Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling the initial perceptions of students

  • Jeya Amantha Kumar
  • Brandford BervellEmail author


The study adopted a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology2(UTAUT2) as a theoretical foundation to investigate students’ initial perceptions of Google Classroom as a mobile learning platform. By including six non-linear relationships within the modified model, the study examined the nuances in interaction terms between Habit and Hedonic Motivation, in relation to the other constructs in the original UTAUT2 model towards Google Classroom intention formation and use behaviour. Based on this, a questionnaire was used to collect data from 163 students, employing a purposive sampling technique with Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) utilized for statistical analysis. Overall, the results revealed important significant non-linear relationships between Hedonic Motivation and Habit with the rest of the UTAUT2 factors within the model. Students’ positive intentions to accept Google Classroom were anchored on Habit, Hedonic Motivation and Performance Expectancy. However, both Habit and Hedonic Motivation had significant and positive non-linear relationships with Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy and Social Influence towards Google Classroom usage intentions. Uniquely, Habit was the strongest predictor of Behavioural Intention. Again, the Importance-Performance Map Analysis (IPMA) proved that Habit was the most important factor in determining actual usage (Use Behaviour) of Google Classroom rather than Behavioural Intention.


Google classroom Mobile learning Higher education User experience UTAUT2 



  1. Abazi-bexheti, L., Kadriu, A., & Apostolova-trpkovska, M. (2018). LMS solution: evidence of Google classroom usage in higher education. Business Systems Research, 9(1), 31–43. Scholar
  2. Abdul Rabu, S. N. A., Hussin, H., & Bervell, B. (2018). QR code utilization in a large classroom:higher education students' initial perceptions. Education and Information Technologies. https ://
  3. Al-Maroof, R. A. S., & Al-Emran, M. (2018). Students acceptance of Google classroom: an exploratory study using PLS-SEM approach. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET), 13(06), 112. Scholar
  4. Alshehri, M., Drew, S., & AlGhamdi, R. (2013). Analysis of citizens' acceptance for e-government services: applying the UTAUT model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.3157.Google Scholar
  5. Amadin, F. I., Obienu, A. C., Osaseri, R. O., Omputer, D. E. O. F. C., Cience, S., Enin, U. N. O. F. B., et al. (2018). Main barriers and possible enablers of Google apps for education adoption among university staff members. Nigerian Journal of Technology (NIJOTECH), 37(2), 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211–218. Scholar
  7. Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017). Validation of the UTAUT model: Re-considering non-linear relationships of Exogeneous variables in higher education technology acceptance research. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6471–6490.
  8. Cariou, V., Verdun, S., & Qannari, E. M. (2014). Quadratic PLS regression applied to external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 32(March), 28–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dassa, L., & Vaughan, M. (2018). #Class again? How education faculty engage the disengaged college student. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 91(1), 42–45. Scholar
  10. Esteban-Millat, I., Martínez-López, F. J., Pujol-Jover, M., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Alegret, A. (2018). An extension of the technology acceptance model for online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 48(20), 1–16. Scholar
  11. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Heggart, K. R., Yoo, J., & Heggart, K. (2018). Getting the Most from Google classroom: A pedagogical framework for tertiary educators. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3). Retrieved from, 140–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jakkaew, P., & Hemrungrote, S. (2017). The use of UTAUT2 model for understanding student perceptions using Google classroom: A case study of introduction to information technology course. 2017 International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology (ICDAMT), 205–209.
  15. Janossy, J. (2008). Proposed Model for Evaluating C/LMS Faculty Usage in Higher Education Institutions. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Instructional Technology Conference (pp. 1–6). Retrieved from /proceedings/08/MTSU_2008_Janossy_paper.pdf.
  16. Jordan, M. M., & Duckett, N. D. (2018). Universities confront ‘ tech disruption ’: Perceptions of student engagement online using two learning management systems universities confront ‘ tech disruption ’: Perceptions of student. The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 10(1).Google Scholar
  17. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling methodology in the social sciences (4th ed.). NY: Guilford Publication.Google Scholar
  18. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 11(4), 1–10.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2011). Predicting the continued use of Internet-based learning technologies: the role of habit. Behaviour and Information Technology, 30(1), 91–99. Scholar
  20. Limayem, M., Hirt, S. G., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2007). How habit limits the predictive power of intention: The case of information systems continuance. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 705–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowry, P., Gaskin, J., Twyman, N., Hammer, B., & Roberts, T. (2013). Taking “fun and games” seriously: proposing the hedonic-motivation system adoption model (HMSAM). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 14(11), 617–671. Scholar
  22. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers in Education, 56(2), 429–440.
  23. Mark, K. P., Chan, Y. Y., & Vogel, D. R. (2012). Antecedents of information systems habit in sporadic use of learning systems: Personalization and peer effects. Proceedings - Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, PACIS 2012. Retrieved from md5=74858e16ca344df1305ed82ff4f744a0.
  24. Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Student acceptance of mobile learning for higher education. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4, 0–5.Google Scholar
  25. Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Novak, J., & Schmidt, S. (2009). When joy matters: The importance of hedonic stimulation in collocated collaboration with large-displays. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009 (lecture no, pp. 618–629). Berlin: Springer.
  27. Olivier, J. (2016). Blended learning in a first-year language class: Evaluating the acceptance of an interactive learning environment. Literator, 37(2).
  28. Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Braak, J. V., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: a cross-sectional study. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27, 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raman, A., & Don, Y. (2013). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies, 6(7), 157–164. Scholar
  30. Rondan-Cataluña, F. J., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Ramírez-Correa, P. E. (2015). A comparison of the different versions of popular technology acceptance models a non-linear perspective. Kybernetes, 44(5), 788–805. Scholar
  31. Salim, S. A., Sedera, D., & Sawang, S. (2015). Non-linear and linear postulations of technology adoption determinants. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 10(23), 17679–17689.Google Scholar
  32. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology : Extending the unified theory. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. Scholar
  33. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: a synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Venkatesh, V., Morris, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478.Google Scholar
  35. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. D., & Morris, M. G. (2007). Dead or Alive? The Development, Trajectory and Future of Technology Adoption Research. Journal of the AIS, 8(4), 268–286.Google Scholar
  36. Wijaya, A. (2016). Analysis of factors affecting the use of google classroom to support lectures. In The 5th International Conference on Information (pp. 19–20). Retrieved from
  37. Zhihuan, W., & Scheepers, H. (2012). Understanding the Intrinsic Motivations of User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems: Towards a Unified Research Model. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 30, 255–274 Retrieved from Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Instructional Technology & MultimediaUniversiti Sains MalaysiaPenangMalaysia
  2. 2.E-learning & Technology Unit, College of Distance EducationUniversity of Cape CoastCape CoastGhana

Personalised recommendations