Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Review

A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types

and e-learning technology types
Botjan umak , Marjan Hericko, Maja Punik
Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Smetanova ulica 17, University of Maribor, Slomkov trg 15, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Existing literature in the eld of e-learning technology acceptance reects a signicant number of inde-
Available online 30 August 2011 pendent studies that primarily investigate the causal relationships proposed by technology acceptance
theory, such as the technology acceptance model (TAM). To synthesize the existing knowledge in the eld
Keywords: of e-learning technology acceptance, we have conducted a systematic literature review of 42 independent
E-learning papers, mostly published in major journals. Furthermore, in order to view the research context by com-
Acceptance bining and analyzing the quantitative results of the reviewed research studies, a meta-analysis of the cau-
Meta-analysis
sal effect sizes between common TAM-related relationships was conducted. The main ndings of this
Moderator analysis
study, which is the rst of its kind, are: (1) TAM is the most-used acceptance theory in e-learning accep-
tance research, and (2) the size of the causal effects between individual TAM-related factors depends on
the type of user and the type of e-learning technology. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated a
moderating effect for user-related factors and technology-related factors for several evaluated causal
paths. We have gathered proof that the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness tend to be
the factors that can inuence the attitudes of users toward using an e-learning technology in equal mea-
sure for different user types and types of e-learning technology settings.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2067
2. Backgrounds: information technology acceptance theories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2068
3. Research methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2068
4. Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2070
4.1. Causal effect size analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2070
4.2. The search for moderating variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2070
4.2.1. User type. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2071
4.2.2. E-learning technology type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2073
4.3. Meta-analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2073
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2076
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2076

1. Introduction
E-learning is a way of learning that can provide education and
training with the use of information communication technologies
(ICT) to anyone, anytime and anywhere. E-learning technologies
are mostly used by universities and other educational organizations
Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 2 220 7378; fax: +386 2 220 7272.
E-mail addresses: Bostjan.Sumak@uni-mb.si (B. umak), Marjan.Hericko@uni-
mb.si (M. Hericko), Maja.Pusnik@uni-mb.si (M. Punik).
for providing new and innovative ways for delivering education to
their students. Studies on e-learning acceptance mostly incorporate
students as subjects; researchers try to explain the factors inuenc-
ing the acceptance of e-learning technology by students. From
another perspective, for the successful implementation and intro-
duction of e-learning technologies, they must be accepted and used
by teachers or professors who use these technologies for providing
learning materials to their students. Recently, the importance of
e-learning has been rising, especially in the business sector, where
companies have recognized the benets of using e-learning

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005
2068 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077
technologies to provide cost-effective on-line learning for their
employees (Chiu & Wang, 2008; Karaali, Gumussoy, & Calisir,
2011). It is therefore important to search for factors that may inu-
ence the perceptions of employees when using a specic e-learning
technology.
The use of e-learning technologies must have a positive impact
on users. When the user is presented with a new e-learning tech-
nology, different factors may inuence their decision on how and
when they will use a particular technology. Furthermore, the
weight of the impact of these factors may differ for different user
types and e-learning technology types. Existing literature com-
prises several studies that deal with the identication of factors
that inuence the behavioral intentions of users and the actual
use of an e-learning technology. E-learning acceptance studies
mostly use well-known and contemporary acceptance theories
and approaches that have been developed and continuously im-
proved over the previous two decades. A quick, non-systematic re-
view has revealed that TAM is the most common ground theory in
e-learning acceptance literature. Researchers mostly explain the
intentions of a user towards using an e-learning technology by
using or extending the TAM research model. A study that would
incorporate information from existing e-learning technology
acceptance studies in order to provide an objective picture of the
results of research using TAM in the previous 10 years was not
found. Moreover, to date, none of the research has dealt with
explaining whether individual causal effects depend on the type
of the user or the e-learning technology type.
The main objectives of this study were to (1) systematically
examine existing knowledge in the eld of e-learning acceptance,
and (2) to statistically compare the size of the effects in the most
common causal relationships in order to provide evidence for a
moderating role of the user type and e-learning technology type.
In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of 494 causal effect
sizes between different factors that were evaluated in 42 indepen-
dent studies. Hedges g statistic was the metric that was used to de-
scribe the differences in the arithmetic means of individual studies.
This paper is organized as follows: in the next section, most
well-known technology acceptance theories are introduced. The
third section describes the research methodology of our study. In
the subsequent section, the results of the data analysis are given.
In the last section, we present our conclusions and future work.
2. Backgrounds: information technology acceptance theories
In information technology (IT) acceptance literature, there are
different streams of research that examine how and why individu-
als adopt new information technology. According to Venkatesh,
Morris, Davis, and Davis (2003), IT adoption research can be distin-
guished between (a) research that focuses on the individual accep-
tance of IT, in which the behavioral intentions of users, or actual
use, are used as a dependent variable, and (b) research that is more
focused on implementation success at the organizational level.
Davis (1989) proposed a technology acceptance model (TAM) to
explain a potential users behavioral intentions of using a techno-
logical innovation. TAM has become one of the most widely used
technology acceptance theories. TAM is also the most commonly
used theory in e-learning acceptance studies, which was borne
out by our systematic review of existing literature. By conducting
a meta-analysis, King and He (2006) provided evidence that TAM
is a powerful and robust predictive model. However, Venkatesh
et al. (2003) reviewed existing literature and empirically compared
eight theoretical models: the theory of reasoned action (TRA), TAM,
the motivational model (MM), the theory of planned behavior
(TPB), the combined TAM and TPB model, the model of PC
utilization (MPCU), the innovation diffusion theory (IDT) and the
social cognitive theory (SCT). Their study resulted in a new theoret-
ical model, called the unied theory of acceptance and the use of
technology (UTAUT). Another TAM-based use model was intro-
duced by Liaw, Chang, Hung, and Huang (2006), which they called
a three-tier use model (3-TUM). According to the 3-TUM model,
individual attitudes toward IT can be divided into following tiers:
(1) the tier of individual experience and system quality, (2) the
affective and cognitive tier, and (3) the behavioral intention tier.
In IT acceptance studies, researchers are mostly interested in
the relationships among constructs in which empirical data is usu-
ally statistically analyzed using structural equation modeling
(SEM) and the results are presented in a set of causal relationships;
each causal relationship is described with the following attributes:
independent variables, dependent variables, path coefcient size
(b), and signicance level (p). In e-learning acceptance literature,
we can nd variations in the predicted effect sizes and signicance
levels. This fact prompted our rst research question:
RQ1: What is the mean causal effect size of a particular factor (use-
fulness, ease of use, etc.) on the behavioral intentions and attitudes
of users when using an e-learning technology?
E-learning acceptance studies have been applied for different e-
learning technologies and have been using different user types as
respondents. However, what is lacking is a study that would ex-
plain how effect sizes differ with different e-learning technology
types and user types. We therefore formulated our second research
question:
RQ2: Does the user type and/or e-learning technology type have a
moderating role in causal relationships in TAM?
3. Research methodology
To answer the above-stated research questions, a systematic re-
view of existing literature was conducted in order to collect empir-
ical data about e-learning acceptance. After the literature review, a
meta-analysis was conducted to combine various results, taking
into account the relative sample and effect sizes (King & He, 2006).
Studies relevant to the analysis were sought based on a combi-
nation of keywords, either related to acceptance theories (TAM,
TTF, UTAUT, etc.) or keywords related to e-learning technologies
(e-learning, elearning, on-line learning, web learning, etc.). The
search in different databases (ScienceDirect, IEEExplore, ACM,
etc.) and publicly available search engines (Google, Yahoo) pro-
vided 42 studies (see Table 1 for a complete list of identied stud-
ies). To ensure that all studies would be analyzed consistently, rules
about coding data about study characteristics and the results were
specied. For each study, the following information was recorded:
 Sample size the number of respondents included in the sample
frame.
 User type the type of respondents that participated in the
study, such as students, teachers, professors, and employees.
 E-learning technology type the type of e-learning technology
for which the acceptance research was conducted.
 Ground theory the ground acceptance theory that was used in
the study.
 Causal relationships all causal links that were evaluated in a
study were recorded with the following data:
 Independent variable the name of the independent variable.
 Dependent variable the name of the dependent variable.
 Path coefcient () the size of the path coefcient.
 Signicance level the p value.
 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077 2069

