Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9815-2

A proposed model of e-learning tools acceptance

among university students in developing countries

Alejandro Valencia-Arias 1 & Salim Chalela-Naffah 2 &

Jonathan Bermúdez-Hernández 1

Received: 30 May 2018 / Accepted: 17 September 2018 / Published online: 27 September 2018
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The incorporation of information and communications technology (ICT) in
teaching and learning processes has created new challenges for administrative
and academic processes in educational institutions. This paper proposes an E-
Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM) with the purpose of examining the
level of acceptance and critical factors of virtual learning tools among univer-
sity students in developing countries. The methodology involved the application
of a self-administered questionnaire to 1032 undergraduate students from three
different Higher Education Institutions in Colombia. A confirmatory factor
analysis was developed to determine the relation between the set of observed
variables and latent variables or factors, defined under the E-Learning Tools
Acceptance Model (eLTAM). Results confirm a strong relation between the
Perceived Usefulness factor and the variables of Instructor Preparation and
Autonomy in Learning, as well as between the Ease of Use factor and the
Perceived Self-Efficacy Perception variable. It is concluded the instructor prep-
aration, learning autonomy and perception of self-efficacy are the main factors
affecting the adoption of e-learning tools for university students in the studied
population.

Keywords E-learning . Education . Technology acceptance model

* Jonathan Bermúdez-Hernández
jonathanbermudez@itm.edu.co

Alejandro Valencia-Arias
jhoanyvalencia@itm.edu.co

Salim Chalela-Naffah
salim.chalela@unaula.edu.co

1
Instituto Tecnológico Metropolitano ITM, Medellín, Colombia
2
Universidad Autónoma Latinoamericana UNAULA, Medellín, Colombia
1058 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

1 Introduction

Educational institutions have seen the need to change the structure of their
organisations as well as the way in which they operate due to the evolution of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and their impact on the
creation of new opportunities to enhance the processes of teaching and learning
(Selwyn 2011; Gaviria et al. 2015). The massive introduction of ICTs in Higher
Education has forced institutions not only to prepare students appropriately to
meet social needs, but has also made it necessary for teachers to adopt changes in
teaching and learning (T/L) processes to respond to this new environment
(Bermúdez-Hernández et al. 2016; Englund et al. 2017). However, it is important
to consider that ICTs by themselves do not support the education process if they
are not appropriately integrated into the process and if they are not used to their
full potential (Summak et al. 2010).
ICTs provide a range of benefits: they promote greater decentralisation of, and
strengthen, T/L processes; they require students to be independent learners and increase
their motivation; and they also promote collaboration between students and faculty,
along with a range of general improvements to the educational process (Meneses et al.
2012; Park 2009; Teo et al. 2015). Be that as it may, students (i.e., their experience,
motivation, attitudes, etc.,) are an essential element in the successful introduction of
ICTs in the educational field (Meneses et al. 2012), which creates the need to identify
the critical factors related to student acceptance of these technologies (Park 2009;
Rivera et al. 2013). In this context, Selim (2007) identified four categories that group
these factors: teachers, students, technology used, and support for technological tools
that cater to the contemporary practices of teaching–learning.
Although there are numerous studies that address the analysis of technological
acceptance models in students, most of them focus on developed countries (Abbad
et al. 2009; Ahmed 2013). For example, Taylor et al. (2008) identified factors associ-
ated with human and social change in Spain; Park (2009) found that self-efficacy in
learning and student subjectivity affected the acceptance of these teaching models;
Wong (2015) assumed that there are variables external to educational environments,
such as early exposure of the individual to the use of new technologies, which affects
the e-learning processes, among others. However, the specific characteristics of devel-
oping countries (e.g. greater socio-economic inequity, lower internet access rates, lower
higher education access rate), suggest the need for new studies that focus specifically
on these contexts (Tarhini et al. 2017).
Thus, using an ad-hoc e-learning tools acceptance model (eLTAM), the aim of
this paper is to analyse the level of acceptance of e-learning tools among university
students from developing countries. Specifically, this paper identifies critical fac-
tors that determine the use of e-learning tools among students from three higher
education institutions in Colombia.

2 Background

The development of the Internet and other technologies has made an impact to such
an extent that within universities and institutions of higher education around the
Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1059

world new activities are implemented in order to invigorate the processes of

teaching and learning (Ngai et al. 2007; Chalela Naffah et al. 2016). The develop-
ment of e-learning in Higher Education has led to changes in teaching models/
pedagogic strategies, where the focus is no longer on the teacher but on the role of
the student supported by the use of digital tools (Abbad et al. 2009; Lee et al. 2009).
The main advantages offered by e-learning include flexibility in terms of time
and space for the development of activities, reduction in operating costs for
institutions, encouragement of student autonomy in the learning process, and
development of attitudes of collaboration and interaction between individuals,
among others (Dominici and Palumbo 2013; Viberg and Grönlund 2013; Ozdamli
and Uzunboylu 2015). The use of ICT in educational processes has enabled the
emergence of new forms of blended learning such as distributed learning, under-
stood as something complementary to the traditional teaching–learning processes,
based on the use of web technologies that allow students to interact with virtual
objects and enable learning to take place beyond formalized contexts and institu-
tions (Dede 1996; Petrides 2002). However, there are challenges such as the lack of
portability, access capacity and acceptance of ICTs, the need for teachers and
students to development of new pedagogical skills, and computer security, all of
which put the stability of information systems at risk (Piccoli et al. 2001; Lee et al.
2009; Lan and Sie 2010; Díez Echavarría et al. 2017).

2.1 E-learning in developing countries

The literature on the effects of the implementation of e-learning in developing countries

is barely emerging, with most authors studying the phenomenon in developed countries
(Tarhini et al. 2014). As a result of this lack of research in developing countries, the
need for a direct transfer of knowledge from the results obtained in developed countries
to developing ones has been argued (Boateng et al. 2016).
However, this transfer process has been questioned since cultural, economic and
social differences can lead to important differences between developed and developing
countries in relation to the acceptance of technology by teachers and students, a fact
that creates imbalances when analysing aspects such as effectiveness, autonomy, and
the skills and motivation to use information and communication technologies in
educational processes. In addition, the reason for using e-learning strategies is not
the same. While in developed countries the aim is to improve continuous education, the
basic objective in developing countries is associated with migrating their educational
model to knowledge economies (Gulati 2008).
This is evidence of the fact that findings in relation to the adoption of technology in
developed countries should not be used as a basis for implementing strategies in
developing countries. Itis therefore imperative to conduct specific studies to identify
and understand the factors involved in the acceptance and success of e-learning
implementation (Boateng et al. 2016).

2.2 Technology acceptance model (TAM)

The acceptance of technology is defined as the psychological state of an indi-

vidual with regard to the voluntary or anticipated use of a particular technology
1060 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

(Ratna and y Mehra 2015). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), intro-
duced by Davis (1989), is a model based on intentionality that was specifically
developed to explain and predict users’ acceptance of computer technology.
This model, which has been frequently used in different contexts (Cheng et al. 2013;
Wong 2015), assumes that the perception of usefulness (PU) and the perceived ease of
use (EU), which are influenced by individual attitudes (external variables) toward the
use of technology and these attitudes (AT) are thought to affect the intention (IT) of
behaviour to use it (Davis 1989; Teo et al. 2015). Perception of self-efficacy (PSE),
student preparation (SP), instructor preparation (IP), personal innovativeness (PI) and
self-learning (SL) have been identified as external variables that can explain the
acceptance of new technologies in developing countries.
Liaw (2008) defines perception of self-efficacy as the ability to interact with techno-
logical tools. Lee et al. (2001) describe the variable student preparation in terms of the
skills that students need to acquire in order to use a particular technology. Ahmed (2013)
defines instructor preparation as the ability of teachers to use web-based learning tools
to adjust their teaching processes and transmission of knowledge. On the other hand,
Van Raaij and Schepers (2008) propose personal innovativeness to refer to the attitude
and tendency of a person towards the use of new information technologies. Finally,
learning autonomy accounts for the increase in the responsibility assumed by students in
models of distributed education to improve their skills in consultation, research, writing
and socialisation of their learning process (Bhuasiri et al. 2012; Al-azawei et al. 2017).
Based on the existing proposals, Fig. 1 presents the theoretical model proposed for the
study of technology acceptance for developing countries (eLTAM).

3 Methodology

The research conducted in this paper combines quantitative and qualitative

methods in order to examine the level of acceptance of virtual learning tools

Instructor’s
preparaon

Student’s
preparaon Perceveid Ease Of
Use

Use of
Percepon of
Atude Learning
self Efficacy
Tools

Learning Perceveid
Autonomy Usefulness

Personal
Innovaveness

Fig. 1 Proposed Theoretical Model (eLTAM). Source: Own elaboration

Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1061

among university students from three higher education institutions in the city of
Medellin, Colombia, through the E-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM)
proposed in this paper.
The sample size used in this study was 1032 college students from vocational
and degree-level programs at the three participating institutions selected from a
Stratified Random Sampling procedure. The instrument used for data collection
included dichotomous questions and a one to five Likert scale. The questionnaire
was self-administered; the students were handed the instrument during class for
them to answer it individually.
To verify the reliability of the instrument in each of the constructs of the eLTAM,
Cronbach’s alpha was used in performing the calculation for each of the sub-
questionnaires specific to each factor. The validity of the measurement scales used,
as well as each of the constructs and the instrument in general, were checked by a
confirmatory factor analysis.

4 Analysis of results

4.1 Validity of measurement scales

The validity of the constructs was measured using the criterion defined by Batista-
Foguet et al. (2004), looking for reliability exceeding 0.5 for the variables (Bagozzi
and Yi 1988) and an average exceeding 0.7 for the constructs (Hair et al. 2001),
eliminating data that did not meet the minimum values of the standardised factor
loadings Table 1.
Subsequently, Bartlett’s sphericity test was calculated, as well as the KMO
measure, as these are the statistical methods for the study of the model’s adequacy
in the sample. Given that the model presents Bartlett values of less than 0.05, it
can be said that there are significant correlations between the variables. The same
is true for the value of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy
measure, which considers measures above 0.50 as acceptable (Lévy et al. 2006).
As evidenced in Table 2, the coefficients generated by the SPSS software for each
of the constructs meet the criteria mentioned above, which indicates that it is
possible to carry out the technical data reduction.

4.1.1 Discriminant validity

Discriminant validity is one of the usual criteria for assessing the scales of latent
construct measurement in social sciences. In this phase, it is stated that in order for
measurements to be valid, those from the same construct must be highly correlated
between themselves, and this correlation should be higher than the one existing
with regard to the measures proposed for any other construct (Martínez-García and
Martínez-Caro 2009). In this research, discriminant validity analysis was imple-
mented by checking that the confidence interval in the estimation of the correlation
between each pair of factors did not contain the value 1 (Anderson and Gerbing
1988), finding that this criterion was met in all cases.
1062 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

Table 1 Refined convergent validity of standardised factor loadings

Construct Item Standardised Average standardised

factor loadings factor loadings

Self-learning (SL) SL1 0.843 0.843

SL2 0.843
Attitude (AT) AT1 0.878 0.878
AT2 0.878
Perceived Ease of Use (EU) EU1 0.909 0.909
EU2 0.909
Intention (IT) IT1 …. ….
Perceived Self Efficacy (PSE) PSE1 0.885 0.885
PSE2 0.885
Student Preparation (SP) SP1 0.795 0.795
SP2 0.795
Personal Innovativeness (PI) PI1 0.830 0.830
PI2 0.830
Instructor Preparation (IP) IP1 0.807 0.750
IP2 0.591
IP3 0.851
Perceived Usefulness (PU) PU1 0.715 0.725
PU2 0.735

Source: Own elaboration supported by SPSS statistical software

Subsequently, the Cronbach Alpha criterion is used to determine the internal

consistency of the questionnaire (Frías-Navarro 2013). The results show that according
to the statistical criteria proposed by George and Mallery (2003), the validity is
acceptable for all the factors (which show recorded ranges between 0.737 and 0.504).
This indicates that the measuring instrument seems to have adequate reliability and
internal consistency in the scale of measurement.
The results of the confirmatory analysis show the existence of a sustainable factor
model for the analysis of the acceptance and use of virtual learning tools among
university students. The presence of convergent and discriminant validity within the
instrument, coupled with acceptable reliability, confirms that the instrument evaluates
key variables affecting directly or indirectly the adoption and use of virtual tools as a
pedagogical strategy within higher education institutions.

5 Analysis of results and hypothesis testing

The estimation of the proposed structural model for the process of acceptance of virtual
learning tools by college students was carried out. Here, the different hypotheses raised
are gathered and their degree of association is measured using Somers’ D, which
corresponds to a measure of association between two ordinal variables that takes a
value between −1 and 1, where the values close to 1, in absolute value, indicate a strong
Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1063

Table 2 Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Somers’ D

H1: Instructor preparation → Perceived ease of use 0.425

H2: Student preparation → Perceived ease of use 0.297
H3: Perceived self-efficacy → Perceived ease of use 0.559
H4: Autonomy in learning → Perceived ease of use 0.428
H5. Personal Innovativeness → Perceived ease of use 0.406
H6: Instructor preparation → Perceived usefulness 0.501
H7: Student preparation → Perceived usefulness 0.450
H8: Perceived self-efficacy → Perceived usefulness 0.499
H9: Autonomy in learning → Perceived usefulness 0.530
H10: Personal Innovativeness → Perceived usefulness 0.434
H11: Perceived usefulness → Perceived ease of use 0.505
H12: Perceived ease of use → Attitude 0.455
H13: Perceived usefulness → Attitude 0.600
H14: Attitude → Intention 0.493

Degree of association of factors of the Technology Adoption Model (TAM)

Source: Own elaboration supported by the SPSS statistical software

relation between the two variables and values close to zero indicate that there is little or
no relation between the two variables (Kaplan et al. 2000; Abascal and Esteban 2005).
Table 2 shows the values obtained for each of the statistics evaluated and the model
used. In this regard, it can be concluded that only hypothesis 2 of the model has a low
degree of association with a value of 0.297 for the statistical method of Somers’ D.
The Somers’ D coefficient is located in a table of cross-referenced factors, thus
making it possible to check the degree of association for hypothetical relations.
However, it also makes it possible to confirm that there was no high level of
association occurring among the other constructs. Table 3 shows all the relation-
ships established between the variables of the proposed models.

Table 3 Somers’ D Coefficient for the proposed model

YY Act FU INT PA Pest PI Pins UP

YY 1
Act 0.525 1
FU 0.428 0.455 1
INT 0.424 0.493 0.307 1
PA 0.419 0.432 0.559 0.404 1
Pest 0.355 0.44 0.297 0.426 0.375 1
PI 0.388 0.422 0.406 0.349 0.492 0.356 1
Pins 0.398 0.459 0.425 0.446 0.494 0.451 0.442 1
UP 0.530 0.600 0.505 0.495 0.499 0.450 0.434 0.501 1

Source: Own elaboration supported by the SPSS statistical software

1064 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

After calculating the degree of association for the variables with an established
relation within the model, it was found that the strongest relations correspond to
hypotheses H3, H6, H9 and H4, which yielded a Somers’ D of 0.559, 0.501, 0.530
and 0.505 respectively. Similarly, it can be observed in Fig. 2 that hypotheses H1, H4,
H5, H7, H8, H10, H12 and H14 indicate that there is an association between the
observable variables and the latent variables, given that they reached values between
0.406 and 0.499. Finally, it is evident that only hypothesis 2 has a weak relation in
regard to what was assumed in the research. Ultimately, it has been proved that the
primary variables of the model are concentrated on the construct of perception of self-
efficacy. In this variable, the use of mobile devices is subject to the perceived ease of
use, instructor preparation, student preparation and perceived usefulness.
Figure 2 presents the proposed model with its respective associativity values
between the variables. It is important to note that the arrows that are shown with a
greater intensity are those corresponding to the strongest relations found between
the variables.
The model also revealed the existence of relations with a medium-high degree of
association between constructs. Student preparation was the only construct with a low
association value against the construct of perceived ease of use, which suggests that the
e-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM) allows for the examination of how
external variables are affecting the decision to adopt virtual tools or not in the context
of developing world universities.

6 Discussion and practical implications

The E-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM) arises from the need raised by
Sirkemaa (2006) to generate customized educational environments that can adapt to the
individual styles of students depending on their economic, social and educational
conditions. It is because of this that this model seeks to understand the adoption of
virtual learning tools so that differential strategies can be designed, since their adoption
is not equal in all contexts. Developing countries face multiple challenges when it
comes to connecting to the global exchange of resources. Unlike developed countries,

Instructor’s
preparaon
0,425
0,501
Student’s Perceveid Ease
0,297
preparaon Of Use
0,455

Percepon of 0,559 Use of

0,505
self Efficacy Atude 0,493 Learning
Tools
0,450
0,428 0,499
0,600
Learning Perceveid
0,530 Usefulness
Autonomy

0,406

0,434
Personal
Innovaveness

Fig. 2 Technology Acceptance Model, Somers’ D. Source: Own elaboration

Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1065

developing countries face basic problems regarding the adoption of e-learning, such as
scarcity of resources, weaknesses in technological infrastructure, and the difficulty to
develop ICTs in line with the needs of the context (Nawaz 2013).
Studies conducted by Bhuasiri et al. (2012) and Ahmed (2013) found that some of
the most important factors and strategies that influence the success of e-learning in
developing countries were geared towards the following: awareness of technology,
creation of a culture of support towards the e-learning environment, attitudes towards e-
learning, training and improvement of knowledge and technological skills, improve-
ment of learning content, motivation of users to use e-learning systems, establishment
of more flexible and easy to use applications, and a high level of support offered by the
university.
In relation to these results, Bhuasiri et al. (2012) propose key factors in the
acceptance of virtual learning tools in developing countries, such as the creation of
awareness of educational technology, motivation, the change of students’ behaviour
and the development of computer skills. The need to emphasize the development of
these aspects is highlighted because students in developing countries are accustomed to
traditional teaching methods (Miller et al. 2004), and is even more pronounced in
countries where the development of ICTs is in its early stages of adoption, as they are
not yet familiar with this kind of technology.
The E-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM) postulates two important be-
havioural practices of individuals, which are: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived
ease of use (PEU). These practices attribute great importance to both factors because
they are fundamental to predicting the acceptance and use of technology by the user,
and the effect of external variables on these two key behaviours helps define user
perception of a technological novelty (Huang et al. 2007). In this regard, Lennon and
Maurer (2003) have pointed out thate-learning tools must be easy to use or otherwise
they will create confusion among users and will lead to them having a less positive
attitude towards their use.
Some of the factors worth highlighting that show the most important relations in the
model proposed in this article are perceived self-efficacy, learning autonomy and
student preparation. This shows that the strategies to encourage the use of virtual tools
for learning must focus on training students at educational institutions, strengthening
their skills and abilities necessary for a proper management of ICTs, which in turn
strengthens the perceived self-efficacy for the use of these types of educational
technologies. This coincides with what was proposed by Clay et al. (2008) and Tarhini
et al. (2014), who found that the efficiency of e-learning adoption in a developing
country is linked initially to the use given by users to this tool, so the success in the
implementation of e-learning in this context depends largely on the willingness of the
students to adopt and accept e-learning.
Learning autonomy recorded a greater connection with perceived usefulness, show-
ing that students who explore virtual learning tools autonomously or based on their own
need for knowledge will perceive the technological tool as being more useful, as it
arises from their particular training needs. Similar findings have been found in devel-
oping countries: Al-azawei et al. (2017), Nora and Snyder (2009) and Tarhini et al.
(2014) claim that e-learning environments are capable of offering students greater
flexibility to study, thus improving their learning experience and subsequently increas-
ing their performance in physical environments or traditional classrooms.
1066 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

Regarding instructor preparation, it has been observed that this is one of the aspects
with the strongest relation compared to perceived usefulness (PU), which makes this
aspect one of the challenges for trainers from developing countries given that the
inhabitants of these countries are accustomed to traditional teaching methods (Ahmed
2013; Kundi and Nawaz 2014). Awareness-raising towards educational technology is
recommended, as well as the creation of an incentive for the good use of these
technological tools from the same context of teacher training (Bhuasiri et al. 2012;
Wu et al. 2010; Ahmed 2013).
The adoption of e-learning does not have a standard form that can be applied to
any country or region. This aspect makes research from the perspective of devel-
oping countries essential (Bhuasiri et al. 2012), as it enables the identification of
particular factors for the adoption of e-learning tools such as instructor preparation,
learning autonomy and perception of self-efficacy. Thus, it is not useful to copy a
technology directly from a developed country into a developing one, so policy
makers in the implementation of technology should avoid directly copying content,
platforms and tools from one country into another without considering their
particular context. In this regard, Tarhini et al. (2014) propose that it is advisable
that before implementing any new technology, the educational authorities analyse
the factors of adoption of technologies in developing countries and this way they
have the theoretical reference for selecting the best approach that suits their
students.

7 Conclusions

For developing countries, the implementation and use of technological tools is more
complicated than in developed countries, since the adoption of virtual learning tools
brings new educational and social challenges.
This study confirms the E-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM) as an
acceptable tool for examining and identifying the factors, variables and relations
that inhibit or encourage the processes of technological introduction into the
educational field in developing countries. This is the case for both perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (EU), which are the main factors
considered by the model. We were able to predict the acceptance and use of e-
learning tools by university students, as evidenced by the measurement of the
model’s reliability, which was performed at two levels: reliability of observable
items and reliability of the constructs.
The model also revealed the existence of relations with a medium-high degree of
association between constructs. Student preparation was the only construct with a low
association value against the construct of perceived ease of use, which suggests that the
e-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (eLTAM) allows for the examination of how
external variables are affecting the decision to adopt virtual tools or not in the context
of developing world universities.
Some of the most important findings of the research worth mentioning include
the role of perceived self-efficacy, learning autonomy and student preparation in
the adoption of E-Learning Tools among university students in developing coun-
tries, which shows the need to address attitudinal aspects among students from
Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1067

stages prior to college education, this being a mechanism to incentivize them to a

greater utilisation of the different technological resources. Additionally, in both
primary and secondary education it is necessary to incorporate cross-cutting
components that allow for the use of E-Learning Tools and the carrying out of
research through them so that students perceive the benefits of complementing the
contents received with the use of other technological tools. However, this must
take into consideration the limitations of technological access and web connectiv-
ity that may be faced by various developing countries.
Our results show that instructor preparation, learning autonomy and perception of
self-efficacy are the main factors affecting the adoption of e-learning tools for univer-
sity students in the studied population. As is known, universities are faced with a
population of digital natives, forcing them to make structural changes that stimulate the
type of training offered. This in turn makes it necessary for digital immigrants (parents
and teachers) to evolve and adapt to the prevailing virtual reality through skills and
attributes linked to a more applied pedagogical exercise, capable of transforming
knowledge into action behaviours.
There is a clear need to ensure ongoing training in the use of ICTs in higher
education institutions of developing countries. This training should be accompanied
by strategies to promote the advantages of using virtual learning tools so that users
are motivated to be engaged in contexts of flexible and cooperative learning with
virtual tools. This process should go hand and hand with ongoing advice to users and
the improvement of technological infrastructure in educational institutions. Further-
more, contrasting the model proposed in this paper with the findings of other studies
shows that the adoption of e-learning tools in developing countries requires devel-
opments, models and individual research in these countries and cannot be limited to
the implementation of successful models in contexts of developed countries that have
other social, economic and technological characteristics.
With all this in mind, one can conclude that current education requires a component
of modernization in which a field emerges that links training for the competent and safe
use of virtual tools and timely dissemination of information among educators, teachers
and all who care about the proper use of these software tools in the educational sector in
developing countries.
Finally, some of the limitations of the proposed model include the fact that it relies
on a cross-cutting design. Conducting a longitudinal study would investigate the
effectiveness of the strategies proposed in different time periods, enabling the identi-
fication of a suitable route to encourage the use of virtual learning tools among students
from developing countries.
Also, to properly validate the constructs and variables proposed in the E-Learning
Tools Acceptance Model (ELTAM), it is necessary to apply the model in other
university contexts in developing countries in order to further increase the literature
and findings related to this subject in these nations. In addition, comparative studies
between public and private universities are recommended in order to contrast the
different variables that influence these populations with different economic and social
characteristics in the context of developed countries.
Future studies to validate the E-Learning Tools Acceptance Model (ELTAM) should
incorporate a qualitative approach from which inquiries can be made about the
prospects for teachers, academic managers and other experts in pedagogy in virtual
1068 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

classrooms in order to properly contextualise the findings and variables identified as

influencing the adoption of virtual learning tools.
Implementation of the model is suggested for future research, discriminating the
acceptance of E-Learning Tools among university students through some demographic
and training-related characteristics that may be of interest for this type of studies, such
as gender, school year, and prior training in the use of ICTs. Additionally, comparing
the results of the model between students of virtual, mixed and on-site school modes is
suggested, using ICT support to contrast which factors are directly influenced by the
mode in which studies are being pursued.

Authors’ contributions The three authors provided and wrote the Conceptualization. AVA and JBH
participated in compiling the questionnaires, gathered and transcribed. The three authors participed in the
analysed the questionnaire data and in the discussion. The three authors read and approved the final
manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials Original data are not publically available due to ethics restrictions on
identifying participants.

