This study investigates the mediating influence of perceived ease of use on the relationship among faculty perspective, students’ perspective, technology perspective and the effectiveness of online learning. Employing a causal-comparative research design, data were collected from 390 respondents using a five-point Likert scale. Structural equation modelling through AMOS was employed as the data analysis tool. The research findings reveal that perceived ease of use plays a crucial mediating role in the association among faculty perspective, students’ perspective, technology perspective and the effectiveness of online learning. The results underscore the significance of user experience and the ease with which individuals interact with online learning platforms in influencing the overall effectiveness of online education. These findings offer valuable insights into enhancing the design and implementation of online learning systems, with the aim of improving user satisfaction and maximizing the educational outcomes of online learning environments. As technology continues to play an integral role in modern education, understanding the role of perceived ease of use becomes paramount in creating engaging and effective online learning experiences. Future research avenues may delve deeper into specific factors that contribute to perceived ease of use, further enriching our understanding of the intricate dynamics between user perspectives and online learning effectiveness.
AbbadM. M., MorrisD., & de NahlikC. (2009). Looking under the Bonnet: Factors affecting student adoption of e-learning systems in Jordan. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i2.596
2.
AdedoyinO. B., & SoykanE. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and online learning: The challenges and opportunities. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(2), 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1813180
3.
AhmadA., & LoveS. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of m-learning: An investigation in higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14, 83–107.
4.
Al-FraihatD., JoyM., Masa’dehR., & SinclairJ. (2019). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 222–232.
5.
AllenI. E., & SeamanJ. (2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson Survey Research Group.
6.
AlmahaseesZ., & QassemM. (2022). Faculty perception of teaching translation courses online during Covid-19. PSU Research Review, 6(3), 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/PRR-12-2020-0044
7.
AristovnikA., KeržičD., RavšeljD., TomaževičN., & UmekL. (2020). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on life of higher education students: A global perspective. Sustainability, 12, 8438. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208438
8.
BaoW. (2020). COVID-19 and online teaching in higher education: A case study of Peaking University. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.191
9.
Buabeng-AndohC. (2012). Factors influencing teacher’s adoption and integration of information and communication technology into teaching: A review of the literature. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT, 8(1), 136–155.
10.
ÇamE., ÇamM., & UzunL. (2021). Turkish EFL learners’ readiness for and satisfaction with e-learning during COVID-19. International Dialogues on Education: Past and Present, 8(1), 24–54.
11.
DemuyakorJ. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID -19) and online learning in higher institutions of education: A survey of the perceptions of Ghanaian International Students in China. Online journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/8286
12.
DhawanS. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
13.
DhimanN., GuptaA., AroraN., & GeorgeB. (2022). User attitude towards E-learning platforms: An insight through the expectation confirmation model and the affordance theory lens. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221130666
14.
FiliusR. M., KlejinR. A. M., UijlS. G., PronsF. J., RijenH. V. M., & GrobbeeD. E. (2019). Audio peer feedback to promote deep learning in online education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12363
15.
FryK. (2001). E-learning markets and providers: Some issues and prospects. Education Training, 43(4), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005484
16.
GederaD. S. P., WilliamsP. J., & WrightN. (2013). An analysis of Moodle in facilitating asynchronous activities in a fully online university course. International Journal of Science and Applied Information Technology, 2(2), 6–10.
17.
GherhesV., StoianC., FàrcaşiuM., & StaniciM. (2021). E-learning vs. face-to-face learning: Analyzing students preferences & behaviors. Sustainability, 13, 43–81. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084381
18.
GorbunovaN. V., & KalimullinA. M. (2017). Simulation of the process of training the future primary school teacher for organizing extracurricular activities. Elementary Education Online, 16(4), 1860–1872. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2017.348973
19.
HaddadM. E. O., FerreiraN. S. C., & FariaA. A. (2014). The use of educational technologies in distance education: Enabling the appropriation of teaching and learning process. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 54–58. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4236/jss.2014.21006
20.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., & AndersonR. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
21.
HewK. F., & CheungW. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.001
22.
HodgesC., MooreS., LockeeB., TrustT., & BondA. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 27.
23.
HuangR., TliliA., YangJ., ChangT.-W., WangH., ZhuangR., & LiuD. (2020). Facilitating flexible learning during educational disruption: The Chinese experience in maintaining undisrupted learning in COVID-19 outbreak. Handbook, Smart Learning Institute of Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
24.
JayatillekeB. G., & GunawardenaC. (2016). Cultural perceptions of online learning: transnational faculty perspectives. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 11(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-07-2016-0019
KellerC., & CernerudL. (2002). Students’ perception of e-learning in university education learning. Journal of Education Media, 27(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165020270105
27.
KvonG. M., VaksV. B., MasalimovaA. R., KryukovaN. I., RodY. S., ShagievaR. V., & KhudzhatovM. B. (2018). Risk in implementing new electronic management systems at universities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 891–902. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/81060
28.
LaRoseR., GreggJ., & EastinM. (1998). Audio graphic tele-courses for the web: An experiment. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.tb00093.x
29.
LeeJ., & LeeH. (2021). The influence of students’ perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness on behavioral intention to use mobile learning applications in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(6), 812–829.
30.
LestariI., SarifahI., & DewiR. S. (2021). The usefulness of online learning on quality of education during COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the department of elementary school teacher education at Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia. International Journal for Quality Research, 15(1), 107–124. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.24874/IJQR15.01-06
31.
MaltzL., DebloisP., & The EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee. (2005). Top ten IT issues. EDUCAUSE Review, 40(1), 15–28.
32.
NgoJ., & NgadimanA. (2021). Investigating student satisfaction in remote online learning settings during Covid-19 in Indonesia. Journal of International and Comparative, Education (JICE), 10(2), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.14425/jice.2021.10.2.0704
33.
NikouS., & MaslovI. (2021). An analysis of students’ perspectives on e-learning participation: The case of COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology, 38(3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-12-2020-0220
34.
NufrioP. M. (2007). Meeting the challenge of distance learning in a public/nonprofit MPA curriculum. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(5), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690701206218
35.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
36.
OuadoudM., RidaN., & ChafiqT. (2021). Overview of e-learning platforms for teaching. International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering Science & IT, 9(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v9i1.21111
37.
ParkN. (2010). Adoption and use of computer-based voice over internet protocol phone service: Toward an integrated model. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 40–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01440.x
38.
PiccianoA. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning Journal, 21(3), 166–190. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225
39.
RanaS., AnandA., PrasharS., & HaqueM. M. (2020). A perspective on the positioning of Indian business schools post COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 17(2), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0415
40.
RichardH., & HayaA. (2009). Examine student decision to adopt web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical test. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-009-9023-6
41.
RoddyC., AmietD. L., ChungJ., HoltC., & ShawL. (2017). Students’ perceptions of the use of e-portfolios in nursing and midwifery education. Nurse Education in Practice, 22, 16–22.
42.
SelimH. M. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning acceptance: Confirmatory factor models. Computers and Education, 49(2), 396–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.09.004
43.
ShroffR. H., DeneenC. C., & NgE. M. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(4), 600–618. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.940
44.
SunP. C., TsaiR. J., FingerG., ChenY. Y., & YehD. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
45.
TamburriR., QuaglieriA., & BoccardelliP. (2018). The influence of student satisfaction on performance in for-profit higher education. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 28(4), 504–526.
46.
TannerJ. R., NoserT. C., & ToataroM. W. (2009). Business facility undergraduate student’s perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information System Education, 20(1), 29–40.
47.
TuranZ. (2019). Educational technology adoption in a developing country: Faculty members’ perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3403–3420.
48.
UNESCO. (2020). COVID-19 educational disruption and response. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/educationresponse
49.
UpadhyayP., PaulM., & ShrivastavaS. (2022). Making students ‘industry-ready’: An empirical analysis of management programme outcomes. FIIB Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/23197145221125288
50.
Van NulandS., MandzukD., Tucker PetrickK., & CooperT. (2020). COVID-19 and its effects on teacher education in Ontario: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Journal of Education for Teaching, 46(4), 442–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1803050
51.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
52.
YangF., & LiF. W. B. (2018). Study on student performance estimation, student progress analysis and student potential prediction based on data mining. Computers & Education, 123, 97–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.006