Table 1
Literature review in the eld of e-learning acceptance.

Study Sample User type E-learning technology type Theory

size
Brown (2002) 73 Students E-learning System (WebCT) TAM
Lee, Cho, Gay, and Davidson (2003) 31 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (Web Based Collaboration in Virtual TAM
Learning Environment)
Yi and Hwang (2003) 109 Students E-learning System (BlackBoard) TAM
Hu, Clark, and Ma (2003) 138/134 Teachers/ E-learning Technology/Tool (MS PowerPoint) TAM
professors
Ong, Lai, and Wang (2004) 140 Employees E-learning System (Asynchronous System) TAM
Wagner and Flannery (2004) 184/264 Employees E-learning Technology/Tool (computer-based training support TAM
tool)
Saade and Bahli (2005) 102 Students E-learning System TAM
Lee, Cheung, and Chen (2005) 544 Students Web-based Learning Technology (FaBWeb) TAM
Ong and Lai (2006) 156 Employees E-learning System TAM
Roca, Chiu, and Martinez (2006) 172 Students E-learning System TAM
Pituch and Lee (2006) 259 Students E-learning System TAM
Liaw, Huang, and Chen (2007) 30 Teachers/ E-learning System 3-TUM
professors
Toral, Barrero, and Martnez-Torres (2007) 142 Students E-Learning Technology/Tool TAM
Ngai, Poon, and Chan (2007) 836 Students E-learning System (WebCT) TAM
Zhang, Zhao, and Tan (2008) 121 Students E-learning System TAM
Lee (2008) 1107 Students E-learning System TAM
Chiu and Wang (2008) 286 Students E-learning System UTAUT
van Raaij and Schepers (2008) 40 Employees E-learning System TAM
Padilla-Melendez, Garrido-Moreno, and Del 225 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (Web-based Collaboration) TAM
Aguila-Obra (2008)
Roca and Gagne (2008) 166 Employees E-learning System TAM
Liaw (2008) 424 Students E-learning System (BlackBoard) TAM
Wang and Wang (2009) 268 Teachers/ E-learning System TAM
professors
Mcgill and Klobas (2009) 269 Students E-learning System (WebCT) TTF
Teo, Lee, Chai, and Wong (2009) 250/245 Teachers/ E-learning Technology/Tool TAM
professors
Teo (2009) 475 Teachers/ E-learning Technology/Tool TAM
professors
Sreb, Halvari, Gulli, and Kristiansen (2009) 124 Teachers/ E-learning Technology/Tool TAM + SDT
professors
Lee, Yoon, and Lee (2009) 214 Students E-learning System TAM
Tao, Cheng, and Sun (2009) 185 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (video games) TAM
Liu, Liao, and Pratt (2009) 102 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (textaudio presentation) TAM
Snchez-Franco, Martnez-Lpez, and Martn- 304/376 Teachers/ E-learning Technology/Tool TAM
Velicia (2009) professors
Cho, Cheng, and Lai (2009) 445 Students E-learning Technology/Tool TAM
Bourgonjon, Valcke, Soetaert, and Schellens 858 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (video games) TAM
(2010)
Snchez and Hueros (2010) 226 Students E-learning System (Moodle) TAM
Sanchez-Franco (2010) 431 Students E-learning System (WebCT) TAM
Lee (2010) 363 Students E-learning System TAM + TPB + ECM
Liu, Chen, Sun, Wible, and Kuo (2010) 436 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (On-line community) TAM
Liu, Li, and Carlsson (2010) 220 Students E-learning Technology/Tool (Mobile Learning Tool) TAM
Lee, Hsieh, and Ma (2011) 357 Employees E-learning System TAM
Karaali et al. (2011) 546 Employees E-learning System TAM
Lin (2011) 256 Employees E-learning System TAM
Pynoo et al. (2011) 64/41/ Teachers/ E-learning System UTAUT
55 professors
Chen (2010) 193 Employees E-learning System TAM

The journal Computers & Education publishes, by far, the most Table 2
Distribution of e-learning acceptance research papers.
e-learning acceptance papers (see Table 2). In existing e-learning
technology studies, TAM is the most common theory being used Journal Count of papers
as a ground theory (see Fig. 1). Researchers usually extend the ba- (total = 42)

sic research models with prior factors. In Fig. 2, we can see that the Computers & Education 25
most common user type used in existing research is students, fol- Computers in Human Behavior 5
Information & Management 5
lowed by employees and nally academics. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 2
Factors that may have an inuence on the decisions of teachers The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in 1
or professors to use or avoid a specic e-learning technology were Developing Countries
examined in seven independent studies, in which four incorpo- Knowledge-Based Systems 1
Tsinghua Science & Technology 1
rated two or more independent sample frames. Table 3 summa-
Journal of European Industrial Training 1
rizes the data about samples from existing e-learning acceptance Other 1
studies. It is important to note that one paper may include multiple
2070 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077

UTAUT positive causal links (NNSIG+), the number of signicant negative

4% TTF causal links (NSIG ), the number of non-signicant negative causal
2% TPB links (NNSIG ), the maximum signicant positive path coefcient
2% size (SIG+MAX), the minimum signicant positive coefcient size
(SIG+MIN), the average signicant positive coefcient size (SIG+AVE),
3-TUM the maximum signicant negative coefcient size (SIG MAX), and
2% the minimum signicant negative coefcient size (SIG MIN).
The e-learning acceptance model shown in Fig. 3 summarizes e-
Other
learning technology acceptance research containing two types of
4%
causal relationships: (1) paths, originally proposed by TAM, and
(2) supplementary causal links, found in existing studies. Causal
links include the following coefcient sizes (bMAX, bMIN, bAVE):

TAM  bMAX (the maximum estimated path coefcient),

86%
Fig. 1. Theories applied in e-learning acceptance studies.
Teach./Prof.;
193
Students; 322
Employees;
250
Fig. 2. Average sample size by user type.
samples; therefore, the cumulative number of samples is greater
than the number of reviewed papers.
4. Data analysis
The statistical analysis was based on 494 records about causal
relationships, evaluated in the systematic literature review pro-
cess. First, a descriptive analysis of causal effects was carried out.
Then, the search for possible moderator variables was performed
by conducting a meta-analysis on effect sizes regarding user type
and e-learning technology type.
4.1. Causal effect size analysis
Table 4 provides descriptive statistics about causal relationships
summarized from existing studies with the following data: the
independent variable (Independent), the dependent variable
(Dependent), the number of occurrences in which this causal rela-
tionship was analyzed in existing studies (N), the number of signif-
icant positive causal links (NSIG+), the number of non-signicant
 bMIN (the minimum path coefcient), and
 bAVE (the average path coefcient).
Existing e-learning acceptance studies mostly conrm causal
links proposed by the TAM research model (see Fig. 3 and Table
4); therefore, TAM represents a good ground theory for studying
the factors that inuence the decision of users on whether they
will use or refuse to use a specic e-learning technology. In tech-
nology acceptance studies, researchers often search for external
factors with a signicant inuence on the perceptions of users
regarding the usefulness and ease of use of technology. Some of
the important prior factors are listed in Table 4 and included in
the technology acceptance model shown in Fig. 3. Because of lim-
ited space, only the factors that were evaluated in at least three
independent e-learning acceptance studies were included. The
complete list of prior factors in which existing research have con-
rmed either a signicant positive or signicant negative effect on
perceptions of users when using e-learning technology is larger.
The path coefcient sizes between TAM constructs are summa-
rized in Table 5. All causal paths were evaluated in at least 10 inde-
pendent studies, with the exception of the path BI ? U, which was
evaluated in six independent studies. The summary reveals the
strongest coefcient sizes for paths PU ? ATU, PU ? BI, PEOU ? PU,
and BI ? U with large means and rather small standard deviations.
The PEOU has the weakest inuence on BI with a mean of 0.238.
The latter causal relationship, however, was excluded in the search
for moderating variables, because it was analyzed in an insufcient
number of studies.
4.2. The search for moderating variables
Existing technology acceptance studies often compare causal ef-
fect sizes between inexperienced and experienced users. The level
of experience with technology is the most studied moderator var-
iable in technology acceptance studies (Venkatesh, 2000). In this
study, however, we intended to investigate the size of the effects
between individual variables in relation to the user type and e-
learning technology type. King and He (2006) conducted a meta-
analysis in which users were classied into students, professionals
and general users. In this study, users were classied into: (a)
employees users who use e-learning technologies at work/home
for training/learning, (b) students who use e-learning technolo-

Table 3
Summary of samples in existing e-learning acceptance studies.

Respondent type Samples (N) MIN sample size MAX sample size AVE sample size Cumulative size
Students 28 31 1107 322 8829
Employees 10 140 546 250 2293
Teachers/professors 13 30 475 193 2504
Overall 51 31 1107 270 13764
 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077 2071

Table 4
Summary of causal relationships investigated in existing e-learning acceptance studies.

Independent Dependent N NSIG+ NNSIG+ NSIG NNSIG SIG+MAX SIG+MIN SIG+AVE SIG MAX SIG MIN

Causal links between TAM constructs

PEOU PU 37 36 1 0 0 0.73 0.20 0.40
PU BI 28 28 0 0 0 0.85 0.13 0.40
PU ATU 16 16 0 0 0 0.75 0.18 0.51
PEOU ATU 15 13 2 0 0 0.71 0.17 0.29
ATU BI 14 14 0 0 0 0.90 0.10 0.33
PEOU BI 14 10 0 0 4 0.41 0.12 0.24
PU U 7 5 2 0 0 0.67 0.18 0.45
BI U 6 6 0 0 0 0.75 0.19 0.44
ATU U 4 3 1 0 0 0.40 0.22 0.33
PEOU U 4 4 0 0 0 0.30 0.11 0.22
Other causal links evaluated in e-learning acceptance studies
SE PEOU 8 7 1 0 0 0.53 0.24 0.38
SE BI 6 5 1 0 0 0.96 0.19 0.46
PU SAT 5 4 1 0 0 0.59 0.47 0.52
SN BI 5 3 2 0 0 0.48 0.14 0.30
SN PU 5 3 0 2 0 0.30 0.19 0.25 0.23 0.32
SI BI 4 4 0 0 0 0.59 0.22 0.36
COM BI 4 3 0 0 1 0.27 0.11 0.18
FC PEOU 3 3 0 0 0 0.73 0.09 0.34
PE BI 3 3 0 0 0 0.61 0.33 0.44
CONF PU 3 3 0 0 0 0.50 0.17 0.38
EXP PEOU 3 3 0 0 0 0.49 0.12 0.25
SYSQ PU 3 2 0 0 1 0.45 0.21 0.33
SYSQ SAT 3 3 0 0 0 0.35 0.27 0.30
ANX PEOU 3 1 0 2 0 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.22 0.53
COMPSE PU 3 2 0 0 1 0.33 0.17 0.25
SE PU 3 2 0 0 1 0.29 0.07 0.18
CONF SAT 3 2 1 0 0 0.28 0.20 0.24
MANGSUPP PU 3 2 1 0 0 0.28 0.22 0.25
FLOW BI 3 2 0 0 1 0.24 0.13 0.19
EXP PU 3 2 0 0 1 0.15 0.15 0.15

Variables in order of appearance: perceived ease of use (PEOU), perceived usefulness (PU), behavioral intentions (BI), attitude toward using (ATU), use (U), self-efcacy (SE),
satisfaction (SAT), social inuence (SI), compatibility (COM), facilitating conditions (FC), performance expectancy (PE), conrmation (CONF), experience (EXP), system quality
(SYSQ), anxiety (ANX), computer self-efcacy (COMPSE), management support (MANGSUPP), ow (FLOW).

Prior Factors TAM Factors

Anxiety System Quality (0.67, 0.18, 0.45)

Perceived
(0.85, 0.13, 0.40)
Confirmation Experience Usefulness
(PU)
Facilitating (0.75, 0.18, 0.51)
Subjective Norms
Conditions

Managmenet Attitude (0.90, 0.10, 0.33) Behavioral (0.75, 0.19, 0.44)

Self-Efficacy
Support (0.73, 0.20, 0.40) Toward Using Usage (U)
Intentions (BI)
Perceived Affective
(ATU)
Information Quality
Quality
(0.71, 0.17, 0.29) (0.40, 0.22, 0.33)
Computer Self-
Job Relevance
Efficacy
Perceived Ease (0.41, 0.12, 0.24)
Technical Support Compatibility of Use (PEOU) (0.30, 0.11, 0.22)

... ...

Original TAM causal paths

Additional paths found in studies

Fig. 3. Summary of causal links between TAM-related constructs.

gies at school, and (c) teachers/professors who use e-learning
technologies for pedagogical purposes. Additionally, we wanted
to investigate whether the size of causal effects depends on the
type of e-learning technology being used. Therefore, we distin-
guished between studies that investigated factors with an impact
on acceptance and use of an e-learning system, and studies about
the acceptance of e-learning technologies or tools that cannot be
classied as an e-learning system.
4.2.1. User type
Table 6 and Figs. 4a4f show the results of an analysis of six
causal relationships for employees, students and teachers/profes-
sors. In the case of the relationship PEOU ? ATU, the mean values
of the causal effect size are very similar for both groups: employees
and teachers/professors, where there was only one study for the
category of employees. The mean value of the causal effect size
for the same causal relationship was a bit larger for students. The
2072 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077

Table 5
Summary of path coefcients between TAM constructs.

PEOU ? ATU PU ? ATU ATU ? BI PEOU ? BI PU ? BI PEOU ? PU BI ? U

Number of samples 13 16 14 10 28 36 6
Cumulative sample size 4152 4983 3962 2948 7901 11015 915
Mean 0.294 0.508 0.326 0.238 0.397 0.403 0.437
Median 0.248 0.514 0.296 0.225 0.420 0.390 0.388
Stand. deviation 0.138 0.148 0.200 0.089 0.150 0.146 0.191
Minimum 0.17 0.18 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.20 0.19
Maximum 0.71 0.75 0.90 0.41 0.85 0.73 0.75

Table 6
Coefcient size (b) analysis by user type.

PEOU ? ATU PU ? ATU ATU ? BI PEOU ? BI PU ? BI PEOU ? PU

Employees
Number of samples 1 2 3 4 7 7
Total sample size 546 802 952 819 1640 1621
Mean 0.25 0.505 0.196 0.310 0.394 0.453
Median / 0.505 0.178 0.310 0.400 0.400
Stand. deviation / 0.120 0.047 0.091 0.057 0.137
Minimum 0.25 0.42 0.16 0.21 0.32 0.31
Maximum 0.25 0.59 0.25 0.41 0.48 0.69
Students
Number of samples 7 9 6 6 13 21
Total sample size 1956 2531 1438 2129 4197 7146
Mean 0.333 0.514 0.325 0.189 0.364 0.368
Median 0.290 0.600 0.346 0.209 0.419 0.324
Stand. deviation 0.189 0.194 0.106 0.049 0.150 0.151
Minimum 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.13 0.20
Maximum 0.71 0.75 0.46 0.23 0.60 0.73
Teachers/professors
Number of samples 5 5 5 0 8 8
Total sample size 1650 1650 1650 NA 1849 2190
Mean 0.247 0.496 0.404 NA 0.452 0.452
Median 0.245 0.475 0.383 NA 0.435 0.465
Stand. deviation 0.054 0.061 0.309 NA 0.201 0.129
Minimum 0.17 0.42 0.09 NA 0.22 0.24
Maximum 0.33 0.57 0.90 NA 0.85 0.65

. .

. .

. .

. .

Fig. 4a. PEOU ? ATU. Fig. 4b. PU ? ATU.

mean values of the causal effect size for the relationship PU ? ATU
were very similar for all user type categories. However, there were
differences in the effect sizes for the relationship ATU ? BI, where
the mean value of the effect size was higher for teachers/professors
in comparison with the mean value of the effect size for employees.
The mean value of the effect size for the same relationship in the
case of students lies somewhat in between. PEOU seems to have
a greater inuence on behavioral intentions for employees when
compared with students. Unfortunately, because of the lack of
studies analyzing the relationship PEOU ? BI using professors/
teachers as a subject, no comparison could be made with the other
two user types. The results of the analysis also show that in the
case of the relationships PU ? BI and PEOU ? BI, the causal effect
size is signicantly larger for employees and teachers/professors
than it is for students.
The box-plot diagrams in Figs. 4a4f show the intervals of the
effect sizes of the six analyzed causal relationships for the three
user categories. When comparing the effect sizes in different causal
relationships for employees and students, the effect sizes mostly
overlap. A difference was found only in the case of PEOU ? BI,
where the effect size was larger for employees. Overall, these re-
sults indicate that students can be used as surrogates for employ-
ees in a study that investigates the acceptance of an e-learning
technology. Perceptions of employees when using an e-learning
technology for learning purposes are very close to those of
students.
 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077 2073

e-learning technologies or tools are presented. The mean values of

the causal effect size for almost all six causal links were very close
for both e-learning technology categories. A difference was found
in the path ATU ? BI, where the mean value of the effect size was
higher for other e-learning technology/tools when comparing the
mean value of the causal effect in the case of an e-learning system.

4.3. Meta-analysis

The meta-analysis was performed by focusing on a set of TAM-

related causal relationships, as listed in Table 5. Since several inde-
pendent studies were included, the meta-analysis was conducted
on a random effects basis. The underlying assumption was that
Fig. 4c. ATU ? BI.
every study included in this study is taken from a population that
is likely to have a different effect size to any other study included
in the meta-analysis. Additionally, the heterogeneity tests Q and I2
were assessed in order to validate the use of a random effects ana-
lytic base. The Q statistic, proposed by Cohran (1954), can exhibit a
poor ability to detect a true heterogeneity among studies when the
meta-analysis includes a small number of studies (Huedo-Medina,
Snchez-Meca, Marn-Martnez, & Botella, 2006). The I2 measures
the extent of true heterogeneity, where the I2 index can be inter-
preted as the percentage of total variability in a set of effect sizes
due to true heterogeneity the intra-study variability (Huedo-
Medina et al., 2006).
Table 8 summarizes the estimation of the effect sizes of path
coefcients together with results of heterogeneity tests. Q esti-
mates for all path coefcients were signicant, resulting in a rejec-
Fig. 4d. PEOU ? BI. tion of the null hypothesis about homogeneity for all paths.
According to the I2 estimates and the classication proposed by
Higgins and Thompson (2002), high heterogeneity was found for
almost all paths with the exception of causal paths PEOU ? ATU
and PEOU ? BI, where medium heterogeneity was estimated. The
results of both heterogeneity tests conrm that the random-effects
model is an appropriate basis for a meta-analysis.
In order to search for moderator variables, we rst clustered our
studies according to user type. Table 9 lists the estimation of the
combined effect sizes (Hedges g) of six causal paths for different
user types, together with condence intervals, Z-values and p-val-
ues. The effect sizes were signicant for all three user types, where
the effect size was higher for students in the relationships
PEOU ? ATU and PU ? ATU. However, the attitude toward using
and perceived usefulness can have the biggest inuence on the
Fig. 4e. PU ? BI.
intention of teachers/professors using a specic e-learning tech-
nology. When comparing the three user types, it is also more likely
that professors/teachers will nd a specic e-learning technology
useful for teaching purposes if it is easy to use. The perceived ease
of use has a higher impact on the intention of employees using a
specic e-learning technology in comparison with students.
Next, we labeled studies as dealing with e-learning systems or
other e-learning technologies. Table 10 shows that effect sizes
are very close for almost all causal paths for both e-learning tech-
nology types. An exception was found for the relationship ATU ? -
BI, where the attitude of users towards using an e-learning system
had a lower inuence on their intentions of using an e-learning
system. A difference was also found for the relationship PEOU ? BI,
where the perceived ease of use can have a greater inuence on the
intention of users to use an e-learning system compared to other e-
learning technologies.
Fig. 4f. PEOU ? PU.
Kampenes, Dyba, Hannay, and Sjoberg (2007) summarized the
effect sizes from existing research and dened three categories
for the sizes of Hedges g values. Table 11 provides an interpreta-
4.2.2. E-learning technology type tion of the effect sizes estimated in this study, according to the cat-
Next, a comparison of causal effect sizes in relation to the e-learn- egories proposed by Kampenes et al. (2007).
ing technology type being used was made. In Table 7 and Figs. 5a5f, The interpretation of effect size reveals that the size of the im-
an analysis of the six causal links for e-learning systems and other pact of the two independent variables, PU and PEOU, on ATU are
2074 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077

Table 7
Coefcient size (b) analysis by e-learning technology type.

PEOU ? ATU PU ? ATU ATU ? BI PEOU ? BI PU ? BI PEOU ? PU

E-learning System
Number of samples 4 5 2 8 14 17
Total sample size 1971 2227 909 2370 4432 5661
Mean 0.280 0.515 0.162 0.257 0.398 0.408
Median 0.270 0.590 0.162 0.231 0.410 0.390
Stand. deviation 0.068 0.220 0.003 0.087 0.136 0.161
Minimum 0.211 0.183 0.160 0.137 0.134 0.220
Maximum 0.370 0.750 0.164 0.410 0.600 0.732
Other E-learning Technology/Tool
Number of samples 9 11 12 2 14 19
Total sample size 2181 2756 3131 578 3254 5354
Mean 0.299 0.504 0.353 0.159 0.396 0.399
Median 0.245 0.475 0.346 0.159 0.425 0.410
Stand. deviation 0.164 0.118 0.205 0.054 0.169 0.136
Minimum 0.174 0.286 0.098 0.120 0.180 0.200
Maximum 0.707 0.695 0.896 0.197 0.850 0.645

Fig. 5a. PEOU ? ATU. Fig. 5d. PEOU ? BI.

Fig. 5b. PU ? ATU. Fig. 5e. PU ? BI.

Fig. 5c. ATU ? BI. Fig. 5f. PEOU ? PU.

 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077 2075

Table 8
Summary of the effect size of path coefcients.

PEOU ? ATU PU ? ATU ATU ? BI PEOU ? BI PU ? BI PEOU ? PU

Number of samples 13 16 14 10 28 36
Total sample size 4152 4983 3962 2948 7901 11,015
Hedges g 0.593 1.228 0.795 0.484 0.866 0.888
Standard error 0.066 0.135 0.138 0.065 0.069 0.061
Variance 0.004 0.018 0.019 0.004 0.005 0.004
95% Lower limit 0.463 0.965 0.524 0.385 0.731 0.768
95% Higher limit 0.722 1.492 1.065 0.610 1.001 1.008
Z 8.952 9.121 5.754 7.502 12.569 14.498
p (effect size) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Heterogeneity test (Q) 44.349 224.246 200.050 20.720 194.160 275.773
df (Q) 12 15 13 9 27 35
p (heterogeneity) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.05 <0.001 <0.001
I2 72.942% 93.311% 93.502% 56.564% 86.094% 87.308%

Table 9
Effect sizes with moderator variable (user type).

Number of studies Hedges g Standard error Variance 95% Conf. interval Z p

Low High
PEOU ? ATU
Employees 1 0.516 0.089 0.008 0.342 0.689 5.826 0.000
Students 7 0.708 0.129 0.017 0.455 0.962 5.743 0.000
Teachers/professors 5 0.502 0.051 0.003 0.402 0.602 9.851 0.000
PU ? ATU
Employees 2 1.176 0.266 0.071 0.655 1.698 4.422 0.000
Students 9 1.296 0.263 0.069 0.781 1.811 4.930 0.000
Teachers/professors 5 1.135 0.077 0.006 0.984 1.287 14.727 0.000
ATU ? BI
Employees 3 0.361 0.069 0.005 0.226 0.496 5.238 0.000
Students 6 0.667 0.104 0.011 0.464 0.871 6.425 0.000
Teachers/professors 5 1.237 0.374 0.140 0.504 1.971 3.307 0.001
PEOU ? BI
Employees 4 0.665 0.102 0.010 0.465 0.864 6.531 0.000
Students 6 0.396 0.045 0.002 0.308 0.485 8.761 0.000
PU ? BI
Employees 7 0.819 0.054 0.003 0.713 0.925 15.175 0.000
Students 13 0.792 0.103 0.011 0.590 0.994 7.681 0.000
Teachers/professors 8 1.077 0.187 0.035 0.710 1.443 5.761 0.000
PEOU ? PU
Employees 7 0.934 0.096 0.009 0.747 1.122 9.780 0.000
Students 21 0.798 0.078 0.006 0.646 0.950 10.295 0.000
Teachers/professors 8 1.041 0.120 0.014 0.806 1.275 8.708 0.000

Table 10
Effect sizes with moderator variable (e-learning technology type).

Number of studies Hedges g Standard error Variance 95% Conf. interval Z p

Low High
PEOU ? ATU
E-learning system 4 0.595 0.091 0.008 0.417 0.772 6.560 0.000
Other technology/tool 9 0.607 0.095 0.009 0.420 0.794 6.363 0.000
PU ? ATU
E-learning system 5 1.325 0.359 0.129 0.621 2.028 3.691 0.000
Other technology/tool 11 1.158 0.094 0.009 0.975 1.341 12.379 0.000
ATU ? BI
E-learning system 2 0.327 0.067 0.005 0.195 0.459 4.856 0.000
Other technology/tool 12 0.886 0.165 0.027 0.563 1.210 5.364 0.000
PEOU ? BI
E-learning system 8 0.535 0.068 0.005 0.401 0.668 7.823 0.000
Other technology/tool 2 0.279 0.084 0.007 0.114 0.444 3.314 0.001
PU ? BI
E-learning system 14 0.849 0.092 0.008 0.669 1.028 9.266 0.000
Other technology/tool 14 0.892 0.110 0.012 0.677 1.108 8.119 0.000
PEOU ? PU
E-learning system 17 0.935 0.096 0.009 0.747 1.124 9.719 0.000
Other technology/tool 19 0.852 0.082 0.007 0.692 1.012 10.442 0.000
2076 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077
Table 11
The interpretation summary of effect sizes for moderator variables.
PEOU ? ATU PU ? ATU
User type
Employees M L
Students M L
Teachers/professors M L
E-learning technology type
E-learning system M L
Other technology/tool M L
Overall M L
Notes: S small size, M medium size, L large size.
very similar in relation to the user type and e-learning technology
type. For the other four causal relationships that were investigated
in this study, the causal effect size depends on the two moderating
variables. For example, the perceived usefulness had a larger im-
pact on behavioral intention. The same result was found in the case
of the relationship between perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness. Attitudes toward use affected all three user categories
differently: the impact was largest for teachers/professors and
smallest for employees. The perceived ease of use can have a med-
ium impact on the behavioral intentions of users. However, be-
cause of a lack of studies that include teachers/professors as
subject types, a comparison between all three user types was not
possible. With e-learning technology type as a moderator variable,
the differences were only found for two causal relationships. Atti-
tudes towards use can have a smaller inuence on behavioral
intentions in the case of an e-learning system. However, when
users are working with an e-learning system, the inuence of per-
ceived ease of use can have a greater inuence on the behavioral
intentions of users in comparison with other e-learning
technologies.
5. Conclusion
The purpose of our effort was to combine several independent
studies about the individual acceptance and use of e-learning tech-
nologies and extract a general conclusion from existing knowledge.
The main objective of the study was to search for the mean causal ef-
fect size in TAM-related causal relationships and to explain whether
there are, in fact, factors that may have a moderating role in these
relationships. A review of literature showed that TAM is the most-
used theory in e-learning acceptance research and indicated the
small presence of studies that have used UTAUT as a ground theory;
therefore, future research needs to include studies that will evaluate
this state-of-the art theory in the eld of e-learning acceptance.
A systematic review of existing literature in the eld of e-learn-
ing acceptance comprised 42 papers, mostly published in journals,
and this constituted the basis for our empirical data analysis. Based
on descriptive statistics, an acceptance model with information
about the minimum, maximum and average path coefcient size
in TAM-related relationships was created. In existing e-learning
acceptance research, TAM-related relationships are mostly sup-
ported. Therefore, we can conclude that TAM constitutes a good
model for the investigation of the acceptance of e-learning technol-
ogies. Additionally, the literature review provided a set of factors
that have inuence on the main TAM constructs. Some of them
were included in the summarized e-learning acceptance model
presented in this paper.
The meta-analysis of the causal path coefcients showed that
the sizes of PEOU and PU on ATU are very similar for different e-
learning technology types and user types as well. A large effect size
was found in the relationship of PU on ATU, whereas a medium ef-
fect size was estimated in the relationship between PEOU and ATU.
From this result, we can conclude that PU in general can have a
ATU ? BI PEOU ? BI PU ? BI PEOU ? PU
S M M M
M M M M
L / L L
S M M M
M S M M
M M M M
greater impact on users attitudes towards using an e-learning
technology. A relationship between PEOU and PU was found only
for teachers/professors. In relation to this user group, a large effect
was also found in other TAM-related relationships. In relation to e-
learning technology type, the effect sizes were different in two cau-
sal relationships. The attitude toward using had a smaller effect on
the BI of users in studies that investigated the acceptance of e-
learning systems in comparison with other e-learning technolo-
gies. However, in the case of an e-learning system, PEOU can have
a greater impact on the intentions of users when compared with
other e-learning technologies.
The ndings of this study have several implications for manag-
ers. First, it was shown that students can be used as respondents in
the research of e-learning acceptance when investigating the atti-
tudes of learners towards using and their behavioral intentions for
using an e-learning technology. For managers, the results of e-
learning acceptance research that includes students provides use-
ful knowledge about the most important factors that inuence
the acceptance of e-learning technologies when introducing such
technologies to their employees. For researchers, students can be
used as surrogates for employees in a study that investigates the
acceptance and use of an e-learning technology. However, this
nding contradicts the results of previous meta-analysis research
(Kampenes et al., 2007; Peterson, 2001) that showed that the cau-
sal effect sizes derived from student subjects can differ from those
derived from non-student subjects. However, the e-learning accep-
tance process can differ for teachers or professors who use e-learn-
ing technologies for pedagogical purposes. Therefore, managers at
educational institutions must be aware that the usability and util-
ity aspects can have a greater inuence on instructors, rather than
on students.
From the results of this study, it is evident that literature in the
eld of e-learning acceptance and use calls for studies that would
be based on acceptance theories other than TAM. Our future work
will be dedicated to including forthcoming e-learning acceptance
studies and to analyze causal effect sizes of factors from other
acceptance theories. When available, with a larger number of e-
learning acceptance studies, it will be possible to analyze external
factors, which are usually investigated by extending basic accep-
tance theoretical models (e.g. compatibility, experience, etc.). In
our future research, we also want to search for other moderating
variables by synthesizing results from research studies in the eld
of e-learning acceptance. For example, it would be interesting to
analyze whether the causal effect sizes of individual factors depend
on the culture type.
References
Bourgonjon, J., Valcke, M., Soetaert, R., & Schellens, T. (2010). Students perceptions
about the use of video games in the classroom. Computers & Education, 54(4),
11451156.
Brown, I. T. J. (2002). Individual and technological factors affecting perceived ease of
use of web-based learning technologies in a developing country. The Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 2002(9), 115.
 B. umak et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 20672077
Chen, H.-J. (2010). Linking employees e-learning system use to their overall job
outcomes: An empirical study based on the IS success model. Computers &
Education, 55(4), 16281639.
Chiu, C., & Wang, E. (2008). Understanding Web-based learning continuance
intention: The role of subjective task value. Information & Management, 45(3),
194201.
Cho, V., Cheng, T. C. E., & Lai, W. M. J. (2009). The role of perceived user-interface
design in continued usage intention of self-paced e-learning tools. Computers &
Education, 53(2), 216227.
Cohran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments.
Biometrics, 10(1), 101129.
Davis, Fred. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319340.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-
analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 15391558.
Hu, P. J.-H., Clark, T. H. K., & Ma, W. W. (2003). Examining technology acceptance by
school teachers: A longitudinal study. Information & Management, 41(2),
227241.
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Snchez-Meca, J., Marn-Martnez, F., & Botella, J. (2006).
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychological
Methods, 11(2), 193206.
Kampenes, V. B., Dyba, T., Hannay, J. E., & Sjoberg, D. I. K. (2007). A systematic
review of effect size in software engineering experiments. Information and
Software Technology, 49(1112), 10731086.
Karaali, D., Gumussoy, C. A., & Calisir, F. (2011). Factors affecting the intention to use
a web-based learning system among blue-collar workers in the automotive
industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 343354.
King, W., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model.
Information & Management, 43(6), 740755.
Lee, Y. (2008). The role of perceived resources in online learning adoption.
Computers & Education, 50(4), 14231438.
Lee, M.-C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users continuance intention toward e-
learning: An extension of the expectationconrmation model. Computers &
Education, 54(2), 506516.
Lee, M., Cheung, C., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning
medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information &
Management, 42(8), 10951104.
Lee, J.-S., Cho, H., Gay, G., & Davidson, B. (2003). Technology acceptance and social
networking in distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 5061.
Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Ma, C.-Y. (2011). A model of organizational employees e-
learning systems acceptance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(3), 355366.
Lee, B.-C., Yoon, J.-O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners acceptance of e-learning in South
Korea: Theories and results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 13201329.
Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention,
and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system.
Computers & Education, 51(2), 864873.
Liaw, S., Chang, W., Hung, W., & Huang, W. (2006). Attitudes toward search engines
as a learning assisted tool: Approach of Liaw and Huangs research model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 177190.
Liaw, S., Huang, H., & Chen, G. (2007). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes
toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 10661080.
Lin, K.-M. (2011). e-Learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-
learning experience. Computers & Education, 56(2), 515526.
Liu, I.-F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C.-H. (2010). Extending the TAM
model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning
community. Computers & Education, 54(2), 600610.
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An
empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 12111219.
Liu, S.-H., Liao, H.-L., & Pratt, J. A. (2009). Impact of media richness and ow on e-
learning technology acceptance. Computers & Education, 52(3), 599607.
McGill, T., & Klobas, J. (2009). A tasktechnology t view of learning management
system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496508.
Ngai, E., Poon, J., & Chan, Y. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT
using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250267.
Ong, C., & Lai, J. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among
dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5),
816829.
2077
Ong, C., Lai, J.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers acceptance of
asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information &
Management, 41(6), 795804.
Padilla-Melendez, A., Garrido-Moreno, A., & Del Aguila-Obra, A. (2008). Factors
affecting e-collaboration technology use among management students.
Computers & Education, 51(2), 609623.
Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research:
Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. The Journal of Consumer Research,
28(3), 450461.
Pituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The inuence of system characteristics on e-learning use.
Computers & Education, 47(2), 222244.
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011).
Predicting secondary school teachers acceptance and use of a digital learning
environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1),
568575.
Roca, J., Chiu, C., & Martinez, F. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance
intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International
Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 64(8), 683696.
Roca, J., & Gagne, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the
workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human
Behavior, 24(4), 15851604.
Saade, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the
technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317327.
Snchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that inuence the
acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6),
16321640.
Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). WebCT The quasimoderating effect of perceived
affective quality on an extending technology acceptance model. Computers &
Education, 54(1), 3746.
Snchez-Franco, M. J., Martnez-Lpez, F. J., & Martn-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, 52(3), 588598.
Sreb, ., Halvari, H., Gulli, V. F., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-
determination theory in explaining teachers motivation to continue to use e-
learning technology. Computers & Education, 53(4), 11771187.
Tao, Y.-H., Cheng, C.-J., & Sun, S.-Y. (2009). What inuences college students to
continue using business simulation games? The Taiwan experience. Computers
& Education, 53(3), 929939.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-
service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302312.
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use
technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A
multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM).
Computers & Education, 53(3), 10001009.
Toral, S., Barrero, F., & Martnez-Torres, M. (2007). Analysis of utility and use of a
web-based tool for digital signal processing teaching by means of a
technological acceptance model. Computers & Education, 49(4), 957975.
van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning
environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838852.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control,
intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model.
Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342365.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, B. D., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unied view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425478.
Wagner, G. D., & Flannery, D. D. (2004). A quantitative study of factors affecting
learner acceptance of a computer-based training support tool. Journal of
European Industrial Training, 28(5), 383399.
Wang, W.-T., & Wang, C.-C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of
web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761774.
Yi, M., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems:
Self-efcacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology
acceptance model. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 59(4),
431449.
Zhang, S., Zhao, J., & Tan, W. (2008). Extending TAM for online learning systems: An
intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 312317.