Factors that influence university students’ intention to use Moodle: a study in Macau

  • Timothy Teo
  • Mingming Zhou
  • Andy Chun Wai Fan
  • Fang HuangEmail author
Cultural and Regional Perspectives


Moodle is widely used in higher education institutions in this digital age. With the growing popularity of Moodle use in education, this study aimed to research on the factors that influence student users’ intentions to adopt Moodle for learning purposes in Macau. A total of 564 students from nine departments at the University of Macau responded to a survey in which ten constructs from a framework that integrated the Diffusion of Innovation Theory and Technology Acceptance Model, were measured. The results of this study showed that the research model had a good fit. Two variables—usefulness and ease of use—had significantly influenced Macau students’ attitudes towards Moodle use. Other variables such as usefulness, attitude, and perceived behavioral control were found to be important determinants of students’ behavioral intentions. Furthermore, usefulness was significantly associated with ease of use, output quality, trialability, as well as subjective norm. Students’ perceptions on the ease of use was significantly influenced by technology complexity and trialability. On the whole, the proposed research model had explained 66% of the variance of Macau university students’ behavioral intentions to use Moodle. This study contributed to deepening our understanding of technology acceptance theories by contextualizing the current study within the Macau higher education.


Moodle Intention to use University students Higher education 



This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Al-Ani, W. T. (2013). Blended learning approach using Moodle and student’s achievement at Sultan Qaboos University in Oman. Journal of Education and Learning, 2(3), 96–110.Google Scholar
  6. Alenezi, A. R., Abdul Karim, A. M., & 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. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(4), 22–34.Google Scholar
  7. Beatty, B., & Ulasewicz, C. (2006). Faculty perspectives on moving from Blackboard to the Moodle learning management system. TechTrends, 50(4), 36–45.Google Scholar
  8. Bray, M. (2015). The growth and diversification of higher education in Macau. International Higher Education, 23, 19–20.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, I. T. (2002). Individual and technological factors affecting perceived ease of use of web-based learning technologies in a developing country. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 9, 1–15.Google Scholar
  10. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Carvalho, A., Areal, N., & Silva, J. (2011). Students’ perceptions of blackboard and Moodle in a Portuguese university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 824–841.Google Scholar
  12. Chao, I. T. (2008). Moving to Moodle: Reflections two years later. Educause Quarterly, 31(3), 46–52.Google Scholar
  13. Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., & McLaughlin, M. (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1674–1684.Google Scholar
  14. Chuo, Y. H., Tsai, C. H., & Lan, Y. L. (2011). The effect of organizational support and self-efficacy on the usage intention of e-learning system in hospital. Key Engineering Materials, 467–469(9), 2137–2142.Google Scholar
  15. Churchill, D. (2009). Educational applications of web 2.0: Using blogs to support teaching and learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 179–183.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Costa, C., Alvelos, H., & Teixeira, L. (2016). Acceptance of Moodle by professors: A study in a Portuguese higher education institution. Paper presented at 16ª Conferência da Associação Portuguesa de Sistemas de Informação—CAPSI’16, At Porto.Google Scholar
  18. Costello, E. (2013). Opening up to open source: Looking at how Moodle was adopted in higher education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 187–200.Google Scholar
  19. Damnjanovic, V., Jednak, S., & Mijatovic, I. (2015). Factors affecting the effectiveness and use of Moodle: Students’ perception. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(4), 496–514.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  21. Escobar-Rodriguez, T., & Monge-Lozano, P. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business administration students. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1085–1093.Google Scholar
  22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.Google Scholar
  24. Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(1), 7.Google Scholar
  25. Hackbarth, G., Grover, V., & Mun, Y. Y. (2003). Computer playfulness and anxiety: Positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information & Management, 40(3), 221–232.Google Scholar
  26. Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. Hölbl, M., & Welzer, T. (2015). Students’ feedback and communication habits using Moodle. Elektronika ir Elektrotechnika, 102(6), 63–66.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Huang, H. M. (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37.Google Scholar
  30. Huang, F., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2017). Factors affecting Chinese English as a foreign language teachers’ technology acceptance: A qualitative study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(1), 133–148.Google Scholar
  31. Jan, A. U., & Contreras, V. (2016). Success model for knowledge management systems used by doctoral researchers. Computers in Human Behavior, 59, 258–264.Google Scholar
  32. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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 and Society, 14(4), 124–137.Google Scholar
  34. Lin, T. T., & Bautista, J. R. (2017). Understanding the relationships between mHealth Apps’ characteristics, trialability, and mHealth literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 22(4), 346–354.Google Scholar
  35. Lin, P. C., Lu, H. K., & Fan, S. M. (2014). Exploring the impact of perceived teaching style on behavioral intention toward Moodle reading system. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(3), 64–67.Google Scholar
  36. Locke, W. (2009). Reconnecting the research–policy–practice nexus in higher education: “Evidence-based policy” in practice in national and international contexts. Higher Education Policy, 22(2), 119–140.Google Scholar
  37. Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. D. (2009). Podcasting in higher education: What are the implications for teaching and learning? Internet and Higher Education, 12(2), 88–92.Google Scholar
  38. Luo, X., Li, H., Zhang, J., & Shim, J. P. (2010). Examining multi-dimensional trust and multi-faceted risk in initial acceptance of emerging technologies: An empirical study of mobile banking services. Decision Support Systems, 49(2), 222–234.Google Scholar
