Investigating the drivers and barriers to MOOCs adoption: The perspective of TAM

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are emerging as the new trend for modern higher education institutions. Student acceptance is viewed as the key determinant for the success of MOOCs. This study intends to examine factors influencing higher education students’ behavioral intention to adopt MOOCs. Thus, this study proposes the use of a modified Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Data is collected via an online survey from a sample of 403 participants in Jordan. Structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to assess the accuracy of the research model. The results reveal that 1) students’ behavioral intention to adopt MOOCs is positively affected by the perceived ease of use and by the perceived usefulness, 2) self-regulated learning has both a negative direct and indirect (through perceived usefulness) influence on behavioral intention, 3) computer self-efficacy and perceived convenience have positive indirect effects on behavioral intention through the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, and 4) learning tradition has a negative indirect effect on behavioral intention through self-regulated learning. Based on the results, various implications (both practical and theoretical), and suggestions for future research, have been highlighted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Abu-Shanab, E., & Musleh, S. (2018). The adoption of massive open online courses: Challenges and benefits. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 13(4), 62–76. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJWLTT.2018100104.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aharony, N., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2016). Students’ perceptions on MOOCs: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning, 12, 145–162. https://doi.org/10.28945/3540.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Adwan, A., & Khdour, N. (2020). Exploring student readiness to MOOCs in Jordan: A structural equation Modelling approach. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 223–242. https://doi.org/10.28945/4542.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2012). Implementing e-learning in the Jordanian higher education system: Factors affecting impact. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 8(1), 121–135 https://www.learntechlib.org/p/188017/.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring student’s acceptance of e-learning using technology acceptance model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 9(2), 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Berger, H. (2018a). Solving the mystery of mobile learning adoption in higher education. International Journal of Mobile Communications, 16(1), 24–49. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMC.2018.088271.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Madadha, A., & Zvirzdinaite, Z. (2018b). Modeling students’ readiness to adopt mobile learning in higher education: An empirical study. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 19(1), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i1.3256.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Gahtani, S. (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.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Rahmi, W., Yahaya, N., Alamri, M., Alyoussef, I., Al-Rahmi, A., & Kamin, Y. (2019). Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: Supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) systems. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629599.

  10. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A Social Cognitive Theory. (Printice Hall, NJ.

  12. Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9587-0.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bere, A., & Rambe, P. (2013, June). Extending technology acceptance model in mobile learning adoption: South African University of Technology students’ perspectives’. In International Conference on e-Learning (pp. 52-61). Academic conferences international limited.

  14. Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified food–results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24(1), 23–61. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010950406128.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brown, L. (1989). The strategic and tactical implications of convenience in consumer product marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 6, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002550.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Calonge, D., Shah, M., Riggs, K., & Connor, M. (2019). MOOCs and upskilling in Australia: A qualitative literature study. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1687392. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1687392.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Che, X., Luo, S., Wang, C., & Meinel, C. (2016). An attempt at MOOC localization for Chinese-speaking users. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(2), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.665.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chen, I. (2017). Computer self-efficacy, learning performance, and the mediating role of learning engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.059.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Chen, S., Shing-Han, L., & Chien-Yi, L. (2011). Recent related research in technology acceptance model: A literature review. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(9), 124–127.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2017). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Davis, F., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (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 

  22. EdX. (2013). Queen Rania Foundation partners with edX to create first MOOC portal for the Arab world. https://www.edx.org/press/queen-rania-foundation-partners-edx

  23. Fianu, E., Blewett, C., Ampong, G., & Ofori, K. (2018). Factors affecting MOOC usage by students in selected Ghanaian universities. Education in Science, 8(2), 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020070.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fook, C., Razak, A., Alias, N., & Narasuman, S. (2017). Students’ readiness and competence in MOOCs in higher education: A case study. Man in India, 97(24), 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fornell, G., & Larcker, F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gameel, B., & Wilkins, K. (2019). When it comes to MOOCs, where you are from makes a difference. Computers & Education, 136(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.02.014.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gao, S., & Yang, Y. (2016). An empirical study on users' adoption of MOOCs from the perspective of the institutional theory. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organizations, 16(4), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNVO.2016.081654.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Gardner, J., & Brooks, C. (2018). Student success prediction in MOOCs. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 28(2), 127–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-018-9203-z.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gutiérrez-Rojas, I., Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Leony, D., & Delgado-Kloos, C. (2014). Scaffolding self-learning in MOOCs. Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit, 2014, 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hair, J., Risher, J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. (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 

  31. Handoko, E., Gronseth, S. L., McNeil, S. G., Bonk, C. J., & Robin, B. R. (2019). Goal setting and MOOC completion: A study on the role of self-regulated learning in student performance in massive open online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 20(3), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4270.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hasan, H. (2006). Effectiveness of computer training: The role of multilevel computer self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 18(1), 50–68. https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2006010103.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Henseler, J., Ringle, M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, A. (2016). Using PLS path modelling in new technology research: Updated guide-lines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hsu, J., Chen, C., & Ting, P. (2018). Understanding MOOC continuance: An empirical examination of social support theory. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(8), 1100–1118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1446990.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jansen, D., & Schuwer, R. (2015). Institutional MOOC strategies in Europe. https://cpbuse1.wpmucdn.com/blog.stcloudstate.edu/dist/d/10/files/2015/03/Institutional_MOOC_strategies_in_Europe-2hp8ug8.pdf

  37. John, S. (2013). Influence of computer self-efficacy on information technology adoption. International Journal of Information Technology, 19(1), 1–13.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  38. Joo, Y., So, H., & Kim, N. (2018). Examination of relationships among students' self-determination, technology acceptance, satisfaction, and continuance intention to use K-MOOCs. Computers & Education, 122, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.01.003.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kanwal, F., & Rehman, M. (2017). Factors affecting e-learning adoption in developing countries–empirical evidence from Pakistan’s higher education sector. IEEE Access, 5, 10968–10978. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2714379.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kinshuk, N., Cheng, I., & Chew, S. (2016). Evolution is not enough: Revolutionizing current learning environments to smart learning environments. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 561–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0108-x.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kleijnen, M., Lee, N., & Wetzels, M. (2009). An exploration of consumer resistance to innovation and its antecedents. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.004.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Klobas, J. E., Mackintosh, B., & Murphy, J. (2014). The anatomy of MOOCs. In Massive Open Online Courses (pp. 11-32). Routledge.

  43. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.882.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lan, M., & Hew, K. F. (2020). Examining learning engagement in MOOCs: A self-determination theoretical perspective using mixed method. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-0179-5.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lee, J. (2010). Online support service quality, online learning acceptance, and student satisfaction. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.08.002.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lehmann, T., Hähnlein, I., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Cognitive, metacognitive and motivational perspectives on preflection in self-regulated online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.051.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ma, L., & and Lee, C. (2018). Investigating the adoption of MOOC s: A technology–user–environment perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12314.

  48. Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2020). Drivers and barriers to MOOC adoption: Perspectives from adopters and non-adopters. Online Information Review, 44, 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-06-2019-0203.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marakas, G., Yi, M., & Johnson, R. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 126–163. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.2.126.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mulik, S., Yajnik, N., & Godse, M. (2016). Determinants of acceptance of massive open online courses, in 2016 IEEE eighth international conference on Technology for Education (T4E), (Mumbai, India), pp. 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1109/T4E.2016.032.

  51. Onah, D. F., & Sinclair, J. (2016, September). Exploring learners’ strategies of self-regulated learning abilities in a novel MOOC Platform: eLDa. In 23rd Annual Conference of the Association for Learning Technology (ALT2016), University of Warwick, United Kingdom (pp. 6–8). http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/79748/

  52. Rai, L., & Chunrao, D. (2016). Influencing factors of success and failure in MOOC and general analysis of learner behavior. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(4), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijiet.2016.v6.697.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ram, S., & Sheth, N. J. (1989). Consumer resistance to innovation: The marketing problem and its solution. The Journal of Consumer Marketing., 6(2), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002542.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ringle, C., Da Silva, G., & Bido, D. (2014). Structural Equation Modeling with the Smartpls. Brazilian Journal of Marketing, 13(2), 57–73 https://ssrn.com/abstract=2676422.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Roller-Wirnsberger, R., Zitta, S., Herzog, C., Dornan, H., Lindner, S., Rehatschek, H., ... & Tap, L. (2019). Massive open online courses (MOOCs) for long-distance education in geriatric medicine across Europe. European Geriatric Medicine, 10(6), 989–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-019-00252-7.

  56. Sallam, M. (2017). A review of MOOCs in the Arab world. Creative Education, 8(04), 64–573. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.84044.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Salloum, A., Alhamad, A., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A., & Shaalan, K. (2019). Exploring Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning Through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access, 7, 128445–128462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Shah, D. (2018). Year of MOOC-based degrees: A review of MOOC stats and trends in 2018. Class Central (2018). https://www.classcentral.com/report/moocs-stats-and-trends-2018/

  59. Shao, Z. (2018). Examining the impact mechanism of social psychological motivations on individuals’ continuance intention of MOOCs. Internet Research, 28(1), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-11-2016-0335.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Sokolik, M. (2014). 2 what constitutes an effective language MOOC?. In E. Martín-Monje & Elena Bárcena (Eds.), Language MOOCs (pp. 16–32). Sciendo Migration. https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110420067.2.

  61. Subramaniam, T., Suhaimi, N., Latif, A., Abu Kassim, Z., & Fadzil, M. (2019). MOOCs Readiness: The Scenario in Malaysia. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 20(3), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i3.3913.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Tao, D., Fu, P., Wang, Y., Zhang, T., & Qu, X. (2019). Key characteristics in designing massive open online courses (MOOCs) for user acceptance: An application of the extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1695214.

  63. Urbach, N., & Ahlemann, F. (2010). Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology, Theory and Applications, 11(2), 5–40 https://aisel.aisnet.org/jitta/vol11/iss2/2.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vululleh, P. (2018). Determinants of students’ e-learning acceptance in developing countries: An approach based on structural equation modeling (SEM). International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 14(1), 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G., & Paas, F. (2019). Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environments and MOOCs: A systematic review. International. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 35(4–5), 356–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1543084.

    Google Scholar 

  66. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Yang, H., & Su, C. (2017). Learner behavior in a MOOC practice-oriented course: In empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 18(5), 35–63. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.2991.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zhou, M. (2016). Chinese university students’ acceptance of MOOCs: A self-determination perspective. Computers & Education, 92(1), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.012.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Doo, M. Y. (2020). Self-directed learning in MOOCs: Exploring the relationships among motivation, self-monitoring, and self-management. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09747-8.

  70. Zimmerman, B. (2015). Self-regulated learning: Theories, measures, and outcomes, international encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ed. J. Wright (Elsevier, Oxford, 2015), pp.541-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26060-1.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the faculty members of Electronic Business and Management Information Systems departments at Al Ahliyya Amman University for their supports. Furthermore, special thanks to Dr. Maher Al-Horani for his endless support, inspiration, and encouragement.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares that there is no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Construct Items Reference
Perceived Usefulness (PU) PU1: “I believe MOOCs will improve my learning performance”. Wu and Chen (2017);
Hsu et al. (2018)
PU2: “The learning mechanism of MOOCs platform should be in line with my need”.
PU3: “The learning operation of MOOCs platform in line with my need”.
PU4: “Using MOOCs will enhance my learning effectiveness”.
Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) PEOU1: “It will be easy for me to use MOOCs platform”. Tao et al. (2019);
Yang and Su (2017)
PEOU2: “find it easy to get MOOCs platform to do what I want it to do”.
PEOU3: “It is easy for me to become skillful at using MOOCs platform”.
PEOU4: “Using the MOOCs platform will not require a lot of my mental effort”.
Computer Self-efficacy (CSE) CSE1: “I have the confidence to learn a variety of computer skills”. Hsu et al. (2018)
CSE2: “For me the computer is easy to use”.
CSE3: “It is not difficult for me to operate a computer skillfully”.
CSE4: “It was easy for me to use a computer to do what I wanted to do”.
Perceived Convenience (PEC) PEC1: “MOOCs platform will allow me to engage with peers and instructors at any time”. Hsu et al. (2018);
Bere and Rambe (2013)
PEC 2: “MOOCs platform will be convenient for academic engagement purposes”.
PEC3: “MOOCs platform can make me easily carry out the online learning”.
PEC4: “MOOCs platform will let me catch the learning information in real-time”.
Learning Tradition (LTR) LTR1: “I prefer tradition ways of learning”. Ma and Lee (2020);
Ma and Lee (2018)
LTR2: “I prefer r traditional teaching methods with instructors”.
LTR3: “I prefer face-to-face communication with my instructors and peers”.
Behavior Intention (BEI) BEI1: “Using MOOCs for acquiring knowledge is something I would do in the future”. Yang and Su (2017);
Gao and Yang (2016)
BEI2: “I intend to use MOOCs for my learning needs”.
BEI3: “I will be enthusiastic about participating in MOOCs”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Adwan, A.S. Investigating the drivers and barriers to MOOCs adoption: The perspective of TAM. Educ Inf Technol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10250-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • MOOCs
  • Learning tradition
  • Developing country
  • TAM
  • Usefulness
  • Self-efficacy
  • Convenience
  • Behavioral intention