International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 6 (June 2023), Pages: 137-149

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

From traditional to tech-savvy: An empirical investigation of students' actual use of LMS in Saudi universities

 Author(s): 

 Abdulsalam Alquhaif 1, Mohammed Abdulrab 2, Redhwan Qasem Rashed 3, Yaser Hasan Al-Mamary 4, *, Fawaz Jazim 3, Shirien Gaffar Abdalraheem 3, Malika Anwar Siddiqui 3, Aliyu Alhaji Abubakar 5

 Affiliation(s):

 1Department of Accounting, College of Business Administration, University of Ha'il, Hail, Saudi Arabia
 2Management Department, Community College of Qatar, Doha, Qatar
 3Department of English, College of Arts, University of Ha'il, Hail, Saudi Arabia
 4Department of Management and Information Systems, College of Business Administration, University of Ha'il, Hail, Saudi Arabia
 5Department of Business Administration, Gombe State University, Gombe, Nigeria

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5495-8490

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.06.017

 Abstract:

The primary objective of this research endeavor is to comprehensively comprehend the impact of identified research factors on students' intentions to utilize learning management systems (LMS) in Saudi Arabian universities. In order to achieve this objective, the study has incorporated two prominent motivational models, namely the DeLone and McLean Model, and the technology acceptance model (TAM). The hypothesized relationships were succinctly depicted and experimentally validated through a sample of 224 students from Saudi Arabian universities. The findings of the study reveal significant correlations among all the proposed hypotheses. The research model employed in this project demonstrates that system quality, information quality, service quality, perceived usefulness, perceived enjoyment, and perceived ease of use exert direct influence on university students' intentions to employ LMS. Moreover, the research model highlights that the intention to use LMS significantly impacts actual usage behavior. By developing an innovative and integrated model for gauging students' genuine individual intentions to use LMS, this research paper makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Technology adoption, Intention, LMS, Perceived usefulness

 Article History: Received 14 January 2023, Received in revised form 24 April 2023, Accepted 24 April 2023

 Acknowledgment 

This research has been funded by Scientific Research Deanship at the University of Ha’il-Saudi Arabia through project number RG-21 010.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Alquhaif A, Abdulrab M, Rashed RQ, Al-Mamary YH, Jazim F, Abdalraheem SG, Siddiqui MA, and Abubakar AA (2023). From traditional to tech-savvy: An empirical investigation of students' actual use of LMS in Saudi universities. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(6): 137-149

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (80)

