Advertisement

The acceptance of a personal learning environment based on Google apps: the role of subjective norms and social image

  • Francisco Rejón-Guardia
  • Ana Isabel Polo-PeñaEmail author
  • Guillermo Maraver-Tarifa
Article

Abstract

The international higher education system should be grounded in an educational approach in which teaching and learning methods aim to transform the student into an active agent in their learning process. The present study aims to learn how intention to use a personal learning environment based on Google applications for supporting collaborative learning is formed, in the context of university student learning. For this purpose, an expansion of the technology acceptance models was proposed including subjective norms and social image. The model was empirically evaluated using survey data collected from 267 students from a marketing management degree course, on which Google applications (apps) were used to design a learning environment to support project work and learning. The results show the suitability of the extended TAM to explain the intention to use Google apps as a personal learning environment in the university context. More specifically, subjective norms contributed to the indirect effect on the intention to use Google apps through social image and had a substantial positive influence on the social image. Meanwhile, social image had a significant positive direct effect on perceived usefulness. The results of the present study have a series of practical implications for the higher education sector.

Keywords

Personal learning environments Subjective norms Social image Google apps Technology acceptance model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out thanks to financing received from the Teaching innovation project 12-64 by the University of Granada (Spain).

References

  1. Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Adell, J., & Castañeda, L. (2010). Los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLEs): Una nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje. In R. Roigvilla & M. Fiorucci (Eds.), Claves para la investigación e innovación y calidad educativas. La integración de las Tecnologías de la Información y la comunicación y la Interculturalidad en las aulas. Marfil—Roma TRE universita degli studi: Alcoy.Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665–694.Google Scholar
  5. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of user perceptions in information technology adoption. Decision Support Systems, 22(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
  6. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80.Google Scholar
  7. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Alier-Forment, M., Casany, M. J., Mayol, E., Piguillem, J., Galanis, N., García-Peñalvo, F. J., & Ángel, M. (2012). Docs4Learning: Getting Google docs to work within the LMS with IMS BLTI. Retrieved June 26, 2018 from https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/handle/10366/121865.
  9. Alsabawy, A. Y., Cater-Steel, A., & Soar, J. (2013). IT infrastructure services as a requirement for e-learning system success. Computers and Education, 69, 431–451.Google Scholar
  10. Arenas-Gaitán, J., Ramírez-Correa, P. E., & Rondán-Cataluña, J. F. (2011). Cross cultural analysis of the use and perceptions of web based learning systems. Computers and Education, 57(2), 1762–1774.Google Scholar
  11. Arteaga Sánchez, R., Cortijo, V., & Javed, U. (2014). Students’ perceptions of Facebook for academic purposes. Computers and Education, 70, 138–149.Google Scholar
  12. Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments—The future of eLearning? Elearning Papers, 2(1), 1–8.Google Scholar
  13. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.Google Scholar
  14. Bhattacherjee, A., & Premkumar, G. (2004). Understanding changes in belief and attitude toward information technology usage: A theoretical model and longitudinal test. MIS Quarterly, 28(2), 229–254.Google Scholar
  15. Caruso, J. B., & Salaway, G. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. ECAR Research Studies Colorado: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, 1, 1–4.Google Scholar
  16. Castañeda, L., Dabbagh, N., & Torres-Kompen, R. (2017). Personal learning environments: Research-based practices, frameworks and challenges. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(1), 1–2.Google Scholar
  17. Castañeda, J. A., Muñoz-Leiva, F., & Luque, T. (2007). Web acceptance model (WAM): Moderating effects of user experience. Information and Management, 44(4), 384–396.Google Scholar
  18. Chang, C.-T., Hajiyev, J., & Su, C.-R. (2017). Examining the students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning in Azerbaijan? The general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning approach. Computers and Education, 111, 128–143.Google Scholar
  19. Chen, L., Gillenson, M. L., & Sherrell, D. L. (2002). Enticing online consumers: An extended technology acceptance perspective. Information and Management, 39(8), 705–719.Google Scholar
  20. Cheng, G. (2014). Exploring students’ learning styles in relation to their acceptance and attitudes towards using second life in education: A case study in Hong Kong. Computers and Education, 70, 105–115.Google Scholar
  21. Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers and Education, 63, 160–175.Google Scholar
