Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 2455–2470 | Cite as

Students’ acceptance of file sharing systems as a tool for sharing course materials: The case of Google Drive



Students’ perceptions about both ease of use and usefulness are fundamental factors in determining their acceptance and successful use of technology in higher education. File sharing systems are one of these technologies and can be used to manage and deliver course materials and coordinate virtual teams. The aim of this study is to explore how Google Drive is accepted as a system for handling course materials and uncover the factors that influence and contribute to students’ intentions to use it. The research approach is based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). The participants for this study comprised 119 students at Sultan Qaboos University. The Students’ Acceptance of Google Drive Questionnaire was develop by the author based on the TAM. The results indicated that students perceived Google Drive as an easy-to-use and useful system for storing and sharing course materials, and they favored its use in university teaching. The results of a multiple regression analysis confirmed that students’ prior experience with Google Drive is a good predictor of students’ perceived ease of use and usefulness. In addition, perceived ease of use and usefulness significantly influenced attitudes toward the system and behavioral intentions to use Google Drive.


File sharing systems Google Drive Technology acceptance model LMS Course materials 


  1. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using the technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(2), 4–18.Google Scholar
  2. Apple, J., Reis-Bergan, M., Adams, H., & Saunders, G. (2011). Online tools to promote student collaboration. In D. S. Dunn, J. H. Wilson, J. Freeman, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Getting connected: best practices for technology enhanced teaching and learning in higher education (pp. 239–252). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bevan, N. (2001). International standards for HCI and usability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55, 533–552.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, M., & Hocutt, D. (2015). Learning to use, useful for learning: a usability study of Google apps for education. Journal of Usability Studies, 10(4), 160–181 Retrieved from Scholar
  5. Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 9–37.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, D., Bagozzi, P., & Warshaw, R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dekeyser, S., & Watson, R. (2006). Extending Google docs to collaborate on research papers [technical report]. The University of Southern Queensland. Retrieved from
  9. Dodd, B. J., & Antonenko, P. D. (2012). Use of signaling to integrate desktop virtual reality and online learning management systems. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1099–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards, J., & Baker, C. (2010). A case study: Google collaboration applications as online course teaching tools. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(4) Retrieved from
  11. Frøkjær, E., Hertzum, M., & Hornbæk, K. (2000). Measuring usability: are effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction really correlated? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 345–352). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  12. Google (2013, August 19). Head back to school with Drive: student edition. Google Blog. Retrieved from
  13. Hair, F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, L., & Black, C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill.Google Scholar
  14. Harrison, P. J., Seeman, B. J., Behm, R., Saba, F., Molise, G., & Williams, D. (1991). Development of a distance education assessment instrument. Educational Technology Research & Development, 39(4), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hutchins, D. (2014, April 17). The benefits and dangers of choosing cloud-based file sharing. StateTech. Retrieved from
  16. ISO 9241. (1998). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals. Part 11: Guidance on usability. Retrieved from
  17. Kossman, R. (2012). Everything you need to know about cloud-based file sharing. Retrieved from
  18. Lederer, L., Maupin, J., Sena, P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the world wide web. Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim, M., & Ting, H. (2012). E-shopping: an analysis of the technology acceptance model. Modern Applied Science, 6(4), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Link, L., Jurić, B., & Barać, L. (2013). Moodle and Elgg functionalities comparison: advantages and disadvantages. Proceedings from Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, Varaždin, the roatia, September 18–20. Retrieved from
  21. Lord, N. (2016, October 12). Communicating the data security risks of file sharing & cloud storage. Digital Guardian, Retrieved from
  22. Meishar-Tal, H., Kurtz, G., & Pieterse, E. (2012). Facebook groups as LMS: a case study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 33–48 Retrieved from Scholar
  23. Mijuskovic, A. & Ferati, M. (2015). User awareness of existing privacy and security risks when storing data in the cloud. In Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning’15, (pp 268–273), 11–12 September. Retrieved from
  24. Miller, M. (2008). Cloud computing: web-based applications that change the way you work and collaborate online. Indiana: QUE Publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Miller-Cochran, K., & Rodrigo, L. (2006). Determining effective distance learning designs through usability testing. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moon, J. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ndubisi, O. (2006). Factors of online learning adoption: a comparative juxtaposition of the theory of planned behaviour and the technology acceptance model. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 571–591.Google Scholar
  28. O’Donnell, S., Molyneaux, H., & Gibson, K. (2010). A framework for analyzing social interaction using broadband visual communication technologies. In T. Dumova & R. Fiordo (Eds.), Handbook of research on social interaction technologies and collaboration software: concepts and trends (pp. 528–541). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pappas, C. (2014). How to use Google forms in eLearning. Retrieved from
  30. Park, Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.Google Scholar
  31. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  32. Rienzo, T., & Han, B. (2009). Microsoft or Google web 2.0 tools for course management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2), 123–127.Google Scholar
  33. Rowe, M., Bozalek, V., & Frantz, J. (2013). Using Google Drive to facilitate a blended approach to authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(4), 594–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rozanski, P., & Haake, R. (2003). Curriculum and content: the many facets of HCI. Lafayette, IN: Paper presented at the 4th conference on information technology curriculum on information technology education.Google Scholar
  35. Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  36. Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Solomon, S. (2015). 15 ways to maximize your productivity with Google Drive. Retrieved from
  38. Stantchev, V., Colomo-Palacios, R., Soto-Acosta, P., & Misra, S. (2014). Learning management systems and cloud file hosting services: a study on students’ acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 612–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhou, W., Simpson, E., & Domizi, D. (2012). Google docs in an out-of-class collaborative writing activity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 359–375.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Valley UniversityQenaEgypt
  2. 2.Sultan Qaboos UniversityMuscatOman

Personalised recommendations