  1. Abubakar AA, Jazim F, Al-Mamary YH, Abdulrab M, Abdalraheem SG, Siddiqui MA, and Alquhaif A (2023). Factors influencing students’ intention to use learning management system at Saudi Universities: A structural equation modeling approach. Human Systems Management. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-220181   [Google Scholar]
  2. Al-Adwan A, Al-Adwan A, and 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.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Alakrash HM and Razak NA (2019). Motivation towards the application of ICT in English language learning among Arab EFL students. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(10-Special Issue): 1197-1203. https://doi.org/10.5373/JARDCS/V11SP10/20192963   [Google Scholar] PMid:32693719
  4. Al-Busaidi KA and Al-Shihi H (2010). Instructors' acceptance of learning management systems: A theoretical framework. Communications of the IBIMA, 2010: 862128. https://doi.org/10.5171/2010.862128   [Google Scholar]
  5. Al-Busaidi KA and Al-Shihi H (2012). Key factors to instructors’ satisfaction of learning management systems in blended learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24: 18-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9051-x   [Google Scholar]
  6. Alfraih MM and Alanezi FS (2016). Accounting students’ perceptions of effective faculty attributes. Journal of International Education in Business, 9(2): 123-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-04-2016-0004   [Google Scholar]
  7. Al-Gahtani SS (2016). Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model. Applied Computing and Informatics, 12(1): 27-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001   [Google Scholar]
  8. Al-Ghurbani AM, Jazim F, Abdulrab M, Al-Mamary YHS, and Khan I (2022). The impact of internal factors on the use of technology in higher education in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human Systems Management, 41(2): 283-302. https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-211219   [Google Scholar]
  9. Alharbi S and Drew S (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 5(1): 143-155. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2014.050120   [Google Scholar]
  10. Alkhwaldi A, Kamala M, and Qahwaji R (2017). From e-govemment to cloud-government: Challenges of Jordanian citizens' acceptance for public services. In the 12th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions, IEEE, Cambridge, UK: 298-304. https://doi.org/10.23919/ICITST.2017.8356405   [Google Scholar]
  11. Al-Mamary YH and Alshallaqi M (2022). Impact of autonomy, innovativeness, risk-taking, proactiveness, and competitive aggressiveness on students’ intention to start a new venture. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 7(4): 100239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100239   [Google Scholar]
  12. Al-Mamary YHS (2022a). Examining the factors affecting the use of ICT in teaching in Yemeni schools. Journal of Public Affairs, 22(1): e2330.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Al-Mamary YHS (2022b). Why do students adopt and use learning management systems? Insights from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2): 100088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100088   [Google Scholar]
  14. Al-Mamary YHS (2022c). Understanding the use of learning management systems by undergraduate university students using the UTAUT model: Credible evidence from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2): 100092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100092   [Google Scholar]
  15. Al-Mamary YHS and Alraja MM (2022). Understanding entrepreneurship intention and behavior in the light of TPB model from the digital entrepreneurship perspective. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 2(2): 100106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjimei.2022.100106   [Google Scholar]
  16. Al-Mamary YHS, Abdulrab M, Alwaheeb MA, and Alshammari NGM (2020). Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: Testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Education+Training, 62(7/8): 779-803. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2020-0096   [Google Scholar]
  17. Alomary A and Woollard J (2015). How is technology accepted by users? A review of technology acceptance models and theories. In the IRES 17th International Conference, London, UK: 1-4.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Alqahtani AY and Rajkhan AA (2020). E-learning critical success factors during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial perspectives. Education Sciences, 10(9): 216. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090216   [Google Scholar]
  19. Alruwaie M, El-Haddadeh R, and Weerakkody V (2020). Citizens' continuous use of eGovernment services: The role of self-efficacy, outcome expectations and satisfaction. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3): 101485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101485   [Google Scholar]
  20. Alshammari SH (2020). The influence of technical support, perceived self-efficacy, and instructional design on students’ use of learning management systems. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 21(3): 112-141. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.762034   [Google Scholar]
  21. Alshebami AS (2022). Psychological features and entrepreneurial intention among Saudi small entrepreneurs during adverse times. Sustainability, 14(13): 7604. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137604   [Google Scholar]
  22. Alshebami AS and Al Marri SH (2022). The impact of financial literacy on entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of saving behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 13: 911605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.911605   [Google Scholar] PMid:35756317 PMCid:PMC9226410
  23. Anderson RM, Heesterbeek H, Klinkenberg D, and Hollingsworth TD (2020). How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The Lancet, 395(10228): 931-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5   [Google Scholar] PMid:32164834
  24. Bagozzi RP (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4): 244-254. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00122   [Google Scholar]
  25. Bagozzi RP, Davis FD, and Warshaw PR (1992). Development and test of a theory of technological learning and usage. Human Relations, 45(7): 659-686. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500702   [Google Scholar]
  26. Bhattacherjee A (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3): 351-370. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250921   [Google Scholar]
  27. Bhuasiri W, Xaymoungkhoun O, Zo H, Rho JJ, and Ciganek AP (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers and Education, 58(2): 843-855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.010   [Google Scholar]
  28. Binyamin S, Rutter M, and Smith S (2017). Factors influencing the students' use of learning management systems: A case study of King Abdulaziz University. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on E-learning, Academic Conferences and Publishing Limited, Orlando, USA: 289-297. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.2205   [Google Scholar]
  29. Cavus N, Mohammed YB, and Yakubu MN (2021). Determinants of learning management systems during COVID-19 pandemic for sustainable education. Sustainability, 13(9): 5189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095189   [Google Scholar]
  30. Chang JCJ and King WR (2005). Measuring the performance of information systems: A functional scorecard. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1): 85-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045833   [Google Scholar]
  31. Chaw LY and Tang CM (2018). What makes learning management systems effective for learning? Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 47(2): 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239518795828   [Google Scholar]
  32. Cheng YM (2012). The effects of information systems quality on nurses’ acceptance of the electronic learning system. Journal of Nursing Research, 20(1): 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1097/JNR.0b013e31824777aa   [Google Scholar] PMid:22333963
  33. Claar C, Portolese Dias L, and Shields R (2014). Student acceptence of learning management systems: A study on demographics. Issues in Information Systems, 15(1): 409-417.   [Google Scholar]
  34. Davis FD (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008   [Google Scholar]
  35. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, and Warshaw PR (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8): 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982   [Google Scholar]
  36. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, and Warshaw PR (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14): 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x   [Google Scholar]
  37. DeLone WH and McLean ER (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4): 9-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748   [Google Scholar]
  38. Dulloo R, Mokashi J, and Puri MM (2014). Exploring technology acceptance theories and models-A comparative analysis. In the MIT-SOM PGRC KJIMRP 1st International Conference, Pune, India: 308–317.   [Google Scholar]
  39. Eraslan Yalcin M and Kutlu B (2019). Examination of students' acceptance of and intention to use learning management systems using extended TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5): 2414-2432. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12798   [Google Scholar]
  40. Etezadi-Amoli J and Farhoomand AF (1996). A structural model of end user computing satisfaction and user performance. Information and Management, 30(2): 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(95)00052-6   [Google Scholar]
  41. Findik-Coşkunçay D, Alkiş N, and Özkan-Yildirim S (2018). A structural model for students' adoption of learning management systems: An empirical investigation in the higher education context. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 21(2): 13-27. https://doi.org/10.1037/t70573-000   [Google Scholar]
  42. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3): 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313   [Google Scholar]
  43. Garrison DR (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. 2nd Edition, Routledge/Taylor and Francis, London, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Ghazal S, Aldowah H, Umar I, and Bervell B (2018). Acceptance and satisfaction of learning management system enabled blended learning based on a modified DeLone-McLean information system success model. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 9(3): 52-71. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITPM.2018070104   [Google Scholar]
  45. Goodhue DL and Thompson RL (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2): 213-236. https://doi.org/10.2307/249689   [Google Scholar]
  46. Guimaraes T and Igbaria M (1997). Client/server system success: Exploring the human side. Decision Sciences, 28(4): 851-876. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01334.x   [Google Scholar]
  47. Habibi-Yangjeh A, Asadzadeh-Khaneghah S, Feizpoor S, and Rouhi A (2020). Review on heterogeneous photocatalytic disinfection of waterborne, airborne, and foodborne viruses: Can we win against pathogenic viruses? Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 580: 503-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2020.07.047   [Google Scholar] PMid:32711201 PMCid:PMC7361121
  48. Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, and Ringle CM (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1): 2-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203   [Google Scholar]
  49. Jafari SM, Salem SF, Moaddab MS, and Salem SO (2015). Learning management system (LMS) success: An investigation among the university students. In the IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), IEEE, Melaka, Malaysia: 64-69. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC3e.2015.7403488   [Google Scholar]
  50. Joo YJ, Kim N, and Kim NH (2016). Factors predicting online university students’ use of a mobile learning management system (m-LMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 64: 611-630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9436-7   [Google Scholar]
  51. Juhary J (2014). Perceived usefulness and ease of use of the learning management system as a learning tool. International Education Studies, 7(8): 23-34. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n8p23   [Google Scholar]
  52. Khalid N (2014). The role of perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment in assessing students' intention to use LMS using 3-TUM. In the Conference of Global Summit on Education GSE, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.   [Google Scholar]
  53. Lai C, Wang Q, and Lei J (2012). What factors predict undergraduate students' use of technology for learning? A case from Hong Kong. Computers and Education, 59(2): 569-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.006   [Google Scholar]
  54. Lee SM and Chen L (2010). The impact of flow on online consumer behavior. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(4): 1-10.   [Google Scholar]
  55. Liaw SS (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers and Education, 51(2): 864-873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005   [Google Scholar]
  56. Lin KM (2011). E-learning continuance intention: Moderating effects of user e-learning experience. Computers and Education, 56(2): 515-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.017   [Google Scholar]
  57. Lui RW, Lo KK, and Yiu SM (2013). Evaluating and adopting e-learning platforms. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 3(3): 229-233.   [Google Scholar]
  58. McKinney ML (2002). Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation the impacts of urbanization on native species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanized human population about these impacts can greatly improve species conservation in all ecosystems. Bioscience, 52(10): 883-890. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2   [Google Scholar]
  59. Mohammadi H (2015). Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior, 45: 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044   [Google Scholar]
  60. Ozkan S and Koseler R (2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education, 53(4): 1285-1296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011   [Google Scholar]
  61. Panagopoulos C (2010). Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: Field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior, 32: 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9114-0   [Google Scholar]
  62. Park SY (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 12(3): 150-162.   [Google Scholar]
  63. Pitt LF, Watson RT, and Kavan CB (1995). Service quality: A measure of information systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 19(2): 173-187. https://doi.org/10.2307/249687   [Google Scholar]
  64. Ragu-Nathan TS, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan BS, and Tu Q (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4): 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165   [Google Scholar]
  65. Rai A, Lang SS, and Welker RB (2002). Assessing the validity of IS success models: An empirical test and theoretical analysis. Information Systems Research, 13(1): 50-69. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96   [Google Scholar]
  66. Raza SA, Qazi W, Khan KA, and Salam J (2021). Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(2): 183-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633120960421   [Google Scholar] PMCid:PMC7509242
  67. Rehman AU, Al Shammari S, and Al-Mamary YH (2022). Role of religiosity and the mediating effect of luxury value perception in luxury purchase intention: A cross-cultural examination. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 13(4): 975-995. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIMA-03-2021-0091   [Google Scholar]
  68. Samaradiwakara GDMN and Gunawardena CG (2014). Comparison of existing technology acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model. International Technical Sciences Journal, 1(1): 21-36.   [Google Scholar]
  69. Saroia AI and Gao S (2019). Investigating university students’ intention to use mobile learning management systems in Sweden. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5): 569-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2018.1557068   [Google Scholar]
  70. Sedera D, Gable G, and Chan T (2004). A factor and structural equation analysis of the enterprise systems success measurement model. In: Stohr E and Bullen C (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Americas conference on information systems: 676-682. Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  71. Shroff RH, Deneen CC, and Ng EM (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students' behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4): 600-618. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.940   [Google Scholar]
  72. Teo T (2016). Modelling Facebook usage among university students in Thailand: The role of emotional attachment in an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(4): 745-757. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2014.917110   [Google Scholar]
  73. Thong JY, Hong SJ, and Tam KY (2006). The effects of post-adoption beliefs on the expectation-confirmation model for information technology continuance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(9): 799-810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.001   [Google Scholar]
  74. Turban E, King D, Lee JK, Liang TP, and Turban DC (2015). Electronic commerce: A managerial and social networks perspective. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10091-3   [Google Scholar]
  75. Venkatesh V and Speier C (1999). Computer technology training in the workplace: A longitudinal investigation of the effect of mood. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(1): 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2837   [Google Scholar] PMid:10388607
  76. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, and Davis FD (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540   [Google Scholar]
  77. Wang YS, Wang HY, and Shee DY (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context: Scale development and validation. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4): 1792-1808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.006   [Google Scholar]
  78. Wixom BH and Todd PA (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1): 85-102. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1050.0042   [Google Scholar]
  79. Xu D, Huang WW, Wang H, and Heales J (2014). Enhancing e-learning effectiveness using an intelligent agent-supported personalized virtual learning environment: An empirical investigation. Information and Management, 51(4): 430-440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.02.009   [Google Scholar]
  80. Zwain AAA (2019). Technological innovativeness and information quality as neoteric predictors of users’ acceptance of learning management system: An expansion of UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3): 239-254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-09-2018-0065   [Google Scholar]