A Meta Analysis of Factors Affecting Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use in The Adoption of E-Learning Systems

Abstract

The full potential of e-learning, a trend that is of growing importance lately, will not be reaped unless the users fully utilize the system, triggering extensive research to be conducted in order to provide valuable insight on a myriad of variables influencing user acceptance in e-learning systems. The main purpose of the study is to determine the factors that affect the intention of users to use e-learning and to get results which can guide system developers and researchers. In accordance with this purpose, 203 studies investigating the e-learning acceptance of the users through the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) were found in the literature. In those studies, variables which are suggested to determine Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and results of related hypotheses are analyzed. Finally, a model is proposed. In this model, the most
widely accepted hypotheses, affecting PU and PEOU according to the literature are included in the original TAM. As a result; it determines Self Efficacy-PEOU, Subjective Norm-PU, Self Efficacy-PU, Interaction-PU, Enjoyment-PEOU, Anxiety-PEOU, Enjoyment-PU, Compatibility-PU, Subjective Norm-PEOU and Interaction-PEOU as variables that have
statistical significance in users’ PU and PEOU, respectively. Moreover, the study examines the relationship between the User Satisfaction and original TAM variables, and proposes the Acceptance and Satisfaction Model for E-Learning (ASME) as a model to best explain the dependent variables described above.

Full text

4
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE October 2018 ISSN 1302-6488 Volume: 19 Number: 4 Article 1
A META ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING PERCEIVED
USEFULNESS AND PERCEIVED EASE OF USE IN THE ADOPTION
OF E-LEARNING SYSTEMS
Rahmi BAKI
Department of Management Information Systems
Aksaray University
Aksaray, Turkey
Dr. Burak BIRGOREN
Department of Industrial Enginering
Kırıkkale University
Kırıkkale, Turkey
Dr. Adnan AKTEPE
Department of Industrial Enginering
Kırıkkale University
Kırıkkale, Turkey
ABSTRACT
The full potential of e-learning, a trend that is of growing importance lately, will not be
reaped unless the users fully utilize the system, triggering extensive research to be
conducted in order to provide valuable insight on a myriad of variables influencing user
acceptance in e-learning systems. The main purpose of the study is to determine the factors
that affect the intention of users to use e-learning and to get results which can guide
system developers and researchers. In accordance with this purpose, 203 studies
investigating the e-learning acceptance of the users through the Technology Acceptance
Model (TAM) were found in the literature. In those studies, variables which are suggested
to determine Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) and results of
related hypotheses are analyzed. Finally, a model is proposed. In this model, the most
widely accepted hypotheses, affecting PU and PEOU according to the literature are included
in the original TAM. As a result; it determines Self Efficacy-PEOU, Subjective Norm-PU, Self
Efficacy-PU, Interaction-PU, Enjoyment-PEOU, Anxiety-PEOU, Enjoyment-PU,
Compatibility-PU, Subjective Norm-PEOU and Interaction-PEOU as variables that have
statistical significance in users’ PU and PEOU, respectively. Moreover, the study examines
the relationship between the User Satisfaction and original TAM variables, and proposes
the Acceptance and Satisfaction Model for E-Learning (ASME) as a model to best explain
the dependent variables described above.
Keywords: E-learning, Technology Acceptance Model, perceived ease of use, perceived
usefulness, user satisfaction.
INTRODUCTION
Recent and exponential developments in information and communication technologies
have caused significant shifts in both corporates’ and users’ working practices, resulting in
individuals being introduced to new paradigms such as e-government, e-commerce, online
banking and e-learning, the last being the most wide-spread and substantial advancement
in the education sector.

5
E-learning can be described as the utilization of telecommunications technologies to
transfer information in education and training activities (Sun, Tsai & Finger, 2008). E-
learning connects all education activities conducted by individuals and groups, both online
and offline, through networked or standalone devices, allowing users to access a learning
platform without the restriction of time and space (Naidu, 2006). The system’s competitive
advantage stems through its ability to allow users to direct and customize content via
eliminating a one-size-fits-all approach to education and training (Pantazis, 2002),
facilitating a learning platform that transcends time and space (Trentin, 1997).
Despite having notable advantages, under-utilized systems can pose a problem for
organizations (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), because information systems are known to
improve organizational performance only when they are used in their full capacity
(Mathieson, 1991). For one to be able to better forecast, assess and enhance user
acceptance, the need to better understand why information systems are accepted or
rejected is vital (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). As a consequence, researchers have
benefitted from various theories to identify the factors that explain users’ intention to use
e-learning, the most widespread being TAM (Sumak, Hericko & Pusnik, 2011). TAM is a
robust forecast model that is extensively used to assess users’ perceptions of technology
acceptance (Hussein & Saad, 2016).
The model, developed to estimate the adoption and utilization of information technologies,
puts forward that the individuals’ intention to use information technologies has its
foundation in two basic (PU and PEOU) beliefs (Venkatesh & Bala, 2008). In the model,
external variables allow one to understand the factors that most significantly influence PU
and PEOU, while offering guidance in developing action plans that will increase usage
(Legris, Ingham & Collerette, 2003). TAM’s main objective is to lay upon a basis to monitor
the effect of external variables in beliefs, attitudes and actions (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw,
1989), leading to many researchers testing and developing the model with different
external variables. A systematic evaluation of all these studies that predicate upon TAM to
assess users’ e-learning acceptance, as well as an analysis of the relationship of PU and
PEOU with all the external variables investigated in the literature will provide valuable
insight to researchers and system developers.
This work examines 203 different studies that explore users’ e-learning acceptance and
identifies 129 external variables to explain PU/PEOU, leading to the testing of 220 different
hypothesis for 714 times. It is being aimed that an extention to TAM is proposed after a
careful examination of external variables with beliefs.
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL
TAM is a theoretically validated, robust model that aims to explain computer acceptance
determinants (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989) and comprises of five basic components;
Perceived Usefulness (PU), Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), Attitude Towards Using (A),
Behavioral Intention to Use (I) and Actual Use (A). Being an adaptation of Theory of
Reasoned Action (TRA), TAM identifies two main belief structures, PU and PEOU as attitude
determinants of both the use of intention and actual use of information technologies
(Taylor and Todd, 1995). The model proposes external variables to explain PU and PEOU,
while the latter determines PU and A, the former establishes A and I. Additionally, A affects
I, and I influences U (As shown in Figure 1).

6
Figure 1. Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989)
TAM proposes that individuals’ intention to use information technologies are determined
by two belief structures: PU, the belief that one’s utilization of information technologies
will enhance her work performance and PEOU, the belief that no significant effort will be
spared to use information technologies (Vankatesh & Bala, 2008). PU and PEOU are two
theoretical structures that are the basic determinants of systems usage (Davis, 1989).
In most of the empirical work conducted, it has been shown that PU is a robust determinant
of adoption intention, while PEOU has a relatively less consistent effect (Venkatesh & Davis,
2000). The ‘attitude’ variable is expected to partially mediate the effect of these beliefs on
intention to use. Nonetheless, research show that attitude is not a significant facilitator in
explaining the causal relationship between belief structures and intention to use. (Davis,
Bargozzi & Warshaw, 1989).
According to TAM; PU and PEOU mediates between the effects of various external variables
on the intention to use (Vankatesh & Davis, 2000). Even though TAM and other user
acceptance models have been validated empirically, researchers still add new external
variables to improve the limited specificity and explanatory utility of these models (Tarhini,
Hone & Liu, 2013.b). To improve the explanatory power of the model, incorporating
additional variables or integrating it with other information technologies models is crucial
(Hu, Chau & Sheng, 1999).
Researchers are expected to extend and assess theoretical acceptance models with various
external variables, especially in the field of e-learning. Correlation with TAM is often
supported in e-learning acceptance studies, since the model proves effective in the
investigation of e-learning acceptance technologies (Sumak, Hericko & Pusnik, 2011). This
study evaluates previous research that utilized TAM to assess e-learning acceptance; and
examines the relationship between additional external variables analyzed in these research
with belief structures.
RESEARCH METHOD
A quantitative meta-analysis is conducted to identify the users’ perception of usefulness and
ease of use in e-learning systems. Previous work that benefitted from TAM to examine the
acceptance or usage of e-learning technologies or systems have been carefully evaluated,
resulting in the selection of 203 valid studies to be analyzed. These work comprise of 177
published journal papers, 22 conference papers and 4 PhD thesis. Studies are obtained through
applying key words as Technology Acceptance Model, TAM 2, TAM 3, Perceived Usefulness,
Perceived Ease of Use, Behavioural Intention to Use for TAM; and E-Learning, Learning
Management System, Web-Based Learning, Online Learning, Distant Education, Moodle, Second
Life for e-learning systems.
Following the selection of studies to be analyzed; publications are grouped by their respective
countries, participants, TAM components utilized and variables tested against PU and PEOU (As
shown in Appendix 1). Studies in the scope of this work are conducted in 41 different countries,
respectively in, Taiwan (44), Malaysia (16), Spain (15), China (14), United States of America

7
(12), Hong Kong (10), South Korea (8), Iran (8), Turkey (8) and United Kingdom (7). Seven of
these publications are conducted in multiple countries (Abbas (2016), Arenas-Gaitan, Ramírez-
Correa & Rondan-Cataluña (2011), Capece & Campisi (2011), Ramírez-Correa Arenas-Gaitan &
Rondan-Cataluña (2015), Tajudeen, Basha, Michael & Mukthar (2012), Zhao & Tan (2010).
In addition, Armenteros, Liaw, Fernandez, Díaz & Sanchez (2013) carried out their research with
instructors from various countries. When these work are grouped by seven main geographical
regions (As shown in Table 1), it has been seen that the majority of research conducted are
clustered in East Asia and Pacific (104), Europe and Central Asia (41) and Middle East and North
Africa (32), as the distribution of research is remarkably skewed towards East Asian countries
like Taiwan, Malaysia, China, Hong Kong and South Korea.
The work spanned in this study is also classified based on the e-learning user types that the
models developed are tested for. 152 of these research examines the e-learning acceptance
behaviors of students in primary, secondary and tertiary stages. Employees from different
professions (construction professionals, managers, nurses, blue-collar workers, etc.) are
studied in 28 publications and 16 papers span the behaviors of education professionals
(academics, faculty members, instructors, lecturers and teachers). In addition, 5 of these papers
extend their scope to a wider range of citizens. A model developed in one of these studies is
tested both on educators and students while another paper fails to give sufficient information
regarding the user base studied.
Table 1. Distribution of Research by Region (For Studies Conducted in Multiple Countries,
All Countries in Question Are Taken into Consideration)
Region
Number of Studies
East Asia & Pacific
104
Europe & Central Asia
41
Middle East & North Africa
32
North America
16
Latin America & the Caribbean
7
Sub-Saharan Africa
6
South Asia
3
International
1
Total
210
Majority of the information technologies acceptance research that takes the model as a
reference does not include all of TAM’s five main components due to various reasons. For
instance, it is still being debated whether A acts as a robust mediator of the effect of the
belief variables on I, as TRA and TRM proposes (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). PU,
PEOU and I ensue as the most extensively used variables in the research spanned (As
shown in Table 2).
Table 2. TAM Variable Combinations Used in Literature Reviewed
TAM Variable
Combinations
Used
Number of
Studies
PU-PEOU-I
77
PU-PEOU-A-I
51
PU-PEOU-I-U
31
PU-PEOU-A-I-U
12
PU-PEOU-A
7
PU-PEOU-U
7
Others
18
Total
203

8
129 different external variables to be tested as determinants of PU and PEOU are
incorporated into the models studied in all these aforementioned research. Since this
study’s main objective is to identify the factors that affect user beliefs in e-learning
systems, relationships that locate these external variables as the antecedents of A,I, U or
the interdependences between dependent variables are not within the scope of this work.
The effects of 129 different external variables on PU and PEOU are tested in 220 different
hypotheses in 203 publications studied (As shown in Appendix 2). In some of the cases,
researchers have chosen to examine the impact of these independent variables in only one
of the belief structures, where 220 different hypotheses are tested 714 times.
As a result, the hypotheses examined most frequently are ordered as follows: Self Efficacy-
PEOU (71), Self Efficacy-PU (50), Subjective Norm-PU (33), Anxiety-PEOU (19),
Interaction-PU (18), Experience-PEOU (18), Enjoyment-PEOU (16), Experience-PU (14),
Interaction-PEOU (12), Enjoyment-PU (12) and Subjective Norm-PEOU (12). Moreover, it
has been observed that some external variables are tested relatively more frequently
against the belief structures than their counterparts. For instance, Subjective Norm’s
influence on PU and Anxiety’s predictive value on PEOU are examined more frequently than
the variable’s effect on PEOU and PU, respectively.
Among the research studied, the relationship between Self Efficacy and PEOU ranks as the
most validated and acccepted with 58 instances, followed by Subjective Norm-PU (27), Self
Efficacy-PU (24), Interaction-PU (15), Enjoyment-PEOU (13), Anxiety-PEOU (12),
Enjoyment-PU (12), Compatibility-PU (10), Subjective Norm-PEOU (9) and Interaction-
PEOU(8). The most frequently accepted relationships in these research are incorporated
into the ASME proposed in this study.
Factoring in the relatively sporadically validated hypotheses into the model can pose a
threat to its credibility. For example, three of the publications examined find out
Information Quality to significantly influence users’ PU with a positive coefficient.
Nevertheless, these tests do not provide a solid foundation on the validity of this
relationship and the scarcity makes it difficult to find consistent questionnaire items on the
variable studied.
This study reviews and analyses the literature based on the hypotheses between
independent variables and belief structures, rather taking into account the former in an
absolute basis, proposing an extended model as a result. The reason why the study’s
approach is predicated on the most validated hypotheses rather than the external variables
themselves stems from the fact that, if the most frequently used regressors were taken
into account, the Experience variable would have to be incorporated into the model.
Nevertheless, in the literature review conducted, of the 18 publications that examine the
relationship between Experience and PEOU only 8 of them explain a significant pattern.
The statistic is a mere 14 to 5 for the relationship between Experience and PU. Therefore,
independent variables that have no significant effect on belief structures, despite having
been frequently examined, are eliminated from this study.
Another issue that one has to put forward is that, while an external variable is shown to
have a significant effect on one belief structure, a similar relationship may not be pertinent
for the one with the other belief variable. For example, the hypothesis that Anxiety being
a significant determinant of PEOU has been accepted in 12 of the 19 studies conducted. On
the other hand, Anxiety’s influence on PU bears significance in only 3 among 8 models. This
urges the study’s research method to only take into account external variables shown to
have significant effect on PU and PEOU, rather than the frequency in which they are
incorporated in the models spanned.
In conclusion, this study embeds into ASME the external variables that are shown to have
significant effects on e-learning users’ perception of Usefulness and Ease of Use in the
literature review conducted, helping increase the model’s explanatory power.

9
ACCEPTENCE AND SATISFACTION MODEL FOR E-LEARNING (ASME)
Following the literature review, hypotheses that are most frequently accepted in tests
where external variables are examined against belief structures are incorporated in the
model. These can be listed as follows: Self Efficacy-PEOU, Subjective Norm-PU, Self
Efficacy-PU, Interaction-PU, Enjoyment-PEOU, Anxiety-PEOU, Enjoyment-PU,
Compatibility-PU, Subjective Norm-PEOU and Interaction-PEOU. Apart from 6 regressors
and 10 hypotheses, the model also includes PU, PEOU and I, variables embodied in original
TAM. Satisfaction, a factor that was not included in the original TAM has also been added
to the model.
Research Hypotheses Based on External Variables
Self Efficacy
Self Efficacy is an individuals’ own perception of her talent of accomplishing a duty
(Bandura, 1982). From an e-learning point of view, this description can be paraphrased as
an individual’s self perception of her talent in receiving education via utilizing the e-
learning system. In this meta-analysis, it has been assessed that Self Efficacy is the most
widely used and accepted determinant of users’ Ease of Use perceptions. Moreover, the
hypothesis that Self Efficacy has a significant effect on PU is the second most examined
and the third most accepted in the researched reviewed within the scope of this study. Self-
Efficacy Theory predicts that individuals perform better when they believe they possess the
necessary talents (Barling & Beattie, 1983). Hence, it is expected that users with a higher
degree of Self-Efficacy have stronger intentions to adopt e-learning systems (Hsia, Chang
& Tseng, 2014).
Research show that Self Efficacy directly influences the e-learning users’ perception of Ease
of Use. In the literature review conducted, 58 of the 71 publications that examine Self-
Efficacy’s level of influence on PEOU for e-learning systems confirm the presence of a
significant and positive relationship. This can be explained by the relatively higher level of
perseverance among users with higher levels of Self-Efficacy upon facing problems.
24 of these work accept the hypothesis that there is positive correlation between Self-
Effiacy and PU. It is expected that e-learning systems’ users with high levels of Self-Efficacy
will believe in benefitting from the system without facing a major difficulty. Therefore,
following hypotheses can be put forward:
 Hypothesis 1: Self-Efficacy has a positive and significant effect on PU for e-
learning systems.
 Hypothesis 2: Self-Efficacy has a positive and significant effect on PEOU for e-
learning systems.
Subjective Norm
Subjective Norm is defined as an individual’s perception of whether the majority of people
important to the individual think she should perform the activity in question (Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000). It can also be referred to as the social pressure perceived on whether to
perform the behaviour or not (Ajzen, 1991). From an e-learning based perspective, one can
also characterize the paradigm as the social pressure one perceives on using e-learning
systems (Agudo-Peregrina, Hernandez-García & Pascual-Miguel, 2014). Even though TRA
theorizes Subjective Norm as a direct determinant of intention, TAM hypothesizes
otherwise (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). Subjective Norm and social impact are used
interchangeably in various theories (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003), this study
follows the same path.
Subjective Norm’s effect on e-learning systems’ users PU has been examined and accepted
in an extensive array of research. In the literature reviewed within the scope of this work,
27 of the 33 publications testing Subjective Norm’s influence on users’ PU accept the
hypothesis of a positive and significant relationship, which is the second most frequently
accepted one among the 220 hypotheses covered. The social pressure on an e-learning

10
systems’ user from her esteemed peers, instructors or family to use the aforementioned
system may trigger the user’s perception of the system’s practicality.
The relationship between Subjective Norm and PEOU, despite having been tested less
frequently, implies a positive and significant relationship as well. In 8 of the 12 publications
studied, it has been accepted that Subjective Norm directly influences PEOU. E-learning
systems’ users thought that her esteemed peers should also benefit from the system may
result in the perception of the convenience of the system. In light of all these views, one
can propose the following hypotheses:
 Hypothesis 3: Subjective Norm has a positive and significant effect on PU for e-
learning systems.
 Hypothesis 4: Subjective Norm has a positive and significant effect on PEOU for
e-learning systems.
Interaction
The key aspects of learning processes can be listed as the interactions between students,
between students and teaching staff as well as the collaboration in learning from these
interactions (Abbad, Morris & Nahlik, 2009). Literature review suggests that increasing
interaction results in higher motivation, boosts the level of satisfaction received from
learning, causes a more optimistic view on learning, triggers effective learning and success
(Donnelly, 2010). Interaction, is as critical as in e-learning as it is in conventional learning
processes. Interaction between students and teaching staff as well as among students is
facilitated via the extensive utilization of e-mails, chat rooms, bulletin boards in e-learning
systems (Pituch & Lee, 2006). Development of e-learning systems is mainly triggered by
technological improvements that facilitate interactions among students (Abbad, Morris &
Nahlik, 2009).
The hypothesis that interaction influences the e-learning systems’ users’ PU has been
examined and accepted in 18 and 15 studies, respectively, the hypothesis ranking fourth
among in the most frequently accepted hypotheses of the literature reviewed. Moreover,
the relationship between Interaction and PEOU has been confirmed to have significance in
8 of the 12 publications spanned. It can be inferred that the advanced interaction level
users build among themselves and with their instructors can have a direct and positive
effect on their PU and PEOU, leading one to propose the following hypotheses:
 Hypothesis 5: Interaction has a positive and significant effect on PU for e-
learning systems.
 Hypothesis 6: Interaction has a positive and significant effect on PEOU for e-
learning systems.
Enjoyment
Enjoyment is the level an individual perceives her usage of technology as enjoyable without
taking into account the expected performance results (Lubbe & Low, 1999). In e-learning
systems, Enjoyment is closely related to whether the individual deems her usage as
exciting, satisfactory and pleasant (Armenteros, 2013). Enjoyment is an example of
internal motivation and a significant determinant of user acceptance (Shyu & Huang,
2011). In TAM 3, Enjoyment is proposed as an antecedent of PEOU (Venkatesh & Bala,
2008).
Various research have examined whether the enjoyment of an e-learning system’s user
significantly and positively influences her PU. In the 16 publications reviewed within the
scope of this study, 13 accepts this hypothesis. Many software developers include
enjoyable design features in systems, not only aiming to increase the level of Enjoyment
but also bearing the intention to boost the system’s perceived user-friendliness
(Venkatesh, 2000). The lack of enjoyment may cause the user to feel that she has to spare
more effort to use the system. Likewise, in all the 12 research reviewed, Enjoyment is found

11
out to significantly and positively affect PEOU. Therefore, the below hypotheses can be
suggested:
 Hypothesis 7: Enjoyment has a positive and significant effect on PU for e-learning
systems.
 Hypothesis 8: Enjoyment has a positive and significant effect on PEOU for e-
learning systems.
Anxiety
From a computer-science perspective, anxiety is simply the fear and concern upon facing
the probability of using a computer (Venkatesh, 2000), while another definition describes
Computer Anxiety as an individual’s inclination to feel concern about using a computer
(Howard and Smith, 1986). Interaction with a computer can revive strong and negative
feelings in users (Saade and Kira, 2006). Hence, users with a relatively lower level of
anxiety have a higher possibility of interaction with systems (Karaali, Gumussoy & Calisir,
2011).
Research reviewed within the scope of this study found out that the relationship between
Computer Anxiety and PEOU have been tested and accepted more frequently than the one
between Computer Anxiety and PU. (12 of the 19 studies examined found out that
Computer Anxiety is a significant determinant of PEOU whereas only 3 of the 8 publications
do so for the external variable’s relationship with PU). If an individual gets anxious upon
her usage of information technologies, she might perceive the system as complicated and
difficult (Raaij & Schepers, 2008). This lemma can also be replicated for e-learning systems.
Therefore, the following hypothesis can be put forward:
 Hypothesis 9: Anxiety has a negative and significant effect on PEOU for e-learning
systems.
Compatibility
Compatibility is the level in which users perceive an innovation to be compatible with their
current values, needs and past experiences (Moore & Benbasat, 1991). A higher level of
Compatibility generally results in a higher level of system acceptance (Tung & Chang,
2008.a), whereas the Diffusion of Innovation Theory classifies innovations’ characteristics
based on their Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability and Observability
(Rogers, 1983).
The Relative Advantage and Complexity paradigms in DIT can be used interchangeably with
PU and PEOU in TAM, respectively (Chang & Tung, 2008). Therefore, it has been assessed
that many of the studies examined developed a hybrid model via synthesizing DIT and TAM,
and theorized Compatibility as a pre-determinant of TAM’s belief structures.
Research reviewed within the scope of this study found out that the relationship between
Compatibility and PU have been tested and accepted more frequently than the one between
Compatibility and PU. (10 of the 11 studies examined found out that Compatibility is a
significant determinant of PU whereas only 3 of the 6 publications do so for the external
variable’s relationship with PEOU). A user’s thought that e-learning is harmonious with her
own beliefs, needs and experiences can trigger a positive perception of the system’s value
added. Hence, the following hypothesis can be tested:
 Hypothesis 10: Compatibility has a positive and significant effect on PU for e-
learning systems.

12
The TAM Variables
Original TAM comprises of PU, PEOU, A, I and U (As shown in Figure 1), where the first two
variables represent the belief structures in TRA. Among the many determinants of system
usage, PU and PEOU are the most important (Davis, 1989). TAM proposes that PU and PEOU
(Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) mediate the impact of many external variables on the intention
to use. External variables help understand the impact scale and scope of PU and PEOU and
provide guidance in designing action plans to facilitate usage (Legris, Ingham & Collerette,
2003).
It is expected from the variable A to mediate the effect of belief variables on I.
Nevertheless, current research show that Attitude does not sufficiently explain the causal
relationship between belief and intention (Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989), leading to the
opinion that the connection between A and I is spurious (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis,
2003). Eliminating A, therefore, could prove valuable in examining PU and PEOU’s influence
on I (Venkatesh, 2000). In line with this view, it has been observed that many studies
frequently use PU, PEOU and I of the TAM components and rule out A (As shown in Table
2). Moreover, TAM proposes that PEOU is a direct determinant of PU, influencing I directly
and through its effect on PU (As shown in Figure 1). In e-learning systems, user’s opinion
on the difficulty of the system can affect her perception on the system’s usefulness.
Therefore, the following hypotheses can be tested:
 Hypothesis 11: PEOU has a positive and significant effect on PU for e-learning
systems.
 Hypothesis 12: PU has a positive and significant effect on I for e-learning
systems.
 Hypothesis 13: PEOU has a positive and significant effect on I for e-learning
systems.
Satisfaction
The main objective of a company is to cater for the needs that increase customer
satisfaction, rather than just rendering goods and services. Therefore; customer
satisfaction is a key factor in gaining competitive advantage (Dominici & Palumbo, 2013).
One of the results of customer satisfaction is the re-purchasing of the good and service
rendered. Similarities can be found between this activity of re-purchasing and the
continuous usage of information technologies (Lee, 2010). User satisfaction is one of the
important criteria that measures the success of information systems, where the variable is
proposed to be one of the six main dimensions of information systems success in the IS
Success Model (DeLone & McLean, 1992).
A considerable amount of research investigating users’ acceptance of e-learning systems
incorporated user satisfaction into TAM and tested its inter-relationships with other TAM
components, even though original TAM does not take into consideration the effect of user
satisfaction on information systems’ acceptance. In all of the 14 publications spanned, PU
has been accepted as a significant determinant of Satisfaction, whereas in 7 of the 10
research examined find out a significant connection between PEOU and Satisfaction.
Relationship between Satisfaction and I and Satisfaction and U was deemed to be
significant in 10 and 2 of the studies investigated, respectively (As shown in Table 3).

13
Table 3. Relationship Between Satisfaction Variable & TAM Components in Research
Analyzed
Independent
variable
Dependent
variable
Number of
studies
investigated
Number of
studies that
accept a
significant
relationship
Referances
PU
Satisfaction
14
14
Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015), Al-
Azawei, Parslow & Lundqvist (2017),
Al-Hawari & Mouakket (2010), Capece
& Campisi, (2011), Italy & Portugal,
Capace & Campisi (2013), Basic &
Optional, Lee (2010), Lee & Lehto
(2013), Ma, Chao & Cheng (2013), Park,
Son & Kim (2012), Perreira, Ramos &
Chagas (2015), Roca, Chiu & Martinez
(2006), Shih, Chen, Shih & Su (2012)
PEOU
Satisfaction
10
7
Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015), Al-
Azawei, Parslow & Lundqvist (2017),
Al-Hawari & Mouakket (2010), Capece
& Campisi, (2011), Italy & Portugal,
Capace & Campisi (2013), Basic &
Optional, Lee (2010), Park, Son & Kim
(2012), Perreira, Ramos & Chagas
(2015), Roca, Chiu & Martinez (2006)
Satisfaction
I
10
10
Cho, Cheng & Lai (2009), Cho, Cheng &
Hung (2009), Lee (2010), Lee & Lehto
(2013), Ma, Chao & Cheng (2013),
Mohammadi (2015.a), Mohammadi
(2015.b), Ramayah & Lee (2012), Roca,
Chiu & Martinez (2006), Shih, Chen,
Shih & Su (2012)
Satisfaction
U
2
2
Mohammadi (2015.a), Mohammadi
(2015.b)
Users’ belief that e-learning systems may influence performance and apprehension of the
system as relatively easy can trigger a positive perception of satisfaction. In addition, user
satisfaction may appear as a vital determinant of the intention to use e-learning systems.
Therefore, the below hypotheses can be suggested:
 Hypothesis 14: PEOU has a positive and significant effect on Satisfaction for e-
learning systems.
 Hypothesis 15: PU has a positive and significant effect on Satisfaction for e-
learning systems.
 Hypothesis 16: Satisfaction has a positive and significant effect on I for e-
learning systems.
As a result of the meta-analysis conducted, Acceptance and Satisfaction Model for E-
Learning (ASME) has been proposed (As shown in Figure 2).

14
Figure 2. Acceptance and Satisfaction Model for E-learning (ASME)
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this study is to identify the factors that influence users’ acceptance
of e-learning systems and hence, guide researchers and systems developers in designing
the necessary corrective measures. In line with this target, research that investigate user
acceptance in e-learning systems via utilising TAM was specified and assessed.
Relationships between TAM’s belief structures, PU and PEOU with the external variables
proposed in these research were analyzed. Hypotheses that were frequently accepted in
the literature were identified and incorporated into the model proposed.
In the meta-analysis conducted, 177 journal papers, 22 conference papers and 4 PhD thesis
that examine user acceptance in e-learning systems via TAM are analyzed where 129
different external variables are proposed as antecedents of belief structures. 220
hypotheses that question the relationship of these external variables with PU and PEOU are
tested 714 times. As a result of this literature review, the most frequently accepted
relationships are ranked as follows: Self Efficacy-PEOU (58), Subjective Norm-PU (27), Self
Efficacy-PU (24), Interaction-PU (15), Enjoyment-POEU (13), Anxiety-PEOU (12),
Enjoyment-PU (12), Compatibility-PU (10), Subjective Norm-PEOU (9) and Interaction-
PEOU (8).
Variables and hypotheses proposed in the model are identified through a three-phased
approach. First, relationships between variables recurrently accepted in the literature
reviewed and PU/PEOU are analyzed and the most frequently accepted hypotheses are
incorporated into the model. In the second step, a thorough assessment is conducted on
the utilization of TAM’s components and inferences made regarding these variables. In line
with these takeaways, the variables A and U, which make up two of the five components of
the original TAM are excluded from the model proposed. Last, the relationship between
TAM variables and User Satisfaction, a variable not included in the original TAM is
examined. Conforming to the findings of these studies, the position of User Satisfaction in
the model proposed is identified. As a result of this three-phased approach Acceptance and
Satisfaction Model for E-Learning (ASME) is proposed.
In the literature reviewed, only one publication that conducted a meta-analysis of the
studies utilizing TAM within the perspective of users’ e-learning acceptance is attained.
Abdullah and Ward (2016) investigated 107 studies and identified the five most recurrently
used external variables. This study increases the span of the literature review to 203 and
takes into account the most frequently accepted hypotheses, rather than the external
variables. Therefore, the model proposed does not include hypotheses that are not
accepted, despite having been frequently tested or external variables that are found out to
have a significant relationship with only one of the belief structures.

15
Literature reviewed are also classified based on their respective geographical region and
countries, allowing the researchers to investigate the differences of users in different
regions. Most of the literature reviewed was conducted in East Asia and Pacific, while
relatively less publications within the scope of the study originated from Latin America and
the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. It is also observed that the effect of
System Functionality (91.7%), Playfulness (81.8%) and Self-Efficacy (85%) on PU and
PEOU were the most recurrently accepted hypotheses in East Asia and Pacific, Europe and
Central Asia and Middle East and North Africa, respectively. Moreover, Subjective Norm is
expected to have a higher acceptance rate in Eastern cultures where users’ social attributes
are regarded with increased value. The higher acceptance rates of Subjective Norm in
Middle East and North Africa (87,5%) and East Asia and Pacific (85%) compared to Europe
and Central Asia (76,9%) validates this view. It should also be emphasized that Self
Efficacy has a high acceptance rate in Middle East and North Africa (85%) compared to
East Asia and Pacific (67.6%), Europe and Central Asia (52.2%).
Further research should focus upon empirically testing the model on different e-learning
systems, allowing researchers to modify the model based on the structure of the e-learning
system as well as the region the study is conducted.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The study has some limitations that can be addressed in future studies. Firstly, the model
proposed as a result of the literature review, has not been empirically tested. In future
works, the proposed model should be empirically tested and results should be discussed.
Moreover, in the model proposed in this study, according to the literature the most
accepted hypotheses affecting PU and PEOU, proposed by TAM as two main determinants
of intention to use, are suggested. However, some hypotheses that have never been tested
or rarely tested in the literature may also give effective results. In future studies,
researchers should test possible extrinsic variables that they consider possibly effective on
e-learning acceptance, by adding those variables to the suggested model in this study.
Despite the existing limitations, this study may contribute to the e-learning system
developers and researchers working on this field.
BIODATA and CONTACT ADDRESSES of AUTHORS
Rahmi BAKI was born in Ankara, Turkey in 1988. He received her B.A
and M.A. degrees in Industrial Engineering from Gazi University,
Turkey. He is working as a Research Assistant at Management
Information Systems, Aksaray University, Turkey. He is currently
studying his PhD in Industrial Engineering in the Kırıkkale University,
Turkey. His academic interest areas are distance education, facility
layout, supply chain management and logistics management.
Rahmi BAKI
Department of Management Information Systems
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Aksaray University, 68100, Aksaray, Turkey
Phone: +90 382 288 24 58
E-mail: rahmibaki@aksaray.edu.tr

16
Dr. Burak BIRGOREN is a Professor of Industrial Engineering at
Engineering Faculty, Kırıkkale University. Dr. Birgoren gained his
Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering at PennState University in 1998. His
academic interest areas are quality control and management,
reliability engineering, production planning and control. He
published 12 journal articles in international indexes, and 4
international book chapters. He has over 400 citations at Google
Scholar.
Burak BIRGOREN
Department of Industrial Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Kırıkkale University, 71451, Kırıkkale, Turkey
Phone: +90 318 357 4242/1010
E-mail: birgoren@kku.edu.tr
Dr. Adnan AKTEPE is an Assistant Professor Doctor in the
Department of Industrial Engineering at Kirikkale University,
Turkey. He has received the BSc degree in industrial engineering
from Marmara University in 2007; MSc degree in industrial
engineering from Kirikkale University in 2009 and PhD degree from
Gazi University Industrial Engineering Department in 2015. His
research areas include performance management, customer
satisfaction, applications of multi-criteria decision making
methods, fuzzy logic, data mining, service systems and intelligent
techniques in industrial engineering and management science.
Adnan AKTEPE
Department of Industrial Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
Kırıkkale University, 71451, Kırıkkale, Turkey
Phone: +90 318 357 42 42 / 1009
E-mail: aaktepe@gmail.com
REFERENCES
Abbad, M.M. Morris, D., Nahlik, C.D. (2009). Looking under the bonnet: factors affecting student
adoption of e-Learning systems in Jordan. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 10(2), 1-15.
Abbas, T. (2016). Social factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in
developing and developed countries A Structural Equation Modeling approach. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology,7(2), 200–212.
Abdel-Wahap, A.G. (2008). Modeling students intention to adopt e-learning a case from Egypt. The
Electronical Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 34(1), 1-13.
Abdullah, F., Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended Technology Acceptance Model for e-
learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human
Behaviour, 56, 238-256.
Abdullah, F. Ward, R. Ahmed, E. (2016). Investigating the influence of the most commonly used
external variables of TAM on students’ perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived
usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 75-90.
Abramson, J. Dawson, M. Stevens, J. (2015). An examination of the prior use of e-Learning within
an extended Technology Acceptance Model and the factors that influence the behavioral
intention of users to use m-Learning. SAGE Open, 5(4), 1-9.