  22. Chien-Huang, L., Ya-Chung, S., Yueh-Chiang, L., & Shih-Chia, W. (2007). How instant messaging affects the satisfaction of virtual interpersonal behavior of Taiwan Junior high school students. Adolescence, 42(166), 417–430.Google Scholar
  23. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T.-M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use second life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1136–1144.Google Scholar
  24. Dabbagh, N., & Fake, H. (2017). College students’ perceptions of personal learning environments through the lens of digital tools, processes and spaces. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6(1), 28–36.Google Scholar
  25. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
  26. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, S., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2001). The mediating effects of intrinsic motivation, ease of use and usefulness perceptions on performance in first-time and subsequent computer users. Interacting with Computers, 13(5), 549–580.Google Scholar
  28. De Smet, C., Bourgonjon, J., De Wever, B., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2012). Researching instructional use and the technology acceptation of learning management systems by secondary school teachers. Computers and Education, 58(2), 688–696.Google Scholar
  29. del Barrio-García, S., Arquero, J. L., & Romero-Frías, E. (2015). Personal learning environments acceptance model: The role of need for cognition, e-learning satisfaction and students’ perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 18(3), 129–141.Google Scholar
  30. Drent, M., & Meelissen, M. (2008). Which factors obstruct or stimulate teacher educators to use ICT innovatively? Computers and Education, 51(1), 187–199.Google Scholar
  31. Dwivedi, Y. K., Mustafee, N., Carter, L. D., & Williams, M. D. (2010). A bibliometric comparison of the usage of two theories of IS/IT acceptance (TAM and UTAUT). In AMCIS 2010 Proceedings (Paper 183, p. 10).Google Scholar
  32. Ebner, M., & Taraghi, B. (2010). Personal learning environment for higher education—A first prototype (pp. 1158–1166). Presented at the EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology, association for the advancement of computing in education (AACE). Retrieved June 27, 2018 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/34779/.
  33. Emmett, D. J. (2011). Student engagement with an ePortfolio: A case study of pre-service education students (professional_doctorate). Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/40957/.
  34. Escobar-Rodriguez, T., & Monge-Lozano, P. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business administration students. Computers and Education, 58(4), 1085–1093.Google Scholar
  35. Esteve, F. (2009). Bolonia y las TIC: De la docencia 1.0 al aprendizaje 2.0. La Cuestión Universitaria, 5, 59–68.Google Scholar
  36. Featherman, M. S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Predicting e-services adoption: A perceived risk facets perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59(4), 451–474.Google Scholar
  37. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  38. Fisher, R. J., & Price, L. L. (1992). An investigation into the social context of early adoption behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 477–486.Google Scholar
  39. García-Peñalvo, F. J., Conde, M. Á., Alier, M., & Casany, M. J. (2011). Opening learning management systems to personal learning environments. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 17(9), 1222–1240.Google Scholar
  40. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.Google Scholar
  41. Gunawardena, C. G. (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
  42. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1999). Análisis multivariante. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Iberia.Google Scholar
  43. Hajiyev, J. (2018). Assessing students’ attitude and intention to use M-learning in higher education. Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 2(2), 17–25.Google Scholar
  44. Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.Google Scholar
  45. Heo, J., & Han, I. (2003). Performance measure of information systems (IS) in evolving computing environments: An empirical investigation. Information and Management, 40(4), 243–256.Google Scholar
  46. Ho, L.-H., Hung, C.-L., & Chen, H.-C. (2013). Using theoretical models to examine the acceptance behavior of mobile phone messaging to enhance parent–teacher interactions. Computers and Education, 61, 105–114.Google Scholar
  47. Hora, M. T., & Holden, J. (2013). Exploring the role of instructional technology in course planning and classroom teaching: Implications for pedagogical reform. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 25(2), 68–92.Google Scholar
  48. Ifinedo, P. (2017). Examining students’ intention to continue using blogs for learning: Perspectives from technology acceptance, motivational, and social-cognitive frameworks. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 189–199.Google Scholar
  49. Ifinedo, P., Pyke, J., & Anwar, A. (2018). Business undergraduates’ perceived use outcomes of Moodle in a blended learning environment: The roles of usability factors and external support. Telematics and Informatics, 35(1), 93–102.Google Scholar
  50. Islam, A. K. M. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context. Computers and Education, 69, 387–399.Google Scholar
  51. Jen, W., Lu, T., & Liu, P.-T. (2009). An integrated analysis of technology acceptance behaviour models: Comparison of three major models. MIS Review, 15(1), 33.Google Scholar
  52. Johnson, L., Adams, S., & Cummins, M. (2012). NMC Horizon Report > 2012K-12 Edition. Austin: New Media Consortium. Retrieved January 17, 2018 from https://www.nmc.org/publication/nmc-horizon-report-2012-k-12-edition/.
  53. Joo, Y. J., Lee, H. W., & Ham, Y. (2014). Integrating user interface and personal innovativeness into the TAM for mobile learning in Cyber University. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(2), 143–158.Google Scholar
  54. Karahanna, E., & Limayem, M. (2000). E-mail and V-mail usage: Generalizing across technologies. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 10(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  55. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information and Management, 35(4), 237–250.Google Scholar
  56. Karahanna, E., Straub, D., & Chervany, N. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 23(2), 183–213.Google Scholar
  57. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60.Google Scholar
  58. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740–755.Google Scholar
  59. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(3), 307–325.Google Scholar
  60. Kripanont, N. (2007). Examining a technology acceptance model of internet usage by academics within Thai business schools (Ph.D.). Melbourne: Victoria University. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from http://www.vu.edu.au/research.
  61. Kuskaya-Mumcu, F., & Kocak-Usluel, Y. (2010). ICT in vocational and technical schools: Teachers’ instructional, managerial and personal use matters. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 98–106.Google Scholar
  62. Lay, J.-G., Chi, Y.-L., Hsieh, Y.-S., & Chen, Y.-W. (2013). What influences geography teachers’ usage of geographic information systems? A structural equation analysis. Computers and Education, 62, 191–195.Google Scholar
  63. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education, 61, 193–208.Google Scholar
  64. Lee, Y., Kozar, K. A., & Larsen, K. R. T. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 50(12), 752–780.Google Scholar
  65. Lin, C.-P., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2010). Extending technology usage models to interactive hedonic technologies: A theoretical model and empirical test. Information Systems Journal, 20(2), 163–181.Google Scholar
  66. Lin, S. C., Persada, S. F., & Nadlifatin, R. (2014). A study of student behavior in accepting the blackboard learning system: A technology acceptance model (TAM) approach. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD) (pp. 457–462). IEEE.Google Scholar
  67. Lin, S., Zimmer, J. C., & Lee, V. (2013). Podcasting acceptance on campus: The differing perspectives of teachers and students. Computers and Education, 68, 416–428.Google Scholar
  68. Liu, I.-F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., & Kuo, C.-H. (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers and Education, 54(2), 600–610.Google Scholar
  69. Marín, V., & de Benito, B. (2011). A design of a postgraduate course on Google Apps based on an Institutional Personal Learning Environment (iPLE). Paper presented at the PLE conference 2011. Southampton: University of Southampton.Google Scholar
  70. Mohammadi, H. (2014). The moderating role of individual and social factors in Internet banking loyalty: An exploratory study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 8(3), 420–446.Google Scholar
  71. Mohammadi, H. (2015). Factors affecting the e-learning outcomes: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Telematics and Informatics, 32(4), 701–719.Google Scholar
  72. Moon, J.-W., & Kim, Y.-G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information and Management, 38(4), 217–230.Google Scholar
  73. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.Google Scholar
  74. Morris, M. G., & Dillon, A. (1997). How user perceptions influence software use. IEEE Software, 14(4), 58–65.Google Scholar
  75. Muñoz-Leiva, F., Climent-Climent, S., & Liébana-Cabanillas, F. (2017). Determinants of intention to use the mobile banking apps: An extension of the classic TAM model. Spanish Journal of Marketing—ESIC, 21(1), 25–38.Google Scholar
  76. Nami, F., & Vaezi, S. (2018). How ready are our students for technology-enhanced learning? Students at a university of technology respond. Journal of Computing in Higher Education (in press).Google Scholar
  77. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education, 48(2), 250–267.Google Scholar
  78. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  79. O’Cass, A., & Fenech, T. (2003). Web retailing adoption: Exploring the nature of internet users Web retailing behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 2(10), 81–94.Google Scholar
  80. Patterson, C., Stephens, M., Chiang, V., Price, A. M., Work, F., & Snelgrove-Clarke, E. (2017). The significance of personal learning environments (PLEs) in nursing education: Extending current conceptualizations. Nurse Education Today, 48, 99–105.Google Scholar
  81. Pynoo, B., Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Duyck, W., Sijnave, B., & Duyck, P. (2012). Teachers’ acceptance and use of an educational portal. Computers and Education, 58(4), 1308–1317.Google Scholar
  82. Rahimi, E., van den Berg, J., & Veen, W. (2015). Facilitating student-driven constructing of learning environments using Web 2.0 personal learning environments. Computers and Education, 81, 235–246.Google Scholar
  83. Rahman, M. M., Lesch, M. F., Horrey, W. J., & Strawderman, L. (2017). Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 108, 361–373.Google Scholar
  84. Rejón-Guardia, F., Sánchez-Fernández, J., & Muñoz-Leiva, F. (2013). The acceptance of microblogging in the learning process: The µBAM model. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 3(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
  85. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C.-M., & Martínez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 64(8), 683–696.Google Scholar
  86. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  87. Saadé, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 42(2), 317–327.Google Scholar
  88. Sanchez, 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
  89. Sanchez-Franco, M. J. (2010). WebCT—The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Computers and Education, 54(1), 37–46.Google Scholar
  90. Sánchez-Franco, M. J., & Roldán, J. L. (2005). Web acceptance and usage model: A comparison between goal-directed and experiential web users. Internet Research, 15(1), 21–48.Google Scholar
  91. Sangrà, A., Vlachopoulos, D., & Cabrera, N. (2012). Building an inclusive definition of e-learning: An approach to the conceptual framework. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2), 145–159.Google Scholar
  92. Schoonenboom, J. (2012). Teachers’ acceptance and use of an educational portal. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1309–1316.Google Scholar
  93. Schoonenboom, J. (2014). Using an adapted, task-level technology acceptance model to explain why instructors in higher education intend to use some learning management system tools more than others. Computers and Education, 71, 247–256.Google Scholar
  94. Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers and Education, 40(4), 343–360.Google Scholar
  95. Siemens, G. (2004). Conectivismo: Una teoría de aprendizaje para la era digital. CC. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from http://www.diegoleal.org/docs/2007/Siemens(2004)-Conectivismo.doc.
  96. Smith, J. Z. S., & Western, M. (2012). Beneath the ‘Digital Native’ myth: Understanding young Australians’ online time use. Journal of Sociology, 49(1), 97–118.Google Scholar
  97. Šumak, B., Heričko, M., & Pušnik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2067–2077.Google Scholar
  98. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.Google Scholar
  99. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers and Education, 53(3), 1000–1009.Google Scholar
  100. Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers and Education, 56(4), 1032–1044.Google Scholar
  101. Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 50–66.Google Scholar
  102. Toots, A., & Idnurm, T. (2001). Tiger under magnifying glass: Study on ICT in Estonian Schools in 2000. Retrieved October 10, 2017 from http://www.tiigrihype.ee/eng/publikatsioonid/tiigerluup_eng/tiigerluup_eng.html.
  103. Townsend, T. (2017). Here’s how Google’s rival to Microsoft Office, G Suite, came together. Retrieved June 10, 2017 from https://www.recode.net/2017/3/18/14955654/short-history-g-suite.
  104. University Coordination Council. (2005). Spanish Ministry of Education. Retrieved February 14, 2016 from http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2005/03/15/pdfs/A09068-09069.pdf.
  105. van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creemers, M. (2003). Understanding online purchase intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of Information Systems, 12(1), 41–48.Google Scholar
  106. van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers and Education, 50(3), 838–852.Google Scholar
  107. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.Google Scholar
  108. 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
  109. 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
  110. Wiggers, K. (2017). Google’s G Suite for Education app platform now has over 70 million users. Retrieved June 10, 2017 from https://www.digitaltrends.com/web/google-g-suite-70-million/.
  111. Wojciechowski, R., & Cellary, W. (2013). Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers and Education, 68, 570–585.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014.Google Scholar
  112. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232.Google Scholar
  113. Yen, C.-J., Tu, C.-H., Sujo-Montes, L., & Sealander, K. (2016). A predictor for PLE management: Impacts of self-regulated online learning on student’s learning skills. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 9(1), 29–48.Google Scholar
  114. Yu, J., Lee, H., Ha, I., & Zo, H. (2017). User acceptance of media tablets: An empirical examination of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 206–223.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Rejón-Guardia
    • 1
  • Ana Isabel Polo-Peña
    • 2
    Email author
  • Guillermo Maraver-Tarifa
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business EconomicsUniversity of The Balearic IslandsPalma de MallorcaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Marketing and Market ResearchUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations