A New Model of Learner Experience in Online Learning Environments

  • Yassine SafsoufEmail author
  • Khalifa MansouriEmail author
  • Franck PoirierEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 111)


The flexibility, availability and functionality of online learning environments (OLEs) open up new possibilities for classroom teaching. However, although these environments are becoming increasingly popular, many users stop learning online after their initial experience. This paper aims to develop a new multi-dimensional research model allowing to categorize and to identify the factors that could affect the learning experience (LX) in order to decrease the failure and dropout rate in OLEs. This new model is based on the combination of the major models of user satisfaction and continuity of use (ECM, TAM3, D&M ISS, SRL). The proposed research model consists of 38 factors classified according to 5 dimensions: learner characteristics, instructor characteristics, system characteristics, course characteristics and social aspects.


Continuance of use intention Learner experience Learner satisfaction Learner success Online learning environments 


  1. 1.
    Castillo-Merino, D., Serradell-López, E.: An analysis of the determinants of students’ performance in e-learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 30, 476–484 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wook, M., Yusof, Z.M., Nazri, M.Z.A.: The acceptance of educational data mining technology among students in public institutions of higher learning in Malaysia. Int. J. Futur. Comput. Commun. 4, 112 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, F.D.: A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Doctoral dissertation. MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge (1986)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39, 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agudo-Peregrina, Á.F., Hernández-García, Á., Pascual-Miguel, F.J.: Behavioral intention, use behavior and the acceptance of electronic learning systems: differences between higher education and lifelong learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 34, 301–314 (2014). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhattacherjee, A.: Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Q. 25, 351 (2001). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chow, W.S., Shi, S.: Investigating students’ satisfaction and continuance intention toward e-learning: an extension of the expectation – confirmation model. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 141, 1145–1149 (2014). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lee, M.-C.: Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: an extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 54, 506–516 (2010). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A.P.: Understanding the MOOCs continuance: the role of openness and reputation. Comput. Educ. 80, 28–38 (2015). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halilovic, S., Cicic, M.: Antecedents of information systems user behaviour-extended expectation-confirmation model. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32, 359–370 (2013). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hong, J.C., Hwang, M.Y., Szeto, E., et al.: Internet cognitive failure relevant to self-efficacy, learning interest, and satisfaction with social media learning. Comput. Hum. Behav. 55, 214–222 (2016). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oghuma, A.P., Libaque-Saenz, C.F., Wong, S.F., Chang, Y.: An expectation-confirmation model of continuance intention to use mobile instant messaging. Telemat. Inform. 33, 34–47 (2016). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stone, R.W., Baker-Eveleth, L.: Students’ expectation, confirmation, and continuance intention to use electronic textbooks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 984–990 (2013). Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 19, 9–30 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mohammadi, H.: Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: an integration of TAM and IS success model. Comput. Hum. Behav. 45, 359–374 (2015). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ozkan, S., Koseler, R.: Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: an empirical investigation. Comput. Educ. 53, 1285–1296 (2009). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zimmerman, B.J.: From cognitive modeling to self-regulation: a social cognitive career path. Educ. Psychol. 48, 135–147 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matzat, U., Vrieling, E.M.: Self-regulated learning and social media – a ‘natural alliance’? Evidence on students’ self-regulation of learning, social media use, and student–teacher relationship. Learn. Media Technol. 41, 73–99 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dabbagh, N., Kitsantas, A.: Personal learning environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: a natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet High. Educ. (2011). Scholar
  21. 21.
    Al-Samarraie, H., Teng, B.K., Alzahrani, A.I., Alalwan, N.: E-learning continuance satisfaction in higher education: a unified perspective from instructors and students. Stud. High. Educ., 1–17 (2017).
  22. 22.
    Müller, N.M., Seufert, T.: Effects of self-regulation prompts in hypermedia learning on learning performance and self-efficacy. Learn. Instr. 58, 1–11 (2018). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lab-STICCUniversity Bretagne SudLorientFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory SSDIA, ENSET of MohammediaUniversity Hassan II of CasablancaCasablancaMorocco

Personalised recommendations