SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education / 2023 / Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2

EXAMINING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION TO DISTANCE LEARNING DURING COVID-19: AN EXTENDED TAM MODEL

Can SAYGINER
Pages
325–336
Publication Date
2023-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results indicate that Computer Anxiety had a negative impact on Self-efficacy.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Learning was obliged to be transformed to distance learning due to the long-lasting COVID-19 lockdown period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data was gathered from 92 undergraduate students enrolled in five and other courses in Turkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicate that Computer Anxiety had a negative impact on Self-efficacy.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Distance learning · Structural equation modelling · Extended technology acceptance model

Abstract

Learning was obliged to be transformed to distance learning due to the long-lasting COVID-19 lockdown period. This situation has brought to investigate the critical factors influencing students’ intention and actual use of distance learning tools. In this context, this study aims to evaluate the effects of distance learning, deriving independent variables adopted from ETAM. Data was gathered from 92 undergraduate students enrolled in five and other courses in Turkiye. Data were investigated via SmartPLS 3.0 through Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). Results indicate that Computer Anxiety had a negative impact on Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy had a positive influence on Experience. Experience and Enjoyment had positive effects on Perceived Ease of Use. Enjoyment had a positive influence on Perceived Usefulness. The proposed model explained 87.7% of the variance of the actual use of distance learning tools. Computer anxiety and selfefficacy, which were proposed to measure experience, made this study unique and valuable. This contributes to acknowledging higher education institutions and lecturers to understand the benefits and barriers of distance learning tools for students used during the unpredicted pandemics in the future.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAYGINER, C. (2023). EXAMINING UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION TO DISTANCE LEARNING DURING COVID-19: AN EXTENDED TAM MODEL. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 2, 325–336. https://ajindex.com/articles/892772

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Achim, N., & Al Kassim, A. (2015). Computer usage: the impact of computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 701-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.422
  2. Anadolu University. (2021). 2021-2022-Academic Year. Retrieved April 30, 2020 from https://anadolu.edu.tr/universitemiz/sayilarla-universitemiz/ogrenci-sayilari/2021-2022/2021-ekim
  3. Bahcesehir University. (2021). Bahcesehi̇r University Starts The Online Classes. Retrieved March 05, 2022, from https://bau.edu.tr/news/15488-bahcesehir-university-starts-the-online-classes
  4. Cacault, M. P., Hildebrand, C., Laurent-Lucchetti, J., & Pellizzari, M. (2021). Distance learning in higher education: Evidence from a randomized experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(4), 2322-2372. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvaa060
  5. Chua, S. L., Chen, D.-T., & Wong, A. F. (1999). Computer anxiety and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 15(5), 609-623. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00039-4
  6. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 189-211. https://doi.org/10.2307/249688
  7. Crawford, J., Butler-Henderson, K., Rudolph, J., Malkawi, B., Glowatz, M., Burton, R., & Lam, S. (2020). COVID-19: 20 countries' higher education intra-period digital pedagogy responses. Journal of Applied Learning &Teaching, 3(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2020.3.1.7
  8. Da Costa Barreto, L. S., Marañón-Vásquez, G. A., Lopes, R., de Lima, A. M. B., & de Souza, M. M. G. (2020). Distance learning approach in interprofessional higher education, International Journal of Education, 12(4). https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i4.17821
  9. Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159-168, https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  11. El Said, G. R. (2021). How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect higher education learning experience? An empirical investigation of learners’ academic performance at a university in a developing country. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6649524
  12. Ferran, F. M. (2021). Extended technology acceptance model to examine the use of Google Forms–based les