Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2021 Aug 2;27(1):291–320. doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10665-2

Transitioning to online learning in higher education: Influence of Awareness of COVID-19 and Self-Efficacy on Perceived Net Benefits and Intention

Krunal K Punjani 1,✉, Kala Mahadevan 1
PMCID: PMC8327905  PMID: 34366692

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted existing educational systems worldwide. Due to lockdowns in several countries, the educational institutions have been directed by governments to move towards online learning. The challenge for educational institutions and faculty members is to assess the influence of various factors that would enable adoption of online learning by students in higher education. This study investigates the influence of awareness of COVID-19 (AOC19), computer & internet self-efficacy (CISE), and online communication self-efficacy (OCSE) on perceived net benefits (NB) of the students and their intention towards the online learning (INT). The study further analyzes the mediating role of students’ attitude towards online learning (ATOL). Data of 1023 students of higher education across multiple universities in India were collected and analyzed using structural equation modelling through AMOS 24 and mediation analysis through ‘PROCESS’ macro for SPSS. The findings revealed that, AOC19 positively influenced students’ NB and INT; CISE had a significant inverse relationship with NB, and partially significant positive relationship with INT; OCSE was observed to be a significant predictor of NB with positive direct relationship; ATOL had a significant full mediation among CISE and NB, and acted as significant partial mediator between CISE and INT, AOC19 and NB, AO19 and INT, OCSE and NB, and OCSE and INT. This paper would be useful for the faculty members, institutions and education technology companies in the higher education domain by enabling an understanding of the attitude, perception and intention of the students towards online learning during the COVID-19 scenario.

Keywords: Online Learning, Higher Education, Perceived net benefits, Attitude, Intention, COVID-19

Introduction

Technology has enabled the adoption of electronic learning and online learning systems increasingly over the past couple of decades as an important component of knowledge delivery in several universities across the world (Lin et al., 2013). Richardson and Swan (2003) defined online learning as “any class that offers its entire curriculum in the online course delivery mode, thereby allowing students to participate regardless of geographic location, independent of time and place”. The outbreak of the novel coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) as a public health phenomenon has caused drastic changes in the way education is being imparted across the world. The pandemic resulted in a world-wide lockdown in many countries and to ensure the social distancing, all educational institutions in India stopped classroom teaching. Nonetheless, to continue the education process, the apex education regulatory bodies in India – the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All-India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) advised colleges and universities to move towards online learning modes of education (Sreehari, 2020). Both faculty members and students are facing significant challenges in adapting to the online learning environment. (Adarkwah, 2020; Almaiah et al., 2020). Many countries are contemplating the continuance of the online learning mode in the near future in order to maintain social distancing (Mo et al., 2021). In light of the possible continuance of online learning mode, it is important for educational institutions to investigate the factors that would influence the adoption of online learning by students with a positive mindset.

Researchers have examined the online learning through various lenses such as identification of key factors, technology adoption, assessment of issues with respect to online learning systems, and student and faculty satisfaction with online learning (Buchanan et al., 2013; Caliskan et al., 2017; Liu et al., 2010; Rajabalee & Santally, 2020). However, an assessment of the impact that factors such as the awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic, computer & internet self-efficacy as well as online communication self-efficacy on the perceived net benefits that would accrue to students, intention of the students to adopt online learning systems and the mediating role of attitude has not received due attention. Given the current pandemic situation, a study of the factors which would impact the adoption of online learning by students in higher education has a practical orientation from the perspective of students, faculty members, institutions and education technology companies.

The following research questions emerged from a review of the extant literature and were sought to be addressed through this study.

  1. Does an awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic impact students’ perception of net benefits from online learning and their intention to adopt online learning?

  2. Do students’ Computer & Internet Self-efficacy and Online Communication Self-efficacy influence their perception of net benefits from online learning and their intention to adopt online learning?

  3. Does Attitude play a mediating role in the relationships between the awareness of the COVID-19 pandemic, the self-efficacies of the students on one hand and their perception of net benefits and intention to adopt online learning on the other?

This study makes four significant contributions to the academic body of knowledge in the field of online learning. The first contribution is in the form of exploring how the exogenous construct of ‘Awareness of COVID-19’ (AOC19) can have an impact on the ‘Perceived Net Benefits’ (NB) accruing from adopting an online learning format by students and also influence their ‘Intention towards online learning’ (INT). The second contribution is assessment of the impact of additional exogenous constructs in the form of two types of self-efficacy viz., ‘Computer & internet self-efficacy’ (CISE) and ‘Online communication self-efficacy’ (OCSE) on NB as well as the students’ INT in higher education. The third contribution pertains to the perusal of ‘Attitude towards online learning’ (ATOL) as a mediating variable between the three exogenous constructs mentioned above and the endogenous constructs of NB and INT. The construct of NB has typically been examined from a perspective of benefits that accrue to the various stakeholders in an organization from the adoption of a technology-based system (Bhuasiri et al., 2012; DeLone & McLean, 2003; Hassanzadeh et al., 2012; Zhang & Thompson, 2019). Our fourth contribution by way of this study is the examination of the construct NB in an online learning in a higher education environment which in our view has been examined only in relatively fewer studies (Salam & Farooq, 2020).

This paper is further structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the theoretical framework used as the basis for the conceptualization of the study, followed by review of relevant literature of the key constructs and hypotheses proposed in this study in the Sect. 3. Further, Sect. 4 addresses the research methodology adopted for the study while Sect. 5 details the statistical analysis and results. Subsequently, discussion based on the results is provided in the Sect. 6 while Sect. 7 outlines the theoretical, practical and social implications of the study. The conclusions, limitations and the future research directions have been detailed in Sect. 8.

Literature review

Online learning

Research on online learning in pre-COVID-19 times has indicated mixed results on the efficacy of online learning systems when assessed through various contexts. Means et al. (2013) posit that the performance of e-learners is marginally better than those in traditional face to face learning environments. Mosquera (2017) reported that the virtual learning environment was found to be productive and useful by teachers. Mathew et al. (2019) reported that faculty members faced several impediments such as students being non-responsive during online classes, inability of the teachers to supervise the student learning process and difficulties in teaching online for longer periods of time.

Previous research in the domain of online learning has investigated this field from several perspectives. Volery and Lord (2000) investigated the key success factors required for online education. Abdullah et al. (2016) explored the influence of self-efficacy, subjective norms, enjoyment, computer anxiety and experience on students’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Hung et al. (2010) developed a scale to assess learner readiness which outlined five key dimensions to assess learner readiness in online learning systems – self-directed learning, motivation for learning, online communication self-efficacy, computer/ internet self-efficacy and learner control.

Research on online learning perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic has focused on the effectiveness of the shift to online learning and teaching systems and the issue of student assessment thereof (Al-Hattami, 2020). Researchers have also examined the critical success factors for online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Alqahtani & Rajkhan, 2020), the difficulties in online learning systems (Chang & Fang, 2020) and learners’ acceptance of the migration to online learning (Mukhtar et al., 2020).

The domain of higher education is on a transitionary mode and is currently experiencing a period of great change. Given the current situation wherein the shift to online learning systems has been more or less mandated by the ongoing pandemic, an awareness of the dangers of having face to face classes (Munir et al., 2021) and an understanding of the need to move towards an online format of education is imperative. The successful implementation of online learning can translate into benefits for the students, only if they have a favorable attitude towards the online learning format (Salam & Farooq, 2020; Shaft et al., 2004). In addition, their skills pertaining to computer & internet efficacy and online communication efficacy would act as enablers in the entire process (Hung et al., 2010).

Theoretical framework

This study bases itself on the theoretical foundation offered by the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model proposed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974). The SOR model proffers that multiple environmental factors can act as stimulus (S) which can influence an individual’s external state specified in the model as organism (O) and this can thereafter drive the individual’s behavioral response (R). This model therefore comprises of three components – “stimulus/stimuli” – these are considered external to the person which can evoke affective responses reflected through emotions and feelings (Batra & Ray, 1986), “organism” – which encompasses the inner state of the individual’s thinking, feelings and perceptions and these affective and cognitive states act as a mediator between the stimulus and the “response” which is essentially the final outcome of the individual’s behavior (Moon et al., 2017). Significant research using the SOR model has been carried out in exploring online user behaviors in online shopping and electronic commerce transactions (Kim & Lennon, 2012; Moon et al., 2017). However, very few studies (Zhai et al., 2020) have used this model to examine user behavior in online learning settings.

Previous studies have classified stimuli as being of two types – social and psychological stimuli that originate from the external environment in which an individual exists and object stimuli that comprise of product characteristics and other object attributes (Arora, 1982). In our study, AOC19 is considered to be one such external stimuli, which is of a social and psychological nature. The theoretical foundation is further strengthened with the addition of the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1977, 1982) which offers a conceptual framework for understanding how self-efficacy of an individual has a significant effect on cognitive and affective processes. Thus, this study uses two measures of self-efficacy – CISE and OCSE as additional environmental stimuli which can trigger a cognitive and affective response in an individual.

The SOR model outlines three emotional states – pleasure, arousal and dominance as represented by “organism” (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Prior research on this subject has also extended the internal states of the organism to include other variables such as cognition, value, emotion and affect (Fiore & Kim, 2007; Lee et al., 2011). Previous research studies have operationalized attitude as the “organism” in the SOR model in multiple contexts (Chen & Huang, 2012; Kaur et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2011; Moon et al., 2018; Romero et al., 2021; Suparno, 2020; Vergura et al., 2020). Through this study, we seek to make a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge on the SOR model by operationalizing attitude as an emotional state represented by “organism” in the model and seeking to assess the impact of external stimuli on the attitude of a student towards online learning.

NB has been proposed as a dependent variable in several studies. Hassan et al (2015) examined the success of information systems in higher education in an e-government context. The study concluded that the usage of the e-government information systems leads to net benefits which indicate the success of the information system. Lwoga (2013) researched the suitability of information systems (IS) success model with respect to the adoption of library 2.0 technologies among undergraduate students in Africa by positing net benefits to the students and users as the final outcome variable. Xinli (2015) examined the impact of using an Electronic Monitoring System on reducing corruption in China. The study concluded that application of such systems has a positive effect on reduction in corruption levels which was construed as a net benefit for organizations and the society at large. Thus, NB is construed as a “response” in the SOR framework used in the study.

Furthermore, the conceptual foundation offered by the SOR model and the Social Cognitive Theory is sought to be augmented by integrating the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975, 1977) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985). The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) posits that an individual’s behavior towards an object is formed by the intention to perform that particular behavior. According to this theory, an individual’s attitudes are determined by the beliefs held by the individual about the consequences of his/ her behavior and also suggests that external stimuli influence attitudes by suitably modifying the structure of the individual’s beliefs (Ajzen, 1985). The TRA framework has been extensively used to predict consumer intentions and behavior (Casselman & Damhorst, 1991; Gentry & Calantone, 2002). This study uses the TRA framework to assess the impact of the stimuli on an individual’s attitude towards online learning, the net benefits that an individual perceives from the online learning system and finally, the intention of the individual towards the online learning system. Thus, INT is also envisaged as the “response” in the SOR framework used in the study.

Ajzen (1985) extended the TRA as Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by adding one more predictor to the existing TRA model in the form of Perceived Behavioral Control. This predictor accounts for those instances wherein an individual has the intention of carrying out a particular behavior but is restrained from doing so due to lack of confidence or control over such behavior. This construct was referred to by information systems literature as the concept of “self-efficacy”, which has been reflected by the use of the two self-efficacy related constructs of CISE and OCSE in this study.

The Information Systems (IS) model developed by DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) envisaged the outcomes of an information system as a manifestation of the overall impact that the information system has on an organization. This study proposes to extend DeLone and McLean’s (2003) updated IS model to the online learning environment by envisaging the contributions of an online learning system as its NB.

The use of multiple theoretical frameworks to support constructs used in research has been employed in several studies across various research domains (Alzahrani & Seth, 2021; Dalvi-Esfahani et al., 2020; Farooq et al., 2019; Hausman & Siekpe, 2009; Hung et al., 2010; Liao et al., 2017; Lim & Tai, 2014; Udo et al., 2010; Yusuf et al., 2018; Zhou, 2016; Zahid & Haji Din, 2019).

Constructs and hypotheses

Awareness of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has emerged as a once-in-a-generation black swan event (Krishnamurthy, 2020; Taleb, 2007). In order to maintain social distancing, educational institutions were directed by governments to transition towards online learning systems. Migrating to an online learning format could offer a more convenient method of continuing the education process in the prevailing pandemic situation (Al-Hattami, 2020). This study has considered “Awareness of COVID-19” (AOC19) as a relevant “stimulus” as the survey for this research was conducted in the early phase of the pandemic wherein people at large were just getting an awareness of the dangers that the pandemic posed. We represent the construct of AOC19 as “an awareness of the benefits of shifting towards an online learning platform and perceiving it as a convenient method of continuing education so as to possibly minimize the chances of contracting COVID-19”.

Previous studies have focused on the difficulties and solutions thereof with respect to online learning (Chang and Fang, 2020), e-assessment of student performance during online learning in COVID-19 pandemic situation (Al-Hattami, 2020), salient factors for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic and transitioning from face-to-face lectures to an online learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mpungose, 2020). However, there is a need to also understand, whether AOC19 leads to NB and INT and hence, considering AOC19 as a ‘stimulus’ in the SOR framework, we propose the following hypotheses:

  • H1: AOC19 has a significant impact on NB

  • H2: AOC19 has a significant impact on INT

Self-Efficacy in online learning

Self-efficacy is believed to be one of the key factors for successful online learning. It includes a learner’s evaluation of his/her own ability to achieve a goal or the learner’s self-belief to achieve that goal (Yokoyama, 2019). Several research studies have investigated various types of self-efficacy in an online learning system such as technology self-efficacy (Choi et al., 2007), computer self-efficacy (Kim & Park, 2018; Lim et al., 2016), e-learning system self-efficacy (Jashapara & Tai, 2006), academic self-efficacy (Lim et al., 2016), knowledge sharing self-efficacy (Tseng & Kuo, 2010), internet self-efficacy (Chiu & Tsai, 2014), communication-internet self-efficacy (Chu, 2010) and online learning self-efficacy (Hong et al., 2017).

Shen et al., (2013) investigated the various dimensions of self-efficacy through an exploratory factor analysis and the study identified five dimensions of self-efficacy with respect to online learning:

  1. Self-efficacy to complete an online course

  2. Self-efficacy to interact socially with classmates

  3. Self-efficacy to handle tools in a course management system.

  4. Self-efficacy to interact with instructors in an online course.

  5. Self-efficacy to interact with classmates for academic purposes

An extensive review of the literature on self-efficacy in online learning systems indicated that there were two key self-efficacies that were required to successfully navigate an online learning system. These related to the handling of the technology/ computer/ tools used in online learning (Dimensions (a) and (c) as outlined by Shen et al., 2013) and the efficacies related to communicating online with other students and faculty members (Dimensions (b), (d), and (e) as outlined by Shen et al., 2013). Hence, CISE and OCSE were the constructs considered and this study has employed the scales suggested by Hung et al, (2010) for these constructs.

Computer & Internet Self-Efficacy

There has been significant research carried out on Self-Efficacy which has been construed to arise from the acquisition of cognitive, social and linguistic skills over a period of time through experience (Bandura, 1982). CISE is the belief of an individual about his/ her ability to use a computer and the internet (Compeau & Higgins, 1995). The idea of self-efficacy also stems from the social cognitive theory which outlines how beliefs about self-efficacy can regulate functioning of individuals (Bandura, 1977). Compeau and Higgins (1995) developed a scale for measuring computer self-efficacy and posited that computer self-efficacy had a significant influence on emotional responses and actual use of computer-based technologies. Eastin and LaRose (2000) examined the concept of internet self-efficacy and stipulated that it is the ability of an individual to harness internet skills in an online learning environment. Based on the SOR framework and the social cognitive theory, we proffer the following hypotheses:

  • H3: CISE has a significant impact on NB.

