, J.M., Christensen, D.L., Sioutine, A.V. and McCormack, D. (2001), “Models and
simulations for learning in complex domains: using causal loop diagrams for assessment
and evaluation”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 17 Nos 5/6, pp. 517-545.
Teo, T.S.H., Lim, V.K.G. and Lai, R.Y.C. (1999), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet
usage”, Omega, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Van der Heijden, H. (2004), “User acceptance of hedonic information systems”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 695-704.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems
Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Venkatesh, V. (2006), “Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on
individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 497-518.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Windham, L. and Orton, K. (2000), The Soul of the New Consumer: The Attitudes, Behaviors, and
Preferences of E-Customers, Allworth Press, New York, NY.
Wu, G. (2006), “Conceptualizing and measuring the perceived interactivity of websites”, Journal
of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
Yoo, W.-S., Lee, Y. and Park, J. (2010), “The role of interactivity in e-tailing: creating value and
increasing satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 89-96.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R.O. and Nunamaker, J.F. Jr (2006), “Instructional video in e-learning: Roles of
assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness”,
Information & Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 15-27. interactivity and
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K.-K. and Wang, Z. (2012), “Promoting the intention of students to continue usage experience
their participation in e-learning systems: the role of the communication environment”,
Information Technology & People, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 356-375.
23
About the author
Yung-Ming Cheng is an Associate Professor in the Department of Business Administration at
Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan. His current research interests include technology
acceptance and adoption, information systems management, international entry strategy, electronic
commerce, health care management, and international human resource management. His research
has been published in journals such as Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Information
Systems Journal, International Journal of Commerce & Management, Internet Research,
Nurse Education Today, The Journal of Nursing Research, and others. Yung-Ming Cheng can be
contacted at: ymcheng.ymcheng@msa.hinet.net

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints