University Accounting Students and Faculty Members Using the Blackboard Platform during COVID-19; Proposed Modification of the UTAUT Model and an Empirical Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
Sustainability, COVID-19 Pandemic and Technology as a Risk Management Tool
3. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development
3.1. Perceived Risk
3.2. Self-Efficacy
3.3. Performance Expectancy
3.4. Effort Expectancy
3.5. Social Influence
3.6. Mobility
3.7. Self-Managed Learning
3.8. Facilitating Conditions
3.9. Behavioural Intention
4. Research Methodology
4.1. Measurement Instrument
4.2. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection
4.3. Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
4.4. Measurement Model
4.5. Structural Model/Path Analysis
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
6.1. Contributes and Implication
6.2. Limitation and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Adelsberger, H.H.; Collis, B.; Pawlowski, J.M. Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, T.; Siriwardhane, P. Barriers to Career Progression in the Higher Education Sector: Perceptions of Australian Academics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karalis, T. Planning and evaluation during educational disruption: Lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic for treatment of emergencies in education. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2020, 7, 125–142. [Google Scholar]
- Mohapatra, A.K. Impact of COVID-19 on higher education. J. Manag. Public Policy 2020, 11, 4–6. [Google Scholar]
- Guri-Rosenblit, S. ‘Distance education’and ‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. High. Educ. 2005, 49, 467–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Findik-Coşkunçay, D.; Alkiş, N.; Özkan-Yildirim, S. A structural model for students’ adoption of learning management systems: An empirical investigation in the higher education context. J. Educ. Technol. Soc. 2018, 21, 13–27. [Google Scholar]
- Moawad, R.A. Online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic and academic stress in university students. Rev. Românească Educ. Multidimens. 2020, 12 (Suppl. S2), 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovai, A.P.; Downey, J.R. Why some distance education programs fail while others succeed in a global environment. Internet High. Educ. 2010, 13, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aljaber, A. E-learning policy in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and successes. Res. Comp. Int. Educ. 2018, 13, 176–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sawaftah, W.A.; Aljeraiwi, A.A. The Quality of Blended Learning Based on the Use of Blackboard in Teaching Physics at King Saud University: Students’ Perceptions. J. Educ. Psychol. Sci. 2018, 19, 616–646. [Google Scholar]
- Sultana, J. Determining the factors that affect the uses of Mobile Cloud Learning (MCL) platform Blackboard—A modification of the UTAUT model. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 223–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alturki, U.T.; Aldraiweesh, A. Evaluating the usability and accessibility of LMS ‘Blackboard’ at King Saud University. Contemp. Issues Educ. Res. 2016, 9, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations. Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education and Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities for All; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Guo, S.; Huang, H.; Liu, W.; Xiang, Y. Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials 2018, 20, 2389–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lorente, L.M.L.; Arrabal, A.A.; Pulido-Montes, C. The right to education and ICT during COVID-19: An international perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alruwaie, M.; El-Haddadeh, R.; Weerakkody, V. Citizens’ continuous use of eGovernment services: The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and satisfaction. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020, 37, 101485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-araibi, A.A.M.; Naz’ri bin Mahrin, M.; Yusoff, R.C.M. Technological aspect factors of E-learning readiness in higher education institutions: Delphi technique. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 567–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almaiah, M.A.; Al-Khasawneh, A.; Althunibat, A. Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 5261–5280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ferdousi, B.J. A Study of Factors that Affect Instructors’ Intention to Use E-Learning Systems in Two-Year Colleges. Ph.D. Dissertation, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Alzahrani, L.; Seth, K.P. Factors influencing students’ satisfaction with continuous use of learning management systems during the COVID-19 pandemic: An empirical study. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2021, 26, 6787–6805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Al Gamdi, M.A.; Samarji, A. Perceived barriers towards e-Learning by faculty members at a recently established university in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2016, 6, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naveed, Q.N.; Qureshi, M.R.N.; Alsayed, A.O.; Muhammad, A.; Sanober, S.; Shah, A. Prioritizing barriers of E-Learning for effective teaching-learning using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP). In Proceedings of the 2017 4th IEEE International Conference on Engineering Technologies and Applied Sciences (ICETAS), Salmabad, Bahrain, 29 November–1 December 2017; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Khasawneh, A.M.; Obeidallah, R. E-learning in the Hashemite University: Success factors for implementation in Jordan. In Advanced Online Education and Training Technologies; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 135–145. [Google Scholar]
- Almaiah, M.A.; Al Mulhem, A. Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use of mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2019, 24, 1433–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, D.-H. The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 1826–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychol. Bull. 1975, 82, 261–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 982–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace 1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P. Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1995, 12, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Compeau, D.R.; Higgins, C.A. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 189–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39, 273–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oye, N.D.; Iahad, A.N.; Rahim, N.A.; Zairah, N. A comparative study of acceptance and use of ICT among university academic staff of ADSU and LASU: Nigeria. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 1, 40–52. [Google Scholar]
- Roca, J.C.; Gagné, M. Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2008, 24, 1585–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cody-Allen, E.; Kishore, R. An extension of the UTAUT model with e-quality, trust, and satisfaction constructs. In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR Conference on Computer Personnel Research: Forty Four Years of Computer Personnel Research: Achievements, Challenges & the Future, Claremont, CA, USA, 13–15 April 2006; pp. 82–89. [Google Scholar]
- Alrawashdeh, T.A.; Muhairat, M.I.; Alqatawnah, S.M. Factors affecting acceptance of web-based training system: Using extended UTAUT and structural equation modeling. arXiv 2012, arXiv:1205.1904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alwahaishi, S.; Snásel, V. Consumers’ acceptance and use of information and communications technology: A UTAUT and flow based theoretical model. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Godin, J.; Goette, T. A pilot study of virtual teamwork training. Commun. IIMA 2013, 13, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Alzahrani, M.E.; Goodwin, R.D. Towards a UTAUT-based model for the study of E-Government citizen acceptance in Saudi Arabia. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2012, 6, 376–382. [Google Scholar]
- Pahnila, S.; Siponen, M.; Zheng, X. Integrating habit into UTAUT: The Chinese eBay case. Pac. Asia J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2011, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badwelan, A.; Drew, S.; Bahaddad, A.A. Towards acceptance m-learning approach in higher education in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2016, 11, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mtebe, J.S.; Raisamo, R. Investigating perceived barriers to the use of open educational resources in higher education in Tanzania. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2014, 15, 43–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shorfuzzaman, M.; Alhussein, M. Modeling learners’ readiness to adopt mobile learning: A perspective from a GCC higher education institution. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2016, 2016, 6982824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hsiao, C.-H.; Tang, K.-Y. Explaining undergraduates’ behavior intention of e-textbook adoption: Empirical assessment of five theoretical models. Libr. Hi Tech 2014, 32, 139–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardamean, B.; Susanto, M. Assessing user acceptance toward blog technology using the UTAUT model. Int. J. Math. Comput. Simul. 2012, 6, 203–212. [Google Scholar]
- Alfarani, L.A. Influences on the adoption of mobile learning in Saudi women teachers in higher education. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL2014), Thessaloniki, Greece, 13–14 November 2014; pp. 30–34. [Google Scholar]
- Iqbal, S.; Qureshi, I.A. M-learning adoption: A perspective from a developing country. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2012, 13, 147–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shin, D.-H.; Biocca, F.; Choo, H. Exploring the user experience of three-dimensional virtual learning environments. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2013, 32, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uğur, N.G.; Turan, A.H. E-learning adoption of academicians: A proposal for an extended model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2018, 37, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; Simon & Shuster. Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, M.; Wang, X.; Wang, J.; Zuo, C.; Tian, J.; Cui, Y. Factors Affecting College Students’ Continuous Intention to Use Online Course Platform. SN Comput. Sci. 2021, 2, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McLean, L.D. Organizational culture’s influence on creativity and innovation: A review of the literature and implications for human resource development. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2005, 7, 226–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schaper, L.K.; Pervan, G.P. ICT and OTs: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2007, 76, S212–S221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchewka, J.T.; Kostiwa, K. An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using course management software. Commun. IIMA 2007, 7, 10. [Google Scholar]
- Bradley, J. The technology acceptance model and other user acceptance theories. In Handbook of Research on Contemporary Theoretical Models in Information Systems; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2009; pp. 277–294. [Google Scholar]
- Pavlou, P.A. Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2003, 7, 101–134. [Google Scholar]
- Mallat, N. Exploring consumer adoption of mobile payments—A qualitative study. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2007, 16, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Saedi, K.; Al-Emran, M.; Ramayah, T.; Abusham, E. Developing a general extended UTAUT model for M-payment adoption. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slade, E.; Williams, M.; Dwivedi, Y.; Piercy, N. Exploring consumer adoption of proximity mobile payments. J. Strateg. Mark. 2015, 23, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.-H.; Wang, S.-C. What drives mobile commerce?: An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Terzis, V.; Economides, A.A. The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Comput. Educ. 2011, 56, 1032–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Wu, M.; Wang, H. Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2009, 40, 92–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, C.-M.; Wang, E.T.G. Understanding Web-based learning continuance intention: The role of subjective task value. Inf. Manag. 2008, 45, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abu-Al-Aish, A.; Love, S. Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2013, 14, 82–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peters, K. m-Learning: Positioning educators for a mobile, connected future. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2007, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mallat, N.; Rossi, M.; Tuunainen, V.K.; Öörni, A. An empirical investigation of mobile ticketing service adoption in public transportation. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 2008, 12, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conner, M.; Smith, N.; McMillan, B. Examining normative pressure in the theory of planned behaviour: Impact of gender and passengers on intentions to break the speed limit. Curr. Psychol. 2003, 22, 252–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Adwan, A.S.; Al-Madadha, A.; Zvirzdinaite, Z. Modeling students’ readiness to adopt mobile learning in higher education: An empirical study. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 2018, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yi, M.Y.; Jackson, J.D.; Park, J.S.; Probst, J.C. Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view. Inf. Manag. 2006, 43, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madden, T.J.; Ellen, P.S.; Ajzen, I. A comparison of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 18, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekblom, Ö.; Ekblom-Bak, E.; Bolam, K.A.; Ekblom, B.; Schmidt, C.; Söderberg, S.; Bergström, G.; Börjesson, M. Concurrent and predictive validity of physical activity measurement items commonly used in clinical settings-data from SCAPIS pilot study. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Revilla, M.A.; Saris, W.E.; Krosnick, J.A. Choosing the number of categories in agree-disagree scales. Sociol. Methods Res. 2014, 43, 73–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Featherman, M.S.; Pavlou, P.A. Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2003, 59, 451–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, L.; Zhu, J.; Liu, Q. A meta-analysis of mobile commerce adoption and the moderating effect of culture. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2012, 28, 1902–1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, C.; Wang, Q.; Lei, J. What factors predict undergraduate students’ use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Comput. Educ. 2012, 59, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, H.W. Sample size: How much is enough? Qual. Quant. 1983, 17, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roscoe, J.T. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Struct. Equ. Model. 2002, 9, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis. Always Learning; Pearson Education Limited: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mujalli, A.; Almgrashi, A. A Conceptual Framework for Generalised Audit Software Adoption in Saudi Arabia by Government Internal Auditing Departments using an Integrated Institutional Theory-TOE Model. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE), Gold Coast, Australia, 16–18 December 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Psychology Press: Abingdon, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Psychology Press: Abingdon, UK, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
- Šumak, B.; Polancic, G.; Hericko, M. An empirical study of virtual learning environment adoption using UTAUT. In Proceedings of the 2010 Second International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-Line Learning, Saint Maarten, The Netherlands, 10–16 February 2010; pp. 17–22. [Google Scholar]
- Taiwo, A.A.; Downe, A.G. The theory of user acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A meta-analytic review of empirical findings. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2013, 49, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
- Alshammari, S.H. Determining the Factors That Affect the Use of Virtual Classrooms: A Modification of UTAUT Model. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Res. 2021, 20, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Masri, M.; Tarhini, A. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2017, 65, 743–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buabeng-Andoh, C.; Baah, C. Pre-service teachers’ intention to use learning management system: An integration of UTAUT and TAM. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2020, 17, 455–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raman, V.; Horner, H.T.; Khan, I.A. New and unusual forms of calcium oxalate raphide crystals in the plant kingdom. J. Plant Res. 2014, 127, 721–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kabra, G.; Ramesh, A.; Akhtar, P.; Dash, M.K. Understanding behavioural intention to use information technology: Insights from humanitarian practitioners. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 1250–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siswanto, T.; Shofiati, R.; Hartini, H. Acceptance and utilization of technology (UTAUT) as a method of technology acceptance model of mitigation disaster website. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 106, 012011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Raman, A.; Don, Y. Preservice teachers’ acceptance of learning management software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. Int. Educ. Stud. 2013, 6, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Constructs | Code | Indicators | Source |
---|---|---|---|
Perceived Risk | PR1 | “I wouldn’t feel protected when providing personal information through the Blackboard platform”. | [80,81] |
PR2 | “I wouldn’t feel comfortable about the use of the Blackboard platform because other people might be able to access my data”. | ||
PR3 | “There is a high chance that something wrong would occur when using the Blackboard system”. | ||
Self-Efficacy | SE1 | “I would use the Blackboard platform if I had a built-in guide for assistance”. | [34] |
SE2 | “I would use the Blackboard platform if someone showed me how to use it”. | ||
SE3 | “I would use the Blackboard platform if it would be used by others”. | ||
Performance Expectancy | PE1 | “I found Blackboard is useful for learning or teaching”. | [34] |
PE2 | “I think through Blackboard I can do my work more quickly”. | ||
PE3 | “I think Blackboard makes learning and obtaining information more effective”. | ||
Effort Expectancy | EE1 | “Learning how to use Blackboard is easy”. | [34] |
EE3 | “My interaction and navigation with Blackboard is clear and understandable”. | ||
EE3 | “Overall I found that Blackboard is easy to use”. | ||
Social Influence | SI1 | “I use Blackboard because my university has introduced it”. | [34,82] |
SI2 | “I use Blackboard because all teachers and students use it”. | ||
Facilitating Condition | FC1 | “IT dept. provides support and assistance for using Blackboard”. | [34] |
FC2 | “I have necessary resources and knowledge to use Blackboard”. | ||
FC3 | “Use of Blackboard is suitable for my work”. | ||
Mobility | Mob1 | “I can access Blackboard from anywhere”. | [11,46] |
Mob2 | “I can access Blackboard through mobile devices” | ||
Self-Managed Learning | SML1 | “Blackboard increases learner autonomy” | [11] |
SML2 | “It is possible to do self-directed learning through Blackboard” |
Demographic Items | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 129 | 58.10% |
Female | 93 | 41.90% |
Age | ||
18–25 | 198 | 89.1% |
26–35 | 16 | 7.2% |
36–45 | 6 | 2.7% |
46+ | 2 | 0.9% |
Occupation | ||
Student | 198 | 89.18% |
Faculty members | 24 | 10.8% |
Level of education | ||
Bachelor | 198 | 89.18% |
Masters | 21 | 9.45% |
PhD | 3 | 1.35% |
Ethnicity | ||
Saudi | 205 | 92.3% |
International | 17 | 7.6% |
Threshold Values | X2/d.f (<2) | CFI (>0.9) | AGFI (>0.8) | TLI (>0.9) | GFI (>0.9) | RMSEA (<0.08) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Full Measurement Structural Model Fit Indices | 1.61 | 0.930 | 0.841 | 0.911 | 0.90 | 0.053 |
Constructs & Items | Factor Loading (>0.7) | SMC | CR | Cronbach’s α | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(PR) | 0.765 | 0.760 | 0.52 | ||
PR1 | 0.64 | 0.41 | |||
PR2 | 0.80 | 0.64 | |||
PR3 | 0.72 | 0.51 | |||
(SE) | 0.87 | 0.860 | 0.77 | ||
SE1 | 0.93 | 0.86 | |||
SE2 | 0.83 | 0.67 | |||
(PE) | 0.848 | 0.844 | 0.65 | ||
PE1 | 0.90 | 0.80 | |||
PE2 | 0.77 | 0.59 | |||
PE3 | 0.75 | 0.56 | |||
(EE) | 0.82 | 0.819 | 0.61 | ||
EE1 | 0.85 | 0.72 | |||
EE2 | 0.71 | 0.50 | |||
EE3 | 0.77 | 0.60 | |||
(SI) | 0.720 | 0.716 | 0.57 | ||
SI1 | 0.62 | 0.40 | |||
SI2 | 0.87 | 0.76 | |||
(SML) | 0.73 | 0.724 | 0.59 | ||
SML1 | 0.85 | 0.73 | |||
SML2 | 0.67 | 0.45 | |||
(M) | 0.76 | 0.755 | 0.62 | ||
M1 | 0.70 | 0.50 | |||
M2 | 0.88 | 0.77 | |||
(FC) | 0.83 | 0.822 | 0.63 | ||
FC1 | 0.61 | 0.40 | |||
FC2 | 0.93 | 0.86 | |||
FC3 | 0.81 | 0.65 | |||
(BI) | 0.87 | 0.874 | 0.78 | ||
BI1 | 0.84 | 0.70 | |||
BI2 | 0.93 | 0.86 | |||
(UB) | 0.80 | 0.800 | 0.67 | ||
UB1 | 0.80 | 0.64 | |||
UB2 | 0.83 | 0.69 |
AVE | PR | SE | PE | EE | SI | SML | M | FC | BI | USE | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PR | 0.52 | 0.723 | |||||||||
SE | 0.77 | 0.188 † | 0.879 | ||||||||
PE | 0.65 | 0.350 ** | 0.002 | 0.807 | |||||||
EE | 0.61 | 0.344 *** | 0.103 | 0.181 * | 0.778 | ||||||
SI | 0.57 | 0.222 * | 0.211 * | 0.192 * | −0.034 | 0.883 | |||||
SML | 0.59 | 0.079 | 0.084 | 0.044 | 0.190 * | 0.264 ** | 0.767 | ||||
M | 0.62 | 0.014 | −0.058 | −0.065 | −0.113 | 0.261 ** | 0.268 ** | 0.791 | |||
FC | 0.63 | −0.353 ** | 0.290 ** | 0.089 | 0.047 | 0.098 | 0.067 | 0.112 | 0.794 | ||
BI | 0.78 | 0.380 *** | 0.535 *** | 0.174 † | 0.173 * | 0.004 | 0.125 | 0.144 † | 0.323 *** | 0.883 | |
USE | 0.67 | 0.050 | 0.080 | 0.111 | 0.060 | 0.190 * | 0.159 † | 0.111 | 0.181 * | 0.108 | 0.817 |
Threshold Values | χ2/d.f (<2) | RMSEA (<0.08) | CFI (>0.9) | AGFI (>0.8) | GFI (>0.9) | TLI (>0.9) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Structural Model Fit Indices | 1.61 | 0.053 | 0.930 | 0.841 | 0.90 | 0.911 |
Hypotheses | Relationship | C.R. (t-Value) | p | Standardised Structural Coefficients | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | PR→BI | 0.743 | 0.457 | 0.07 | Unsupported |
H2 | SE→BI | 2.067 | 0.039 | 0.24 * | Supported |
H3 | PE→BI | 2.047 | 0.041 | 0.16 * | Supported |
H4 | EE→BI | 2.931 | 0.003 | 0.23 ** | Supported |
H5 | SI→BI | 2.292 | 0.022 | 0.25 * | Supported |
H6 | SML→BI | 2.903 | 0.004 | 0.32 ** | Supported |
H7 | M→BI | 1.875 | 0.048 | 0.17 * | Supported |
H8 | FC→BI | −1.441 | 0.150 | −0.13 | Unsupported |
H9 | FC→USE | 2.420 | 0.016 | 0.19 * | Supported |
H10 | BI→USE | 3.366 | 0.0001 | 0.26 *** | Supported |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mujalli, A.; Khan, T.; Almgrashi, A. University Accounting Students and Faculty Members Using the Blackboard Platform during COVID-19; Proposed Modification of the UTAUT Model and an Empirical Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042360
Mujalli A, Khan T, Almgrashi A. University Accounting Students and Faculty Members Using the Blackboard Platform during COVID-19; Proposed Modification of the UTAUT Model and an Empirical Study. Sustainability. 2022; 14(4):2360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042360
Chicago/Turabian StyleMujalli, Abdulwahab, Tehmina Khan, and Ahmed Almgrashi. 2022. "University Accounting Students and Faculty Members Using the Blackboard Platform during COVID-19; Proposed Modification of the UTAUT Model and an Empirical Study" Sustainability 14, no. 4: 2360. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042360