Factors influencing E-learning adoption in India: Learners' perspective

Abstract

In the era of electronic-learning 3.0, existing dimensions related to technologies and learner are not adequately explored while discussing e-learning adoption. In the current study, technology and learner dimensions are converged to overcome this insufficiency in analysing e-learning adoption. Earlier studies have reported less about e-learning adoption in higher education through the users' lens. System parameters and learner attributes were derived from theories of information systems and literature on learning theories. To validate the research model, 704 responses were collected through a questionnaire survey from India, where e-learning is gearing up. The present article utilised Partial Least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), which describes the relationship between constructs in the research model. The study identifies technology and learner dimension factors that influence e-learning adoption in developing countries like India. The study also put forward implications and policy recommendations from the findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Acharya, B., & Lee, J. (2018). Users’ perspective on the adoption of e-learning in developing countries: The case of Nepal with a conjoint-based discrete choice approach. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1733–1743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahmed, H. (2010). Hybrid E-learning acceptance model: Learner perceptions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 8(2), 313–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al Hebaishi, S. (2018). Using the flipped classroom model to enhance problem-based learning in a practicum course. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(4), 329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Fraihat, D., Joy, M., Masa’deh, R., & Sinclair, J. (2019). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alajarmeh, N., & Rashed, A. (2018). Learner in the role of instructor: Promoting student peer-collaboration in learning management systems. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aldhafeeri, F., & Khan, B. (2016). Teachers’ and students’ views on e-learning readiness in kuwait’s secondary public schools. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 45(2), 202–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Alfraih, M. M., & Alanezi, F. (2016). Accounting students’ perceptions of effective faculty attributes. Journal of International Education in Business, 9(2), 123–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Almutairi, H., & Subramanian, G. H. (2005). An empirical application of the Delone and Mclean model in the Kuwaiti private sector. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 45(3), 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alraimi, K. M., Zo, H., & Ciganek, A. P. (2015). Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and reputation. Computers & Education, 80, 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Amasha, M. A., & AbdElrazek, E. E. (2016). An m-learning framework in the podcast form (MPF) using context-aware technology. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 7(12), 226–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Andersson, A., & Hatakka, M. (2010). Increasing interactivity in distance educations: Case studies Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Information Technology for Development, 16(1), 16–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Aparicio, M., Bacao, F., & Oliveira, T. (2017). Grit in the path to e-learning success. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 388–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the online classroom: A study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(2), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bagchi, K. (2005). Factors contributing to global digital divide: some empirical results. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(3), 47–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bailey, J. E., & Pearson, S. W. (1983). Development of a tool for measuring and analysing computer user satisfaction. Management Science, 29(5), 530–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bandura, A. (1991). Sociocognitive theory of human adaptation. (p. 247). p: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barbeite, F. G., & Weiss, E. M. (2004). Computer self-efficacy and anxiety scales for an internet sample: Testing measurement equivalence of existing measures and development of new scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barclay, C., Donalds, C., & Osei-Bryson, K. (2018). Investigating critical success factors in online learning environments in higher education systems in the Caribbean. Information Technology for Development, 24(3), 582–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bawack, R., & Kala Kamdjoug, J. (2020). The role of digital information use on student performance and collaboration in marginal universities. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Benbya, H., Passiante, G., & Aissa Belbaly, N. (2004). Corporate portal: A tool for knowledge management synchronisation. International Journal of Information Management, 24(3), 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bharucha, J. (2018). Learning and social software: Exploring the realities in India. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 16(1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhattacharya, I., & Sharma, K. (2007). India in the knowledge economy – an electronic paradigm. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(6), 543–568.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bisht, R. K., Jasola, S., & Bisht, I. P. (2020). Acceptability and challenges of online higher education in the era of COVID-19: a study of students' perspective. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2046–3162.https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-05-2020-0119. Emerald Publishing Limited.

  24. Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(4), 231–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bo, C., Wang, M., Morch, A. I., Chen, N.-S., Kinshuk, K., & Spector, J. M. (2014). Research on e-learningintheworkplace2000–2012:Abibliometricanalysisoftheliterature. Educational Research Review, 11, 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boateng, R., Mbrokoh, A., Boateng, L., Senyo, P., & Ansong, E. (2016). Determinants of e-learning adoption among students of developing countries. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 33(4), 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Brahmasrene, T., & Lee, J. (2012). Determinants of intent to continue using online learning: A tale of two universities. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7, 001–020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Brandfinance.com. (2019). https://brandfinance.com/images/upload/brand_finance_india_100_2018locked.pdf.

  29. Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: the implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 1–10.

  30. Carte, T., Dharmasiri, A., & Perera, T. (2011). Building IT capabilities: Learning by doing. Information Technology for Development, 17(4), 289–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chang, V. (2016). Review and discussion: E-learning for academia and industry. International Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 476–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chang, J., & King, W. (2005). Measuring the performance of information systems: A functional scorecard. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 85–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chauhan, A. (2014). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): emerging trends in assessment and accreditation. Digital Education Review, 25(7), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chawla, D., & Joshi, H. (2012). Management education through e-learning in India: An empirical study. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(5), 380–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen, H., & Tseng, H. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cheng, M. Y. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Research, 22(3), 361–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers and Education, 63(1), 160–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Chou, H., & Wang, T. (2000). The influence of learning style and training method on self-efficacy and learning performance in WWW homepage design training. International Journal of Information Management, 20(6), 455–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cidral, W., Oliveira, T., Di Felice, M., & Aparicio, M. (2018). E-learning success determinants: Brazilian empirical study. Computers & Education, 122, 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Davis, F. D. (1998). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. de Vreede, G.-J., & Mgaya, R. J. S. (2006). Technology supported collaborative learning for higher education: Comparative case studies in Tanzania. Information Technology for Development, 12(2), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. DeLone, W., & McLean, E. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Delone, W. H., & Mclean, E. R. (2014). Journal of management the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success : A ten-year update, 37–41.

  47. Detlor, B. (2000). Corporate portal as an information infrastructure: towards a framework for portal design. International Journal of Information Management, 20(2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Diamond, S., & Irwin, B. (2013). Using e‐learning for student sustainability literacy: Framework and review. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14(4), 338–348.

  49. Dominic, M., Francis, S., & Pilomenraj, A. (2014). E-learning in web 3.0. Modern Education and Computer Science, 6(2), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Duffy, T., & Jonassen, D. (1991). Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Elearning market trends and forecast 2017–2021. (2020). https://eclass.teicrete.gr/modules/document/file.php/TP271/Additional%20material/docebo-elearning-trends-report-2017.pdf.

  52. Elkaseh, A., Wong, K., & Fung, C. (2016). Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of social media for e-learning in Libyan higher education: A structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(3), 192–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ellis, R., Ginns, P., & Piggott, L. (2009). E-learning in higher education: Some key aspects and their relationship to approaches to study. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(3), 303–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Fakhoury, R., & Aubert, B. (2017). The impact of initial learning experience on digital services usage diffusion: A field study of e-services in Lebanon. International Journal of Information Management, 37(4), 284–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Fleming, J., Becker, K., & Newton, C. (2017). Factors for successful e-learning: does age matter? Education + Training, 59(1), 76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

  58. Frederickson, N., Reed, P., & Clifford, V. (2005). Evaluating web-supported learning versus lecture-based teaching: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Higher Education, 50(4), 645–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fryer, L., & Bovee, H. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for e-learning: Teachers matter on and off line. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Fun-mooc.fr. (2020). FUN - Se Former En Liberté. https://www.fun-mooc.fr/.

  61. Gable, G. G., Sedera, D., & Chan, T. (2008). Re-conceptualizing information system success: The IS-impact measurement model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(7), 377–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Garcia-Crespo, A., Gomez-Berbis, J., Colombo-Palacios, R., & Garcia-Sanchez, F. (2011). Digital libraries and Web 3.0. The Callimachus DL approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4), 1424–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. García-Peñalvo, F., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., & Sein-Echaluce, M. (2018). An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: Disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1018–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Geetha, P., Cherukulath, W. K., & Sivakumar, R. (2017). Facilitating e-learning through national knowledge network. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 37(2), 91.

    Google Scholar 

  65. George, P.P., Papachristou, N., Belisario, J. M., Wang, W., Wark, P. A., Cotic, Z., Car, L. T. (2014). Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: a systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Journal of Global Health, 4(1).

  66. Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An enhanced technology acceptance model for web-based learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365–373.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gong, X., Liu, Z., & Zheng, X. (2018). Why are experienced users of WeChat likely to continue using the app? Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(4), 013–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Gronlund, A., & Islam, Y. (2010). A mobile e-learning environment for developing countries: The Bangladesh virtual interactive classroom. Information Technology for Development, 16(4), 244–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Hafez, M. (2018). Measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility practices on brand equity in the banking industry in Bangladesh. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(5), 806–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Hair, J. F., Jr., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Partial least squares: The better approach to structural equation modeling? Long Range Planning, 45(5/6), 312–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123

  72. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hamidi, H., & Chavoshi, A. (2018). Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: a case study of students of the University of Technology. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 1053–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Hao, S., Dennen, V., & Mei, L. (2016). Influential factors for mobile learning acceptance among Chinese users. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Hargittai, E., & Shafer, S. (2006). Differences in actual and perceived online skills: the role of gender. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 432–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Henseler, J. (2010). On the convergence of the partial least squares path modeling algorithm. Computational Statistics, 25(1), 107–120.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hermeking, M. (2006). Culture and internet consumption: Contributions from cross-cultural marketing and advertising research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 192–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Huang, H. M. (2002). Student perceptions in an online mediated environment. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(4), 405e422.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Huber, F., Herrmann, A., Meyer, F., Vogel, J., & Vollhardt, K. (2007). Causal modeling with partial least squares: An application-oriented introduction. Accident, Analysis and Prevention, 68, 57–74.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hung, D. (2001). Design principles for web-based learning; implications for Vygotskian thought. Educational Technology, 41(3), 33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Hung, M., Chou, C., Chen, C., & Own, Z. (2010). Learner readiness for online learning: Scale development and student perceptions. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1080–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Ifinedo, P. (2017). Students’ perceived impact of learning and satisfaction with blogs. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 34(4), 322–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Ilin, V. (2020). The Good, the bad and the ugly. A broad look at the adaptation of technology in education. The International Education and Learning Review, 2(1), 31–44.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Internetworldstats.com. (2019). Internet top 20 countries –internet users 2019. https://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm.

  85. Islam, A., & Azad, N. (2015). Satisfaction and continuance with a learning management system. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 32(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Jacobsen, D. Y. (2019). Dropping out or dropping in? A connectivist approach to understanding participants’ strategies in an e-learning MOOC pilot. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(1), 1-21.

  87. Jan, S. K. (2015). The relationships between academic self-efficacy, icacy, prior experience, and satisfaction with online learning. American Journal of Distance Education, 29(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Jeong Kim, H., Pederson, S., & Baldwin, M. (2012). Improving user satisfaction via a case-enhanced e-learning environment. Education + Training, 54(2/3), 204–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2013). Understanding management research – an introduction to epistemology. (p. 53). SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Joo, Y. J., Bong, M., & Choi, H. J. (2000). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning, academic self-efficacy, and internet self-efficacy in web-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(2), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Kapoor, K., Dwivedi, Y., & Williams, M. (2014). Rogers’ Innovation adoption attributes: A systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Information Systems Management, 31(1), 74–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Kerr, M., Rynearson, K., & Kerr, M. (2006). Student characteristics for online learning success. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Kim, B., & Park, M. J. (2018). Effect of personal factors to use ICTs on e-learning adoption: Comparison between learner and instructor in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 24(4), 706–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. King, W., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Kodama, M. (2001). Distance learning using video terminals—an empirical study. International Journal of Information Management, 21(3), 227–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Kumar, A. (2007). E-learning: A tool for education in rural India. Asia Pacific Business Review, 3(2), 0973–2470.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A. E., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Kuo, Y. T. (2014). A case study of integrating interwise: Interaction, internet self-efficacy, and satisfaction in synchronous online learning environments. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1), 161e181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Laaziz, E., & Elkhouzai, E. (2018). An analysis of the permeability of Moroccan higher education to e-learning and simulation based e-learning. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(3), 254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Lassila, O., & Hendler, J. (2007). Embracing ‘Web 3.0. IEEE Internet Computing, 11(3), 90–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Lee, Y., & Choi, J. (2010). A review of online course dropout research: Implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 593–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Lee, P. M. J., & Quek, C. (2017). Preschool teachers’ perceptions of school learning environment and job satisfaction. Learning Environments Research, 21(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Liaw, S.-S. (2004). Considerations for developing constructivist web-based learning. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31(3), 309.

    Google Scholar 

  105. 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), 864–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Liaw, S.-S., & Huang, H.-M. (2010). A study of investigating learners attitudes toward e-learning. 5th international conference on distance learning and education (pp. 12).

  107. Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007a). Surveying instructor and learner attitudes toward e-learning. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1066–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M., & Chen, G.-D. (2007b). An activity-theoretical approach to investigate learners’ factors toward e-learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1906–1920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Lim, H., Lee, S., & Nam, K. (2007). Validating E-learning factors affecting training effectiveness. International Journal of Information Management, 27(1), 22–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Lin, H., & Lee, G. (2006). Determinants of success for online communities: An empirical study. Behavior & Information Technology, 25(6), 479–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Lin, J. C. C., & Lu, H. (2000). Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a web site. International Journal of Information Management, 20(3), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Liu, Y., & Feng, H. (2011). An empirical study on the relationship between metacognitive strategies and online-learning behavior & test achievements. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(1), 990–992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. MacGregor, G., & Turner, J. (2009). Revisiting e-learning effectiveness: Proposing a conceptual model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 6(3), 156–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Machado-Da-Silva, F., Meirelles, F., Filenga, D., & Filho, M. (2014). Student satisfaction process in virtual learning system: Considerations based in information and service quality from Brazil’s experience. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 122–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. McGill, T., Klobas, J., & Renzi, S. (2014). Critical success factors for the continuation of e-learning initiatives. The Internet and Higher Education, 22, 24–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. McKinney, V., Yoon, K., & Zahedi, F. (2002). The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: An expectation and disconfirmation approach. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 296–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. McLester, S. (2002). Virtual learning takes a front row seat. Technology and Learning, 22(8), 24–31.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Merhi, M. (2015). Factors influencing higher education students to adopt podcast: An empirical study. Computers & Education, 83, 32–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Mohammed, A., Kumar, S., Maina, B., & Shuaibu, A. (2017). E-learning: A tool for enhancing teaching and learning in educational institutes. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 8(2), 217–221.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Moore, J., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). E-learning, online learning, and distance learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2), 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Nam, C. W., & Zellner, R. D. (2011). The relative effects of positive interdependence and group processing on student achievement and attitude in online cooperative learning. Computers & Education, 56(3), 680–688.

  122. Nedungadi, P., Mulki, K., & Raman, R. (2017). Improving educational outcomes & reducing absenteeism at remote villages with mobile technology and WhatsAPP: Findings from rural India. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Ngampornchai, A., & Adams, J. (2016). Students’ acceptance and readiness for e-learning in Northeastern Thailand. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Nneka Eke, H. (2010). The perspective of e-learning and libraries in Africa: challenges and opportunities. Library Review, 59(4), 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Offir, B., Lev, Y., Lev, Y., Barth, I., & Shteinbek, A. (2004). An integrated analysis of verbal and nonverbal interaction in conventional and distance learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31(2), 101e118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Oliver, R., & Omari, A. (2001). Student responses to collaborating and learning in a web-based environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41(6), 795–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Ozkan, S., Koseler, R., & Baykal, N. (2009). Evaluating learning management systems. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(2), 111–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Paechter, M., & Maier, B. (2010). Online or face-to-face? Students’ experiences and preferences in e-learning. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 292–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Paliwoda-Pekoszand, G., & Stal, J. (2015). ICT in supporting content and language integrated learning: Experience from Poland. Information Technology for Development, 21(3), 403–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Parikh, M., & Verma, S. (2002). Utilizing Internet technologies to support learning: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 22(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Park, Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Education Technology Society, 3(150), 162.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Park, J. H., & Wentling, T. (2007). Factors associated with transfer of training in workplace e-learning. Journal of Workplace Learning, 19(5), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Parkes, M., Stein, S., & Reading, C. (2015). Student preparedness for university e-learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Passerini, K., & Granger, M. J. (2000). A developmental model for distance learning using the internet. Computers & Education, 34(1), 0360–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Pellas, N. (2014). The influence of computer self-efficacy, metacognitive self-regulation and self-esteem on student engagement in online learning programs: Evidence from the virtual world of second life. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Peng, H., Tsai, C., & Wu, Y. (2006). University students’ self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the internet: the role of students’ perceptions of the internet. Educational Studies, 32(1), 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Peter, J. (1979). Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly, 401-426.

  140. Pituch, K., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Pritchard, A., & Woollard, J. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. . Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Qu, L., & Johnson, W.L. (2005). Detecting the learner’s motivational states in an interactive learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on artificial intelligence in education: Supporting learning through intelligent and socially informed technology (pp. 547–554). IOS Press.

  143. Ramaha, N. T., Mohd, W., & Ismail, F. W. (2012). Assessment of learner’s motivation in web based e-learning. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3(8), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Ray, A., Bala, P., & Dasgupta, S. (2019). Role of authenticity and perceived benefits of online courses on technology based career choice in India: A modified technology adoption model based on career theory. International Journal of Information Management, 47, 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Reeves, T. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(1), 101–111.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. W. (2012). Editor’s comments: a critical look at the use of PLS-SEM. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Rovai, A. P., & Barnum, K. (2003). On-line course effectiveness: an analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning. Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Saade, R., He, X., & Kira, D. (2007). Exploring dimensions to online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1721–1739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Salaberry, M. (2000). Pedagogical design of computer mediated communication tasks: Learning objectives and technological capabilities. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Samsudeen, S. N., & Mohamed, R. (2019). University students’ intention to use e-learning systems. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 3, 219–238,1741–5659

  151. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R., & Hair, J. F. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 5(1), 105–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Scott, S., Plotnikoff, R., Karunamuni, N., Bize, R., & Rodgers, W. (2008). Factors influencing the adoption of an innovation: An examination of the uptake of the Canadian Heart Health Kit (HHK). Implementation Science, 3(1).

  153. Segers, M. S. R. (1997). An alternative for assessing problem-solving skills: the overall test. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 373–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Selim, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40(4), 343–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Selim, H. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 2(2), 157–182.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Sharma, M. (2020). India’S burgeoning youth are the world’s future. mint. https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/2WSy5ZGR9ZO3KLDMGiJq2J/Indias-burgeoning-youth-are-the-worlds-future.html.

  157. Shim, S., Lee, B., & Kim, S. (2018). Rival precedence and open platform adoption: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Information Management, 38(1), 217–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Shraim, K., & Khlaif, Z. (2010). An e-learning approach to secondary education in Palestine: Opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 16(3), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Shroff, R., Deneen, C., & Ng, E. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioral intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Shyu, S., & Huang, J. (2011). Elucidating usage of e-government learning: A perspective of the extended technology acceptance model. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 491–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Shehzadi, S., Nisar, Q. A., Hussain, M. S., Basheer, M. F., Ul Hameed, W., & Chaudhry, N. I. (2020). The role of digital learning toward students' satisfaction and university brand image at educational institutes of Pakistan: A post-effect of COVID-19. Asian Education and Development Studies, 2046–3162. Emerald Publishing Limited.

  162. Simmering, M., Posey, C., & Piccoli, G. (2009). Computer self-efficacy and motivation to learn in a self-directed online course. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Piovoso, M. J. (2009). Silver bullet or voodoo statistics?: A primer for using the partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organisation research. Group and Organization Management, 34(1), 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Stern, H. H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. . Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Stricker, D., Weibel, D., & Wissmath, B. (2011). Efficient learning using a virtual learning environment in a university class. Computers & Education, 56(2), 495–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Sukserm, T., & Takahashi, Y. (2012). Self-efficacy as a mediator of the relationships between learning and ethical behavior from human resource development in corporate social responsibility activity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 4(1), 8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Sun, P., Tsai, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint’s power in the classroom: Enhancing students’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Computers & Education, 45(2), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Tang, Y., & Hew, K. (2017). Is mobile instant messaging (MIM) useful in education? Examining its technological, pedagogical, and social affordances. Educational Research Review, 21(2), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behavior in developing countries: A structural equation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. The Economic Times. (2019). 2019: Latest news & videos, photos about 2019. The Economic Times [online] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/2019.

  172. Thompson, L., Meriac, J., & Cope, J. (2002). Motivating online performance. Social Science Computer Review, 20(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Tripathi, M., & Jeevan, V. (2010). E-learning library and information science: A pragmatic view for India. DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology, 30(5), 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Tudge, J., & Winterhoff, P. (1993). Vygotsky, Piaget, and Bandura: Perspectives on the relations between the social world and cognitive development. Human Development, 36(2), 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010a). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An application in customer satisfaction research. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11(2), 5–40.

    Google Scholar 

  176. Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010b). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 11, 5–40.

    Google Scholar 

  177. Urbach, N., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2010). Journal of strategic information systems an empirical investigation of employee portal success. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 184–206. Elsevier B.V.

  178. Uppal, M., Ali, S., & Gulliver, S. (2017). Factors determining e-learning service quality. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(3), 412–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. Urbach, N., Smolnik, S., & Riempp, G. (2010). An empirical investigation of employee portal success. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 19(3), 184–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.

  183. Wang, Y. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic learning systems. Information & Management, 41(1), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Wang, H., & Chiu, Y. (2011). Assessing e-learning 2.0 system success. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1790–1800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Wang, A., & Newlin, M. (2002). Predictors of web-student performance: The role of self-efficacy and reasons for taking an on-line class. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(2), 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Weiser, O., Blau, I., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). How do medium naturalness, teaching-learning interactions and students’ personality traits affect participation in synchronous e-learning? The Internet and Higher Education, 37, 40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Wu, Y., & Tsai, C. (2006). University students’ internet attitudes and internet self-efficacy: A study at three universities in Taiwan. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(4), 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Yilmaz, R. (2017). Exploring the role of e-learning readiness on student satisfaction and motivation in flipped classroom. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Yudko, E., Hirokawa, R., & Chi, R. (2008). Attitudes, beliefs, and attendance in a hybrid course. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1217–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Yuen, A. H. K., & Ma, W. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-earning technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Zaranis, N., & Exarchakos, G. (2018). Does ICT affect the understanding of ellipsoids, cylinders and cones among students from University of Applied Sciences? International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(4), 269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Zhang, D., & Nunamaker, J. (2003). Powering e-Learning in the new millennium: An overview of e-learning and enabling technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 5(2), 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Zhang, L., Wen, H., Li, D., Fu, Z., & Cui, S. (2010). E-learning adoption intention and its key influence factors based on innovation adoption theory. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(11–12), 1428–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Zhao, L. (2015). The influence of learners’ motivation and attitudes on second language teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(11), 2333–2339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P S Vanitha.

Additional information

Publisher's note

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

Appendix

Appendix

Table 8 The questionnaire that measures e-learning adoption in two dimensions (technology and learner)
Table 9 Demographic details

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vanitha, P., Alathur, S. Factors influencing E-learning adoption in India: Learners' perspective. Educ Inf Technol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10504-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • E-learning
  • Information and Communication Technologies
  • Internet
  • Perceived usefulness
  • Perceived satisfaction
  • India