  • H4: CISE has a significant impact on INT.

Online Communication Self-Efficacy

Another key self-efficacy is that of an individual being able to communicate effectively online. Interaction and communication provide a critical link between teachers and students in online learning environments (McVay, 2000) and these communications may serve to enrich the overall perceived benefits from online learning. Roper (2007) stipulated that the students should aim at using online discussions to learn better as these typically provide opportunities for in-depth delving into the subject. Online discussions also act as a facilitating tool for better engagement between teachers and students. Hung et al. (2010) have developed and validated a scale for measurement of OCSE and observed that students with better OCSE also felt more comfortable in expressing themselves in the written form. Considering OCSE as a ‘stimulus’ in the SOR framework, the following hypotheses are proposed:

  • H5: OCSE has a significant impact on NB.

  • H6: OCSE has a significant impact on INT.

Perceived Net Benefits

The concept of NB refers to the degree to which an information system benefits an individual, group or a firm (Alzahrani et al., 2017). Most studies examining this concept examine the contributions of an information system as its net benefits for the various stakeholders in an organization (Salam & Farooq, 2020). Yet other researchers have opined that the perception of net benefits may vary from user to user and from system to system (Marnewick, 2016). The Information Systems (IS) model developed by DeLone and McLean (1992, 2003) envisaged the outcomes of an information system as a manifestation of the overall impact that the information system has on an organization. DeLone and McLean (2003) in the IS model have postulated that the ultimate parameter of the success of any system is the net benefits that the system generates. While encouraging positive attitudes or mindful usage of the system may be an important concern, the goal of any system should be the net benefits that the system provides. Hence the IS Model posits net benefits as the final dependent variable. Net benefits in the IS model are also influenced by user satisfaction. As satisfaction in the IS model includes items that measure attitude, it has been theorized in the IS model that attitude has a direct effect on net benefits (Jewer et al., 2017). This study proposes to extend DeLone and McLean’s (2003) updated IS model to the online learning environment by envisaging the contributions of an online learning system as its NB. Previous researchers (Anaya, 2013; Kurkalova & Carter, 2017) have opined that the construct of NB has not been explored fully to date and more so in the arena of online education. This study attempts to answer this call for research by conceptualizing NB as an outcome of online learning systems in the higher education domain.

Intention towards Online Learning

Online learning is gaining prominence in higher education (Abdel-Wahab, 2008) and due to COVID-19, higher educational institutions are required to quickly adapt to online learning environments. Previously, many researchers (de Souza Rodrigues et al., 2021; Sidik & Syafar, 2020; Xu & Wang, 2017) have studied students’ intention in the online learning environment and considered it to be a substantial outcome. This study focuses on assessing the association between the exogenous constructs of AOC19, CISE and OCSE on the students’ intention towards online learning as a way of education.

Attitude towards Online Learning

A key component of the individual’s intention to adopt an online learning system is the attitude that is formed by the individual based on the stimuli that he/she has been exposed to. An understanding of an individual’s attitude can enable the prediction of the individual’s overall response to a particular object. and the link between attitude and behavior has been well established in research literature through the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). The concept of attitude has typically been examined in research with a view to understanding its mediating relationship between various exogenous constructs and behavioral intentions such as purchase/ repurchase/ revisit intentions (Evans & Bang, 2019; Hausman & Siekpe, 2009) or intention to adopt a specific technology (Irani et al., 2013; Wahid, 2007).

Researchers have also examined the role of attitude as a mediating variable in the adoption of online learning systems (Alenezi & Karim, 2010; Ndubisi, 2004; Yasin et al., 2020). Markova and Jones (2011) examined benefits satisfaction as an attitude formed through the beliefs about benefits and the perceived value of these benefits in an organizational environment. However, only a few research studies have focused on the association between attitude and NB. Koh et al., (2010) evaluated a model for mandatory usage of software technologies wherein attitude mediated the relationship between several exogenous constructs (information quality, performance expectancy, social influence and information satisfaction) and usage and overall satisfaction which further led to net benefits. Elmorshidy (2018) examined the impact of knowledge management systems on innovation and posited that attitude as a mediating variable between exogenous constructs and intention leading to usage and thereby and net benefits. Almalki et al., (2013) developed a conceptual framework to evaluate the success of e-Government portals and proposed that attitude would mediate the relationship between several exogenous constructs (Information quality, System quality, Service quality, Perceived risk, Perceived ease of use, Perceived Usefulness) and Behavioral intention to use the portal which would further influence the usage and perceived net benefits from the portals.

This paper seeks to contribute to academic literature by positing ATOL as a mediating variable in the relationship between the exogenous constructs of AOC19, CISE and OCSE and the endogenous constructs of NB and INT. Based on the above, the following hypotheses are proffered:

  • H7: ATOL mediates the association between AOC19 and NB.

  • H8: ATOL mediates the association between CISE and NB.

  • H9: ATOL mediates the association between OCSE and NB.

  • H10: ATOL mediates the association between AOC19 and INT.

  • H11: ATOL mediates the association between CISE and INT.

  • H12: ATOL mediates the association between OCSE and INT.

Based on the above discussion and hypotheses mentioned, this study proposes the following conceptual model: Fig. 1

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Proposed Conceptual Model. Legend: AOC19: Awareness of COVID-19, CISE: Computer/ Internet Self Efficacy, OCSE: Online Communication Self Efficacy, ATOL: Attitude towards Online Learning, NB: Perceived Net Benefits, INT: Intention towards online learning

Research methodology

Construct and measurement development

The proposed model for the study comprised of three exogenous constructs – AOC19, CISE and OCSE, one mediating construct – ATOL and two endogenous constructs – NB and INT. The measures used have been well established in prior research literature and care was taken to ensure that only previously validated measures were selected and these were suitably adapted to the online learning context to further enhance their validity. In order to measure AOC19, four items were adapted from a study investigating the effectiveness of the shift to online teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic (Al-Hattami, 2020). CISE and OCSE were measured using three items each which were adapted from Hung et al. (2010). ATOL was measured using four items from Shaft et al. (2004), while NB was measured using five items from Salam and Farooq (2020). To measure the INT, three items were adapted from Ji et al. (2019); Xu and Wang (2017). A total of 22 items were used to measure the six constructs used in this study. All the items were measured on a five-point Likert Scale which measured the agreement/ disagreement of the respondents from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.

Table 1 synopsizes the items used for the measurement of each of the constructs used in the study along with the sources for the same.

Table 1.

Items used in Survey Questionnaire

Constructs Adapted form Measurement Items
Awareness of COVID-19 Al-Hattami, 2020

1. Moving to online learning format is a positive protective decision to avoid COVID-19 infection

2. Using the online learning format is a good decision to continue education during COVID-19 situation

3. Online learning during the COVID-19 situation brings more advantages than disadvantages

4. Online learning is a convenient way to continue education and avoid the spread of COVID-19
Computer & Internet Self Efficacy Hung et al., 2010

1. I feel confident in performing the basic computer functions required for online learning

2. I feel confident in my knowledge and skills of how to manage software for online learning

3. I feel confident in using the Internet to find or gather information for online learning
Online Communication Self Efficacy Hung et al., 2010

1. I feel confident in using online tools to effectively communicate with others during the online learning sessions

2. I feel confident in expressing myself through text/ chat-box during online learning session

3. I feel confident in posting/ asking questions during online learning sessions
Attitude towards E- Learning Shaft et al., 2004

Online learning enhances my creativity during COVID-19 situation.

Online learning is helpful for me during COVID-19 situation.

Online learning is enjoyable.

Online learning increases my productivity during COVID-19.
Perceived Net Benefits Salam & Farooq, 2020

1. Online learning involves all students actively during COVID-19

2. My academic performance is enhanced by using Online Learning during COVID-19

3. Use of Online Learning promotes critical thinking skills and collaborative knowledge building during COVID-19 situation

4. Online Learning has enhanced my interaction with my peers and my teachers during COVID-19 situation

5. I can monitor my individual progress (i.e. personal growth) using Online Learning during COVID-19
Intention towards online learning Ji et al. (2019); Xu and Wang (2017)

1. I intend to use online learning during COVID-19 situation

2. I plan to use online learning during COVID-19 situation

3. I intend to recommend online learning to others during COVID-19 situation
Open in a new tab

Sampling and data collection

Sampling is a technique used in research in order to select a representative set of individuals from within a population so as to estimate the characteristics of the population. This study used non-probability based convenience sampling method by reaching out to faculty members who would have ready access to the students of higher education.

Data collection for the study was carried out by sending the questionnaire by email to 214 faculty members across several universities in India. As educational institutions were operating in online mode, it was deemed difficult to contact students of higher education directly. Hence, faculty members were chosen as the route to disseminate the questionnaire as they were in contact with the students through online learning classes. These faculty members were requested to forward the questionnaire to their respective students across multiple higher education courses. Higher education courses in India typically comprise “the education, which is obtained after completing 12 years of schooling or equivalent and is of the duration of at least nine months (full time) or after completing 10 years of schooling and is of the duration of at least 3 years” (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2019). This mainly consists of graduation, post-graduation and other diploma or certification courses.

A total of 1023 responses were received through online survey and since there were no missing values in the collected data, all the responses were used for data analysis. The demographic profile of the respondents is outlined in Table 2.

Table 2.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Categories Frequency %
Gender
- Male 283 27.66
- Female 740 72.34
Age Group
- 16–20 years 533 52.1
- 21–25 years 425 41.54
- 26–30 years 37 3.62
- 31–35 years 28 2.74
Educational Course
- Junior college 24 2.35
- Graduation 486 47.51
- Post-Graduation 298 29.13
- Other 215 21.02
Open in a new tab

Statistical analysis and results

Sampling adequacy

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett test of Sphericity were performed on the data to assess the suitability of the data for further factor analysis. The KMO measure for our study was 0.957, greater than the acceptable indicator of 0.5, thus signifying that the sample was adequate to conduct a factor analysis. The Bartlett test was carried out to ensure that the variables were completely unrelated, thus concluding that a factor analysis would be appropriate for this set of data (Bartlett, 1950). Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated a significant value as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3.

KMO and Bartlett’s Test

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.957
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 12,529.381
df 231
Sig 0.000
Open in a new tab

Construct reliability and validity

The reliability and validity of the measurement model was sought to be assessed through Cronbach’s α and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to examine the construct validity through factor loadings, Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The Cronbach Alpha values ranged from 0.772 to 0.879, above the acceptable threshold of 0.70 for reliable scales (Hair et al., 2006; Nunnally, 1978). CR measures the shared variance among the observed variables of the respective constructs and has been used as an indicator of internal consistency (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The values for item wise factor loadings, Cronbach’s α, CR and AVE for each of the constructs used in the study are as presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Construct Reliability and Validity

Construct Measurement Items Factor Loadings Cronbach’s α AVE CR
Awareness of COVID-19 Moving to online learning format is a positive protective decision to avoid COVID-19 infection 0.65 0.771 0.4567 0.7694
Using the online learning format is a good decision to continue education during COVID-19 situation 0.734
Online learning during the COVID-19 situation brings more advantages than disadvantages 0.588
Online learning is a convenient way to continue education and avoid the spread of COVID-19 0.721
Computer & Internet Self Efficacy I feel confident in performing the basic computer functions required for online learning 0.705 0.794 0.5390 0.7776
I feel confident in my knowledge and skills of how to manage software for online learning 0.703
I feel confident in using the Internet to find or gather information for online learning 0.791
Online Communication Self Efficacy I feel confident in using online tools to effectively communicate with others during the online learning sessions 0.767 0.788 0.5085 0.7557
I feel confident in expressing myself through text/ chat-box during online learning session 0.688
I feel confident in posting/ asking questions during online learning sessions 0.681
Attitude towards Online Learning Online learning enhances my creativity during COVID-19 situation 0765 0.837 0.6090 0.8616
Online learning is helpful for me during COVID-19 situation 0.791
Online learning is enjoyable 0.751
Online learning increases my productivity during COVID-19 0.813
Perceived Net Benefits Online learning involves all students actively during COVID-19 0.734 0.877 0.5906 0.8099
My academic performance is enhanced by using Online learning during COVID-19 0.827
Use of Online learning promotes critical success skills and collaborative knowledge building during COVID-19 situation 0.805
Online learning has enhanced my interaction with my peers and my teachers during COVID-19 situation 0.747
I can monitor my individual progress (i.e., personal growth) using Online learning during COVID-19 0.724
Intention towards online learning I intend to use online learning during COVID-19 situation 0.83 0.865 0.6828 0.8659
I intend to use online learning to enhance my knowledge during COVID-19 situation 0.823
I intend to recommend online learning to my friends during COVID-19 situation 0.826
Open in a new tab

Convergent validity was assessed through an examination of the factor loadings, CR and AVE. Stevens (1996) has opined that sample sizes are important in understanding the significance of factor loadings which may vary with the size of the sample. Tabachnick et al. (2007) have cited that 0.32 is a good thumb rule for the minimum loading of an item. Hair et al. (2006) postulate that good convergent validity is demonstrated by item factor loadings greater than or equal to 0.5. Other researchers like Field (2005), Ertz et al. (2016) have also considered factor loadings of greater than 0.4 to be significant. As can be seen from Table 4, all the 22 items have a factor loading of greater than 0.5 thus demonstrating good convergent validity. Additionally, the constructs in the proposed model demonstrate a CR ranging between 0.7557 and 0.8659, well above the acceptable level of 0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally, 1978). Further, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) the AVE values of five constructs are greater than 0.5, except one construct, the AVE of which is slightly less. Nevertheless, as stated by Fornell and Larcker (1981) “on the basis of pn (composite reliability) alone, the researcher may conclude that the convergent validity of the construct is adequate, even though more than 50% of the variance is due to error” (page no. 46), which was further supported by Lam (2012) and further by Safiih and Azreen (2016) as well.

Additionally, as the construct items of this study were adapted from the existing scales, CFA was conducted to assess the measurement model as shown in Fig. 2. This measurement model was evaluated through eight different fit indices, and as indicated in Table 5 and the value of all these indices were greater than the threshold limits suggested by Hair et al. (2006), Davey and Savla (2010) and Tabachnick et al. (2007).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Confirmatory Factor Analysis—Measurement Model. Legend: AOC19: Awareness of COVID-19, CISE: Computer & Internet Self Efficacy, OCSE: Online Communication Self Efficacy, ATOL: Attitude towards Online Learning, NB: Perceived Net Benefits, INT: Intention towards online learning

Table 5.

Fit Indices for Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Fit Indices Recommended Value Observed Value Outcome
CMIN/df (minimum discrepancy as indexed chi-square) Between 1 and 3, ‘p’ less than 0.05 2.907, p = 0.001 Good fit
GFI (goodness of fit index) More than 0.9 0.952 Good fit
CFI (comparative fit index) More than 0.95 0.972 Good fit
NFI (Normed-Fit Index) More than 0.95 (Good Fit) 0.958 Good fit
TLI (Tucker Lewis index) More than 0.95 0.964 Good fit
PNFI (parsimonious normal fit) More than 0.6 0.755 Good fit
RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) Less than 0.08 0.043 Good fit
SRMR (Standardized) Root Mean Square Residual) Less than 0.08 0.0386 Good fit
Open in a new tab

In order to test the hypotheses, this study utilized Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) using AMOS 24 software. As suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), bootstrapping with 2000 samples was carried out to examine path coefficients and corresponding significance levels. As shown in Fig. 3 and Table 6, the first six proposed hypotheses were tested to check the direct relationships among the constructs. Further, by applying SEM, it was determined that of the six direct hypotheses proposed, four hypotheses were accepted with significant values of p < 0.05 (H1, H2, H3 & H5). This reveals that NB is significantly influenced by the three exogenous constructs of AOC19, CISE and OCSE. Moreover, it can be observed that standardized regression weights of CISE show negative values, which indicates an inverse relationship of CISE with NB. Additionally, INT was also found to be significantly influenced by AOC19 as H2 has been accepted. In case of H4 it can be noted that it is partially significant with p value of 0.061 (considering p < 0.1), whereas H6 was found to be non-significant. Findings of the H4 reflects CISE to be a partial predictor of the endogenous construct INT.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Structural Equation Model. Legend: AOC19: Awareness of COVID-19, CISE: Computer & Internet Self Efficacy, OCSE: Online Communication Self Efficacy, ATOL: Attitude towards Online Learning, NB: Perceived Net Benefits, INT: Intention towards online learning

Table 6.

Hypothesis Results – Construct Relationship

Hypothesis Number Construct Relationship Standardized Regression Weight Significance Outcome
H1 AOC19 → NB 0.177 0.004 Significant
H2 AOC19 → INT 0.193 *** Significant
H3 CISE → NB -0.396 *** Significant
H4 CISE → INT 0.149 0.061 Partially Significant
H5 OCSE → NB 0.369 *** Significant
H6 OCSE → INT -0.033 0.697 Non-Significant
Open in a new tab

The six mediation hypotheses (H7 to H12) proposed in this study were tested using the Preacher and Hayes (2004) approach, where bootstrapping procedure is utilized to analyze the indirect effect of mediator, between the exogenous and endogenous constructs. Table 7 highlights estimate values of mediator’s indirect effect, which were calculated using ‘PROCESS’ macro for SPSS, written by Andrew F. Hayes. The mediation analysis suggested that Attitude towards online learning fully mediated the relationship between Computer and Internet Self-Efficacy and Perceived Net Benefits (H8). In case of other five hypotheses H7 and H9 to H12, partial mediation was observed. Thus, it is evident that Attitude towards online learning was found to mediate the relationship of exogenous and endogenous constructs considered in this study.

Table 7.

Results of Simple Mediation

H7: Awareness of COVID-19 →Attitude towards Online Learning →  Perceived Net Benefits
Total Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome
Estimate SE t value Estimate SE t value Estimate SE Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%)
LLCI ULCI
0.5827** 0.0285 20.4519 0.158** 0.0267 5.9058 0.3929 0.0244 0.3445 0.4403 Partial Mediation
H8: Computer and Internet Self-Efficacy →  Attitude towards Online Learning →  Perceived Net Benefits
Total Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome
Estimate SE t value Estimate SE t value Estimate SE Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%)
LLCI ULCI
0.3436** 0.0315 10.9061 -0.0001 0.024 -0.005 0.3231 0.0291 0.2663 0.3796 Full Mediation
H9: Online Communication Self-Efficacy → Attitude towards Online Learning →  Perceived Net Benefits
Total Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome
Estimate SE t value Estimate SE t value Estimate SE Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%)
LLCI ULCI
0.5407** 0.0269 20.1287 0.1629** 0.0244 6.6705 0.3724 0.0232 0.3278 0.4181 Partial Mediation
H10: Awareness of COVID-19 → Attitude towards Online Learning →  Intention
Total Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome
Estimate SE t value Estimate SE t value Estimate SE Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%)
LLCI ULCI
0.6596** 0.0268 24.6079 0.2986** 0.0268 11.1472 0.3339 0.0216 0.2903 0.3765 Partial Mediation
H11: Computer and Internet Self-Efficacy →  Attitude towards Online Learning →  Intention
Total Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome
Estimate SE t value Estimate SE t value Estimate SE Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%)
LLCI ULCI
0.5055** 0.0293 17.255 0.2115** 0.0242 8.7559 0.2763 0.0238 0.2288 0.3238 Partial Mediation
H12: Online Communication Self-Efficacy →  Attitude towards Online Learning →  Intention
Total Effect Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome
Estimate SE t value Estimate SE t value Estimate SE Bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (95%)
LLCI ULCI
0.5720** 0.0262 21.8093 0.2287** 0.025 9.139 0.3384 0.0227 0.2928 0.3826 Partial Mediation
Open in a new tab

Legend: SE = Standard Error, LLCI = Lower limit confidence interval, ULCI = Upper limit confidence interval, **p < 0.001.

Discussion

Existing literature of online learning have focused on the online learning readiness (Hung et al, 2010), attitude towards computers instrument (Shaft et al, 2004), attitude towards computer-based learning (Hahne et al., 2005; Wenzel & Gotfredsen, 1997), attitudes towards online cooperative learning (Korkmaz, 2012), attitude with respect to personnel and dispositional aspects, procedural characteristics, negative effects and internalization and habituation of use (Coelho Junior et al., 2019), student satisfaction (Liu & Zhao, 2018; Salam & Farooq, 2020). Whereas, this study has attempted to understand the direct effect of online learning during the COVID-19 scenario, on the students’ NB and INT (H1 to H6). Moreover, the study has also emphasized on determining how ATOL as a mediator influences NB and INT (H7 to H12), which is an under researched area in the online learning domain. The findings of this study are also useful to understand the contribution of CISE and OCSE on the students’ perception of NB and INT during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The findings of the study disclosed that AOC19 has significant positive relationship with NB and INT. This shows that AOC19 has positively influenced the students in higher education to have a positive intention towards the online learning methods and approaches adopted by their respective colleges and universities. Additionally, these students also have a positive perception about the net benefits being derived from their online learning experience. These results support the findings of Al-Hattami (2020) which claimed online learning to be more convenient way to continue education during COVID-19 situation.

CISE was found to have a significant, but inverse relationship with NB. This suggests that higher education students having beliefs about their self-ability to use the computer and internet, do not necessarily drive the positive perception of net benefits of the online learning, but can inversely affect the same. This could be due to the rising expectations of the higher education students from online learning tools and methods, as their CISE increases, and if these expectations are not met, they tend to have negative perception about the net benefits. However, CISE’s impact on INT was seen to be positive and partially significant, which was consistent with the findings of Alenezi et al. (2010), Albashrawi et al. (2020) and Fianu et al. (2020).

The study further ascertained OCSE as a significant and positive predictor of NB. This implies that higher education students with ability to effectively communicating online, stimulates the positive perception of net benefits towards online learning. This can be due to the students’ ability to communicate effectively over the online platforms which may boost their confidence, subsequently resulting in positive perception towards NB. With respect to INT, though previously Sumuer (2018) found it to be significantly influenced by OCSE, this study revealed to have a non-significant direct relationship among these two constructs.

In the present study, ATOL was considered to be a mediator for the three exogenous constructs and their indirect relationship with NB and INT. ATOL was found to have a significant full mediation among the relationship of CISE and NB. This entails that mediation of ATOL changes the negative direct relationship into a positive indirect relationship with students’ perception of NB. In case of two remaining exogenous constructs AOC19 and OCSE, ATOL was determined as a partial mediator for NB. This means that attitude as a mediator further intensifies the positive relationships among these constructs. While, for the endogenous construct INT, partial mediation of ATOL was noticed in case of all three exogenous constructs mentioned above. This also emphasized the enhancing role of ATOL as a mediator especially for the relationship between OCSE and INT, where the direct effect was found to be non-significant. This was also the case for CISE which indicated a partially significant direct effect on INT. These results supported the findings of Ferrer et al. (2020); Yasin et al. (2020); Alenezi et al. (2010) and Ndubisi (2004), who also studied significance of attitude as a mediator in online learning.

Implications of the study

Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the academic body of knowledge in the online learning field through the examination of NB as an outcome hitherto relatively unexplored in extant research in this domain. The study also examines the newly envisaged construct of AOC19 which is extremely relevant in the pandemic situation. The relevance of AOC19 as a “stimulus” under the SOR theory and its influence on the perception of net benefits by students in higher education is a concrete contribution by this study to the body of knowledge in this domain. While traditionally, the role of ATOL has been examined with respect to outcomes such as student satisfaction (Han et al., 2019; Malkawi et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2010) and intention to adopt online learning modes (Liu & Pu, 2020), this study adds to the existing literature by examining the mediating role of ATOL between the exogenous constructs of AOC19, CISE, OCSE and NB which is a relatively less explored phenomenon in the knowledge field of online learning.

Practical and social implications

The sudden transition to online learning has posed significant challenges to faculty members. Enhanced student-faculty interaction through the online mode could be one of the alternatives of trying to improve the online communication skills of students which will in turn result in positive attitude and a greater perception of net benefits from the students’ perspective. Additionally, faculty members would also need to engage in creating educational content more suited to the online mode of teaching, develop methods for grading and assessing students’ performance on the online platforms, and also seek to improve their own capabilities with respect to effective delivery of online teaching. From educational institutions’ perspective, it is imperative for them to engage in suitable instructional designs and aim at developing enhanced student experiences which translate into higher perception of benefits from online learning and also a favorable intentional disposition towards online learning. For the EdTech industry, development of easy to adopt tools which facilitate an enriched user experience for students and faculty members would go a long way in ensuring continued usage of online learning technologies.

Conclusions, limitations and future research direction

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has been instrumental in the transition of educational institutions towards online learning. This study attempted to assess the impact of the awareness of the ongoing pandemic on the how students would perceive the benefits that would accrue to them through the online learning mode and also attempted to understand the influence of this awareness on the intention of students towards the online learning mode. In addition, important variables such as the efficacy of students on two counts – computer and internet related as well as their online communication skills was also gauged in terms of their influence on perceived net benefits and intention towards online learning. The results have indicated AOC19 has indeed resulted in a perception of enhanced NB from the online learning mode as also a favorable INT of the students. However, over the last decade or so, computer & internet capabilities of the youth in higher education have increased and therefore, being proficient in the use of the computer & internet has resulted in students of higher education having greater expectation from the online learning mode. Online learning modes demand higher levels of communication skills and this is evident from the study where having good online communication skills drives a higher perception of net benefits as well as intention towards online learning. This study is one of the few that has focused on the perception of the net benefits derived from online learning as an outcome. The study also emphasizes the role of students’ attitude as an important mediating variable with respect to the relationship between the exogenous and endogenous constructs.

This study has certain limitations. Firstly, it has been carried out during the pandemic situation wherein the online learning mode of education has been necessitated out of a fear of contracting COVID-19 as well as the need to maintain social distancing as stipulated by the governments and regulatory bodies. Therefore, the findings may not be generalizable in a post COVID-19 scenario. Secondly, this study is limited to students of higher education in India, nevertheless, it provides key insights into the factors relevant for the adoption of online learning technologies across the education spectrum. In addition, although the study has been carried out in India, it could open up avenues for future research across different countries. A critical research area would be the examination of how the online learning mode of education would be perceived in a post COVID-19 scenario.

Availability of data and material

Yes, can be shared if required.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

Not applicable.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Krunal K. Punjani, Email: profkrunal@gmail.com

Kala Mahadevan, Email: kalamahadevan11@gmail.com.

References

  1. Abbas, Z., Umer, M., Odeh, M., McClatchey, R., Ali, A., & Farooq, A. (2005). A semantic grid-based e-learning framework (SELF). In CCGrid 2005. IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid, 2005. 1, pp. 11–18). IEEE.
  2. Abdel-Wahab AG. Modeling Students’ Intention to Adopt E-learning: A Case from Egypt. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 2008;34(1):1–13. doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2008.tb00232.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abdullah F, Ward R, Ahmed E. 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. 2016;63:75–90. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Adarkwah MA. I’m not against online teaching, but what about us? ICT in Ghana post Covid-19. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;26:1–21. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10331-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  6. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin. 1977;84(5):888–918. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11–39). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  8. Albashrawi MA, Turner L, Balasubramanian S. Adoption of Mobile ERP in Educational Environment: Computer Self-Efficacy and System Security. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems (IJEIS) 2020;16(4):184–200. doi: 10.4018/IJEIS.2020100109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Alenezi AR, Karim A. An empirical investigation into the role of enjoyment, computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy and internet experience in influencing the students’ intention to use e-learning: A case study from Saudi Arabian governmental universities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET. 2010;9(4):22–34. [Google Scholar]
  10. Al-Hattami AA. E-Assessment of Students Performance During the E-Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 2020;29(8s):1537–1547. [Google Scholar]
  11. Almaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A, Althunibat A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;25:5261–5280. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10219-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Almalki, O., Duan, Y., & Frommholz, I. (2013). Developing a conceptual framework to evaluate e-government portals’ success. In Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on e-Government. University of Insubria Varese, Italy 1, 19–26.
  13. Alqahtani AY, Rajkhan AA. E-learning critical success factors during the covid-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Education Sciences. 2020;10(9):216. doi: 10.3390/educsci10090216. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Alzahrani AI, Mahmud I, Ramayah T, Alfarraj O, Alalwan N. Modelling digital library success using the DeLone and McLean information system success model. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 2019;51(2):291–306. doi: 10.1177/0961000617726123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Alzahrani, L., & Seth, K. P. (2021). Factors influencing students’ satisfaction with continuous use of learning management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Education and Information Technologies, 1–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Anaya LA. Realizing the benefits from enterprise information systems: A sociomaterial perspective. Procedia Technology. 2013;9:473–479. doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Arora R. Validation of an SOR model for situation, enduring, and response components of involvement. Journal of Marketing Research. 1982;19(4):505–516. doi: 10.1177/002224378201900411. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 1977;84(2):191. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Bandura A. The assessment and predictive generality of self-percepts of efficacy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 1982;13(3):195–199. doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(82)90004-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Bartlett MS. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Statistical Psychology. 1950;3(2):77–85. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1950.tb00285.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Batra R, Ray ML. Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. 1986;13(2):234–249. doi: 10.1086/209063. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Bermejo S. Cooperative electronic learning in virtual laboratories through forums. IEEE Transactions on Education. 2005;48(1):140–149. doi: 10.1109/TE.2004.837045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Bhuasiri W, Xaymoungkhoun O, Zo H, Rho JJ, Ciganek AP. Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education. 2012;58(2):843–855. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Buchanan T, Sainter P, Saunders G. Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: Implications for models of technology adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2013;25(1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9066-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Caliskan S, Suzek S, Ozcan D. Determining student satisfaction in distance education courses. Procedia Computer Science. 2017;120:529–538. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.275. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Casselman, M. A., & Damhorst, M. L. (1991). Behavioral intentions and the apparel purchase decision: Testing the Fishbein Model. In ITAA Proceedings, 48, (p. 77).
  27. Chang, C. L., & Fang, M. (2020). E-Learning and online instructions of higher education during the 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) epidemic. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1574 (1), (p. 012166). IOP Publishing.
  28. Chen YL, Huang TZ. Mechanism Research of OWOM Marketing Based on SOR and AISAS. Advanced Materials Research. 2012;403:3329–3333. [Google Scholar]
  29. Chiu YL, Tsai CC. The roles of social factor and internet self-efficacy in nurses’ web-based continuing learning. Nurse Education Today. 2014;34(3):446–450. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.04.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Choi DH, Kim J, Kim SH. ERP training with a web-based electronic learning system: The flow theory perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2007;65(3):223–243. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Chu RJC. How family support and Internet self-efficacy influence the effects of e-learning among higher aged adults–Analyses of gender and age differences. Computers & Education. 2010;55(1):255–264. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.01.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Coelho Junior FA, Botelho EDA, Rego MCB, Faiad C, Ramos WM. Attitudes towards Online Learning: What Do Brazilian Students Think about? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 2019;20(4):117–134. doi: 10.17718/tojde.640545. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Compeau DR, Higgins CA. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly. 1995;19(2):189–211. doi: 10.2307/249688. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow and Education. NAMTA Journal. 1997;22(2):2–35. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dalvi-Esfahani, M., Wai Leong, L., Ibrahim, O., & Nilashi, M. (2020). Explaining students’ continuance intention to use Mobile web 2.0 learning and their perceived learning: An integrated approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(8), 1956–2005.
  36. Davey, A. (2009). Statistical power analysis with missing data: A structural equation modeling approach. Routledge.
  37. de Souza Rodrigues MA, Chimenti P, Nogueira ARR. An exploration of eLearning adoption in the educational ecosystem. Education and Information Technologies. 2021;26(1):585–615. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10276-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Delen E, Liew J, Willson V. Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education. 2014;78:312–320. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. DeLone WH, McLean ER. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research. 1992;3(1):60–95. doi: 10.1287/isre.3.1.60. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. DeLone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2003;19(4):9–30. doi: 10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 6(1), JCMC611.
  42. Elmorshidy A. The impact of knowledge management systems on innovation. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2018;48(3):388–403. doi: 10.1108/VJIKMS-12-2017-0089. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ertz M, Karakas F, Sarigöllü E. Exploring pro-environmental behaviors of consumers: An analysis of contextual factors, attitude, and behaviors. Journal of Business Research. 2016;69(10):3971–3980. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Evans NJ, Bang H. Extending expectancy violations theory to multiplayer online games: The structure and effects of expectations on attitude toward the advertising, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intent. Journal of Promotion Management. 2019;25(4):589–608. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2018.1500411. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Farooq, A., Ndiege, J. R. A., & Isoaho, J. (2019). Factors Affecting Security Behavior of Kenyan Students: An Integration of Protection Motivation Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior, 2019 IEEE AFRICON, 1–8.
  46. Ferrer, J., Ringer, A., Saville, K., Parris, M. A., & Kashi, K. (2020). Students’ motivation and engagement in higher education: the importance of attitude to online learning. Higher Education, 1–22.
  47. Fianu, E., Blewett, C., & Ampong, G. O. (2020). Toward the development of a model of student usage of MOOCs. Education+ Training, 62(5), 521–541.
  48. Field AP. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 2. Sage; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fiore AM, Kim J. An integrative framework capturing experiential and utilitarian shopping experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 2007;35(6):421–442. doi: 10.1108/09590550710750313. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Gentry L, Calantone R. A comparison of three models to explain shop-bot use on the web. Psychology & Marketing. 2002;19(11):945–956. doi: 10.1002/mar.10045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Govindarajan, V., & Srivastava, A. (2020). What the shift to virtual learning could mean for the future of higher ed. Harvard Business Review, 31.
  53. Guri-Rosenblit S. ‘Distance education’ and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher Education. 2005;49(4):467–493. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Hahne AK, Benndorf R, Frey P, Herzig S. Attitude towards computer-based learning: Determinants as revealed by a controlled interventional study. Medical Education. 2005;39(9):935–943. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02249.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis, Uppersaddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall
  56. Han H, Moon H, Lee H. Physical classroom environment affects students’ satisfaction: Attitude and quality as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal. 2019;47(5):1–10. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7961. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Hannafin MJ. Empirical issues in the study of computer-assisted interactive video. ECTJ. 1985;33(4):235–247. doi: 10.1007/BF02769360. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Hartsell T, Yuen SCY. Video streaming in online learning. AACE Journal. 2006;14(1):31–43. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hassan, N. S., & Seyal, A. (2015). Measuring success of higher education centralised administration information system: an e-government Initiative. In Proc. Eur. Conf. e-Government, ECEG (pp. 455–464).
  60. Hassanzadeh A, Kanaani F, Elahi S. A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Systems with Applications. 2012;39(12):10959–10966. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Hausman AV, Siekpe JS. The effect of web interface features on consumer online purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research. 2009;62(1):5–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2015;43(1):115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Hong JC, Hwang MY, Tai KH, Lin PH. Intrinsic motivation of Chinese learning in predicting online learning self-efficacy and flow experience relevant to students’ learning progress. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2017;30(6):552–574. doi: 10.1080/09588221.2017.1329215. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Hung ML, Chou C, Chen CH, Own ZY. Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education. 2010;55(3):1080–1090. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Irani Z, Ahmad N, Amer NT, Qutaifan F, Alhilali A. Technology adoption model and a road map to successful implementation of ITIL. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. 2013;26(5):553–576. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-07-2013-0041. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Jashapara A, Tai WC. Understanding the complexity of human characteristics on e-learning system: An integrated study of dynamic individual differences on user perceptions of ease of use. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2006;4(3):227–239. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500099. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Jewer, J., Compeau, D., & Besworth, M. (2017), Understanding IS adoption and success: Integration of IS success and technology adoption research, Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 10–12.
  68. Ji Z, Yang Z, Liu J, Yu C. Investigating users’ continued usage intentions of online learning applications. Information. 2019;10(6):198. doi: 10.3390/info10060198. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Jonassen D, Davidson M, Collins M, Campbell J, Haag BB. Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education. 1995;9(2):7–26. doi: 10.1080/08923649509526885. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Kaur S, Lal AK, Bedi SS. Do vendor cues influence purchase intention of online shoppers? An empirical study using SOR framework. Journal of Internet Commerce. 2017;16(4):343–363. [Google Scholar]
