Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 469–487 | Cite as

Modelling an interplay of adoption determinants with respect to social Web applications used in massive online open courses

  • Tihomir OrehovačkiEmail author
  • Darko Etinger
  • Snježana Babić
Long Paper


One of the major problems of using massive online open courses (MOOCs) commonly reported in the literature is the high dropout rate of students. Active participation in creating, sharing and managing content, simultaneous work on the same artefact, synchronous and asynchronous interaction and variety of functionalities that stimulate productivity in performing assignments are some of the benefits of employing social Web applications in MOOCs that have the potential to boost students’ motivation, thus addressing the aforementioned issue. Successful implementation of social Web applications in MOOCs is largely influenced by their acceptance by students. The aim of this paper is to examine the psychometric characteristics of the research framework which reflects the interplay of adoption determinants with respect to two representatives of social Web applications meant for collaborative work. An empirical study was conducted in which students of one Croatian higher education institution served as representative sample of users. Data were collected by means of the post-use questionnaire. The validity and reliability of the proposed research framework and associated hypotheses were examined by means of the partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling (SEM) technique. Implications for both researchers and practitioners are presented and discussed.


Adoption Collaboration Education Social Web applications Empirical study Post-use questionnaire Wiki Google Docs Massive online open courses PLS-SEM 



  1. 1.
    Ainin, S., Hisham, N.H.: Applying importance-performance analysis to information systems: an exploratory case study. J. Inf. Technol. Organ. 3, 95–103 (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alotaibi, M.B.: Exploring users’ attitudes and intentions toward the adoption of cloud computing in Saudi Arabia: an empirical investigation. J. Comput. Sci. 10(11), 2315–2329 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A.P.: Understanding the MOOCs continuance: the role of openness and reputation. Comput. Educ. 80, 28–38 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amadin, F.I., Obienu, A.C., Osaseri, R.O.: Main barriers and possible enablers of Google apps for education adoption among university staff members. Niger. J. Technol. 37(2), 432–439 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation confirmation model. MIS Q. 25(3), 351–370 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bubaš, G., Ćorić, A., Orehovački, T.: The integration and assessment of students’ artefacts created with diverse Web 2.0 applications. Int. J. Knowl. Eng. Soft Data Paradig. 3(3/4), 261–279 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Y.Y., Huang, H.L., Hsu, Y.C., Tseng, H.C., Lee, Y.C.: Confirmation of expectations and satisfaction with the INTERNET shopping: the role of internet self-efficacy. Comput. Inf. Sci. 3(3), 14–22 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheung, R., Vogel, D.: Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Comput. Educ. 63, 160–175 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daradoumis, T., Bassi, R., Xhafa, F., Caballé, S.: A review on massive e-learning (MOOC) design, delivery and assessment. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing, pp. 208–213. IEEE, Compiegne (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ebner, M., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Holzinger, A.: Utilizing Wiki-systems in higher education classes: A chance for universal access? Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 7(4), 199–207 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elgort, I., Smith, A.G., Toland, J.: Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 24(2), 195–210 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M.L., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: From massive access to cooperation: lessons learned and proven results of a hybrid xMOOC/cMOOC pedagogical approach to MOOCs. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 13, 24 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fonseca, D., Conde, M.Á., García-Peñalvo, F.J.: Improving the information society skills: Is knowledge accessible for all? Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 17(2), 229–245 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    García-Peñalvo, F.J., Fidalgo-Blanco, A., Sein-Echaluce, M.L.: An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telemat. Inform. 35(4), 1018–1030 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications Inc., Los Angeles, CA (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Mena, J.A.: An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40(3), 414–433 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO/IEC 25010.: Systems and software engineering. In: Systems and Software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). System and Software Quality Models (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Joksimović, S., Poquet, O., Kovanović, V., Dowell, N., Mills, C., Gašević, D., Dawson, S., Graesser, A.C., Brooks, C.: How do we model learning at scale? A systematic review of research on MOOCs. Rev. Educ. Res. 86(1), 1–44 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kane, G.C., Fichman, R.G.: The shoemarker’s children: using Wikis for information systems teaching, research, and publication. MIS Q. 33(1), 1–17 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kovačić, A., Bubaš, G., Orehovački, T.: Integrating culture into a Business English course: students’ perspective on a collaborative online writing project. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Central European Conference on Information and Intelligent Systems, pp. 195–202. Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krebs, M., Ludwig, M., Müller, W.: Learning mathematics using a Wiki. Proc.Soc. Behav. Sci. 2(2), 1469–1476 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kwok, D., Yang, S.: Evaluating the intention to use ICT collaborative tools in a social constructivist environment. Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14, 32 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin, C.S., Wu, S., Tsai, R.J.: Integrating perceived playfulness into expectation-confirmation model for web portal context. Inf. Manag. 42(5), 683–693 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu, X.: Empirical testing of a theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: an exploratory study of educational Wikis. Commun. Educ. 59(1), 52–69 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mancinelli, E.: e-Inclusion in the Information Society. Information Society: From Theory to Political Practice: Course Book. Gondolt–Új Mandátum, Budapest (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., Cormier, D.: The MOOC Model for Digital Practice. University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Militaru, G., Purcărea, A.A., Negoiţă, O.D., Niculescu, A.: Examining cloud computing adoption intention in higher education: exploratory study. In: Borangiu, T., Dragoicea, M., Nóvoa, H. (eds.) Exploring Services Science. IESS 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 247, pp. 732–741. Springer, Cham (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moon, J.W., Kim, Y.G.: Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Inf. Manag. 38(4), 217–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Neumann, D.L., Hood, M.: The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of report writing skills in a university statistics course. Aust. J. Educ. Technol. 25(3), 382–398 (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orehovački, T.: Development of a methodology for evaluating the quality in use of Web 2.0 applications. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 6949, pp. 382–385. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Orehovački, T.: Methodology for Evaluating the Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications, Ph.D. thesis, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Orehovački, T.: Perceived quality of cloud based applications for collaborative writing. In: Pokorny, J., et al. (eds.) Information Systems Development—Business Systems and Services: Modeling and Development, pp. 575–586. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Orehovački, T.: Proposal for a set of quality attributes relevant for Web 2.0 application success. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 319–326. IEEE Press, Cavtat (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Identifying the relevance of quality dimensions contributing to universal access of social Web applications for collaborative writing on mobile devices: an empirical study. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 17(3), 453–473 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Mobile quality of social web applications designed for collaborative writing. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9753, pp. 368–379. Springer, Toronto (2016)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S.: Predicting students’ continuance intention related to the use of collaborative Web 2.0 applications. In: Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Information Systems Development, pp. 112–122. Faculty of Organization and Informatics, Varaždin (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Orehovački, T., Babić, S., Jadrić, M.: Exploring the validity of an instrument to measure the perceived quality in use of Web 20 applications with educational potential. In: Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A. (eds.) LCT, Part I, HCII 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8523, pp. 192–203. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Orehovački, T., Bubaš, G., Kovačić, A.: Taxonomy of Web 2.0 applications with educational potential. In: Cheal, C., Coughlin, J., Moore, S. (eds.) Transformation in Teaching: Social Media Strategies in Higher Education, pp. 43–72. Informing Science Press, Santa Rosa (2012)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Orehovački, T., Cappiello, C., Matera, M.: Identifying Relevant Dimensions for the Quality of Web Mashups: An Empirical Study. In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2016, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9731, pp. 396–407. Springer, Toronto (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Evaluating the Perceived and Estimated Quality in Use of Web 2.0 Applications. J. Syst. Softw. 86(12), 3039–3059 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Orehovački, T., Granić, A., Kermek, D.: Exploring the quality in use of Web 2.0 applications: the case of mind mapping services. In: Harth, A., Koch, N. (eds.) ICWE 2011 Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7059, pp. 266–277. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Orehovački, T., Granollers, T.: Subjective and objective assessment of Mashup tools. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU, Part I, HCII 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8517, pp. 340–351. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Orehovački, T., Žajdela Hrustek, N.: Development and validation of an instrument to measure the usability of educational artifacts created with Web 20 applications. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2013. Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8012, pp. 369–378. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Parker, K.R., Chao, J.T.: Wiki as a teaching tool. Interdiscip. J. Knowl. Learn. Objects 3, 57–72 (2007)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pilli, O., Admiraal, W.: A taxonomy of massive open online courses. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 7(3), 223–240 (2016)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rajabi, H., Virkus, S.: The potential and readiness of Tallinn university to establish massive open online courses (MOOCs). Qual. Quant. Methods Libraries 4, 431–439 (2013)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M.: Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: the importance-performance map analysis. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116(9), 1865–1886 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-M.: SmartPLS 3, Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. (2015)
  50. 50.
    Rodriguez, O.: The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (massive open online courses). Open Praxis 5(1), 67–73 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Saadatmand, M., Kumpulainen, K.: Participants’ perceptions of learning and networking in connectivist MOOCs. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 10(1), 16–30 (2014)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sanchez-Gordon, S., Luján-Mora, S.: Research challenges in accessible MOOCs: a systematic literature review 2008–2016. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 17(4), 775–789 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shana, Z., Abulibdeh, E.: Cloud computing issues for higher education: theory of acceptance model. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 12(11), 168–184 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shiau, W.L., Chau, P.Y.: Understanding blog continuance: a model comparison approach. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 112(4), 663–682 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Stone, R.W., Baker-Eveleth, L.: The antecedents of students’ expectation confirmation regarding electronic textbooks. Comput. Commun. Collab. 2(3), 25–40 (2014)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tam, C., Santos, D., Oliveira, T.: Exploring the influential factors of continuance intention to use mobile apps: extending the expectation confirmation model. Inf. Syst. Front. 5, 1–15 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tan, X., Kim, Y.: User acceptance of SaaS-based collaboration tools: a case of Google Docs. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 28(3), 423–442 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Taylor, C., Hunsinger, D.S.: A study of student use of cloud computing applications. J. Inf. Technol. Manag. 22(3), 36–50 (2011)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Taylor, S., Todd, P.: Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: a study of consumer adoption intentions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 12, 137–156 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Venkatesh, V.: Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating perceived behavioral control, computer anxiety and enjoyment into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11(4), 342–365 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    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. 36(1), 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wei, C., Maust, B., Barrick, J., Cuddihy, E., Spyridakis, J.H.: Wikis for supporting distributed collaborative writing. In: Proceedings of the Society for Technical Communication 52nd Annual Conference, pp. 8–11. Seattle (2005)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    White, B.J., Brown, J.A.E., Deale, C.S., Hardin, A.T.: Collaboration using cloud computing and traditional systems. Issues Inf. Syst. 10(2), 27–32 (2009)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wulf, J., Blohm, I., Brenner, W., Leimeister, J.M.: Massive open online courses. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 6(2), 111–114 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Yang, H.L., Lin, S.L.: User continuance intention to use cloud storage service. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 219–232 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of InformaticsJuraj Dobrila University of PulaPulaCroatia
  2. 2.Department of BusinessPolytechnic of RijekaRijekaCroatia

Personalised recommendations