  39. Ma, W. W. K., Andersson, R., & Streith, K. O. (2005). Examining user acceptance of computer technology: An empirical study of student teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(6), 387–395.Google Scholar
  40. Machado, M., & Tao, E. (2007). Blackboard vs. Moodle: Comparing user experience of learning management systems. Frontiers in Education ConferenceGlobal Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, 2007. Fie ‘07. (pp.S4J-7–S4J-12). IEEE.Google Scholar
  41. Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Using subjective norms to predict teachers’ computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
  42. McCoy, S., Galletta, D. F., & King, W. R. (2005). Integrating national culture into IS research: The need for current individual level measures. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15(1), 211–224.Google Scholar
  43. Moodle (2015). Retrieved from in February 2017.
  44. Nurakun Kyzy, Z., Ismailova, R., & Dündar, H. (2018). Learning management system implementation: A case study in the Kyrgyz Republic. Interactive Learning Environments. Scholar
  45. Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 345–375.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Pinto-Llorente, A. M., Sánchez-Gómez, M. C., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Casillas-Martín, S. (2017). Students’ perceptions and attitudes towards asynchronous technological tools in blended-learning training to improve grammatical competence in English as a second language. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 632–643.Google Scholar
  48. Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2014). Using technology for teaching and learning in higher education: A critical review of the role of evidence in informing practice. Higher Education Research and Development, 33, 549–564.Google Scholar
  49. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  51. Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., Avgerinou, M. D., & Moore, J. (2010). The effect of learning management systems on student and faculty outcomes. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 82–83.Google Scholar
  52. Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.Google Scholar
  53. Sánchez-Prieto, J. C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2016). Informal tools in formal contexts: Development of a model to assess the acceptance of mobile technologies among teachers. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 519–528.Google Scholar
  54. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44(1), 90–103.Google Scholar
  55. Shattock, M. (2003). Managing successful universities. Society for Research into Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education. Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice, 5, 5–15.Google Scholar
  57. Sife, A., Lwoga, E., & Sanga, C. (2007). New technologies for teaching and learning: Challenges for higher learning institutions in developing countries. International Journal of Education & Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 3(2), 57–67.Google Scholar
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. Šorgo, A., Bartol, T., Dolničar, D., & Boh Podgornik, B. (2017). Attributes of digital natives as predictors of information literacy in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(3), 749–767.Google Scholar
  60. Straub, D., Limayem, M., & Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). Measuring system usage: Implications for is theory testing. Management Science, 41(8), 1328–1342.Google Scholar
  61. Tang, H. F. J., & Morrison, K. (1998). When marketisation does not improve schooling: The case of Macau. Compare A Journal of Comparative & International Education, 28(3), 245–262.Google Scholar
  62. Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(1), 302–312.Google Scholar
  63. Teo, T. (2010). Establishing gender structural invariance of technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 311–320.Google Scholar
  64. Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  65. Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers’ acceptance of technology: Assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22–31.Google Scholar
  66. Teo, T., & Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient Alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209–213.Google Scholar
  67. Teo, T., & Huang, F. (2018). Investigating the influence of individually espoused cultural values on teachers’ intentions to use educational technologies in Chinese universities. Interactive Learning Environments. Scholar
  68. Teo, T., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2018). Explicating the influences that explain intention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(4), 460–475.Google Scholar
  69. Teo, T., Ursavas, O. F., & Bahcekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modelling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 199–210.Google Scholar
  70. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143.Google Scholar
  71. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2017). Understanding the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and technology use in education: A systematic review of qualitative evidence. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(3), 555–575.Google Scholar
  72. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favourable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239–260.Google Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.Google Scholar
  75. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.Google Scholar
  76. 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.Google Scholar
  77. Yang, M. M. (2007). An exploratory study on consumers’ behavioral intention of usage of third generation mobile value-added services, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, National Cheng Kung University.Google Scholar
  78. Yeou, M. (2016). An investigation of students’ acceptance of Moodle in a blended learning setting using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(3), 300–318.Google Scholar
  79. Zhou, Y. (2008). Voluntary adopters versus forced adopters: Integrating the diffusion of innovation theory and the technology acceptance model to study intra-organizational adoption. New Media & Society, 10(3), 475–496.Google Scholar
  80. Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92, 194–203.Google Scholar
  81. Zhou, M., Chan, K. K., & Teo, T. (2016). Understanding Mathematics teachers’ use of dynamic geometry software in Macau. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 19(3), 181–193.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Foreign LanguagesQingdao UniversityQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Faculty of Education (E33)University of MacauTaipaChina
  3. 3.Murdoch UniversityMurdochAustralia

Personalised recommendations