  71. Kim JH, Lennon S. Music and amount of information: Do they matter in an online apparel setting? The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 2012;22(1):55–82. doi: 10.1080/09593969.2011.634073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Kim B, Park MJ. Effect of personal factors to use ICTs on e-learning adoption: Comparison between learner and instructor in developing countries. Information Technology for Development. 2018;24(4):706–732. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1312244. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Koh CE, Prybutok VR, Ryan SD, Wu Y. A model for mandatory use of software technologies: An integrative approach by applying multiple levels of abstraction of informing science. Informing Science. 2010;13:177–203. doi: 10.28945/1326. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Koohang A, Harman K. Open source: A metaphor for e-learning. Informing Science. 2005;8:75–86. doi: 10.28945/488. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  75. Korkmaz Ö. A validity and reliability study of the Online Cooperative Learning Attitude Scale (OCLAS) Computers & Education. 2012;59(4):1162–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Krishnamurthy S. The future of business education: A commentary in the shadow of the Covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Research. 2020;117:1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Kurkalova LA, Carter L. Sustainable production: Using simulation modeling to identify the benefits of green information systems. Decision Support Systems. 2017;96:83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2017.02.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Lam LW. Impact of competitiveness on salespeople’s commitment and performance. Journal of Business Research. 2012;65(9):1328–1334. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Lee S, Ha S, Widdows R. Consumer responses to high-technology products: Product attributes, cognition, and emotions. Journal of Business Research. 2011;64(11):1195–1200. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Liao C, Lin HN, Luo MM, Chea S. Factors influencing online shoppers’ repurchase intentions: The roles of satisfaction and regret. Information & Management. 2017;54(5):651–668. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.12.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Lim S, Tai K. Family incivility and job performance: A moderated mediation model of psychological distress and core self-evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014;99(2):351. doi: 10.1037/a0034486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Lim K, Kang M, Park SY. Structural relationships of environments, individuals, and learning outcomes in Korean online university settings. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 2016;17(4):315–330. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2500. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Lin PC, Lu HK, Liu SC. Towards an education behavioral intention model for e-learning systems: An extension of UTAUT. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Information Technology. 2013;47(3):1120–1127. [Google Scholar]
  84. Liu IF, Chen MC, Sun YS, Wible D, Kuo CH. Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & Education. 2010;54(2):600–610. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Liu, N., & Pu, Q. (2020). Factors influencing learners’ continuance intention toward one-to-one online learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–22.
  86. Liu, J. L., & Zhao, G. D. (2018). The Measurement and Determinants of Student Satisfaction of Education Informatization in Chinese Universities, 2018 International Symposium on Educational Technology (ISET), (pp. 183–187).
  87. Lwoga, E. T. (2013). Measuring the success of library 2.0 technologies in the African context. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(4), 288–307.
  88. Malkawi, E., Bawaneh, A. K., & Bawa'aneh, M. S. (2020). Campus Off, Education On: UAEU Students’ Satisfaction and Attitudes Towards E-Learning and Virtual Classes During COVID-19 Pandemic. Contemporary Educational Technology, 13(1), ep283.
  89. Markova G, Jones F. Attitude formation of benefits satisfaction: Knowledge and fit of benefits. Internationl Journal of Business Research and Management. 2011;2(1):45–52. [Google Scholar]
  90. Marnewick C. Benefits of information system projects: The tale of two countries. International Journal of Project Management. 2016;34(4):748–760. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.03.016. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Mathew NG, Sreehari P, Al-Rubaat AM. Challenges and implications of virtual e-learning platform in EFL context: Perceptions of teachers. International Journal of English Language Teaching. 2019;7(2):100–116. [Google Scholar]
  92. McVay M. How to be a Successful Distance Learning Student: Learning on the Internet. NY, Prentice-Hall; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  93. Means B, Toyama Y, Murphy R, Baki M. The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record. 2013;115(3):1–47. doi: 10.1177/016146811311500307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. the MIT Press.
  95. Merkle LA, Layne CS, Bloomberg JJ, Zhang JJ. Using factor analysis to identify neuromuscular synergies during treadmill walking. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 1998;82(2):207–214. doi: 10.1016/S0165-0270(98)00054-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2019). All India Survey on Higher Education, available at: http://aishe.nic.in/aishe/viewDocument.action?documentId=262 (accessed 20 October 2020)
  97. Mo CY, Hsieh TH, Lin CL, Jin YQ, Su YS. Exploring the Critical Factors, the Online Learning Continuance Usage during COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability. 2021;13(10):5471. doi: 10.3390/su13105471. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  98. Moon MA, Khalid MJ, Awan HM, Attiq S, Rasool H, Kiran M. Consumer’s perceptions of website’s utilitarian and hedonic attributes and online purchase intentions: A cognitive–affective attitude approach. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC. 2017;21(2):73–88. doi: 10.1016/j.sjme.2017.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Moon MA, Javaid B, Kiran M, Awan HM, Farooq A. Consumer perceptions of counterfeit clothing and apparel products attributes. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 2018;36(7):794–808. doi: 10.1108/MIP-11-2017-0272. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Mosquera, L. H. (2017). Impact of implementing a virtual learning environment (vle) in the efl classroom. Íkala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(3), 479–498
  101. Mpungose CB. Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2020;7(1):1–9. doi: 10.1057/s41599-020-00603-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Mukhtar K, Javed K, Arooj M, Sethi A. Advantages, Limitations and Recommendations for online learning during COVID-19 pandemic era. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences. 2020;36:27–31. doi: 10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  103. Munir F, Saeed I, Shuja A, Aslam F. Students Fear of COVID-19, Psychological Motivation, Cognitive Problem-Solving Skills and Social Presence in Online Learning. International Journal of Education and Practice. 2021;9(1):141–154. doi: 10.18488/journal.61.2021.91.141.154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Ndubisi, N. O. (2004). Factors influencing e-learning adoption intention: Examining the determinant structure of the decomposed theory of planned behavior constructs. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of HERDSA, (pp. 252–262).
  105. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. NY, McGrawHill; 1978. [Google Scholar]
  106. Paloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Promoting collaborative learning, Building learning communities in cyberspace, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
  107. Park C, Kim DG. Perception of Instructor Presence and Its Effects on Learning Experience in Online Classes. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 2020;19:475–488. doi: 10.28945/4611. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  108. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2004;36(4):717–731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  109. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods. 2008;40(3):879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. Rajabalee YB, Santally MI. Learner satisfaction, engagement and performances in an online module: Implications for institutional e-learning policy. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;26:2623–2656. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10375-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  111. Richardson J, Swan K. Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network. 2003;7(1):68–88. [Google Scholar]
  112. Romero J, Ruiz-Equihua D, Loureiro SMC, Casaló LV. Smart Speaker Recommendations: Impact of Gender Congruence and Amount of Information on Users’ Engagement and Choice. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:1037. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.659994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Roper AR. How students develop online learning skills. Educause Quarterly. 2007;30(1):62. [Google Scholar]
  114. Safiih LM, Azreen N. Confirmatory factor analysis approach: A case study of mathematics students’ achievement in timss. Malaysian Journal of Mathematical Sciences. 2016;10:41–51. [Google Scholar]
  115. Salam M, Farooq MS. Does sociability quality of web-based collaborative learning information system influence students’ satisfaction and system usage? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 2020;17:1–39. doi: 10.1186/s41239-020-00189-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Shaft TM, Sharfman MP, Wu WW. Reliability assessment of the attitude towards computers instrument (ATCI) Computers in Human Behavior. 2004;20(5):661–689. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2003.10.021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Shen D, Cho MH, Tsai CL, Marra R. Unpacking online learning experiences: Online learning self-efficacy and learning satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education. 2013;19:10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.04.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  118. Sidik D, Syafar F. Exploring the factors influencing student’s intention to use mobile learning in Indonesia higher education. Education and Information Technologies. 2020;25(6):4781–4796. doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-10018-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Sreehari P. Online learning during the covid-19 lockdown: Learners’ perceptions. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020;7(19):300–307. [Google Scholar]
  120. Stevens JP. Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  121. Sumuer E. Factors related to college students’ self-directed learning with technology. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2018;34(4):29–43. doi: 10.14742/ajet.3142. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  122. Suparno, C. (2020). Online purchase intention of halal cosmetics: SOR framework application. Journal of Islamic Marketing.
  123. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics 5, 481–498. MA, Pearson; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  124. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable (Vol. 2). London, Random house.
  125. Tseng FC, Kuo FY. The way we share and learn: An exploratory study of the self-regulatory mechanisms in the professional online learning community. Computers in Human Behavior. 2010;26(5):1043–1053. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  126. Udo GJ, Bagchi KK, Kirs PJ. An assessment of customers’e-service quality perception, satisfaction and intention. International Journal of Information Management. 2010;30(6):481–492. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.03.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  127. Vergura, D. T., Zerbini, C., & Luceri, B. (2020). Consumers’ attitude and purchase intention towards organic personal care products. An application of the SOR model. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 38(1), 121–137.
  128. Volery T, Lord D. Critical success factors in online education. International Journal of Educational Management. 2000;14(5):216–223. [Google Scholar]
  129. Wahid F. Using the technology adoption model to analyze internet adoption and use among men and women in Indonesia. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 2007;32(1):1–8. doi: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2007.tb00225.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  130. Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E. Students’ attitudes towards and use of computer-assisted learning in oral radiology over a 10-year period. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 1997;26(2):132–136. doi: 10.1038/sj.dmfr.4600212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  131. Wu JH, Tennyson RD, Hsia TL. A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education. 2010;55(1):155–164. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  132. Xinli H. Effectiveness of information technology in reducing corruption in China. The Electronic Library. 2015;33(1):52–64. doi: 10.1108/EL-11-2012-0148. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  133. Xu, N., & Wang, H. (2017). Research on Impact Factors of User's Continuance Intention in Online Education Platform. In 2017 International Conference on Industrial Informatics-Computing Technology, Intelligent Technology, Industrial Information Integration (ICIICII) (pp. 95–99). IEEE.
  134. Yasin, N. M., Ongb, M. H. A., & Abd Azizc, N. N. (2020). Attitude as Mediator of Technical Usage Self-Efficacy, Online Communication Self-Efficacy, Technology Access and Online Media on the Blended Learning Readiness. 29(6), 713 – 724
  135. Yokoyama S. Academic self-efficacy and academic performance in online learning: A mini review. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;9:2794. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  136. Yusuf AS, CheHussin AR, Busalim AH. Influence of e-WOM engagement on consumer purchase intention in social commerce. Journal of Services Marketing. 2018;32(4):493–504. doi: 10.1108/JSM-01-2017-0031. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  137. Zahid H, Haji Din B. Determinants of intention to adopt e-government services in Pakistan: An imperative for sustainable development. Resources. 2019;8(3):128. doi: 10.3390/resources8030128. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  138. Zhai X, Wang M, Ghani U. The SOR (stimulus-organism-response) paradigm in online learning: An empirical study of students’ knowledge hiding perceptions. Interactive Learning Environments. 2020;28(5):586–601. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1696841. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  139. Zhang L, Thompson RG. Understanding the benefits and limitations of occupancy information systems for couriers. Transportation Research Part c: Emerging Technologies. 2019;105:520–535. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2019.06.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  140. Zhou M. Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education. 2016;92:194–203. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Yes, can be shared if required.

Not applicable.

Articles from Education and Information Technologies are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES