WHICH FACTORS DRIVE E-LEARNING USAGE?

Anne-Marie Horn, Hannes Rothe, Martin Gersch

Department of Business Information Systems, Freie Universitt Berlin (GERMANY)

Abstract
Research on human-computer-interaction is concerned with revealing factors, which drive usage of information systems. One of which is given by a strong dependence of usage on users acceptance of the system concerned. This research is also applicable to an e-learning context in higher education. As a result students perceptions towards e-learning systems may moderate learning processes. For this reason it would be compulsory to learn more about the antecedents and moderators of students acceptance of such systems. This study on education technology acceptance (ETA) is based on the Technology Acceptance Model by [1]. Specific relationships between learners perceptions and acceptance towards e-learning applications before and after their use are discussed conceptually and empirically. A hypothesis-driven analysis of a evaluations with 344 students of web-based trainings (WBTs) in higher education suggests significant associations between two perceptual factors the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use of e-learning as well as prior intention to use e-learning. The same applies to influences of prior perceptions on students learning satisfaction with the WBTs. Results show, that perceived usefulness correlates with the intention to continue using e-learning after the learning experience. Correlations with the perceived ease of use show divergent results. An exploratory analysis reveals confounders affecting the relationships between variables applied in this study. This study shows that complex data analysis including control variables is required to determine associations between the perceptual and acceptance factors more accurately. Further limitations, implications and an outlook on future research are discussed. Keywords: Web-based Trainings, e-learning, Technology Acceptance Model.

INTRODUCTION

Today information systems for educational purposes play an important role in schools, higher educational institutes as well as further training in business life. Course structures are supported by Course Management Systems (CMS), like Moodle or Blackboard in universities, or Massive Open Online Course platforms, for instance Coursera or EdX. Course content is not only handed out in form of books or sheets of paper, but on e-books, digital texts, videos or web-based trainings (WBT). Our paper focusses on these information systems used for educational purposes. Therefore we build upon research branch of Educational Technology Acceptance (ETA) [2][3]. Following the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) we aim to find out how information systems need to be designed, embedded into the learning context and introduced to the students, to raise the acceptance of its users. For this purpose we explore the influence of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of an information system. We focus on the acceptance of educational technology from a student perspective. Therefore we chose web-based trainings as our main research object. It is the main task of a WBT to transfer knowledge. They integrate a multitude of techniques, like interactive multimedia, video, audio and text elements. We found this research object to be of special value as its technical complexity may have higher usage barriers for students, who had never worked with WBTs before and did not develop a pertaining research strategy [4]. Subsequently we expect technology acceptance to be of special interest, as it is harder to attain. Furthermore the WBTs were mandatory elements of the learning process observed. We begin with a short introduction into ETA, followed by a conceptual and empirical discussion. Finally we conclude with a short summary as well as limitations and further implications.

Proceedings of INTED2014 Conference 10th-12th March 2014, Valencia, Spain

7571

ISBN: 978-84-616-8412-0

FACTORS OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE

Technology acceptance has been of wide interest for multiple fields of research, linking information systems research with psychology and social studies as part of the interdisciplinary human-computerinteraction research. It combines two aspects: the attitude of a person on the one hand and his or her future behavior-orientation towards a certain technology on the other [5][6]. Technology acceptance typically incorporates cognitive and affective elements of the individual as well as social constraints as oftentimes referenced with the Theory of Reasoned Action from [7], for instance. Therefore it is useful to explain why individuals are more likely to accept a technology on a micro level. Subsequently technology acceptance has also been found to drive the diffusion of technology-enhanced teaching and e-learning [2][8][9]. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) by [1] is an established and well-studied structural model describing determinants and their effects on individuals acceptance and use of technical systems. The TAM and its extensions TAM 2 [6] and TAM 3 [10] are based on the idea that actual system usage depends on users intention to use. This behavioural intention is in turn determined by a positive attitude towards using. It is directly or indirectly influenced by two cognitive factors: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived ease of use (PEU). According to [1], perceived usefulness relates to the prospective user's subjective probability that using a specific application system will increase his or her job performance within an organizational context [1] while perceived ease of use describes the degree to which the prospective user expects the target system to be free of effort [1]. A meta-analysis from [2] confirmed TAMs basic assumptions for the area of e-learning. Given the evidence for their meaningful application in an e-learning context, an examination of the factors that impact upon students acceptance of e-learning in higher education seems warranted.

HYPOTHESES

This study is motivated by the central question: What affects students acceptance of information systems for e-learning in higher education? From a variety of potential influences, the subsequent empirical analysis focuses on specific cognitive factors derived from the introduced Technology Acceptance Model by Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw [5]: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and as the dependent variable the acceptance of e-learning. Those are factors that could be influenced by the designer of an information system or a service provider. Following the theoretically and empirically founded associations between those factors, we hypothesize for the e-learning context: H1: The perceived usefulness is positively related to acceptance of e-learning. H2: The perceived ease of use is positively related to acceptance of e-learning. H3: The perceived ease of use is positively associated with the perceived usefulness. Beyond previous considerations, our study does not only focus on students perceptions on a specific e-learning application after its use. We also incorporate prior cognition as well as general perceptions on e-learning. For further analysis, hypotheses H1 to H3, as depicted in Fig. 1, are translated into fine granular statistical hypotheses in the methods section.

!
Fig. 1 Hypotheses on e-learning systems based on the TAM by Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw [1]

7572

SAMPLE

The analysis is based on 344 students evaluations of web-based trainings (WBTs) in the blendedlearning course "Information Management" that is annually offered by four German universities Ruhr-Universitt Bochum, Technische Universitt Dortmund, Universitt Duisburg-Essen and Freie Universitt Berlin as part of the e-learning project "RuhrCampusOnline and the cooperation Competence Center E-Commerce. The WBTs integrated multimedia elements with short videos and texts regarding several topics of the course each on its own web site. The teaching scenario is based upon a blended learning concept that combines various online and offline elements. It is evaluated in alignment with the "Bochumer E-Learning-Evaluationskonzept" by Gabriel et al. [11]. Accordingly, enrolled students fill-out three anonymous online questionnaires at different stages: A query of the students key data, like demographics, at the beginning of the course (so called Stammbgen, STB), feedback forms (Lernmodulbgen, LMB) immediately after each WBT and an overall course evaluation at the end of the semester. All questionnaires were developed at the Chair of Business Informatics of Ruhr-Universitt Bochum (see ibid.). Descriptive statistics can be found in [Appendix I]. For the present study, only the first two questionnaires were used. The final sample contains data sets from structurally comparable years 2009 to 2012 on condition that responses exist for both, the STB and LMB. For examination, the original response sheets were transferred from an Microsoft Access database to Microsoft Excel and SPSS and merged according to anonymous respondent IDs that were integrated into the response records. Further analysis includes key and feedback data regarding the first WBT only, disregarding the other four WBTs. This is to avoid missing data and minimize effects of habituation over time and frequency of use. In their article on the Technology Acceptance Model, Davis et al. [1] emphasize that predicting usage after a short practical introduction to a system is of particular interest. Time stamps confirm that the WBTs average processing time does not exceed one hour which is acceptable with regard to the authors reference. As a last step, duplicates and multiple response records of the same questionnaire were identified. To avoid a bias only one record was selected for the final sample depending on completeness and the earliest time stamp.

MEASUREMENTS

In the operationalization of the acceptance and students perceptions, both, the hypotheses driving the analysis as well as the characterization of the underlying data base were considered: The Acceptance is understood as a positive attitude towards an information system in terms of (1) satisfaction accompanied by a (2) behavioural intention, which in turn determines (3) actual use as a final acceptance criterion [1][12]. Due to lack of usage data this study focuses on satisfaction and the behavioural intention to use a system as elements of e-learning acceptance only. To capture students (1) learning satisfaction after the use of the WBT, Gabriel combined four items from the feedback sheet (LMB) into one scale [11]. With an acceptable internal consistency of Cronbachs ! = 0.78 (n = 242), we adopted the scale for further analysis. The (2) behavioural intention is defined as the strength of one's intention to perform a specified behavior [1]. The current database provided little direct information on the intention to use the same e-learning system repeatedly. Though, key data (STB) and feedbacks forms (LMB) both contain items with a certain relation to a general intention to use e-learning. Five items from the STB, applied before system use, were merged into one scale General behavioural intention - a-priori. With Cronbachs alpha ! = 0.82 (n =271), the scale shows a good internal consistency. Additionally, one item from the LMB, translated Based on my experience with this learning module, I am interested in further lectures supported by elearning., was used stand-alone as an indicator for General behavioural intention - a-posteriori. The perceived usefulness is operationalized with respect to the systems usefulness for a certain area of tasks, its potential to improve performance and in relation to alternative options [1][6]. In the present study, seven items from the STB were condensed in one scale General perceived usefulness a-priori which shows a good internal consistency of Cronbachs Alpha ! = 0.88 (n = 220). The items are applied before the use of the WBT. Since most students were not familiar with WBT they do not reference to the specific WBT, but to a global view on the benefits and advantages of e-learning, compared with alternative learning methods.

7573

The perceived ease of use is described by Venkatesh & Davis with hindsight on the systems accessibility, clarity and comprehensibility as well as an uncomplicated system use, which is free of effort [6]. In the present study, two items from the STB, addressing the complexity and fuzziness of elearning in general, were combined into a scale General perceived ease of use a-priori which shows a good internal consistency of Cronbachs ! = 0.87 (n =282). Additionally, another two items were interpreted as weighting factors, querying the importance of the accessibility and simplicity of elearning systems for the student. They were merged with the two other items into another scale. Therefore, two versions of the general perceived ease of use are created one which is weighted and the other unweighted. Most response scales range from 1 (highest values) to 6 (lowest value). Only the perceived ease of use is associated with a percentage scale polarized in an opposite direction. All scales included into the analysis are represented by a scale means value. [Appendix II] contains the items that were used to operationalize the introduced variables.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

The hypotheses made in advance were translated into statistical hypotheses and tested in light of the data set described above. All hypotheses indicate a correlation analysis. For this purpose, and due to a lacking normal distribution of most variables included, the parameter-free rang correlation coefficient KendallsTau is used. A two-sided significance level of p < .05 is applied. H1: The perceived usefulness is positively related to acceptance of e-learning systems. The hypothesis implicates a positive correlation between the perceived usefulness and the students learning satisfaction as well as their behavioural intention a-priori and a-posteriori. The analysis shows a weak to moderate positive correlation between the general perceived usefulness a-priori and the behavioural intention a-priori (! = .57, p <.01) and a-posteriori (! = .32, p <.01) as well as the satisfaction (! = .27, p <.01). Therefore, hypothesis H1 is not rejected.
b b b

H2: The perceived ease of use is positively related to acceptance of e-learning systems. In accordance with hypothesis H2 the perceived ease of use, i.e. the unweighted and the weighted scales, should be latent positively related to the three acceptance variables. Since both scales are polarized in the opposite direction, a negative correlation between the perceived ease of use and the acceptance variables is assumed. As expected, for the unweighted general perceived ease of use apriori, weak to moderate correlations with learning satisfaction (! = - .47, p <.01) as well as the behavioural intention a-priori (! = - .28, p <.01) and a-posteriori (! = - .18, p <.01) are found. Regarding the weighted general perceived ease of use a-priori, less significant correlations were found with the behavioural intention a-priori (! = - .15, p <.01) and the learning satisfaction (! = - .10, p <.05). Though, there was no significant association with the behavioural intention a-posteriori (n.s.). In consideration of this, Hypothesis 2 must be rejected for now.
b b b b b

H3: The perceived ease of use is positively associated with the perceived usefulness. The general perceived ease of use and the general perceived usefulness should be negatively correlated due to their opposing scale polarization. Analysis shows a weak negative association using the unweighted general perceived ease of use (! = - .26, p <.01) as well as a small significant correlation using the weighted version of the general perceived use (! = - .14, p <.01). As a result, Hypothesis H3 is not rejected. An overview on the results can be found in Fig. 2.
b b

7574

Fig. 2 Results of correlation analysis for testing hypotheses General Perceived Usefulness (a-priori) !"
General Intention Use (a-priori) Learning Satisfaction General Intention Use (a-posteriori) General Perceived Usefulness (a-priori) to to .57** .27** .32** -

General Perceived Ease of Use (a-priori) !"

-.28** -.47** -.18** -.26**

General Perceived Ease of Use (a-priori; weighted) !"

-.15** -.10* n.s. -.14* .001

p
.000 .000 .000

p
.000 .000 .000 .000

p
.000 .036

* significant with p<.05; ** significant with p <.01; n.s. non-significant Perceived Ease of Use oppositely polarized: Low values equal high perceived ease of use of e-learning.

SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS

Low correlation coefficients could be caused by the impact of other influential factors. An explorative analysis was applied to detect variables that directly or indirectly influence the study variables and, therefore, could moderate the relationship between them. Based on a literature overview, variables were identified which may influence the relationships of this study. Their impact on the study variables is subsequently tested. For correlation analysis, Kendalls Tau was applied as above. Fig. 3 shows all factors with significant correlations with one or more study variables. Fig. 3 Exploratory results of correlation analysis with potentially moderating variables Factor
Drop-out rate (key data) Drop-out rate (feedback forms) Time required for the WBT Age

Significant correlation
Behavioural Intention - a-priori Perceived Usefulness Behavioural Intention - a-priori Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Perceived Usefulness Behavioural Intention - a-priori Satisfaction Perceived Ease of Use (unweighted) Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Perceived Usefulness Behavioural Intention - a-priori Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Behavioural Intention - a-priori Perceived Usefulness Perceived Ease of Use (unweighted) Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Perceived Ease of Use (unweighted) Perceived Usefulness Behavioural Intention - a-priori Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Perceived Ease of Use (unweighted) Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Perceived Usefulness Behavioural Intention - a-priori Satisfaction Behavioural Intention - a-posteriori

!"
.09* -.11* -.10* -.12** -.09* -.15** -.12* .10* .13** -.10* -.17** .18** -.17** .19** .10* .12* -.20** -.09* -.19** .19** -.34** .17** -.37** -.44** -.22** -.33**

p
.038 .021 .042 .008 .044 .000 .023 .027 .002 .021 .000 .000 .000 .000 .047 .019 .000 .038 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Intensity of Internet Usage

Computer Skills

Diversity of E-Learning Usage E-Learning Knowledge

Interest in E-Learning

* significant with p<.05; ** significant with p <.01 Perceived Ease of Use oppositely polarized: Low values equal high perceived ease of use of e-learning.

7575

Categorical variables were analyzed using a t test with normally distributed variables, otherwise the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-Test was used. For more than two characteristic values of the independent variables an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied. Results suggest sample subgroups that should be separately analyzed. Fig. 4 shows the significant results. Fig. 4 Results for exploratory analysis
Factor Year Studies E-Learning Usage private vs. studies Sex Significant results Satisfaction Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Behavioural Intention a-priori Behavioural Intention a-posteriori Perceived Ease of Use (weighted) Behavioural Intention a-priori Value F = 4.352 F = 4.629 U = 77.500 U = 166.000 U = 6961.000 T = -2.152 p .005 .008 .032 .030 .001 .032

* F: value for ANOVA; U: value for U test T: value for t test

In consequence of these findings, a review of the results in the main study with control variables would be necessary. However, this should not be discussed in the context of this study, but give the impulse for subsequent studies.

CONCLUSION

The present study raises the question of determinants influencing students e-learning acceptance. After a short theoretical overview, an empirical analysis puts focus on individual cognitive factors derived from the Technology Acceptance Model by Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw [1]: The perceived usefulness (PU) and the perceived ease of use (PEU). In addition this study includes users general perceptions on e-learning before use of the e-learning system. As expected, a hypothesis-driven correlation analysis with 344 university students evaluations of web-based trainings shows positive relationships between PU and e-learning acceptance. Findings on the impact of the PEU diverge depending on the variables operationalization. Weighted by importance, the perceived ease of use shows less and lower associations with the acceptance than the unweighted scale. This gives an important clue on the role of methodology and measurements in acceptance research. Though, the diverging findings on the associations of the perceived ease of use with the acceptance are consistent with empirical findings on other studies [9]. According to those insights, the perceived usefulness is rated as the more important factor. Supplemental analysis reveals additional factors which significantly correlated with the study variables and intercorrelated as well. This includes methodological and other influences not directly assigned to the influential sphere of the students or e-learning system.

8.1

Limitations

With hindsight on the interpretation of our studys results it is necessary to note that its scope is restricted to a very specific field of application, only one e-learning system WBTs and a limited set of variables. It does neither claim generalizability nor holism. Our study design and research methodology do not allow conclusions regarding interactions between factors, paths or causalities. Due to the cross-sectional design, conclusions on the temporal development of the acceptance are not possible. A comparison of the perceived usefulness or perceived ease of use before and after the use of the system could not be made. Drop-out rates and redundancies in the feedback forms reduced data quality and limited the sample size. The variables response formats and codings as well as the categorization of text variables were fraught with uncertainties. The scales used for operationalization were tested for internal consistency and face validity but not for other scale criteria. Some single items were used although they are inferior to scales regarding their psychometric characteristics. The use of parameter-free statistical methods implicates potential information loss. Scale transformations for data normalization and application of more complex data analysis should provide further insights.

7576

The opportunities tied to the database could not be completely exploited. Comments or certain items were not analyzed but could provide additional information on students attitudes. Information on the students actual use or on effectiveness criteria was not directly available. Olbrecht emphasizes that observable behavior does not always allow valid information on the acceptance [8]. It could just as well be the other way around. So, behavioral parameters should be integrated into following studies. The same applies to potential control variables as those identified in the supplemental analysis. The sample was not balanced by potential confounders, e.g. the year or studies. Besides, a systematic effect of the technology or training design cannot be excluded, since the WBT was moved to another platform in 2012 and the course content was continuously improved and adapted to the students feedback over the years. Due to their potential impact on the statistical relationships reported, confounding effects and control variables should be further examined and considered in future analysis and methodology. However, this should not be covered in the context of this study, but give the impulse for subsequent studies.

8.2

Implications

In our study, factors influencing the acceptance of e-learning were examined. The results indicate that not only individual cognitions developed during or after the use of an e-learning system, but also general perceptions before the use of an e-learning technology could be associated with acceptance. Beyond, various other factors on an individual or contextual level can have an impact, apart from methodological biases. In consequence of our findings and the supplemental analysis, a review of the results in the main study with control variables and usage data is suggested. An adapted study design and methodology should also reduce the impact of methodological biases. From the present work and the associated research field numerous questions arise whose exploration should be pursued in the context of further studies. The field of technology acceptance in higher education is a source for particularly complex questions. First of all data on the actual use of elearning systems needs to be incorporated into the acceptance model. We see currently developing branches of research, like learning analytics or educational data mining, as interesting and valuable complements to our research. Additionally other factors at the level of the e-learning context or the training and system design should be included. One could examine the acceptance as a function of time and students engagement in the course to see how acceptance develops over time and with involvement. Furthermore, influences of the acceptance on the learning or transfer success are of interest, since acceptance is of little use if students fail to learn and apply what they have learned. Beyond the students acceptance we also need to consider the role, characteristics and acceptance of the teaching staff and service providers to understand e-learning usage. Meta-analyzes on the current state of research and more extensive studies contribute to the integration of mostly scattered and very specific empirical findings. The development of types with respect to the acceptance and use of e-learning as well as specifically tailored didactic models could provide further insights. Complex methods such as structural equation models or conjoint analysis provide insights into factor relationships and the relevance of specific criteria. With respect to the perceived ease of use of e-learning systems the field of universal design could provide relevant theoretical and practical input. An interdisciplinary collaboration with software and instructional designers as well as experts in the field of Human Computer Interaction might create further synergies. External influences on the perceived usefulness should be examined, since the factor has been found to be the most important and is influenced by a variety of other variables [2][6].

REFERENCES
[1] Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. and Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. In: ManagementScience 35 (8), pp. 9821003. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 "umak, B., Heri#ko, M. and Pu$nik, M. (2011). A meta-analysis of e-learning technology acceptance: The role of user types and e-learning technology types. In: Computers in Human Behavior 27 (6), pp. 20672077. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.005

[2]

7577

[3]

Nicolae, N., G%&, A. and Lerche, T. (2013). Educational technology acceptance across national and professional cultures: a European study. In: Educational Technology Research and Development 61 (4), pp. 1-17. doi: 10.1007/s11423-013-9292-7 Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R. and Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. In: MIS quarterly 25 (4), pp. 401-426. doi: 10.2307/3250989 Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts." In: International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 38(3), pp. 475-487. doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022 Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. In: Management Science 46 (2), pp. 186204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926 Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, Massachussetts: Addison-Wesley. Olbrecht, T. (2010). Akzeptanz von E-Learning (doctoral dissertation). Jena: Universitt Jena. Available online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:gbv:27-20101210-115257-1. Simon, B. (2001). Wissensmedien im Bildungssektor. Eine Akzeptanzuntersuchung an Hochschulen (doctoral dissertation). Wien, Wirtschaftsuniverstitt. Available online: http://epub.wu.ac.at/1869/1/document.pdf. Venkatesh, V. and Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. In: Decision Sciences 39 (2), pp. 273315. doi: 10.1111/j.15405915.2008.00192.x Gabriel, R., Gersch, M., Weber, P. and Venghaus, C. (2006) Blended Learning Engineering: Der Einfluss von Lernort und Lernmedium auf Lernerfolg und Lernzufriedenheit Eine evaluationsgesttzte Untersuchung. In: Breitner, M.; Bruns, B.; Lehner, F. (eds.): Neue Trends im E-Learning. Heidelberg: Physica. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7908-1922-9_6 Tarhini, A., Hone, K. and Liu, X. (2013). User Acceptance Towards Web-based Learning Systems: Investigating the Role of Social, Organizational and Individual Factors in European Higher Education. In: Procedia Computer Science, 17, pp. 189197. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2013.05.026

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7] [8] [9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

APPENDIX I
Year n age (mean / sd) gender (female / male) descriptives semester (mean) internet usage I (at home / university / at work) % internet usage for private purpose (mean / sd) % internet usage for studie purpose (mean / sd) 2009 155 23.65 / 2.64 70 / 71 6.23 133 / 2 / 3 2010 106 23.2 / 2.45 52 / 40 6.46 0/3/1 2011 40 23.76 / 2.97 21 / 17 5.24 32 / 1 / 0 2012 43 24.05 / 2.96 20 /21 6.29 39 / 2 / 1 overall 344 23.77 / 2.66 163 / 149 6.19 284 / 7 / 5 scale 0; 1 -

56.1 / 18.26

54.94 / 21.08 42.56 / 19.41

53.71 / 19.41 42.65 / 19.43

58.54 / 15.26 36.19 / 13.39

55.82 / 18.84 40.20 / 18.31

0 to 100 0 to 100

39.34 / 18.47

7578

general intention use, a-priori (mean / sd) (in)dependent variables learning satisfaction (mean / sd) general intention use, a-posteriori (mean / sd)

3.14 / 0.95 2.57 / 0.74 2.38 / 1.08

2.9 / 0.96 2.5 / 0.7 2.4 / 1.17

2.6 / 0.92 2.1 / 0.84 1.93 / 1.09

2.96 / 0.96 2.28 / 0.68 2.28 / 1.07

3.02 / 0.96 2.47 / 0.77 2.32 / 1.11

1 to 6 1 to 6 1 to 6

general perceived usefulness, 3.24 / 0.88 a-priori (mean / sd) general perceived ease-ofuse, a-priori (mean / sd) general perceived ease-ofuse, a-priori, weighted (mean / sd) 0.66 / 0.24 1.33 / 0.81

3.14 / 0.87 0.71 / 0.21 1.38 / 0.83

2.86 / 0.89 0.69 / 0.22 1.36 / 0.86

3.02 / 0.94 0.61 / 0.25 1.11 / 0.64

3.14 / 0.98 0.67 / 0.23 1.32 / 0.80

1 to 6 0 to 1 0 to 5

7579

APPENDIX II
Every question was translated from German to English. Items from key data form regarding General intention use, a-priori ' ' ' ' ' I can picture myself learning exclusively with E-Learning. I am very interested in information about E-Learning. E-Learning is the future of education. I enjoy learning with the help of the web. E-Learning offers important tools to me for gaining knowledge

Items from feedback form regarding Learning Satisfaction ' ' ' ' Which grade from 1 (very good) to 6 (unsatisfactory) would you give this module? I have learned a lot in this module. I can recommend this module without any remarks. I had a lot of fun with this module.

Items from key data form regarding general perceived usefulness, a-priori ' ' ' ' ' ' ' E-Learning systems are far more flexible for learning than books. E-Learning is far more flexible for learning than lectures. E-Learning is superior to traditional offline learning. E-Learning is going to replace traditional offline learning. Through E-Learning the learning content can be gained far more effectively than in traditional offline learning. E-Learning leads to higher learning success than offline learning. The presentation of learning content online is superior to the offline representation.

Items from key data form regarding general perceived ease-of-use, a-priori ' ' Using E-Learning systems is laborious and inconvenient Using E-Learning systems is complicated

Items from key data form regarding general perceived ease-of-use, weighted, a-priori ' ' ' Using E-Learning systems is laborious and inconvenient Using E-Learning systems is complicated Weighing factors o An uncomplicated use of E-Learning systems is( [1: very important to me to 6: not important to me] o A good accessibility of E-Learning systems is( [1: very important to me to 6: not important to me]

7580