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

References

Abascal, E., & Esteban, I. (2005). Análisis de encuestas. Retrieved from. https://books.google.
es/books?hl=es&lr=&id=qFczOOiwRSgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Abascal,+E.,+%26+Esteban,+I.
+G.+(2005).+Análisis+de+encuestas.+ESIC+Editorial.&ots=eA0DLaP8Ra&sig=xIpblJGODuwjIl2
meNoBw7LADYo. Accessed Dec 2017.
Abbad, M. M., Morris, D., & de Nahlik, C. (2009). Looking under the bonnet: Factors affecting student
adoption of E-learning systems in Jordan. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 10(2), 1–25.
Ahmed, T. (2013). Toward successful E-learning implementation in developing countries: A proposed model
for predicting and enhancing higher education instructors participation. International Journal of
Academic Research in, 3(1). http://search.proquest.com/openview/8580e88ce8fdcec41224d8e495c5
d658/1?pq-origsite=gscholar (Accessed: 21 November 2016).
Al-azawei, A., Parslow, P., & Lundqvist, K. (2017). Investigating the effect of learning styles in a blended e-
learning system : An extension of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 33(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2758.
Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin. Retrieved from. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1989-14190-
001. Accessed Jan 2018.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Batista-Foguet, J., Coenders, G., & Alonso, J. (2004). Análisis factorial confirmatorio. Su utilidad en la
validación de cuestionarios relacionados con la salud. Medicina Clínica. Retrievedfrom. https://www.
researchgate.net/profile/Germa_Coenders/publication/246614042_Anlisis_factorial_confirmatorio._Su_
Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1069

utilidad_en_validacin_de_cuestionarios_relacionados_con_la_salud/links/5563e87408ae86c06b695b5a.
pdf. Accessed Nov 2017.
Bermúdez-Hernández, J., Chalela, S., Arias, J., & Valencia-Arias, A. (2016). Research trends in the study of
ICT based learning communities: A Bibliometric analysis. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education, 13(5), 1539–1562. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00684a.
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-
learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers &
Education, 58(2), 843–855.
Boateng, R., Mbrokoh, A. S., Boateng, L., Senyo, P. K., & Ansong, E. (2016). Determinants of e-learning
adoption among students of developing countries. International Journal of Information and Learning
Technology, 33(4), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-02-2016-0008.
Chalela Naffah, S., Valencia-Arias, A., Bermúdez-Hernández, J., & Ortega Rojas, C. M. (2016). Percepciones
estudiantiles acerca del uso de nuevas tecnologías en instituciones de Educación Superior en Medellín.
Revista Lasallista de investigación, 13(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.22507/rli.v13n2a14.
Cheng, Y. M., Lou, S.-J., Kuo, S. H., & Shih, R. C. (2013). Investigating elementary school students
technology acceptance by applying digital game-based learning to environmental education.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.65.
Clay, M., Rowland, S., & Packard, A. (2008). Improving undergraduate online retention through gated
advisement and redundant communication. Journal of College Student. Retrieved from http://csr.
sagepub.com/content/10/1/93.short. Accessed Nov 2017.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Quarterly. Retrieved from. http://www.jstor.org/stable/249008
Dede, C. (1996). Emerging technologies and distributed learning. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 10(2), 4–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649609526919.
Díez Echavarría, L. F., Valencia-Arias, A., & Bermúdez-Hernández, J. (2017). Agent-based model for
the analysis of technological acceptance of Mobile learning. IEEE Latin America Transactions,
15(6), 1121–1127.
Dominici, G., & Palumbo, F. (2013). How to build an e-learning product: Factors for student/customer
satisfaction. Business Horizons, 56(1), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.09.011.
Englund, C., Olofsson, A. D., & Price, L. (2017). Teaching with technology in higher education:
Understanding conceptual change and development in practice. Higher Education Research and
Development, 36(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1171300.
Frías-Navarro, D. (2013). Alfa de Cronbach y consistencia interna de los ítems de un instrumento de medida.
Gaviria, D., Arango, J., & Valencia-Arias, A. (2015). Reflections about the use of information and commu-
nication Technologies in Accounting Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier B.V.,
176, 992–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.569.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update
(4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gulati, S. (2008). Technology-enhanced learning in developing nations: A review. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2001). Análisis Multivariante (5ta ed.). Madrid:
Prentice Hall Iberia.
Huang, J. H., Lin, Y. R., & Chuang, S. T. (2007). Elucidating user behavior of mobile learning: A perspective
of the extended technology acceptance model. The Electronic Library, 25(5), 585–598.
Kaplan, D., Harik, P. & Hotchkiss, L. (2000). Cross- sectional estimation of dynamic structural equa- tion
models in disequilibrium. In: R. Cudeck, S. du Toit & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling:
Present and future-a Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 315–340). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Kundi, G., & Nawaz, A. (2014). From e-learning 1.0 to e-learning 2.0: Threats & amp; opportunities for
higher education institutions in the developing countries. European Journal of Sustainable Development,
3(1), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2014.v3n1p145.
Lan, Y. F., & Sie, Y. S. (2010). Using RSS to support mobile learning based on media richness theory.
Computers & Education, 55(2), 723–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.005.
Lee, J., Hong, N. L., & Ling, N. L. (2001). An analysis of students preparation for the virtual learning
environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 4(3), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-
7516(01)00063-X.
Lee, B. C., Yoon, J. O., & Lee, I. (2009). Learners’ acceptance of e-learning in South Korea: Theories and
results. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1320–1329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.014.
1070 Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071

Lennon, J., & Maurer, H. (2003). Why it is difficult to introduce e-learning into schools and some new
solutions. J. UCS. Retrieved from. http://www.jucs.org/jucs_9_10/why_it_is_difficult/Lennon_J.pdf.
Accessed Dec 2017.
Lévy, J. P., Martín, M. T., & Román, M. V. (2006). Optimización según estructuras de covarianzas.
Modelización con estructuras de covarianzas en ciencias sociales. Ed. Netbiblo, 21–22.
Liaw, S. S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-
learning: A case study of the blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864–873. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.09.005.
Martínez-García, J., & Martínez-Caro, L. (2009). La validez discriminante como criterio de evaluación de
escalas:¿ teoría o estadística? Universitas Psychologica. Retrieved from. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.
php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S1657-92672009000100002. Accessed Feb 2017.
Meneses, J., Fàbregues, S., Rodríguez-gómez, D., & Ion, G. (2012). Internet in teachers professional practice
outside the classroom: Examining supportive and management uses in primary and secondary schools.
Computers & Education. Elsevier Ltd, 59(3), 915–924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.011.
Miller, M., Lu, M., & Thammetar, T. (2004). The residual impact of information technology exportation on
Thai higher education. Educational Technology Research and. Retrieved from. http://www.springerlink.
com/index/U807754Q06H73693.pdf. Accessed Nov 2017.
Nawaz, A. (2013). Using e-learning as a tool for education for all in developing states. International Journal
of Science and Technology. Retrieved from. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJSTER/article-
abstract/2F5A48B5265. Accessed Nov 2017.
Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT
using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2004.11.007.
Nora, A., & Snyder, B. P. (2009). Technology and higher education: The impact of e-learning
approaches on student academic achievement, perceptions and persistence. Journal of College
Student Retention, 10, 3–19.
Ozdamli, F., & Uzunboylu, H. (2015). M-learning adequacy and perceptions of students and teachers
in secondary schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(1), 159–172. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjet.12136.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in Understanding University students
behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Petrides, L. A. (2002). Web-based technologies for distributed (or distance) learning: Creating learning-
centered educational experiences in the higher education classroom. International Journal, 29(1), 69–77.
Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework
and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic it skills training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401–426.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3250989.
Ratna, P., & y Mehra, S. (2015). Exploring the acceptance for e–learning using technology acceptance model
among university students in India. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking,
5(2), 194–210.
Rivera, P., Sánchez, P., Romo, E., Jarmaillo, A., & Valencia-Arias, A. (2013). Percepciones de aprendizaje por
medio universitarios frente al los estudiantes de dispositivos móviles. Revista Educación y Desarrollo
Social, 7(2), 152–166.
Selim, H. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers &
Education, 49(2), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004.
Selwyn, N. (2011). Education & Technology: Key issues & debates. London: Continuum.
Sirkemaa, S. (2006). Information technology in developing a meta-learning environment. European Journal of
Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from. http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&sp=
full&article=237. Accessed Dec 2017.
Summak, M., Samancioglu, M., & Baglibel, M. (2010). Technology integration and assesment in educational
settings. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1725–1729.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users behaviour in
developing countries: A structural equation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153–163.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level
cultural values on users acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling
of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1122635.
Taylor, P., Marín, S. L. T., García, F. B., & Vázquez, S. G. (2008). A technological acceptance of e-learning
tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 27(6), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290600958965.
Accessed Dec 2017.
Education and Information Technologies (2019) 24:1057–1071 1071

Teo, T., Fan, X., & Du, J. (2015). Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter?
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 235–251.
Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in
China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838–852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001.
Accessed Dec 2017.
Viberg, O., & Grönlund, Å. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis of users’ attitudes toward the use of mobile devices
in second and foreign language learning in higher education: A case from Sweden and China. Computers
& Education, 69, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.014.
Wong, G. K. W. (2015). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers of primary mathematics
in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(6), 713–735.
Wu, J. H., Tennyson, R. D., & Hsia, T. L. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning
system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164.