17
Adetimirin, A. (2015). An Empirical study of online discussion forums by library and information
science postgraduate students using Technology Acceptance Model 3. Journal of
Information Technology Education: Research, 14, 257-269.
Agudo-Peregrina, A.F. Hernandez-Garcia, A. Pascual-Miguel, F. (2014). Behavioral intention, use
behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: Differences between higher
education and lifelong learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 301–314.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 50, 179-211.
Al-Adwan, A. Al-Adwan, A. Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using
Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education
and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 9(2), 4-18.
Al-Alak, B.A. Alnawas, I.A.M. (2011). Measuring the acceptance and adoption of e-learning by
academic staff. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(2),
201.
Al-Ammary, J.H. Al-Sherooqi, A.H. Al-Sherooqi, H.K. (2014). The acceptance of social networking as
a learning tools at university of Bahrain. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology. 4(2), 208-214.
Al-Ammarı, D.J. Hamad, M.S. (2008). Factors influencing the adoption of e-learning at University of
Bahrain. Second International Conference and Exhibition for Zain E-learning Center, 28-
30.
Al-Aulamie, A. Mansour, A. Daly, H. Adjei, O. (2012). The effect of intrinsic motivation on learners'
behavioural intention to use e-learning systems. In International Conference on
Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training, 1-4.
Al-Azawei, A. Lundqvist, K. (2015). Learner differences in perceived satisfaction of an online
learning: An extension to the Technology Acceptance Model in an Arabic sample. The
Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 13(5), 408-426.
Al-Azawei, A. Parslow, P. Lundqvist, K. (2017). Investigating the effect of learning styles in a
blended e-learning system: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM).
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 1-23.
Alenezi, A. R. (2012). E-learning acceptance: technological key factors for the successful students'
engagement in e-learning system. In EEE'12 -The 2012 International Conference on e-
Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government, 16-19.
Alenezi, A. R. Karim, A.M.A. Veloo, A. (2010). An empirical investigation into the role of enjoyment,
computer anxiety, computer self-efficacy and internet experience in influencing the
students' intention to use e-learning: A case study from Saudi Arabian Governmental
Universities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 22-34.
Alenezi, A.R. Karim, A.M.A. Veloo, A. (2011). Institutional support and e-learning acceptance: an
extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Instructional
Technology and Distance Learning, 8(2), 3-16.
Al-Gahtani, S.S. (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A
Structural Equation Model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 12, 27–50.
Al-Hawari. M.A. Mouakket, S. (2010). The influence of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) factors
on students’ e-satisfaction and e-retention within the context of UAE e-learning.
Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(4), 299 – 314.
Ali, H. Ahmed, A. A. Tariq, T. G. Safdar, H. (2013). Second life (SL) in education: The intensions to
use at university of Bahrain. In Fourth International Conference on e-Learning Best
Practices in Management, Design and Development of e-Courses: Standards of Excellence
and Creativity, 205-215.
Al-Mushasha, N. F. (2013). Determinants of e-learning acceptance in higher education environment
based on extended Technology Acceptance Model. In Fourth International Conference on
E-learning Best Practices in Management, Design and Development of E-courses:
Standards of Excellence and Creativity, 261-266.
Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in
Jordan higher education. Computers in Human. Behavior, 65–71.

18
Arenas-Gaitan, J. Rondan-Cataluña, F.J. Ramırez-Correa, P.E. (2010). Gender influence in
perception and adoption of e-learning platforms. Advances in Data Networks,
Communications, Computers, 30-35.
Arenas-Gaitan, J. Ramírez-Correa, P.E. Rondan-Cataluña, F.J. (2011). Cross cultural analysis of the
use and perceptions of web based learning systems. Computers & Education, 57, 1762–
1774.
Armenteros, M. Liaw, S.S. Fernandez, M. Díaz, R.F. Sanchez, R.A. (2013). Surveying FIFA instructors’
behavioral intention toward the Multimedia Teaching Materials. Computers & Education,
61, 91–104.
Attis, J. (2014). An investıgation of the variables that predict teacher e-learning acceptance
(Published PhD thesis). Liberty University, Virginia, U.S.A, 62-65.
Aypay, A. Celik, H. C. Aypay, A. Sever, M. (2012). Technology acceptance in education: A study of
pre-service teachers in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4),
264-272.
Baharin, A.T. Latehb, H. Nathan, S.S. Nawawi, H.M. (2015). Evaluating effectiveness of IDEWL
using Technology Acceptance Model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 171, 897 –
904.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 12-147.
Bao, Y. Xiong, T. Hu, Z. Kıbelloh, M. (2013). Exploring gender differences on general and specific
computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption. Journal of Educational Computıng
Research, 29(1), 111-132.
Barling, J. Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior Management, 5, 41-51.
Basoglu, N. Ozdogan, M.K. (2011). Exploring the major determinants of mobile learning adaption.
Bogazici University Journal of Education, 28(1), 31-46.
Bhatiasevi, V. (2011). Acceptance of e-learning for users in higher education: An extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model. The Social Sciences, 6(6), 513-520.
Brown, I. Ingram, L. Stothers, R. Thorp, S. (2006). The role of learning styles in the acceptance of
web based learning tools. In 36th Annual Conference of the Southern African Computer
Lecturers Association SACLA2006, 1(1), 189-200.
Calisir, F. Gumussoy, C.A. Bayraktaroglu, A.E. Karaali, D. (2014). Predicting the intention to use a
web-based learning system: Perceived content quality, anxiety, perceived system quality,
image, and the Technology Acceptance Model. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing & Service Industries, 24(5), 515–531.
Cabada, R.Z. Estrada, M.L.B. Hernandez, F.G. Bustillos, R.O. Reyes-García, C.A. (2017). An affective
and Web 3.0-based learning environment for a programming language. Telematics and
Informatics.
Capece, G. Campisi, D. (2011). Technological change and innovation behaviour in high level
education: An international comparison between Italian and Portuguese samples.
Knowledge and Process Management, 18(1), 67–74.
Capece, G. Campisi, D. (2013). User satisfaction affecting the acceptance of an e-learning platform
as a mean for the development of the human capital. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 32(4), 335–343.
Chang, C.C. Yan, C.F. Tseng, C.S. (2012). Perceived convenience in an extended Technology
Acceptance Model: Mobile technology and English learning for college students.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 809-826.
Chang, C.C. Tseng, K.H. Liang, C. Yan, C.F. (2013). The influence of perceived convenience and
curiosity on continuance intention in mobile English learning for high school students
using PDAs. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 22(3), 373–386.
Chang, T.F. Chao, C.M. Cheng, B.R. (2015). Framework and verification of a blended e-learning
system behavioral intention model among clinical nurses. Journal of Baltic Science
Education, 14(6), 733-743.

19
Chang, C.T. Hajiyev, J. Su, C.R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use
elearning in Azerbaijan? The General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-
learning approach. Computers & Education, 111, 128-143.
Chang, Y.H. Liu, J.C. (2013). Applying an AR technıque to enhance situated heritage learning in a
ubiquıious learning environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
12(3), 21-32.
Chang, S.C. Tung, F.C. (2008). An empirical investigation of students’ behavioural intentions to use
the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 71–
83.
Chen, Y.C. Lin, Y.C. Yeh, R.C. Lou, S.J. (2013). Examining factors affecting college students'
intention to use web-based instruction systems: Towards an integrated model. Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 111-121.
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, 398–406, 2012.
Cheng, Y.M. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of e-learning acceptance. Information Systems
Journal, 21, 269–299.
Cheng, Y.M. (2012). Effects of quality antecedents on e-learning acceptance. Internet Research,
22(3), 361-390.
Cheng, Y.M. (2013). Exploring the roles of interaction and flow in explaining nurses' e-learning
acceptance. Nurse Education Today, 33, 73–80.
Cheng, Y.M. (2014). Roles of interactivity and usage experience in e-learning acceptance: A
longitudinal study. International Journal of Web Information Systems, 10(1), 2 – 23.
Cheng, Y.M. (2015). Towards an understanding of the factors affecting m-learning acceptance:
Roles of technological characteristics and compatibility. Asia Pacific Management Review,
20, 109-119.
Cheung, R. Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An
extension of the Technology Acceptance Model for e-learning. Computers & Education. 63,
160–175.
Cho, V. Cheng, T.C.E. Hung, H. (2009). Continued usage of technology versus situational factors:
An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26, 264–284.
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, 216–227.
Chow, M. Chan, L. Lo, B. Chu, W.P. Chan, T. Lai, Y.M. (2013). Exploring the intention to use a clinical
imaging portal for enhancing healthcare education. Nurse Education Today, 33, 655–662.
Chow, M. Herold, D.K. Choo, T.M. Chan, H. (2012). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to
explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers &
Education, 59, 1136–1144.
Cigdem, H. Topcu, A. (2015). Predictors of instructors’ behavioral intention to use learning
management system: A Turkish vocational college example. Computers in Human
Behavior, 52, 22–28.
Coskuncay, D.F. Ozkan, S. (2013). A model for instructors’ adoption of learning management
systems: empirical validatıon in higher education context. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 12(2), 13-25.
Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
Davis, F.D. Bagozzi, R.P. Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A
comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.
Davis, R. Wong, D. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring the optimal experience of the e-learning
environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 97-126.
DeLone, W.H. McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent
variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.

20
De Smet, C. Bourgonjon, J. De Wever, B. Schellens, T. Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional
use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school
teachers. Computers & Education, 58, 688–696.
Deshpande, Y. Bhattacharya, S. Yammiyavar, P. (2012). A behavioral approach to modeling Indian
children’s ability of adopting to e-learning environment. IEEE Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on Intelligent Human Computer Interaction, Kharagpur, 27-29.
Dominici, G. Palumbo, F. (2013). How to build an e-learning product: Factors for student/customer
satisfaction, Business Horizons, 56, 87–96.
Donnelly, R. (2010). Interaction analysis in a ‘Learning by Doing’ problem-based professional
development context. Computers & Education, 55, 1357-1366.
Escobar-Rodriguez, T. Monge-Lozano, P. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business
administration students. Computers & Education, 58, 1085–1093.
Fadare, O.G. Babatunde, O.H. Akomolafe, D.T. Lawal, O.O. (2011). Behavioral intention for mobile
learning on 3G mobile internet technology in south-west part of Nigeria. World Journal of
Engineering and Pure & Applied Sciences, 1(2), 19-28.
Fagan, M. Kilmon, C. Pandey, V. (2012). Exploring the adoption of a virtual reality simulation: The
role of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness. Campus-
Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 117 – 127.
Farahat, T. (2012). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to online learning in the Egyptian
universities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 95 – 104.
Florenthal, B. (2016). The value of interactive assignments in the online learning environment.
Marketing Education Review, 26(3), 154-170.
Freitas, A.S.D. Ferreira, J. B. Garcia, R. A. Kurtz, R. (2017). O efeito da ınteratividade e do suporte
tecnico na ıntencao de uso de um sistema de e-learning. Revista de Ciências da
Administracao. 19(47), 45.
Harmon, D.J. (2015). User acceptance of a novel anatomical sciences mobile app for medical
education-An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model (Published PhD thesis). The
Ohio State University, Ohiao, U.S.A.
Hashim, J. (2008). Factors influencing the acceptance of web-based training in Malaysia: Applying
the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Training and Development,
12(4), 253-264.
Hidayanto, A.N. Febriawan, D. Sucahyo, Y.G. Purwandari, B. (2014). Factors influencing the use of
e-class. Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information, 2(2), 121-125.
Ho, C.K.Y. Ke, W. Liu, H. (2015). Choice decision of e-learning system: Implications from construal
level theory. Information & Management, 52, 160–169.
Howard, S.G. Smith, D.R. (1986). Computer anxiety in management: myth or reality?
Communications of the ACM, 29(7), 611–615.
Hsia, J.W. Chang, C.C. Tseng, A.H. (2014). Effects of individuals' locus of control and computer self-
efficacy on their e-learning acceptance in high-tech companies. Behaviour & Information
Technology, 33(1), 51-64.
Hsia, J.W. Tseng, A.H. (2008). An enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for e-learning systems in
high-tech companies in Taiwan: Analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling. In
International Conference on Cyberworlds, 39-44.
Hsiao, K.L. Chen, C.C. (2015). How do we inspire children to learn with e-readers? Library Hi Tech,
33(4), 584 – 596.
Hsu, H.H. Chang, Y.Y. (2013). Extended TAM model: Impacts of convenience on acceptance and use
of Moodle. US-China Education Review, 3(4), 211-218.
Hu, P.J. Chau, P.Y.K. Sheng, O.R.L. Tam, K.Y. (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance Model
using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 16 (2), 91–112.
Huang, J.H. Lin, Y.R. Chuang, S.T. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A
perspective of the extended Technology Acceptance Model. The Electronic Library, 25(59),
585-598.

21
Hussein, R. Aditiawarman, U. Mohamed, N. (2007). E-Learning acceptance in a developing country:
A case of the Indonesian Open University. In German e- Science conference, 1-14.
Hussein, Z. (2017). Leading to Intention: The role of attitude in relation to Technology Acceptance
Model in e-Learning. Procedia Computer Science, 105, 159-164.
Hussein, A. Saad, M. (2016). Perceived risk and behavioral determinants of using ınternet banking
in Egypt. Journal of Behavioural Economics, Finance, Entrepreneurship, Accounting and
Transport, 4(3), 40-48.
Ibrahim, R. Leng, N.S. Yusoff, R.C.M. Samy, G.N. Masrom, S. Rizman, Z.I. (2017). E-learnıng
acceptance based on Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Fundamental and
Applied Sciences, 9(4S), 871-889.
Ifinedo, P. (2006). Acceptance and continuance intention of Web-based Learning Technologies
(WLT) use among university students in a Baltic Country. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries. 23(6), 1-20.
Indahyanti, U. Sukarjadi. (2015). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model to measure the
learning management system acceptance by students of Politeknik Sakti Surabay. Jurnal
Teknologi, 72(4), 127–131.
Ismail, N.Z. Razak, M.R. Zakariah, Z. Alias, N. Aziz, M.N.A. (2012). E-Learning continuance intention
among higher learning institution students’ in Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 67, 409 – 415.
Jan, A.U. Contreras, V. (2011). Technology Acceptance Model for the use of information technology
in universities. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 845–851.
Jung, H.J. (2015). Fostering an English teaching environment: Factors influencing English as a
foreign language teachers’ adoption of mobile learning. Informatics in Education, 14(2),
219–241.
Kang, M. Shin, W.S. (2015). Investigation of student acceptance of synchronous e-learning in an
online university. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(4), 475–495.
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, 343–354.
Khor, E.T. (2014). Student Perceptions of Using a SCORM-Compliant Learning Object (SCLO) for
Learning in an ODL Environment. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 9(1), 47
– 56.
Kilic, E. Guler, C. Celik, H.E., Tatli, C. (2015). Learning with interactive whiteboards determining the
factors on promoting interactive whiteboards to students by Technology Acceptance
Model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(4), 285 – 297.
Kim, S.H. Kim, H.C. Han, S.K. (2013). A development of learning widget on m-learning and e-
learning environments. Behaviour & Information Technology. 32(2), 190–202.
Lai, J.Y. Ulhas, K.R. (2012). Understanding acceptance of dedicated e-textbook applications for
learning: Involving Taiwanese university students. The Electronic Library, 30(3), 321 –
338.
Lau, S.H. Woods, P.C. (2008). An empirical study of learning object acceptance in multimedia
learning environment. Communications of the IBIMA, 5(1), 1-6.
Lau, S.H. Woods, P.C. (2009). Understanding learner acceptance of learning objects: The roles of
learning object characteristics and individual differences. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 40(6), 1059–1075.
Lee, M.K.O. Cheung, C.M.K. Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the
role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & Management, 42, 1095–1104,
2005.
Lee, Y.C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning
system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517 – 541.
Lee, Y.C. (2008). The role of perceived resources in online learning adoption. Computers &
Education, 50, 1423–1438.

22
Lee, M.C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An
extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54, 506–516.
Lee, B.C. Yoon, J.O. Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and
results. Computers & Education, 53, 1320–1329.
Lee, Y.H. Hsieh, Y.C. Ma, C.Y. (2011). A model of organizational employees’ e-learning systems
acceptance. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24, 355–366.
Lee, Y.H. Hsieh, Y.C. Hsu, C.N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the Technology
Acceptance Model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use e-learning systems.
Educational Technology & Society, 14 (4), 124–137.
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.
Lee, Y.H. Hsiao, C. Purnomo, S.H. (2014). An empirical examination of individual and system
characteristics on enhancing e-learning acceptance. Australasian Journal of Educational
Technology, 30(5), 562-579.
Lee, D.Y. Lehto, M.R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of
the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 61, 193–208.
Lefievre, V. (2012). Gender differences in acceptance by students of training software for office
tools. In Athens: ATINER'S conference paper series, 1-13.
Legris, P. Ingham, J. Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical
review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191-204.
Letchumanan, M. Tarmizi, R. (2011). Assessing the intention to use e-book among engineering
undergraduates in Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia. Library Hi Tech, 29(3), 512 – 528.
Li, Y. Duan, Y. Fu, Z. Alford, P. (2012). An empirical study on behavioural intention to reuse e-
learning systems in rural China. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 933-948.
Lin, Y.C. Chen, Y.C. Yeh, R.C. (2010). Understanding college students’ continuing intentions to use
multimedia e learning systems. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology
Education, 8(4), 488-493.
Lin, H.F. (2013). The effect of absorptive capacity perceptions on the context-aware ubiquitous
learning acceptance. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(4), 249 – 265.
Lin, S.C. Persada, S.F. Nadlifatin, R. (2014). A study of student behavior in accepting the blackboard
learning system: A Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) approach. In IEEE 18th
International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design. 457-462.
Little, P. (2016). An investigation of factors that influence registered nurses’ intentions to use e-
learning systems in completing higher degrees in nursing (Published PhD thesis). College
of Engineering and Computing Nova Southeastern University, Florida, U.S.A.
Liu, S.H. Liao, H.L. Peng, C.L. (2005). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model and flow theory to
online e-learning users’ acceptance behavior. Issues in Information Systems, 6(2), 175-
181.
Liu, S.H. Liao, H.L. Pratt, J.A. (2009). Impact of media richness and flow on e-learning technology
acceptance. Computers & Education, 52, 599–607.
Liu, X. (2010). Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: an
exploratory study of educational wikis. Communication Education, 59(1), 52-69.
Liu, Y. Li, H. Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: An empirical study.
Computers & Education, 55, 1211–1219.
Lo, F.C. Hong, J.C. Lin, M.X. Hsu, C.Y. (2012). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to
investigate impact of embodied games on learning of Xiao-zhuan. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 64, 545 – 554.
Lo, H.Y. Liu, G.Z. Wang, T.I. (2014). Learning how to write effectively for academic journals: A case
study investigating the design and development of a genre-based writing tutorial system.
Computers & Education, 78, 250-267.

23
Loukis, E. Pazalos, K. Salagara, A. (2012). Transforming e-services evaluation data into business
analytics using value models. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 11, 129–
141.
Lowe, B. D’alessandro, S. Wınzar, H. Laffey, D. Collier, W. (2013). The use of Web 2.0 technologies
in marketing classes: Key drivers of student acceptance. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
12(1), 412–422.
Lubbe, B. Louw, L. (2010). The perceived value of mobile devices to passengers across the airline
travel activity chain. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16, 12-15.
Ma, C. Chao, C. Cheng, B. (2013). Integrating Technology Acceptance Model and Task Technology
Fit into blended E-learning system. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(5), 736-742.
Macharia, J. Nyakwende, E. (2009). Factors affecting the adoption and diffusion of internet in
higher educational institutions in Kenya. Journal of Language, Technology &
Entrepreneurship in Africa, 1(2), 6-23.
Mafunda, B. Swart, A. Bere, A. (2016). Mobile learning usability evaluation using two adoption
models. Thammasat International Journal of Science and Technology, 21(5), 76-81.
Martin, R. G. (2012). Factors affecting the usefulness of social networking in e-learning at German
university of technology in Oman. International Journal of e- Education, e-Business, e
Management and e-Learning. 2(6), 498-502.
Martinez-Torres, M.R. Marin, S.L.T. Garcia, F.B. Vazquez, S.G. Oliva, M.A. Torres, T. (2008). A
technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching
according to the European higher education area. Behaviour & Information Technology,
27(6), 495-505.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with
the Theory of Planned Behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173-191.
Moghadam, A. H. Bairamzadeh, S. (2009). Extending the Technology Acceptance Model for E-
learning: A case study of Iran. In The Sixth International Conference on Information
Technology: New Generations, 1659-1660.
Mohamed, N. Abdul Karim, S. N. (2012). Open source e-learning anxiety, self-efficacy and
acceptance - A partial least square approach. International Journal of Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation, 4(6), 361-368.
Mohammadi, H. (2015.a). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM
and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 359–374.
Mohammadi, H. (2015.b). Factors affecting the e-learning outcomes: An integration of TAM and IS
success model. Telematics and Informatics, 32, 701–719.
Moore, G.C. Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-
222.
Moreno, V. Cavazotte, F. Alves, I. (2017). Explaining university students’ effective use of e-learning
platforms. British Journal of Educational Technology. 48(4), 995-1009.
Motaghian, H. Hassanzadeh, A. Moghadam, D.K. (2013). Factors affecting university instructors’
adoption of web-based learning systems: Case study of Iran. Computers & Education, 61,
158–167.
Naidu, S. (2006). E-Learning a guide of principles, procedures and practices. Commonwealth
Educational Media Centre for Asia, New Delhi, India.
Nan, Z. Xun-hua, G. Guo-qing, C. (2007). Extended information technology initial acceptance model
and its empirical test. Systems Engineering - Theory & Practice, 27(9), 123–130.
Ngai, E.W.T. Poon, J.K.L. Chan, Y.H.C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT
using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250–267.
Okazaki, S. Santos, L.M.R.D. (2012). Understanding e-learning adoption in Brazil: Major
determinants and gender effects. In The International Review Of Research In Open And
Distance Learning, 13(4), 91-106.
Ong, C.S. Lai, J.Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of
e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 816–829.

24
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, 795–804.
Ouyang, Y. Tang, C. Rong, W. Zhang, L. Yin, C. Xiong, Z. (2017). Task Technology Fit aware
expectation-confirmation model towards understanding of MOOCs continued usage.
Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2017, 174-
183.
Padilla-Melendez, A. Garrido-Moreno, A. Aguila-Obra, A.R.D. (2008). Factors affecting e-
collaboration technology use among management students. Computers & Education, 51,
609–623.
Padilla-Melendez, A. Aguila-Obra, A.D.L. Garrido-Moreno, A. (2013). Perceived playfulness, gender
differences and Technology Acceptance Model in a blended learning scenario. Computers
& Education, 63, 306–317.
Pantezis, C. (2002). Maximizing e-learning to train the 21st century workforce. Public Personnel
Management, 31(1), 21-26.
Park, S. 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.
Park, N. Lee, K.M. Cheong, P.H. (2008). University instructors’ acceptance of electronic courseware:
An application of the Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 13, 163–186.
Park, S.Y. Nam, M.W. Cha, S.B. (2012). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile
learning: Evaluating the Technology Acceptance Model. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(4), 592–605.
Park, Y. Son, H. Kim, C. (2012). Investigating the determinants of construction professionals'
acceptance of web-based training: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model.
Automation in Construction, 22, 377-386.
Pereira, F.A.M. Ramos, A.S.M. Chagas, M.M.D. (2015). Satısfacao e contınuıdade de uso em um
ambıente vırtual de aprendızagem. Artigo – Tecnologia da Informacao, 22(1), 133-153.
Pituch, K.A. Lee, Y.K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers
& Education, 47, 222–244.
Poelmans, S. Wessa, P. Milis, K. Bloemen, E. Doom, C. (2008). Usability and acceptance of e-learning
in statistics education, based on the compendium platform. In International Conference of
Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI2008), 1-10.
Post, S.W. (2010). Modeling of stakeholders’ perceptions and beliefs about e-learning technologies
in service e-learning practices (Published PhD thesis). TUI University, California, U.S.A.
Premchaiswadi, W. Porouhan, P. Premchaiswadi, N. (2012). An empirical study of the key success
factors to adopt e-learning in Thailand. In International Conference on Information
Society (I-Society 2012). 333-338.
Punnoose, A.C. (2012). Determinants of Intention to Use eLearning Based on the Technology
Acceptance Model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research. 11(1), 302-
337, 2012.
Purnomo, S.H. Lee, Y.H. (2012). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia: An
empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138–153.
Raaij, E.M.V. Schepers, J.J.L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in
China. Computers & Education, 50, 838–852.
Ramayah, T. Lee, J.W.C. (2012). System characteristıcs, satisfaction and e-learning usage: A
Structural Equation Model (SEM). The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology,
11(2), 196-206.
Ramírez-Correa, P.E. Arenas-Gaitan, J. Rondan-Cataluñ, F.J. (2015). Gender and acceptance of e-
learning: a multi-group analysis based on a Structural Equation Model among college
students in Chile and Spain. Plos One, 1-17.

25
Rejon-Guardia, F. Sanchez-Fernandez, J. Munoz-Leiva, F. (2013). The acceptance of microblogging
in the learning process: The μbam model. Journal of Technology and Science Education,
3(1), 33-50.
Rezaei, M. Mohammadi, H.M. Asadi, A., Kalantary, K. (2008). Predictıng e-learning application in
agricultural hıgher education using Technology Acceptance Model. Turkish Online Journal
of Distance Education, 98(1), 85-85.
Roca, J.C. Chiu, C.M. Martınez, F.J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An
extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies, 64, 683–696.
Roca, J.C. Gagne, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A
self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1585–1604.
Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co, New York,
221-223.
Ros, S. Hernandez, R. Caminero, A. Robles, A. Barbero, I. Macia, A. Holgado, F.P. (2014). On the use
of extended TAM to assess students’ acceptance and intent to use third-generation
learning management systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(6), 1250–
1271.
Saade, R.G. Nebebe, F. Tan, W. (2007). Viability of the “Technology Acceptance Model” in
multimedia learning environments: A comparative study. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3(1), 175-184.
Saade, R.G. Kira, D. (2006). The emotional state of technology acceptance. Issues in Informing
Science and Information Technology. 3(1), 529-539.
Sadeghi, K. Saribagloo, J.A. Aghdam, S.H. Mahmoudi, H. (2014). The impact of İranian teachers
cultural values on computer technology acceptance. The Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology, 13(4), 124-136.
Sanchez-Franco, M.J. (2010). WebCT-The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on
an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 54, 37–46.
Sanchez, R.A. Hueros, A.D. Ordaz, MG. (2013). E-learning and the University of Huelva: A study of
WebCT and the Technological Acceptance Model. Campus-Wide Information Systems,
30(2), 135 – 160.
Seet, B.C. Goh, T.T. (2012). Exploring the affordance and acceptance of an e-reader device as a
collaborative learning system. The Electronic Library, 30(4), 516 – 542.
Seif, M.H. Rastegar, A. Ardakani, S.J.H. Saeedikiya, M. (2013). Factors influencing intention to use
and application of web-based learning among students of Shiraz Payame Noor University
(providing a path analysis model). Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3(2),
848-852.
Shah, G.U.G. Bhatti, M.N. Iftikhar, M. Qureshi, M.I. Zaman, K. (2013). Implementation of
Technology Acceptance Model in e-learning environment in rural and urban areas of
Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal, 27(11), 1495-1507, 2013.
Shah, S.A.M. Iqbal, N. Janjua, S.Y. Amjad, S. (2013). Employee behavior towards adoption of e-
learning courses: validating Technology Acceptance Model. Mediterranean Journal of
Social Sciences, 4(14), 765-774.
Shen, C.C. Chuang, H.M. (2010). Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the interactive
whiteboard technology environment. International Review on Computers and Software,
5(2), 200-208.
Shen, J. Eder, L.B. (2009). Intentions to use virtual worlds for education. Journal of Information
Systems Education. 2(2), 225-233.
Shih, B.Y. Chen, C.Y. Shih, C.H. Su, W.L. (2013). The control application and simulation–particle
swarm optimization exploration of control application for user intention toward mobile
Mandarin learning system. Journal of Vibration and Control, 19(13), 2036–2045.
Shroff, R.H. Deneen, C.C. Ng, E.M.W. (2011). Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in
examining students’ behavioural intention to use an eportfolio system. Australasian
Journal of Educational Technology. 27(4), 600-618.

26
Shyu, S.H.P. Huang, J.H. (2011). Elucidating usage of e-government learning: A perspective of the
extended Technology Acceptance Model. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 491–502.
Smith, J.A. Sivo, S.A. (2012). Predicting continued use of online teacher professional development
and the influence of social presence and sociability. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 43(6), 871–882.
Sanchez, R.A. Hueros, A.D. Ordaz, MG. (2013). E-learning and the University of Huelva: A study of
WebCT and the Technological Acceptance Model. Campus-Wide Information Systems,
30(2), 135 – 160.
Song, Y. Kong, S.C. (2017). Investigating students’ acceptance of a statistics learning platform
using Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(6),
865-897.
Suki, N.M. Suki, N.M. (2011). Users‘ behavior towards ubıquıtous m-learnıng. Turkish Online Journal
of Distance Education, 12(3), 118-129.
Sumak, B. Hericko, M. Pusnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The
role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,
2067–2077.
Sun, P.C. Tsai, R.J. Finger, G. Chen, Y.Y. Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-Learning? An
empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers &
Education, 50, 1183–1202.
Tajudeen, S.A. Basha, M.K. Michael, F.O. Mukthar, A.L. (2012). Determinant of mobile devices acceptance
for learning among students in developing country. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 1(3), 17-29.
Tan, P.J.B. (2015). English e-learning in the virtual classroom and the factors that influence ESL (english
as a second language): Taiwanese citizens’ acceptance and use of the modular object- oriented
dynamic learning environment. Social Science Information, 54(2), 211-228.
Tarhini, A. Hone, K. Liu, X. (2013.a). User acceptance towards web-based learning systems: Investigating
the role of social, organizational and individual factors in European higher education. Procedia
Computer Science, 17, 189–197.
Tarhini, A. Hone, K. Liu, X. (2013.b). 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), 54-59.
Tarhini, A. Hone, K. Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in
developing countries: A Structural Equation Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153–
163.
Tarhini, A. Hone, K. Liu, X. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and
individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese
university students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 739–755.
Tarhini, A. Hassouna, M. Abbasi, M.S. Orozco, J. (2015). Towards the acceptance of RSS to support
learning: An empirical study to validate the Technology Acceptance Model in Lebanon.
Electronic Journal of e-Learning Volume, 13(1), 30-41.
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 Aodel. Interactive Learning Environments,
25(3).
Taylor, S. Todd, P.A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models.
Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-176.
Teo, T. (2011). Modeling the determinants of pre-service teachers' perceived usefulness of e-learning.
Campus-Wide Information Systems, 28(2), 124 – 140.
Tobing, V. Hamzah, M. Sura, S. Amin, H. (2008). Assessing the acceptability of adaptive e-learning
system. Fifth International Conference on eLearning for Knowledge-Based Society. 11-12.
Tran, K.N.N. (2016). The adoption of blended e-learning technology in Vietnam using a revision of the
Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15,
253-282.
Trayek, F.A.A. Hassan, S.S.S. (2013). Attitude towards the use of learnıng management system among
unıversıty students: A case study. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education. 14(3), 91-103.

27
Trentin, G. (1997). Telematics and online teacher training: the POLARIS project. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 13, 261–270.
Tselios, N. Daskalakis, S. Papadopoulou, M. (2011). Assessing the acceptance of a blended learning
university course. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 224–235.
Tseng, A.H. Hsia, J.W. (2008). The impact of internal locus of control on perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use in e-learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. In
International conference on cyberworlds, 815-819.
Tung, F.C. Chang, S.C. (2008.a). Nursing students’ behavioral intention to use online courses: A
questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1299–1309.
Tung, F.C. Chang, S.C. (2008.b). A new hybrid model for exploring the adoption of online nursing courses.
Nurse Education Today, 28, 293–300.
Ursavas, O.F. (2015). Ogretmenlerin hazci ve faydaci motivasyonlarinin tablet PC kullanimina yonelik
davranissal niyetleri uzerinde etkisi. Egitim ve Bilim. 40, 25-43.
Veloo, R. Masood, M. (2014). Acceptance and intention to use the ilearn system in an automotive
semiconductor company in the northern region of Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 116, 1378 – 1382.
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),
342-365.
Venkatesh. V. Bala. H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions.
Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.
Venkatesh, V. Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four
longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46 (2),186-204.
Venkatesh, V. Morris, M.G. Davis, G.B. Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information Technology:
Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Wang, W.W. Wang, C.C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning
systems. Computers & Education, 53,761–774.
Williams, M. Williams, J. (2009). Evaluating a model of business school students' acceptance of
web-based course management systems. International Journal of Management Education.
8(3), 59-70.
Wu, B. Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) and Task Technology Fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human
Behavior, 67, 221-232.
Wu, B. Zhang, C. (2014). Empirical study on continuance intentions towards e-learning 2.0 systems.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(10), 1027-1038.
Wu, C. Kuo, Y. Wu, S. (2013). Investigating the antecedents of university students’ behavioral
ıntention to use ipad for learning. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-
Management and e-Learning, 3(6), 468-471.
Yang, S.C. Lin, C.H. (2011). Factors affecting the intention to use Facebook to support problem-
based learning among employees in a Taiwanese manufacturing company. African Journal
of Business Management. 5(22), 9014-9022.
Yi-Cheng, C. Chun-Yu, C. Yi-Chen, L. Ron-Chen, Y. (2007). Predicting college student’ use of e-
learning systems: An attempt to extend Technology Acceptance Model. Pacific Asia
Conference on Information Systems, 172-183.
Yuen, A.H.K. Ma, W.W.K. (2008). Exploring teacher acceptance of e-learning technology. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 229–243.
Zare, H. Yazdanparast, S. (2013). The causal model of effective factors on intention to use of
information technology among payam noor and traditional universities students. Life
Science Journal, 10(2), 46-50.
Zhang, S. Zhao, J. Tan, W. (2008). Extending TAM for online learning systems: An intrinsic
motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 13(3), 312-317.
Zhao, J. Tan, W. (2010) E-learning systems adoption across cultures: A comparison study. In E-
Product E-service and E-entertainment, 1-4.

28
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. 203 Publications Aiming to Explain User Acceptance in E-Learning Systems
Study
Territory
Participant
Information
TAM Compenents
External Factors
PU
P
EOU
A
I
U
Abbad, Morris
& Nahlik
(2009)
Jordan
486 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Subjective Norms (-,x), Internet Experience (-,+),
System Interactivity (-,-), Self Efficacy (-,+),
Technical Support (+,-)
Abbas (2016)
Egypt
UK
468 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Egypt: Interpersonel Influence (+,x), External
Influence (+,x), Instructor Influence (+,+)
UK: Interpersonel Influence (-,x), External Influence
(-,x), Instructor Influence (+,+)
Abdel-Wahab
(2008)
Egypt
258 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Abdullah, Ward
& Ahmed
(2016)
UK
242 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Experience(-,+), Subjective Norm (-,+), Enjoyment
(+,+), Computer Anxiety (x,-), Self Efficacy (-,+)
Abramson,
Dawson &
Stevens
(2015)
U.S.A
-
+
+
+
+
-
Prior Use of E-learning(-,+), Self Efficacy(-,+),
Subjective Norms(-,+)
Adetiimirin
(2015)
Nigeria
121 Students
-
-
-
-
+
-
Agudo-
Peregrina,
Hernandez-
García, &
Pascual-Miguel
(2014)
Spain
147 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Higher Education: Relevance for Learning (+,x)
Perceived Interaction (+,x), Subjective Norm (-,x),
Self Efficacy(x,-), Computer Anxiety (x,-), Personel
Innovativeness (x,+), Perceived Playfulness (x,-),
Facilitating Conditions (x,+)
Lifelong Learning: Relevance for Learning (+,x)
Perceived Interaction (+,x), Subjective Norm (+,x),
Self Efficacy (x,-), Computer Anxiety (x,+), Personel
Innovativeness (x,-), Perceived Playfulness (x,+),
Facilitating Conditions (x,+)
Al-Adwan, Al-
Adwan &
Smedley
(2013)
Jordan
107 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Al-Alak &
Alnawas
(2011)
Jordan
799 Lecturers
+
+
-
+
-
-
Al-Ammary, Al-
Sherooqi, & Al-
Sherooqi
(2014)
Bahrain
109 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (+,+), System Design &
Features(+,x), Perceived Enjoyment (x,+), Perceived
Mobility Value (+,x), Perceived Interectivity (-,-)
Al-Ammari &
Hamad (2008)
Bahrain
155 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Content Quality (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy (+,+)
Al-Aulamie,
Mansour, Daly
& Adjei (2012)
UK
51 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Enjoyment (+,+), Computer Playfulness (+,-)
Al-Azawei &
Lundqvist
(2015)
Iraq
70 Students
+
+
-
-
-
Learning Styles (-,x), Gender Diversity (-,-), Online
Self Efficacy (+,+)
Al-Azawei,
Parslow &
Lundqvist
(2017)
Iraq
210 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Blended E-learning System Self Efficacy (+,+),
Learning Styles (-,x)
Alenezi (2012)
Saudi Arabia
408 Students
+
+
+
+
+
-
Alenezi, Karim
& Veloo (2010)
Saudi Arabia
408 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Alenezi, Karim
& Veloo (2011)
Saudi Arabia
408 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Al-Gahtani
(2016)
Saudi Arabia
286 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Subjective Norm (+,x), Image (+,x), Job Relevance
(+,x), Result Demonstrability (-,x), Computer Self
Efficacy (x,+), Perceptions of External Control (x,+),
Computer Anxiety (x,+), Computer Playfulness (x,-),
Perceived Enjoyment (x,+)
Al-Hawari &
Mouakket
(2010)
U.A.E
340 Students
+
+
-
+
-
-
Ali, Ahmed,
Tariq & Safdar
(2013)
Bahrain
425 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Playfulness (x,+), Computer Self Efficacy
(x,+), Computer Anxiety (x,+)
Al-Mushasha
(2013)
Saudi Arabia
224 Students
+
+
+
+
-
University Support (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy
(+,+)

29
Althunibat
(2015)
Jordan
239 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Facilitating Conditions (+,+), Perceived Self Efficacy
(+,+)
Arenas-Gaitan,
Rondan-
Cataluña &
Ramirez-Correa
(2010)
Spain
189 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Result Demonstrability (+,x), Perception of External
Control (x,+), Perceived Enjoyment (x,+)
Arenas-Gaitan,
Ramírez-Correa
& Rondan-
Cataluña
(2011)
Spain
Chile
352 Students
+
+
+
-
+
Spain: Job Relevance(+,x), Result
Demonstrability(+,x), Perception of External
Control(x,+)
Chile: Job Relevance(+,x), Result
Demonstrability(+,x), Perception of External
Control(x,+)
Armenteros,
Liaw,
Fernandez, Díaz
& Sanchez
(2013)
International
88
Instructors
+
+
-
+
-
Previous Experience with Technology (-,-),
Perception Enjoyment (+,+)
Attis (2014)
U.S.A
112
Instructors
+
+
+
+
-
-
Aypay, Celik,
Aypay & Sever
(2012)
Turkey
754 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Facilitating Conditions (+,+), Technological
Complexity (-,+), Computer Self Efficacy (+,-)
Baharin, Lateh,
Nathan &
Nawawia
(2015)
Malaysia
223 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Interactivity (+,+)
Bao, Xiong, Hu
& Kibelloh
(2013)
China
137 Students
+
+
-
+
-
General Computer Self Efficacy (+,+), Specific
Computer Self Efficacy (+,+)
Basoglu &
Ozdogan
(2011)
Turkey
81 Students
+
+
+
-
-
Mobility (-,x), Peer Influence (-,x), Computer Self
Efficacy (x,+), Personal Innovativeness (x,-), User
Interface (x,-)
Bhatiasevi
(2011)
Thail&
207 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (-,+), System Functionality
(-,+), Teaching Materials (+,+)
Brown, Ingram
& Thorp (2006)
South Africa
171 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Compatibility (+,-), Perceived Enjoyment (x,-), Self
Efficacy (x,+)
Calisir,
Gumussoy,
Bayraktaroglu
& Karaali
(2014)
Turkey
546 Workers
+
+
+
+
-
Image(-,x), Perceived Content Quality(+,x),
Perceived System Quality(x,+), Anxiety (x,+)
Cabada,
Estrada,
Hernandez,
Bustillos &
Reyes-García
(2017)
Mexico
43 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Capece &
Campisi (2011)
Italy
Portugal
253 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Capace &
Campisi (2013)
Italian
5083
Employees
+
+
-
-
-
-
Chang, Yan &
Tseng (2012)
Taiwan
158 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Perceived Convenience (x,+)
Chang, Tseng,
Liang & Yan
(2013)
Taiwan
125 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Perceived Convenience (+,+)
Chang, Chao &
Cheng (2015)
Taiwan
682 Nurses
+
+
+
+
-
Perceived Risk (+,-)
Chang, Hajiyev
& Su (2017)
Azerbaijan
714 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Subjective Norm (+,-), Experience (+,+), Enjoyment
(+,+), Computer Anxiety (+,+), Self Efficacy (-,+)
Chang & Liu
(2013)
Taiwan
60 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Augmented Reality (+,+), Content Quality (+,+),
Environment Interaction (+,+)
Chang & Tung
(2008)
Taiwan
212 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Compatibility (+,x)
Chen, Lin, Yeh
& Lou (2013)
Taiwan
218 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Perceived Enjoyment (+,+), System Characteristics
(+,+)
Chen & Tseng
(2012)
Taiwan
402 Teachers
+
+
-
+
-
Motivation to Use (+,+), Computer Anxiety (-,+),
Internet Self Efficacy (+,+)
Cheng (2011)
Taiwan
328
Employees
+
+
+
+
+
Network Externality (-,+), Interpersonal Influence
(+,x), External Influence (+,x), Content Quality
(+,x), System Response, System Interactivity (+,+),
System Functionality (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy
(-,+), Internet Self Efficacy (-,+), Cognitive
Absorption (+,+)
Cheng (2012)
Taiwan
483
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Course Content Quality (+,+), Course Design Quality
(-,+), Support Service Quality (+,+), System
Functionality (+,+), System Interactivity (+,+),
System Response (+,-), User Interface Design
(+,+),Instructor Attitude Towards E-learners (+,x)

30
Cheng (2013)
Taiwan
218 Nurses
+
+
-
+
-
Learner-System Interaction (+,+), Instructor-
Learner Interaction (+,+), Learner-Learner
Interaction (+,+)
Cheng (2014)
Taiwan
225 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Controllability (+,+), Responsiveness (+,+), Two
Way Communication (+,+), Personalization (+,+)
Cheng (2015)
Taiwan
486 Users
+
+
-
+
-
Navigation (+,+), Convenience (+,+), Compatibility
(+,+)
Cheung & Vogel
(2013)
Hong Kong
136 Students
+
+
+
+
+
Perceived Resource (x,+), Compatibility (x,+),
Sharing (+,x)
Cho, Cheng &
Lai (2009)
Hong Kong
445 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Perceived Functionality (+,x), Perceived User-
Interface Design (-,+), Perceived System Support
(x,+)
Cho, Cheng &
Hung (2009)
Hong Kong
445 Students
+
-
-
-
+
-
Chow, Herold,
Choo & Chan
(2012)
Hong Kong
206 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (+,+)
Chow, Chan, Lo,
Chu, Chan & Lai
(2013)
Hong Kong
128 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (-,+)
Cigdem &
Topcu (2015)
Turkey
115
Instructors
+
+
-
+
-
Subjective Norm (+,+), Technological Complexity
(x,+), Application Self Efficacy (-,+)
Coskuncay &
Ozkan (2013)
Turkey
224
Academicians
+
+
-
+
-
Application Self Efficacy (+,+), Subjective Norm
(+,+), Technological Complexity (x,+)
Davis & Wong
(2007)
New Zeal&
964 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Subjective Norm (+,x), Output Quality (+,x),
Flow/Playfullness (x,+)
De Smet,
Bourgonjon,
Wever,
Schellens &
Valcke (2012)
Belgium
505 Teachers
+
+
-
-
+
Personal Innovativeness toward IT (+,+),
Experience (x,+), Subjective Norm (+,x)
Deshp&e,
Bhattacharya &
Yammiyavar
(2012)
India
40 Students
+
+
+
+
+
Computer Friendliness Experience+Knowledge (x,-)
Escobar-
Rodriguez &
Monge-Lozano
(2012)
Spain
162 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Perceived Usefulness for Professors (+,x), Perceived
Compatibility with Student Tasks (-,+), Training
(+,-)
Fadare,
Babatunde,
Akomolafe &
Lawal (2011)
Nigeria
458 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Fagan, Kilmon
annd P&ey
(2012)
U.S.A
158 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of IT (+,+)
Farahat (2012)
Egypt
153 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Social Inflence (+,+)
Floental (2016)
U.S.A
156 Students
-
+
+
-
-
-
Freitas,
Ferreira, Garcia
& Kurtz (2017)
Brazil
260 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Interactivity (+,x), Technical Support Availability
(x,+)
Harmon (2015)
U.S.A
195 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Personal Innovativeness (+,-)
Hashim (2008)
Maleysia
261
Employees
+
+
+
-
-
-
Hei & Hu
(2011)
China
253 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Social Inflences (-,x)
Hidayanto,
Febriawan,
Sucahyo &
Purw&ari
(2014)
Indonesia
74 Students
+
+
+
+
+
Task Technology Fit (-,+)
Ho, Ke, Liu
(2015)
Hong Kong
131 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Hsia, Chang &
Tseng (2014)
China
223
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Locus of Control (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy (x,+)
Hsia & Tseng
(2008)
Taiwan
233
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (+,+), Perceived Flexibility
(+,x)
Hsiao & Chen
(2015)
Taiwan
60 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Mobile Learning Self Efficacy (+,+), Task Technology
Fit (+,+)
Hsu & Chang
(2013)
Taiwan
82 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Perceived Convenience (+,x)
Huang, Lin &
Chuang (2007)
Taiwan
313 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Perceived Mobility Value (+,x), Peceived Enjoyment
(x,+)
Hussein,
Aditiawarman
& Mohamed
(2007)
Indonesia
147 ogrenci
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (+,-), Convenience (x,-),
Instructional Design (+,+), Technological Factor (-
,+), Instructor’s Characteristic (x,-)
Hussein (2017)
Malaysia
151 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Ibrahim, Leng,
Yusoff, Samy,
Malaysia
95 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Instructor Characteristics (-,x), Computer Self
Efficacy (-,+)

31
Masrom &
Rizman (2017)
Ifinedo (2006)
Estonia
72 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Technology Characteristics (+,+), User
Characteristics (+;+)
Indahyanti &
Sukarjadi
(2014)
Indonesia
60 Students
+
+
+
+
+
-
Islam (2013)
Finl&
249 Students
+
+
-
-
+
-
Ismail, Razak,
Zakariah, Alias
& Aziz. (2012)
Malaysia
215 Students
+
+
-
+
-
-
Jan & Contreras
(2011)
Peru
89 ogrenci
+
+
+
+
+
-
Jung (2015)
South Korea
189 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Instant Connectivity (+,x), Compatibility (+,x),
Interaction (+,x), Content Enrichness (+,x),
Computer Self Efficacy (+,x)
Kang & Shin
(2015)
Guney Kore
251 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Self Efficacy (+,-), Systematic Lecture Content (-,-),
Subjective Norm (+,+), System Accessibility (-,+)
Karaali,
Gumussoy &
Calisir (2011)
Turkey
546 Workers
+
+
+
+
-
Social Influence (+,x), Facilitating Conditions (x,+),
Anxiety (x,+)
Khor (2014)
Malaysia
125 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Kilic, Guler &
Celik (2015)
Turkey
416 Students
+
+
+
-
-
Interactive Whiteboard Self Efficacy (+,+),
Perceived Learning (+,+)
Kim, Kim & Han
(2013)
South Korea
60 Teachers
+
+
+
+
-
-
Lai & Ulhas
(2012)
Taiwan
96 Students
+
-
-
+
-
Compatibility (+,x), Convenience (+,x), Perceived
Enjoyment (+,x)
Lau & Woods
(2008)
Malaysia
342 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Technical Quality (-,+), Content Quality (-,+),
Pedagogical Quality (+,+), Self-Efficacy (-,-),
Internet Experience (-,-)
Lau & Woods
(2009)
Malaysia
312 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Technical Quality (-,+), Content Quality (-,+),
Pedagogical Quality (+,+), Self-Efficacy (-,-),
Internet Experience (-,-)
Lee, Cheung &
Chen (2005)
Hong Kong
544 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Lee (2006)
Taiwan
1085
Students
+
+
-
+
+
Content Quality (+,x), Perceived Network Externality
(+,+), Computer Self Efficacy (+,+), Course
Attributes (-,-), Subjective Norms (+,x)
Lee (2008)
Taiwan
1107 ogrenci
+
+
-
+
-
Internal Computing Support (+,+), Internal
Computing Training (+,+), Internal Equipment
Accessability (-,-), External Computing Support
(+,+), External Computing Training (-,+), External
Equipment Accessability (-,+)
Lee, Yoon & Lee
(2009)
South Korea
214 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Instructor Characteristics (+,x), Teaching Materials
(+,x), Design of Learning Contents (x,+)
Lee (2010)
Taiwan
363 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Confirmation (+,x)
Lee, Hsieh & Ma
(2011)
Taiwan
357
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Organizational Support (+,-), Management Support
(-,+), Computer Self Efficacy (-,+), Individuals’
Experience with Computers (-,+), Task Equivocality
(-,-), Task Interdependence (-,+), Subjective Norm
(+,+)
Lee, Hsieh &
Hsu (2011)
Taiwan
552
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Compatibility (+,-), Complexity (+,+), Relative
Advantages (+,+), Observability (-,-), Trialability
(+,+)
Lee, Hsieh &
Chen (2013)
Taiwan
332
Employees
+
+
+
+
-
Organisational Support (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy
(-,+), Prior Experiences (+,+), Task Equivocality (+,-
)
Lee, Hsiao,
Purnomo
(2014)
Indonesia
326 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (-,+), Internet Self Efficacy
(+,+), Instructor Attitude Toward Students (-,x),
Learning Content (+,+), Technology Accessibility
(x,+)
Lee & Lehto
(2013)
Guney Kore
432
Respondents
+
+
-
+
-
Task Technology Fit (+,x), Content Richness (+,x),
Vividness (+,x), YouTube Self Efficacy (+,x)
Lefievre (2012)
France
404 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Computer Playfulness (x,+), Perceived Enjoyment
(x,-), Computer Anxiety (x,+), Result
Demonstrability (+,x), Relevance (+,x)
Letchumanan &
Tarmizi (2011)
Malaysia
169 Students
+
+
+
+
+
Gender (-,-)
Li, Duan &
Alfrod (2012)
China
280 Students
+
+
-
+
-
System Funcationality (+,+), System Response
(+,+), System Interactivity (-,+), Self Efficacy (x,+)
Lin, Chen & Yeh
(2010)
Taiwan
214 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Perceived Enjoyment (+,x), System Characteristics
(+,x), Course Features (x,+), Self Efficacy (x,+)
Lin (2013)
Taiwan
212 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Underst&ing U-learning (+,+), Assimilating U-
learning (+,+), Applying U-learning (+,+)
Lin, Persada &
Nadlifatin
(2014)
Taiwan
302 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Perceived Interactivity (+,+)
Little (2016)
U.S.A
318 Nurses
-
-
+
+
-
-
Liu, Liao & Peng
(2005)
Taiwan
88 Students
+
+
+
+
-
E-learning Materials Presentation Types (+,x)

32
Liu, Liao & Pratt
(2009)
Taiwan
88 Students
+
+
+
+
-
E-learning Materials Presentation Types (+,x)
Liu (2010)
U.S.A
126 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Wiki Self Efficacy (-,+), Online Posting Anxiety (-,-)
Liu, Li &
Carlsson
(2010)
China
209 ogrenci
+
+
-
+
-
Personal Innovativeness (+,+)
Lo, Hong, Lin &
Hsu (2012)
China
45 Students
+
+
+
-
-
-
Lo, Liu & Wang
(2014)
Taiwan
35 Students
+
-
+
+
-
-
Loukis, Pazalos
& Salagara
(2012)
Greece
98
Professionals
+
+
-
-
+
-
Lowe,
D’aless&ro,
Winzar, Laffey
& Collier (2013)
UK
144 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Affinity (+,+), Risk Tolerance (x,+)
Ma, Chao &
Cheng (2013)
Taiwan
650 Nurses
+
+
-
+
+
Task Technology Fit (+,x), Computer Sef Efficacy (-
,x)
Mafunda, Swart
& Bere (2016)
South Africa
49 Students
+
+
+
-
+
-
Macharia &
Nyakwende
(2009)
Kenya
200 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Competition Pressure (+,-), Government Support
(+,+), ICT Vendors Support (+,-), Perceived Socio
Economic (+,+)
Martin (2012)
Oman
210 Students
& Educators
+
+
-
+
+
Subjective Norm (+,x), Extrinsic Motivation (-,x),
Intrinsic Motivation (x,+), Technology Experience
(+,-), System Interactivity (+,-), Information Privacy
(x,-)
Martinez-
Torres, Marin,
Garcia,
Vazquez, Oliva
& Torres (2008)
Spain
220 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Methodology, Accessibility (x,+), Reliability (x,+),
Enjoyment (x,+), Interactivity & Control (+,x)
Moghadam &
Bairamzadeh
(2009)
Iran
155 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Subjective Norm (+,x), Personal Innovativeness in
Domain of Information Technology (-,+), Computer
Self Efficacy (x,+)
Mohammed &
Karim (2012)
Malaysia
160 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Application Anxiety (-,-), Self Efficacy (-,-)
Mohammadi
(2015.a)
Iran
390 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Mohammadi
(2015.b)
Iran
390 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Moreno,
Cavazotte &
Alves (2016)
Brazil
251 Students
+
+
+
+
-
System Interactivity (+,x), Social Influence (-,x),
Output Quality (-,x), Cognitive Absorbtion (+,+), Self
Efficacy (x,+), Facilitating Conditions (x,+), Prior
Experience (x,-)
Motaghian,
Hassanzadeh &
Moghadam
(2013)
Iran
115
Instructors
+
+
-
+
+
Information Quality (+,+), System Quality (-,-),
Service Quality (-,+), Subjective Norm (+,+), Self
Efficacy (-,+)
Nan, Xun-hua &
Guo-qing
(2007)
China
121 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Training Impression (x,+), Technology Facilitating
Condition (x,-), Perceived Enjoyment (+,x), Personal
Innovativeness of IT (-,x), Job Relevance (+,x),
Substitutability (-,x)
Ngai, Poon &
Chan (2007)
Hong Kong
836 Students
+
+
+
-
+
Technical Support (+,+)
Okazaki &
Santos (2012)
Brazil
446
Faculty
Members
+
+
+
+
+
-
Ong, Lai &
Wang (2004)
Taiwan
140
Engineers
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self-Efficacy (+,+)
Ong & Lai
(2006)
Taiwan
156
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self-Efficacy (+,+)
Ouyang, Tang,
Rong, Zhang,
Yin & Xiong
(2017)
China
234 Students
+
-
-
+
-
Confirmation (+,x)
Padilla-
Melendez,
Garrido-
Moreno &
Aguila-Obra
(2008)
Spain
225 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Computer Self Efficacy (x,+)
Padilla-
Melendez,
Aguila-Obra &
Garrido-
Moreno (2013)
Spain
484 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Males: Perceived Playfulness (+,+)
Females: Perceived Playfulness (+,+)
Park (2009)
South Korea
628 Students
+
+
+
+
-
E-learning Self Efficacy (+,+), Subjective Norm (+,-),
System Accessibility (-,+)
Park, Lee &
Cheong (2008)
U.S.A
191
Instructors
+
+
-
+
+
Motivation (+,+), Instructional Technology Cluster
(-,-)

33
Park, Nam &
Cha (2012)
South Korea
288 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Mobil Learning Self Efficacy (-,+), Major Relevance
(+,-), System Accessibility (-,+), Subjective Norm
(+,-)
Park, Son & Kim
(2012)
South Korea
408
Professionals
+
+
-
-
-
Enjoyment (+,-), Computer Anxiety (+,+), Social
Influence (+,x), Organizational Support (-,+),
Information Quality (+,x), System Quality (-,+)
Perreira,
Ramos &
Chagas (2015)
Brazil
192 Students
+
+
-
-
+
-
Pituch & Lee
(2006)
Taiwan
259 Students
+
+
-
-
+
System Functionality (+,+), System Interactivity
(+,-), System Response (+,+), Self-Efficacy (-,+),
Internet Experience (-,-)
Poelmans,
Wessa, Milis,
Bloemen &
Doom (2008)
Belgium
200 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Information Quality (+,x), System Quality (x,+)
Post (2010)
U.S.A
134 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Subjective Social Norm (+,x), Perceived Compatbility
(+,x)
Premchaiswadi,
Porouhan &
Premchaiswadi
(2012)
Thail&
86 Students
+
+
-
+
-
-
Punnose
(2012)
Thail&
249 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Self-Efficacy (x,+), Conscientiousness
(+,x), Subjective Norms (+,x)
Purnomo & Lee
(2012)
Indonesia
306
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Management Support (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy
(-,-), Prior Experience (+,+), Computer Anxiety
(+,-), Compatibility (+,+)
Raaij &
Schepers
(2008)
China
40 Managers
+
+
-
-
+
Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of
Information Technology (-,+), Computer Anxiety
(x,+), Social Norms (+,x)
Ramayah & Lee
(2012)
Malaysia
250 Students
-
-
-
+
-
-
Ramírez-Correa
Arenas-Gaitan
& Rondan-
Cataluña
(2015)
Chile
Spain
389 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Result Demonstrability (+,x), Perceived Enjoyment
(x,+), Perception of External Control (x,+)
Rejón-Guardia,
Sanchez-
Fernandez &
Muñoz-Leiva
(2013)
Spain
135 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Subjective Norms (+,x), Image (+,x)
Rezaei,
Mohammadi,
Asadi &
Kalantary
(2008)
Iran
120 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Internet Experience (+,-), Computer Anxiety (x,-),
Age (-,x), Computer Self Efficacy (x,-), Affect (x,-)
Roca, Chiu &
Martinez
(2006)
Spain
172 Workers
+
+
-
+
-
Confirmation (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy (x,+),
Internet Self Efficacy (x,+)
Roca & Gagne
(2008)
Spain
166 Workers
+
+
-
+
-
Perceived Autonomy Support (+,x), Perceived
Competence (+,+), Perceived Relatedness (-,x),
Perceived Playfulness (+,+)
Ros,
Hernandez,
Caminero,
Robles,
Barbero, Macia
& Holgado
(2014)
Spain
80 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Gadget Design (+,-), Container Design (x,+),
Previous Experience (-,-)
Saade, Nebebe
& Tan (2007)
Canada
362 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Saade & Kira
(2006)
Canada
114 Students
+
+
+
-
-
Affect (-,+), Anxiety (-,+)
Sadeghi,
Saribagloo,
Aghdam &
Mahmoudi
(2014)
Iran
275 Teachers
+
+
+
+
-
Masculinity (+,+), Uncertainty Avoidance (+,+),
Individualism (+,-), Power Distance (+,+)
Sanchez-
Franco (2010)
Spain
431 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Flow (+,+)
Sanchez &
Hueros (2010)
Spain
226 Students
+
+
+
-
+
Technical support (+,+), Computer self-efficacy (-,-)
Seet & Goh
(2012)
New Zelal&
54 Students
-
-
-
+
-
-
Seif, Rastegar,
Ardakani &
Saeedikiya
(2013)
Iran
120 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Pleasure seeking (+,+), Applicability (+,+)

34
Shah, Bhatti,
Iftikhar,
Qureshi &
Zaman (2013)
Pakistan
400 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Information Quality (+,x), Service Quality (+,+),
System Quality (x,+)
Shah, Iqbal,
Janjua & Amjad
(2013)
Pakistan
172
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Learning Objectives (+,+), Demographic Factors (-,-)
Shen & Chuang
(2010)
Taiwan
350 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Interactivity (+,+)
Shen & Eder
(2009)
U.S.A
77 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Playfulness (x,+), Computer Self Efficacy
(x,+), Computer Anxiety (x,-)
Shih, Chen,
Shih & Su
(2012)
China
304 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Shroff, Deneen
& Ng (2011)
Hong Kong
72 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Shyu & Huang
(2011)
Taiwan
307 Students
+
+
+
+
+
Perceived E-government Learning Value (+,x),
Perceived Enjoyment (x,+)
Smith & Sivo
(2012)
U.S.A
517 Teacher
+
+
-
+
-
Social Presence (+,+)
Sanchez,
Hueros & Ordaz
(2013)
Spain
226 Students
+
+
+
-
+
Technical Support (+,+), Computer Self Efficacy (-,-)
Song & Kong
(2017)
Hong Kong
102 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Subjective Norm (+,x), Facilitating Conditions (-,+),
Self Efficacy (+,+), Anxiety (-,+)
Suki & Suki
(2012)
Malaysia
100 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Tajudeen,
Basha, Michael
& Mukthar
(2012)
Malaysia &
Nigeria
247 Students
+
+
+
+
+
-
Tan (2015)
Taiwan
370 Citizens
+
+
+
+
+
-
Tarhini, Hone &
Liu (2013.a)
UK
604 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Tarhini, Hone &
Liu (2013.b)
Lebanon
569 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Tarhini, Hone &
Liu (2014)
Lebanon
569 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Tarhini, Hone &
Liu (2015)
Lebanon
UK
1173
Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Tarhini,
Hassouna,
Abbasi &
Orozco (2015)
Lebanon
235 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Tarhini, Hone,
Liu & Tarhini
(2017)
Lebanon
569 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Teo (2011)
Singapore
189 Students
+
-
-
-
-
Learning Environment (-,x), Course Delivery (+,x),
Tutor Attribute (+,x), Facilitating Conditions (+,x)
Tobing,
Hamzah, Sura &
Amin (2008)
Malaysia
314 Students
+
+
-
+
-
System Adaptability (+,+)
Tran (2016)
Vietnam
396 Students
+
+
+
-
-
System Functionality (x,+), Language Capability
(x,+), Computer Self Efficacy (x,+), Extraversion
(x,+), Openness (x,-)
Trayek &
Hassan (2013)
Malaysia
120 Students
+
+
+
-
-
-
Tselios,
Daskalakis &
Papadopoulou
(2011)
Greece
102 Students
+
+
+
+
-
-
Tseng & Hsia
(2008)
Taiwan
204
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Internal Locus of Control (+,+), Computer Self
Efficacy (x,+)
Tung & Chang
(2008.a)
Taiwan
228 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Compatibility (+,x)
Tung & Chang
(2008.b)
Taiwan
267 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Compatibility (+,x)
Ursavas (2015)
Turkey
311 Teachers
+
+
-
+
-
-
Veloo & Masood
(2014)
Malaysia
100
Employees
+
+
-
+
-
Relative Advantage (+,+), Compatibility (-,-),
Complexity (-,+), Trialability (-,-), Observability (+,-)
Wang & Wang
(2009)
Taiwan
268
Instructors
+
+
-
+
+
Information Quality (+,x), System Quality (-,+),
Service Quality (x,+), Subjective Norm (+,x), Self
Efficacy (x,+)
Williams &
Williams
(2009)
UK
237 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Incentive to Use (+,x), Faculty Encouragement (-,x),
Peer Encouragement (+,x), Awareness of System
Capabilities (-,x), Access to System (-,x), Technical
Support (+,x), Prior Experience (-,x), Self Efficacy
(-,x)
Wu & Chen
(2017)
China
252
Respondents
+
+
+
+
-
Individual Technology Fit (-,+), Task Technical Fit
(+,+), Openness (-,+), Reputation (+,x), Social
Recognition (+,x), Social Influence (+,x)

35
Wu & Gao
(2011)
U.S.A
101 Students
+
+
+
+
-
Perceived Enjoyment (+,x)
Wu & Zhang
(2014)
China
214
Employees
+
+
+
+
-
Reliability (+,+), Accessibility (-,+), Accuracy (+,x),
Completeness (+,x), Sociality (+,x)
Wu, Kuo & Wu
(2013)
Taiwan
392 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Ipad Self Efficacy (x,+)
Yang & Lin
(2011)
Taiwan
377
Employees
+
+
-
-
+
Social Influence (+,x), Computer Self Efficacy (x,+)
Yi-Cheng,
Chun-Yu, Yi-
Chen & Ron-
Chen (2007)
Taiwan
214 Students
+
+
-
+
+
Perceived Enjoyment (+,x), System Features (+,x),
Characteristics of Teaching Materials (x,+), Self
Efficacy (x,+)
Yuen & Ma
(2008)
Taiwan
152 Teachers
+
+
-
+
-
Subjective Norm (+,+), Efficacy (-,+)
Zare &
Yazdanparast
(2013)
Iran
379 Students
+
+
-
+
-
Computer Playfulness (x,+), Perceived Enjoyment
(+,+), Facilitative Condition (+,+), Cognitive
Absorption (+,+)
Zhang, Zhao &
Tan (2008)
China
121 Students
+
+
-
+
+
-
Zhao & Tan
(2010)
Canada
China
282 Students
+
+
-
+
-
-
Note: Expressions in parentheses indicate the tested relationship between the external
variable & the belief variable. Value (+) in parantheses indicates that the relationship is
found to be significant, value (-) in parantheses indicates that the relationship is found to
be insignificant, value (x) in parantheses indicates that the relation is not tested.
Appendix 2. 129 Variables Proposed as Determinants of PU & PEOU in E-Learning Systems
& 220 Hypotheses Tested in the Literature Reviewed
No.
Independent
Varible
Dependent
Variable
Inv.
Acc.
References
1
Accessibility
PU
4
4
Kang & Shin (2015), Park (2009), Park, Nam & Cha (2012),
, Wu & Zhang (2014)
2
Accessibility
PEOU
7
6
Kang & Shin (2015), Lee, Hsiao, Purnomo (2014), Martinez-
Torres, Marin, Garcia, Vazquez, Oliva & Torres (2008), Park
(2009), Park, Nam & Cha (2012), Williams & Williams
(2009), Wu & Zhang (2014)
3
Accuracy
PU
1
1
Wu & Zhang (2014)
4
Affect
PU
1
0
Saade & Kira (2006)
5
Affect
PEOU
2
1
Rezaei, Mohammadi, Asadi & Kalantary (2008), Saade &
Kira (2006)
6
Affinity
PU
1
1
Lowe, D’aless&ro, Winzar, Laffey & Collier (2013)
7
Affinity
PEOU
1
1
Lowe, D’aless&ro, Winzar, Laffey & Collier (2013)
8
Age
PU
1
0
Rezaei, Mohammadi, Asadi & Kalantary (2008)
9
Anxiety
PU
8
3
Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Chen & Tseng (2012), Liu
(2010), Mohammed & Karim (2012), Park, Son & Kim
(2012), Purnomo & Lee (2012), Saade & Kira (2006), Song
& Kong (2017)
10
Anxiety
PEOU
19
12
Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed(2016), Agudo-Peregrina,
Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel, Higher Education &
Lifelong Learning (2014), Al-Gahtani (2016), Ali, Ahmed,
Tariq & Safdar (2013), Calisir, Gumussoy, Bayraktaroglu &
Karaali (2014), Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Chen & Tseng
(2012), Karaali, Gumussoy & Calisir (2011), Lefievre
(2012), Liu (2010), Mohammed & Karim (2012), Park, Son
& Kim (2012), Purnomo & Lee (2012), Raaij & Schepers
(2008), Rezaei, Mohammadi, Asadi & Kalantary (2008),
Saade & Kira (2006), Shen & Eder (2009), Song & Kong
(2017)
11
Applicability
PU
1
1
Seif, Rastegar, Ardakani & Saeedikiya (2013)
12
Applicability
PEOU
1
1
Seif, Rastegar, Ardakani & Saeedikiya (2013)
13
Applying
PU
1
1
Lin (2013)
14
Applying
PEOU
1
1
Lin (2013)
15
Assimilating
PU
1
1
Lin (2013)

36
16
Assimilating
PEOU
1
1
Lin (2013)
17
Augmented Reality
PU
1
1
Chang & Liu (2013)
18
Augmented Reality
PEOU
1
1
Chang & Liu (2013)
19
Autonomy Support
PU
1
1
Roca & Gagne (2008)
20
Awareness of
System Capabilities
PU
1
0
Williams & Williams (2009)
21
Cognitive Absorption
PU
3
3
Cheng (2011), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves (2017), Zare &
Yazdanparast (2013)
22
Cognitive Absorption
PEOU
3
3
Cheng (2011), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves (2017), Zare &
Yazdanparast (2013)
23
Compatibility
PU
11
10
Brown, Ingram & Thorp (2006), Chang & Tung (2008),
Cheng (2015), Jung (2015), Lai & Ulhas (2012), Lee, Hsieh
& Hsu (2011), Post (2010), Purnomo & Lee (2012), Tung &
Chang (2008.a), Tung & Chang (2008.b), Veloo & Masood
(2014)
24
Compatibility
PEOU
6
3
Brown, Ingram & Thorp (2006), Cheng (2015), Cheung &
Vogel (2013), Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Purnomo & Lee
(2012), Veloo & Masood (2014)
25
Compatibility with
Student Tasks
PU
1
0
Escobar-Rodriguez & Monge-Lozano (2012)
26
Compatibility with
Student Tasks
PEOU
1
1
Escobar-Rodriguez & Monge-Lozano (2012)
27
Competence
PU
1
1
Roca & Gagne (2008)
28
Competence
PEOU
1
1
Roca & Gagne (2008)
29
Competition
Pressure
PU
1
1
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
30
Competition
Pressure
PEOU
1
0
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
31
Completeness
PU
1
1
Wu & Zhang (2014)
32
Complexity
PU
3
1
Aypay, Celik, Aypay & Sever (2012), Lee, Hsieh & Hsu
(2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
33
Complexity
PEOU
5
5
Aypay, Celik, Aypay & Sever (2012), Cigdem & Topcu
(2015), Coskuncay & Ozkan (2013), Lee, Hsieh & Hsu
(2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
34
Confirmation
PU
3
3
Lee (2010), Roca, Chiu & Martinez (2006), Ouyang, Tang,
Rong, Zhang, Yin & Xiong (2017)
35
Confirmation
PEOU
1
1
Roca, Chiu & Martinez (2006)
36
Conscientiousness
PU
1
1
Punnose (2012)
37
Container Design
PEOU
1
1
Ros, Hernandez, Caminero, Robles, Barbero, Macia &
Holgado (2014)
38
Content Quality
PEOU
6
5
Al-Ammari & Hamad (2008), Chang & Liu (2013), Cheng
(2012), Kang & Shin (2015), Lau & Woods (2008), Lau &
Woods (2009)
39
Content Quality,
Content Richness
PU
11
8
Al-Ammari & Hamad (2008), Calisir, Gumussoy,
Bayraktaroglu & Karaali (2014), Chang & Liu (2013), Cheng
(2011), Cheng (2012), Jung (2015), Kang & Shin (2015),
Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods (2009), Lee (2006), Lee
& Lehto (2013)
40
Controllability
PU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
41
Controllability
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
42
Convenience
PU
5
5
Chang, Yan & Tseng (2012), Chang, Tseng, Liang & Yan
(2013), Cheng (2015), Hsu & Chang (2013), Lai & Ulhas
(2012)
43
Convenience
PEOU
3
2
Chang, Tseng, Liang & Yan (2013), Cheng (2015), Hussein,
Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007)
44
Course Attributes
PEOU
2
1
Lee (2006), Lin, Chen & Yeh (2010)
45
Course Attributes
PU
1
0
Lee (2006)
46
Course Delivery
PU
1
1
Teo (2011)
47
Demographic
Factors
PU
1
0
Shah, Iqbal, Janjua & Amjad (2013)
48
Demographic
Factors
PEOU
1
0
Shah, Iqbal, Janjua & Amjad (2013)
49
Design
PU
3
2
Al-Ammary, Al-Sherooqi, & Al-Sherooqi (2014), Cheng
(2012), Hussein, Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007)
50
Design
PEOU
3
3
Cheng (2012), Hussein, Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007),
Lee, Yoon & Lee (2009)
51
Enjoyment
PU
12
12
Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed (2016), Al-Aulamie, Mansour, Daly
& Adjei (2012), Armenteros, Liaw, Fernandez, Díaz &
Sanchez (2013), Brown, Ingram & Thorp (2006), Chang,
Hajiyev & Su (2017), Chen, Lin, Yeh & Lou (2013), Lai &
Ulhas (2012), Lin, Chen & Yeh (2010), Nan, Xun-hua & Guo-

37
qing (2007), Park, Son & Kim (2012), Wu & Gao (2011), Yi-
Cheng, Chun-Yu, Yi-Chen & Ron-Chen (2007), Zare &
Yazdanparast (2013)
52
Enjoyment
PEOU
16
13
Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed (2016), Al-Ammary, Al-Sherooqi,
& Al-Sherooqi (2014), Al-Aulamie, Mansour, Daly & Adjei
(2012), Al-Gahtani (2016), Arenas-Gaitan, Rondan-
Cataluña & Ramirez-Correa (2010), Armenteros, Liaw,
Fernandez, Díaz & Sanchez (2013), Brown, Ingram & Thorp
(2006), Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Chen, Lin, Yeh & Lou
(2013), Huang, Lin & Chuang (2007), Lefievre (2012),
Martinez-Torres, Marin, Garcia, Vazquez, Oliva & Torres
(2008), Park, Son & Kim (2012), Ramírez-Correa Arenas-
Gaitan & Rondan-Cataluña (2015), Shyu & Huang (2011),
Zare & Yazdanparast (2013)
53
Experience
PU
14
5
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Abdullah, Ward &
Ahmed(2016), Abramson, Dawson & Stevens (2015),
Armenteros, Liaw, Fernandez, Díaz & Sanchez (2013),
Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Lau & Woods (2008), Lau &
Woods (2009), Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh & Chen
(2013), Martin (2012), Pituch & Lee (2006), Purnomo & Lee
(2012), Rezaei, Mohammadi, Asadi & Kalantary (2008), Ros,
Hernandez, Caminero, Robles, Barbero, Macia & Holgado
(2014)
54
Experience
PEOU
18
8
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Abdullah, Ward &
Ahmed(2016), Abramson, Dawson & Stevens (2015),
Armenteros, Liaw, Fernandez, Díaz & Sanchez (2013),
Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), De Smet, Bourgonjon, Wever,
Schellens & Valcke (2012), Deshp&e, Bhattacharya &
Yammiyavar (2012), Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods
(2009), Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh & Chen (2013),
Martin (2012), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves (2017), Pituch &
Lee (2006), Purnomo & Lee (2012), Rezaei, Mohammadi,
Asadi & Kalantary (2008), Ros, Hernandez, Caminero,
Robles, Barbero, Macia & Holgado (2014), Williams &
Williams (2009)
55
External Computing
Support
PU
1
1
Lee (2008)
56
External Computing
Support
PEOU
1
1
Lee (2008)
57
External Control
PEOU
5
5
Al-Gahtani (2016), Arenas-Gaitan, Rondan-Cataluña &
Ramirez-Correa (2010), Arenas-Gaitan, Ramírez-Correa &
Rondan-Cataluña, Chile & Spain(2011), Ramírez-Correa
Arenas-Gaitan & Rondan-Cataluña (2015)
58
External Equipment
Accessability
PU
1
0
Lee (2008)
59
External Equipment
Accessability
PEOU
1
1
Lee (2008)
60
External Influence
PU
3
2
Abbas, Egypt & UK (2016), Cheng (2011)
61
Extraversion
PEOU
1
1
Tran (2016)
62
Facilitating
Conditions
PU
5
4
Althunibat (2015), Aypay, Celik, Aypay & Sever (2012),
Song & Kong (2017), Teo (2011), Zare & Yazdanparast
(2013)
63
Facilitating
Conditions
PEOU
9
8
Agudo-Peregrina, Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel,
Higer Education & Lifelong Learning (2014), Althunibat
(2015), Aypay, Celik, Aypay & Sever (2012), Karaali,
Gumussoy & Calisir (2011), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves
(2017), Nan, Xun-hua & Guo-qing (2007), Song & Kong
(2017), Zare & Yazdanparast (2013)
64
Flexibility
PU
1
1
Hsia & Tseng (2008)
65
Flow
PU
1
1
Sanchez-Franco (2010)
66
Flow
PEOU
2
2
Davis & Wong (2007), Sanchez-Franco (2010)
67
Gadget Design
PU
1
1
Ros, Hernandez, Caminero, Robles, Barbero, Macia &
Holgado (2014)
68
Gadget Design
PEOU
1
0
Ros, Hernandez, Caminero, Robles, Barbero, Macia &
Holgado (2014)
69
Gender
PU
1
0
Letchumanan & Tarmizi (2011)
70
Gender
PEOU
1
0
Letchumanan & Tarmizi (2011)
71
Gender Diversity
PU
1
0
Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015)
72
Gender Diversity
PEOU
1
0
Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015)
73
Government Support
PU
1
1
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
74
Government Support
PEOU
1
1
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
75
Image
PU
3
2
Al-Gahtani (2016), Calisir, Gumussoy, Bayraktaroglu &
Karaali (2014), Rejón-Guardia, Sanchez-Fernandez &
Muñoz-Leiva (2013)

38
76
Incentive to Use
PU
1
1
Williams & Williams (2009)
77
Individual
Technology Fit
PU
1
0
Wu & Chen (2017)
78
Individual
Technology Fit
PEOU
1
1
Wu & Chen (2017)
79
Individualism
PU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
80
Individualism
PEOU
1
0
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
81
Information Privacy
PEOU
1
0
Martin (2012)
82
Information Quality
PU
5
5
Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Park, Son &
Kim (2012),Poelmans, Wessa, Milis, Bloemen & Doom
(2008), Shah, Bhatti, Iftikhar, Qureshi & Zaman (2013),
Wang & Wang (2009)
83
Information Quality
PEOU
1
1
Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013)
84
Innovativeness
PU
7
4
De Smet, Bourgonjon, Wever, Schellens & Valcke (2012),
Fagan, Kilmon annd P&ey (2012), Harmon (2015), Liu, Li &
Carlsson (2010), Moghadam & Bairamzadeh (2009), Nan,
Xun-hua & Guo-qing (2007), Raaij & Schepers (2008)
85
Innovativeness
PEOU
9
6
Agudo-Peregrina, Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel,
Higher Education & Lifelong Learning (2014), Basoglu &
Ozdogan (2011), De Smet, Bourgonjon, Wever, Schellens &
Valcke (2012), Fagan, Kilmon annd P&ey (2012), Harmon
(2015), Liu, Li & Carlsson (2010), Moghadam &
Bairamzadeh (2009), Raaij & Schepers (2008)
86
Instant Connectivity
PU
1
1
Jung (2015)
87
Instructional
Technology Cluster
PU
1
0
Park, Lee & Cheong (2008)
88
Instructional
Technology Cluster
PEOU
1
0
Park, Lee & Cheong (2008)
89
Instructor Influence
/ Charecteristic
PU
8
6
Abbas, Egypt & UK (2016), Cheng (2012), Cheng (2013),
Lee, Yoon & Lee (2009), Lee, Hsiao, Purnomo (2014), Teo
(2011), Ibrahim, Leng, Yusoff, Samy, Masrom & Rizman
(2017)
90
Instructor Influence
/ Charecteristic
PEOU
4
3
Abbas, Egypt & UK (2016), Cheng (2013), Hussein,
Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007)
91
Interface
PU
2
1
Cheng (2012), Cho, Cheng & Lai (2009)
92
Interface
PEOU
3
2
Basoglu & Ozdogan (2011), Cheng (2012), Cho, Cheng & Lai
(2009)
93
Internal Computing
Support
PU
1
1
Lee (2008)
94
Internal Computing
Support
PEOU
1
1
Lee (2008)
95
Internal Equipment
Accessability
PU
1
0
Lee (2008)
96
Internal Equipment
Accessability
PEOU
1
0
Lee (2008)
97
Interpersonal
Influence
PU
3
2
Abbas, Egypy & UK (2016), Cheng (2011)
98
Job Relevance
PU
6
6
Al-Gahtani (2016), Arenas-Gaitan, Ramírez-Correa &
Rondan-Cataluña, Chile & Spain (2011), Lefievre (2012),
Nan, Xun-hua & Guo-qing (2007), Park, Nam & Cha (2012)
99
Job Relevance
PEOU
1
0
Park, Nam & Cha (2012)
100
Language Capability
PEOU
1
1
Tran (2016)
101
Learning
PU
1
1
Kilic, Guler & Celik (2015)
102
Learning
PEOU
1
1
Kilic, Guler & Celik (2015)
103
Learning Content
PU
1
1
Lee, Hsiao, Purnomo (2014)
104
Learning Content
PEOU
1
1
Lee, Hsiao, Purnomo (2014)
105
Learning
Environment
PU
1
0
Teo (2011)
106
Learning Objectives
PU
1
1
Shah, Iqbal, Janjua & Amjad (2013)
107
Learning Objectives
PEOU
1
1
Shah, Iqbal, Janjua & Amjad (2013)
108
Learning Styles
PU
2
0
Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015), Al-Azawei, Parslow &
Lundqvist (2017)
109
Learning Value
PU
1
1
Shyu & Huang (2011)
110
Locus of Control
PU
2
2
Hsia, Chang & Tseng (2014), Tseng & Hsia (2008)
111
Locus of Control
PEOU
2
2
Hsia, Chang & Tseng (2014), Tseng & Hsia (2008)
112
Management
Support
PU
2
1
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Purnomo & Lee (2012)

39
113
Management
Support
PEOU
2
2
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Purnomo & Lee (2012)
114
Masculinity
PU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
115
Masculinity
PEOU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
116
Materials
Presentation Types
PU
2
2
Liu, Liao & Peng (2005), Liu, Liao & Pratt (2009)
117
Mobility
PU
3
2
Al-Ammary, Al-Sherooqi, & Al-Sherooqi (2014), Basoglu &
Ozdogan (2011), Huang, Lin & Chuang (2007)
118
Motivation
PU
3
2
Chen & Tseng (2012), Martin (2012),Park, Lee & Cheong
(2008)
119
Motivation
PEOU
3
3
Chen & Tseng (2012), Martin (2012),Park, Lee & Cheong
(2008)
120
Navigation
PU
1
1
Cheng (2015)
121
Navigation
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2015)
122
Network Externality
PU
2
1
Cheng (2011), Lee (2006)
123
Network Externality
PEOU
2
2
Cheng (2011), Lee (2006)
124
Observability
PU
2
1
Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
125
Observability
PEOU
2
0
Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
126
Openness
PU
1
0
Wu & Chen (2017)
127
Openness
PEOU
2
1
Tran (2016), Wu & Chen (2017)
128
Organizational
Support
PU
3
2
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh & Chen (2013), Park,
Son & Kim (2012)
129
Organizational
Support
PEOU
3
2
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh & Chen (2013), Park,
Son & Kim (2012)
130
Output Quality
PU
2
1
Davis & Wong (2007), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves (2017)
131
Pedagogical Quality
PU
2
2
Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods (2009)
132
Pedagogical Quality
PEOU
2
2
Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods (2009)
133
Peer Influence
PU
3
2
Basoglu & Ozdogan (2011), Cheng (2013), Williams &
Williams (2009)
134
Peer Influence
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2013)
135
Personalization
PU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
136
Personalization
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
137
Playfulness
PU
4
4
Al-Aulamie, Mansour, Daly & Adjei (2012), Padilla-
Melendez, Aguila-Obra & Garrido-Moreno, Male & Female
(2013), Roca & Gagne (2008)
138
Playfulness
PEOU
11
8
Agudo-Peregrina, Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel,
Higher Education & Lifelong Learning (2014), Al-Aulamie,
Mansour, Daly & Adjei (2012), Al-Gahtani (2016), Ali,
Ahmed, Tariq & Safdar (2013), Lefievre (2012), Padilla-
Melendez, Aguila-Obra & Garrido-Moreno, Males & Females
(2013), Roca & Gagne (2008), Shen & Eder (2009), Zare &
Yazdanparast (2013)
139
Pleasure seeking
PU
1
1
Seif, Rastegar, Ardakani & Saeedikiya (2013)
140
Pleasure seeking
PEOU
1
1
Seif, Rastegar, Ardakani & Saeedikiya (2013)
141
Power Distance
PU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
142
Power Distance
PEOU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
143
Relatedness
PU
1
0
Roca & Gagne (2008)
144
Relative Advantage
PU
2
2
Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
145
Relative Advantage
PEOU
2
2
Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
146
Relevance for
Learning
PU
2
2
Agudo-Peregrina, Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel,
Higher Education & Lifelong Learning (2014)
147
Reliability
PU
1
1
Wu & Zhang (2014)
148
Reliability
PEOU
2
2
Martinez-Torres, Marin, Garcia, Vazquez, Oliva & Torres
(2008), Wu & Zhang (2014)
149
Reputation
PU
1
1
Wu & Chen (2017)
150
Resource
PEOU
1
1
Cheung & Vogel (2013)
151
Responsiveness
PU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
152
Responsiveness
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
153
Result
Demonstrability
PU
6
5
Al-Gahtani (2016), Arenas-Gaitan, Ramírez-Correa &
Rondan-Cataluña, Spain & Chile (2011), Arenas-Gaitan,
Rondan-Cataluña & Ramirez-Correa (2010), Lefievre

40
(2012), Ramírez-Correa Arenas-Gaitan & Rondan-Cataluña
(2015)
154
Risk
PU
1
1
Chang, Chao & Cheng (2015)
155
Risk
PEOU
2
1
Chang, Chao & Cheng (2015), Lowe, D’aless&ro, Winzar,
Laffey & Collier (2013)
156
Self Efficacy
PU
50
24
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed
(2016), Abramson, Dawson & Stevens (2015), Al-Ammary,
Al-Sherooqi, & Al-Sherooqi. (2014), Al-Ammari & Hamad
(2008), Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015), Al-Azawei, Parslow
& Lundqvist (2017), Al-Mushasha (2013), Althunibat
(2015), Aypay, Celik, Aypay & Sever (2012), Bao, Xiong, Hu
& Kibelloh, General & Spesific (2013), Bhatiasevi (2011),
Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Chen & Tseng (2012), Cheng,
Computer & Internet (2011), Chow, Herold, Choo & Chan
(2012), Chow, Chan, Lo, Chu, Chan & Lai (2013), Cigdem &
Topcu (2015), Coskuncay & Ozkan (2013), Hsia & Tseng
(2008), Hsiao & Chen (2015), Hussein, Aditiawarman &
Mohamed (2007), Ibrahim, Leng, Yusoff, Samy, Masrom &
Rizman (2017), Jung (2015), Kang & Shin (2015), Kilic,
Guler & Celik (2015), Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods
(2009), Lee (2006), Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh &
Chen (2013), Lee, Hsiao, Purnomo, Computer & Internet
(2014), Lee & Lehto (2013), Liu (2010), Ma, Chao & Cheng
(2013), Mohammed & Karim (2012), Motaghian,
Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Ong, Lai & Wang (2004),
Ong & Lai (2006), Park (2009), Park, Nam & Cha (2012),
Pituch & Lee (2006), Purnomo & Lee (2012), Sanchez &
Hueros (2010), Sanchez, Hueros & Ordaz (2013), Song &
Kong (2017), Yuen & Ma (2008)
157
Self Efficacy
PEOU
71
58
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed
(2016), Abramson, Dawson & Stevens (2015), Agudo-
Peregrina, Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel, Higher
Education & Lifelong Learning (2014), Al-Ammary, Al-
Sherooqi, & Al-Sherooqi. (2014), Al-Ammari & Hamad
(2008), Al-Azawei & Lundqvist (2015), Al-Azawei, Parslow
& Lundqvist (2017), Al-Gahtani (2016), Ali, Ahmed, Tariq &
Safdar (2013), Al-Mushasha (2013), Althunibat (2015),
Aypay, Celik, Aypay & Sever (2012), Bao, Xiong, Hu &
Kibelloh, General & Spesific (2013), Basoglu & Ozdogan
(2011), Bhatiasevi (2011), Brown, Ingram & Thorp (2006),
Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Chen & Tseng (2012), Cheng,
Computer & Internet (2011), Chow, Herold, Choo & Chan
(2012), Chow, Chan, Lo, Chu, Chan & Lai (2013), Cigdem &
Topcu (2015), Coskuncay & Ozkan (2013), Hsia, Chang &
Tseng (2014), Hsia & Tseng (2008), Hsiao & Chen (2015),
Hussein, Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007), Ibrahim, Leng,
Yusoff, Samy, Masrom & Rizman (2017), Kang & Shin
(2015), Kilic, Guler & Celik (2015), Lau & Woods (2008), Lau
& Woods (2009), Lee (2006), Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee,
Hsieh & Chen (2013), Lee, Hsiao, Purnomo, Computer &
Internet (2014), Li, Duan & Alfrod (2012), Lin, Chen & Yeh
(2010), Liu (2010), Moghadam & Bairamzadeh (2009),
Mohammed & Karim (2012), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves
(2017), Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013),,
Ong, Lai & Wang (2004), Ong & Lai (2006), Padilla-
Melendez, Garrido-Moreno & Aguila-Obra (2008), Park
(2009), Park, Nam & Cha (2012), Pituch & Lee (2006),
Punnose (2012), Purnomo & Lee (2012), Rezaei,
Mohammadi, Asadi & Kalantary (2008), Roca, Chiu &
Martinez, Computer & Internet (2006), Sanchez & Hueros
(2010), Sanchez, Hueros & Ordaz (2013), Shen & Eder
(2009), Song & Kong (2017), Tran (2016), Tseng & Hsia
(2008), Wang & Wang (2009), Williams & Williams (2009),
Wu, Kuo & Wu (2013), Yang & Lin (2011), Yi-Cheng, Chun-
Yu, Yi-Chen & Ron-Chen (2007), Yuen & Ma (2008)
158
Service Quality
PU
2
1
Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Shah,
Bhatti, Iftikhar, Qureshi & Zaman (2013)
159
Service Quality
PEOU
3
3
Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Shah,
Bhatti, Iftikhar, Qureshi & Zaman (2013), Wang & Wang
(2009)
160
Sharing
PU
1
1
Cheung & Vogel (2013)
161
Social Presence
PU
1
1
Smith & Sivo (2012)
162
Social Presence
PEOU
1
1
Smith & Sivo (2012)
163
Social Recognition
PU
1
1
Wu & Chen (2017)
164
Sociality
PU
1
1
Wu & Zhang (2014)
165
Socio Economic
Factors
PU
1
1
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)

41
166
Socio Economic
Factors
PEOU
1
1
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
167
Subjective Norm
PU
33
27
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Abdullah, Ward &
Ahmed(2016), Abramson, Dawson & Stevens (2015),
Agudo-Peregrina, Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel,
Higher Education & Lifelong Learning (2014), Al-Gahtani
(2016), Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Cigdem & Topcu
(2015), Coskuncay & Ozkan (2013), Davis & Wong (2007),
De Smet, Bourgonjon, Wever, Schellens & Valcke (2012),
Farahat (2012), Hei & Hu (2011), Kang & Shin (2015),
Karaali, Gumussoy & Calisir (2011), Lee (2006), Lee, Hsieh
& Ma (2011), Martin (2012), Moghadam & Bairamzadeh
(2009), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves (2017), Motaghian,
Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Park (2009), Park, Nam
& Cha (2012), Park, Son & Kim (2012), Post (2010),
Punnose (2012), Raaij & Schepers (2008), Rejón-Guardia,
Sanchez-Fernandez & Muñoz-Leiva (2013), Song & Kong
(2017), Wang & Wang (2009), Wu & Chen (2017), Yang &
Lin (2011), Yuen & Ma (2008)
168
Subjective Norm
PEOU
12
9
Abdullah, Ward & Ahmed(2016), Abramson, Dawson &
Stevens (2015), Chang, Hajiyev & Su (2017), Cigdem &
Topcu (2015), Coskuncay & Ozkan (2013), Farahat (2012),
Kang & Shin (2015), Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Motaghian,
Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Park (2009), Park, Nam
& Cha (2012), Yuen & Ma (2008)
169
Substitutability
PU
1
0
Nan, Xun-hua & Guo-qing (2007)
170
Support Service
Quality
PU
1
1
Cheng (2012)
171
Support Service
Quality
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2012)
172
System Adaptability
PU
1
1
Tobing, Hamzah, Sura & Amin (2008)
173
System Adaptability
PEOU
1
1
Tobing, Hamzah, Sura & Amin (2008)
174
System
Characteristics
PU
2
2
Chen, Lin, Yeh & Lou (2013), Lin, Chen & Yeh (2010)
175
System
Characteristics
PEOU
1
1
Chen, Lin, Yeh & Lou (2013)
176
System Features
PU
1
1
Yi-Cheng, Chun-Yu, Yi-Chen & Ron-Chen (2007)
177
System Functionality
PU
6
5
Bhatiasevi (2011), Cheng (2011), Cheng (2012), Cho,
Cheng & Lai (2009), Li, Duan & Alfrod (2012), Pituch & Lee
(2006)
178
System Functionality
PEOU
6
6
Bhatiasevi (2011), Cheng (2011), Cheng (2012), Li, Duan &
Alfrod (2012), Pituch & Lee (2006), Tran (2016)
179
System Interactivity
/ Interaction
PU
18
15
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Agudo-Peregrina,
Hernandez-García, & Pascual-Miguel, Higher Education &
Lifelong Learning(2014), Al-Ammary, Al-Sherooqi, & Al-
Sherooqi (2014), Baharin, Lateh, Nathan & Nawawia
(2015), Chang & Liu (2013), Freitas, Ferreira, Garcia & Kurtz
(2017), Cheng (2011), Cheng (2012), Cheng (2013), Jung
(2015), Li, Duan & Alfrod (2012), Lin, Persada & Nadlifatin
(2014), Martin (2012), Martinez-Torres, Marin, Garcia,
Vazquez, Oliva & Torres (2008), Moreno, Cavazotte & Alves
(2017), Pituch & Lee (2006), Shen & Chuang (2010)
180
System Interactivity
/ Interaction
PEOU
12
8
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Al-Ammary, Al-Sherooqi, &
Al-Sherooqi (2014), Baharin, Lateh, Nathan & Nawawia
(2015), Chang & Liu (2013), Cheng (2011), Cheng (2012),
Cheng (2013), Li, Duan & Alfrod (2012), Lin, Persada &
Nadlifatin (2014), Martin (2012), Pituch & Lee (2006), Shen
& Chuang (2010)
181
System Quality
PU
3
0
Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Park, Son &
Kim (2012), Wang & Wang (2009)
182
System Quality
PEOU
6
5
Calisir, Gumussoy, Bayraktaroglu & Karaali (2014),
Motaghian, Hassanzadeh & Moghadam (2013), Park, Son &
Kim (2012), Poelmans, Wessa, Milis, Bloemen ve Doom
(2008), Shah, Bhatti, Iftikhar, Qureshi & Zaman (2013),
Wang & Wang (2009)
183
System Response
PU
3
3
Cheng (2012), Li, Duan & Alfrod (2012), Pituch & Lee (2006)
184
System Response
PEOU
3
2
Cheng (2012), Li, Duan & Alfrod (2012), Pituch & Lee (2006)
185
System Support
PEOU
1
1
Cho, Cheng & Lai (2009)
186
Task Equivocality
PU
2
1
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh & Chen (2013)
187
Task Equivocality
PEOU
2
0
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011), Lee, Hsieh & Chen (2013)
188
Task
Interdependence
PU
1
0
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011)
189
Task
Interdependence
PEOU
1
1
Lee, Hsieh & Ma (2011)

42
190
Task Technology Fit
PU
5
4
Hidayanto, Febriawan, Sucahyo & Purw&ari (2014), Hsiao
& Chen (2015), Lee & Lehto (2013), Ma, Chao & Cheng
(2013), Wu & Chen (2017)
191
Task Technology Fit
PEOU
3
3
Hidayanto, Febriawan, Sucahyo & Purw&ari (2014), Hsiao
& Chen (2015), Wu & Chen (2017)
192
Teaching Materials
PU
2
2
Bhatiasevi (2011), Lee, Yoon & Lee (2009)
193
Teaching Materials
PEOU
2
2
Bhatiasevi (2011), Yi-Cheng, Chun-Yu, Yi-Chen & Ron-Chen
(2007)
194
Technical Quality
PU
2
0
Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods (2009)
195
Technical Quality
PEOU
2
2
Lau & Woods (2008), Lau & Woods (2009)
196
Technical Support
PU
4
4
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Ngai, Poon & Chan. (2007),
Sanchez & Hueros (2010), Sanchez, Hueros & Ordaz (2013)
197
Technical Support
PEOU
6
5
Abbad, Morris & Nahlik (2009), Freitas, Ferreira, Garcia &
Kurtz (2017), Ngai, Poon & Chan. (2007), Sanchez & Hueros
(2010), Sanchez, Hueros & Ordaz (2013), Williams &
Williams (2009)
198
Technological Factor
PU
1
0
Hussein, Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007)
199
Technological Factor
PEOU
1
1
Hussein, Aditiawarman & Mohamed (2007)
200
Technology
Characteristics
PU
1
1
Ifinedo (2006)
201
Technology
Characteristics
PEOU
1
1
Ifinedo (2006)
202
Training
PU
3
2
Escobar-Rodriguez & Monge-Lozano (2012), Lee, Internal &
External (2008)
203
Training
PEOU
3
2
Escobar-Rodriguez & Monge-Lozano (2012), Lee, Internal &
External (2008)
204
Training Impression
PEOU
1
1
Nan, Xun-hua & Guo-qing (2007)
205
Trialability
PU
2
1
Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
206
Trialability
PEOU
2
1
Lee, Hsieh & Hsu (2011), Veloo & Masood (2014)
207
Two Way
Communication
PU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
208
Two Way
Communication
PEOU
1
1
Cheng (2014)
209
Uncertainty
Avoidance
PU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
210
Uncertainty
Avoidance
PEOU
1
1
Sadeghi, Saribagloo, Aghdam & Mahmoudi (2014)
211
Underst&ing
PEOU
1
1
Lin (2013)
212
Underst&ing
PU
1
1
Lin (2013)
213
University Support
PU
2
1
Al-Mushasha (2013), Williams & Williams (2009)
214
University Support
PEOU
1
1
Al-Mushasha (2013)
215
Usefulness for
Professors
PU
1
1
Escobar-Rodriguez & Monge-Lozano (2012)
216
User Characteristic
PU
1
1
Ifinedo (2006)
217
User Characteristic
PEOU
1
1
Ifinedo (2006)
218
Vendors Support
PU
1
1
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
219
Vendors Support
PEOU
1
0
Macharia & Nyakwende (2009)
220
Vividness
PU
1
1
Lee & Lehto (2013)