Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 509–530 | Cite as

Factors affecting the E-learning acceptance: A case study from UAE

  • Said A. Salloum
  • Mostafa Al-Emran
  • Khaled Shaalan
  • Ali TarhiniEmail author


The main objective of this article is to study the factors that affect university students’ acceptance of E-learning systems. To achieve this objective, we have proposed a new model that aims to investigate the impact of innovativeness, quality, trust, and knowledge sharing on E-learning acceptance. Data collection has taken place through an online questionnaire survey, which was carried out at The British University in Dubai (BUiD) and University of Fujairah (UOF) in the UAE. There were 251 students participated in this study. Data were analyzed using SmartPLS and SPSS. The Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) has been used to validate the proposed model. The outcomes revealed that knowledge sharing and quality in the universities have a positive influence on E-learning acceptance among the students. Innovativeness and trust were found not to significantly affect the E-learning system acceptance. By identifying the factors that influence the E-learning acceptance, it will be more useful to provide better services for E-learning. Other implications are also presented in the study.


E-learning Technology acceptance Knowledge sharing Technology innovativeness System quality Trust 



  1. Abbas, M., Shahid Nawaz, M., Ahmad, J., & Ashraf, M. (2017). The effect of innovation and consumer related factors on consumer resistance to innovation. Cogent Business and Management, 4(1), 1312058.Google Scholar
  2. Abu-Al-Aish, A. (2014). Toward mobile learning deployment in higher education (Doctoral dissertation, Brunel University, School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics).Google Scholar
  3. Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: an investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(5).Google Scholar
  4. Adel, R. (2017). Manage perceived e-learning quality in Egyptian context. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(5), 600–613.Google Scholar
  5. Akter, S., D'Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2011). An evaluation of PLS based complex models: The roles of power analysis, predictive relevance and GoF index.Google Scholar
  6. Al Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. (2014a). A survey of intelligent language tutoring systems. In Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI, 2014 International Conference on (pp. 393-399). IEEE.Google Scholar
  7. Al Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. F. (2014b). E-podium technology: A medium of managing knowledge at Al Buraimi University college via M-learning. In BCS International IT Conference.Google Scholar
  8. Al-Emran, M., & Malik, S. I. (2016). The impact of google apps at work: higher educational perspective. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 10(4), 85–88.Google Scholar
  9. Al-Emran, M., & Salloum, S. A. (2017). Students' attitudes towards the use of mobile technologies in e-evaluation. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 11(5), 195–202.Google Scholar
  10. Al-Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. (2015). Attitudes towards the use of mobile learning: a case study from the gulf region. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 9(3), 75–78.Google Scholar
  11. Al-Emran, M., & Shaalan, K. (2017). Academics’ awareness towards mobile learning in Oman. International Journal of Computing and Digital Systems, 6(1).Google Scholar
  12. Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102.Google Scholar
  13. Alkandari, B. (2015). An investigation of the factors affecting students’ acceptance and intention to use E-learning systems at Kuwait University: Developing a technology acceptance model in E-learning environments (Doctoral dissertation, Cardiff Metropolitan University).Google Scholar
  14. Alkhalaf, S., Drew, S., & Alhussain, T. (2012). Assessing the impact of e-learning systems on learners: A survey study in the KSA. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 98–104.Google Scholar
  15. Al-rahmi, W. M., Othman, M. S., & Yusuf, L. M. (2015). Exploring the factors that affect student satisfaction through using e-learning in Malaysian higher education institutions. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 299.Google Scholar
  16. Ashill, N. J., & Jobber, D. (2010). Measuring state, effect, and response uncertainty: Theoretical construct development and empirical validation. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1278–1308.Google Scholar
  17. Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384.Google Scholar
  18. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (pls) approach to casual modeling: Personal computer adoption Ans use as an illustration.Google Scholar
  19. Behera, S. K. (2013). E-and M-learning: A comparative study. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 4(3), 65–78.Google Scholar
  20. Cakir, R., & Solak, E. (2014). Exploring the factors influencing E-learning of Turkish EFL learners through TAM. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(3).Google Scholar
  21. Calvo-Mora, A., Leal, A., & Roldán, J. L. (2005). Relationships between the EFQM model criteria: a study in Spanish universities. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 16(6), 741–770.Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, C., & Ma, J. J. (2015). Looking forward, looking back: Drawing on the past to shape the future of marketing. In Proceedings of the 2013 World Marketing Congress.Google Scholar
  23. Chang, W. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2013). Trust as a learning facilitator that affects students' learning performance in the Facebook community: An investigation in a business planning writing course. Computers & Education, 62, 320–327.Google Scholar
  24. Chen, H. R., & Tseng, H. F. (2012). Factors that influence acceptance of web-based E-learning systems for the in-service education of junior high school teachers in Taiwan. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35(3), 398–406.Google Scholar
  25. Cheng, W. Y. T., & Chen, C. C. (2015). The impact of e-learning on workplace on-the-job training. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 5(4), 212.Google Scholar
  26. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.Google Scholar
  27. Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Berlin:Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Chou, H. K., Lin, I. C., Woung, L. C., & Tsai, M. T. (2012). Engagement in e-learning opportunities: An empirical study on patient education using expectation confirmation theory. Journal of Medical Systems, 36(3), 1697–1706.Google Scholar
  29. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Dečman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of E-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272–281.Google Scholar
  31. Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.Google Scholar
  32. Dreheeb, A. E., Basir, N., & Fabil, N. (2016). Impact of system quality on Users' satisfaction in continuation of the use of E-learning system. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and E-learning, 6(1), 13–25.Google Scholar
  33. Eid, M. I., & Al-Jabri, I. M. (2016). Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: The case of university students. Computers & Education, 99, 14–27.Google Scholar
  34. El-Masri, M., & Tarhini, A. (2017). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–21.Google Scholar
  35. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
  36. Faqih, K. M. (2016)Which is more important in e-learning adoption, perceived value or perceived usefulness? Examining the moderating influence of perceived compatibility.Google Scholar
  37. Farahat, T. (2012). Applying the technology acceptance model to online learning in the Egyptian universities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 95–104.Google Scholar
  38. Fong, S. K. C. J., & Wang, W. F. F. L. (2013) Hybrid learning and continuing education. Google Scholar
  39. Fook, C. Y., Sidhu, G. K., Narasuman, S., Fong, L. L., & Rahman, S. B. A. (Eds.). (2015). 7th International conference on university learning and teaching (InCULT 2014) Proceedings: Educate to innovate. Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 440–452.Google Scholar
  41. Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effects model. Biometrika, 61, 101–107.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Harun, A., Liew, T. S., Kassim, A. W. M., & Sulong, R. S. (2015). Smartphone dependency and its impact on purchase behavior. Asian Social Science, 11(26), 196.Google Scholar
  44. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Using partial least squares path modeling in advertising research: Basic concepts and recent issues. Handbook of research on international advertising, 252.Google Scholar
  45. Islam, A. N. (2012). Understanding e-learning system usage outcomes in hybrid courses. In System Science (HICSS), 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 118-127). IEEE.Google Scholar
  46. Jaradat, M. I. R. M. (2014). Understanding individuals' perceptions, determinants and the moderating effects of age and gender on the adoption of mobile learning: Developing country perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(3–4), 253–275.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (2014). Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM for mobile learning in Cyber University. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 143–158.Google Scholar
  48. Kanwal, F., & Rehman, M. (2017). Factors affecting E-learning adoption in developing countries–empirical evidence from Pakistan’s higher education sector. IEEE Access.Google Scholar
  49. Kundu, S. C., & Gahlawat, N. (2016). Ability–motivation–opportunity enhancing human resource practices and firm performance: Evidence from India. Journal of Management & Organization, 1–18.Google Scholar
  50. Lee, Y. C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an E-learning system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517–541.Google Scholar
  51. Lee, Y. H., Hsieh, Y. C., & Chen, Y. H. (2013). An investigation of employees' use of e-learning systems: Applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 32(2), 173–189.Google Scholar
  52. Liao, C. H., & Huang, W. L. (2009). Community adaptability, computer and internet self-efficacy, and intention of blended e-learning. International Journal of Society Systems Science, 1(3), 209–226.Google Scholar
  53. Lin, C. S., Tzeng, G. H., Chin, Y. C., & Chang, C. C. (2010). Recommendation sources on the intention to use e-books in academic digital libraries. The Electronic Library, 28(6), 844–857.Google Scholar
  54. Liu, Y., & Wu, Y. (2010). A survey on trust and trustworthy E-learning system. In Web Information Systems and Mining (WISM), 2010 International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 118-122). IEEE.Google Scholar
  55. 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), 600–610.Google Scholar
  56. Lu, H. P., & Chiou, M. J. (2010). The impact of individual differences on e-learning system satisfaction: A contingency approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 307–323.Google Scholar
  57. Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J., & Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 222–234.Google Scholar
  58. Ma, W., & Yuen, A. (2011). 11. E-learning system acceptance and usage pattern. Technology acceptance in education: Research and issues, 201.Google Scholar
  59. Mahmodi, M. (2017). The analysis of the factors affecting the acceptance of E-learning in higher education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences, (In Press).Google Scholar
  60. Masa'd, F. M. S. (2017). Implementation of E-training in developing country: Empirical evidence from Jordan. International Business Research, 10(4), 42.Google Scholar
  61. Matias-Reche, F., Garcia-Morales, V. J., & Rueda-Manzanares, A. (2008). Entrepreneurial size, complexity and decentralization of decision-making in the use of temporary help workers in Spain. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 169–187.Google Scholar
  62. Migdadi, M. M., Abu Zaid, M. K. S., Al-Hujran, O. S., & Aloudat, A. M. (2016). An empirical assessment of the antecedents of electronic-business implementation and the resulting organizational performance. Internet Research, 26(3), 661–688.Google Scholar
  63. Milošević, I., Živković, D., Manasijević, D., & Nikolić, D. (2015). The effects of the intended behavior of students in the use of M-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 207–215.Google Scholar
  64. Misra, B. M. S., Torre, A. M. A. R. C., Falcão, J. G. R. M. I., Apduhan, D. T. B. O., &Gervasi, O. (2014). Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2014.Google Scholar
  65. Mtebe, J. (2014). Acceptance and use of eLearning Technologies in Higher Education in East Africa.Google Scholar
  66. Ngafeeson, M. N., & Sun, J. (2015). The effects of technology innovativeness and system exposure on student acceptance of e-textbooks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 55–71.Google Scholar
  67. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The theory of measurement error. Psychometric theory, 209–247.Google Scholar
  68. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.Google Scholar
  69. Purnomo, S. H., & Lee, Y. H. (2013). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia: An empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138–153.Google Scholar
  70. Rahman, I. A., Memon, A. H., Abdullah, N. H., & Azis, A. A. A. (2013). Application of PLS-SEM to assess the influence of construction resources on cost overrun. In Applied Mechanics and Materials (Vol. 284, pp. 3649-3656). Trans Tech Publications.Google Scholar
  71. Robinson Jr, L. (Ed.). (2014). Marketing Dynamism & Sustainability: Things Change, Things Stay the Same...: Proceedings of the 2012 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Springer.Google Scholar
  72. Rodríguez-Ardura, I., & Meseguer-Artola, A. (2016). What leads people to keep on e-learning? An empirical analysis of users' experiences and their effects on continuance intention. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1030–1053.Google Scholar
  73. Roky, H., & Al Meriouh, Y. (2015). Evaluation by users of an industrial information system (XPPS) based on the DeLone and McLean model for IS success. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 903–913.Google Scholar
  74. Salloum, S. A., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A. A., & Shaalan, K. (2017). A survey of text mining in social media: Facebook and twitter perspectives. Advances in Science Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, 2(1), 127–133.Google Scholar
  75. Santos-Vijande, M. L., López-Sánchez, J. Á., & Rudd, J. (2016). Frontline employees’ collaboration in industrial service innovation: Routes of co-creation’s effects on new service performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 350–337.Google Scholar
  76. Senapathi, M., & Srinivasan, A. (2014). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting agile usage. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering (p. 10). ACM.Google Scholar
  77. Skersys, T., Butleris, R., Nemuraite, L., & Suomi, R. (Eds.). (2011). Building the E-World Ecosystem: 11th IFIP WG 6.11 Conference on E-Business, E-Services, and E-Society, I3E 2011, Kaunas, Lithuania, October 12-14, 2011, Revised Selected Papers (Vol. 353). Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Stone, M. (1974). Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B (Methodological), 111–147.Google Scholar
  79. Storey, C., & Kahn, K. B. (2010). The role of knowledge management strategies and task knowledge in stimulating service innovation. Journal of Service Research, 13(4), 397–410.Google Scholar
  80. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors affecting students' acceptance of E-learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(1), 54.Google Scholar
  81. Tarhini, A., Mohammed, A. B., & Maqableh, M. (2016). Modeling factors affecting Student’s usage behaviour of E-learning Systems in Lebanon. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(2), 299.Google Scholar
  82. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328.Google Scholar
  83. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 48(1), 159–205.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  84. Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852.Google Scholar
  85. Vinzi, V. E., Chin, W. W., Henseler, J., & Wang, H. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  86. Wang, Y. D. (2014). Building trust in E-learning. Athens Journal of Education, 1(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
  87. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33, 177–195.Google Scholar
  88. Wu, B., & Zhang, C. (2014). Empirical study on continuance intentions towards E-learning 2.0 systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(10), 1027–1038.Google Scholar
  89. Yatigammana, M. R. K. N., Johar, M. D. G. M. D., & Gunawardhana, C. (2013). Impact of Innovations attributes on E-learning acceptance among Sri Lankan postgraduate students.Google Scholar
  90. Yee-Loong Chong, A., Ooi, K. B., Bao, H., & Lin, B. (2014). Can e-business adoption be influenced by knowledge management? An empirical analysis of Malaysian SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(1), 121–136.Google Scholar
  91. Yilmaz, R. (2016). Knowledge sharing behaviors in E-learning community: Exploring the role of academic self-efficacy and sense of community. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 373–382.Google Scholar
  92. Yuen, A. H., & Ma, W. W. (2004). Knowledge sharing and teacher acceptance of web based learning system. In C. McBeath, Atkinson, D. Jonas-Dwyer, and R. Phillips, editors, Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 975-983).Google Scholar
  93. Yusof, Z. M., Ismail, M. B., Ahmad, K., & Yusof, M. M. (2012). Knowledge sharing in the public sector in Malaysia: A proposed holistic model. Information Development, 28(1), 43–54.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering & ITThe British University in DubaiDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
  2. 2.University of FujairahFujairahUnited Arab Emirates
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer Systems and Software EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia PahangGambangMalaysia
  4. 4.Al Buraimi University CollegeAl-BuraymiOman
  5. 5.Department of Information SystemsMuscatOman

Personalised recommendations