**1. Introduction**

Teachers and students may perceive the importance of e-learning differently. Teachers usually focus on the importance of training and support that may enhance the effective use of e-learning platforms, whereas the perceived usefulness and ease of use are influential factors from the students' perspective. The differences in their perspectives stem from the fact that their roles are different. Students usually receive the product through the e-learning system and can get all the different advantages that the system may offer; thus, they act as the consumers of the product [1]. On the other hand, teachers are the providers of the educational product, as they provide learners with the content and synthesize the given information in simple and concise language [1,2].

Past studies have focused on the importance of e-learning and its implementation all over the world; some have focused on the continuous use of e-learning [3–19] and some on the effect of either teachers' or students' attitudes towards e-learning [20–26]. In other words, no studies have put forward the implementation of two models that focus on how the perceived interactivity of education technology influences teachers' and students' perceptions and urges them to continue using the technology. This study assumes that some factors affecting teachers' intentions to use e-learning platforms continually are different from those affecting students' intentions to use the same platforms continuously. Therefore, this study proposes two different models that tackle both teachers' and students' continuous intentions to use technology. The two models will focus on a certain predictive power that has a more direct relationship with the teachers' and students' perceptions regarding

**Citation:** Saeed Al-Maroof, R.; Alhumaid, K.; Salloum, S. The Continuous Intention to Use E-Learning, from Two Different Perspectives. *Educ. Sci.* **2021**, *11*, 6. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/educsci 11010006

Received: 29 November 2020 Accepted: 21 December 2020 Published: 25 December 2020

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2020 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/).

the continued use of the technology. For instance, one of the factors that contributes to the teachers' continuous use of the e-learning platform is the support they get from the university to enhance the use of the e-learning environment. On the other hand, one of the crucial factors for the students' perception is the controlled motivation that embraces certain intrinsic and extrinsic factors. It is worth mentioning that all previous studies have focused on students' perspectives on any technology-based technique. The acceptance of technology from a student's perspective has been dealt with in many papers, such as [27–29]. The fact that this study focuses on the effect of the same e-learning tool from a teacher's perspective separately is what sets this paper apart from other previous studies.

The objective of this study was to propose a theoretical framework that could be validated later through a proposed model that predicates the continuous intention to use e-learning among students at public universities in Dubai. There are numerous examples of literature related to technology acceptance [25,30–34] and continuous intention [35–38] that have been reviewed to identify the most common factors affecting the continuous intention to use the e-learning platform. The main concentration has been on theories that have been proven to have great predictive power in understanding users' perceptions and on theories that help to explain the importance of continuous use from two different perspectives. Hence, the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) was initiated by [39], Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) acceptance theory by [40], Social Cognitive Theory by [41], Perceived Organizational Support (POS) by [42], and Motivational Theory (MT) by [43,44]. The main factors that have been derived from these theories are perceived use and perceived usefulness, computer self-efficacy, controlled motivation, and so forth. The table below (Table 1) summarizes the studies that have tackled the continuous use of e-learning platforms.


**Table 1.** Most relevant studies of e-learning platforms in different sectors.



As seen in the previous table showing the studies in the existing literature, much research has been conducted focusing on students and/or teachers within one proposed model. Nevertheless, searching for the predictive power behind both teachers' and students' intentions by proposing different variables is still neglected. To our knowledge, no research has examined the continued-use intention (CU) of teachers and instructors using e-learning platforms in higher education. Without knowledge of teachers' and students' CU, it is impossible to enhance e-learning in the Gulf area or to support its programs, systems, or administrative policies in terms of helping to sustain the e-learning platform.

#### **2. Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses**

The proposed framework has certain factors that can make the intention to use elearning more measurable from two different perspectives. TPACK and POS are crucial elements that usually guide the teaching and learning environments from the teachers' perspectives. On the other hand, controlled motivation (CTRLM) is a factor that combines students' intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Nevertheless, certain factors are equally important to both teachers and students, such as technology self-efficacy (TSE), perceived usefulness (PU), and perceived ease of use (PEOU).

#### *2.1. Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)*

Teachers' knowledge cannot be tackled easily, as it is a complex concept that has many embedded elements [39]. The most important element is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), which has been the domain of study for many researchers and practitioners. Its importance stems from the fact that it comprises both the content and the pedagogy that can explain how a particular topic is organized and how it is represented to the learners [53].

Since its emergence, TPACK has become a must since all teachers want to have a full understanding of the relationship between pedagogy and technology. TPACK refers to the type of technological pedagogical knowledge that teachers need to organize and present the intended teaching material effectively [39]. TPACK is one of the influential factors affecting teachers' perspectives. It refers to technological pedagogical content knowledge which includes: TCK (technological content knowledge), TPK (technological pedagogical knowledge), and PCK (pedagogical content knowledge) [54]. Self-assessment surveys and performance-based assessments are the basic instruments for evaluating TPACK [55,56].

The framework that comprises TPACK can be explained as combing different elements, such as content knowledge (CK), that highlight the teacher's knowledge of the subject matter. It includes knowledge of different types, such as knowledge of the theory, discipline, psychological aspects, historical aspects, and so forth [57]. The other two closely related elements are the pedagogy knowledge (PK), which is closely related to the teacher's

knowledge concerning methodology, process, and practice, and the pedagogical content knowledge, which is concerned with how teachers interpret and tailor the teaching material to suit certain pedagogical aims and purposes. This implies that the difference between the former element and the latter is the fact that the latter is related to methodology, assessment, and teaching style knowledge which can be used differently based on students' prior knowledge. Other elements are related to technology, as it comprises technology knowledge, technological content knowledge, and technological pedagogical knowledge. They are related to the ability of users to use technology to accomplish different tasks. The technological content knowledge is related to how technology can affect teaching material and vice versa. The final element is technological pedagogical knowledge, which has to do with the constraints that technology may impose on teaching material. This stems from the fact that certain technology is not developed for educational purposes and should be accustomed to suit educational purposes [57,58]. Accordingly, the following hypothesis can be formed:

#### **Hypothesis 1 (H1).** *TPACK will positively affect teachers' CU in the e-learning environment*.

#### *2.2. Technology Self-Efficacy (TSE)*

Self-efficacy is an effective factor that can reflect how students' own belief in their abilities to use technology affects their acceptance of the learning environment. Therefore, self-efficacy and learning are two factors that can, interactively and dynamically, affect each other [59]. Self-efficacy in the e-learning environment is considered an intrinsic motivator as far as continuous intention is concerned. It usually refers to the degree of confidence that users have in making use of technology [60]. Technology self-efficacy is usually identified as the ability to use technology without facing any crucial problems. It embraces two subdivisions: the estimation of result (users' estimations about their own input) and estimation efficacy (users' estimations in achieving the final result) [61–63]. Within the environment of e-learning, self-efficacy is highly connected to users' own beliefs regarding technology. Some believe that using technology is tremendously easy and achievable, while others may share a contradictory belief, as they may face problems in their ability to learn the appropriate way of using technology [64]. This simply implies that whenever users have a high level of technological self-belief, they may perceive the whole system properly; hence, they will be able to continue using the technology in a positive way. Accordingly, the following hypothesis may be formulated:

**Hypothesis 2 (H2).** *Technology Self-efficacy will positively affect teachers' and students' CU in the e-learning environment*.

#### *2.3. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)*

A review of recent studies has shown that certain variables are crucial to understanding the reasons behind the continuous intention to use e-learning. Regarding Davis's TAM [65], it has been proven that PU and PEOU are the most influential factors in users' continuous-use intentions. Interestingly, PU is more effective than PEOU when one wants to deal with the use of technology [60]. This study focuses only on two constructs within the TAM theory, which have proven effective in investigating the continuous use of technology; these are perceived usefulness and ease of use. [65] adopted the view that the perceived usefulness (PU) and the perceived ease of use (PEOU) of technology form the baseline for examining individuals' usage intentions. PU is defined as the degree to which a person believes that using a technological system supports user performance, whereas PEOU tends to refer to the degree to which a person believes that use will be free of effort. Due to the fact that PEOU has proved to be of great significance only during the early-acceptance stage of technology use [54,65], PEOU may not directly affect teachers' and students' CU in the e-learning environment. Hence, we hypothesize the following:

**Hypothesis 3 (H3).** *The level of PU will positively affect teachers' and students' CU*.
