Measuring student satisfaction of Microsoft teams as an online learning platform in Jordan: An application of UTAUT2 model

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, educational institutions have shifted to electronic education at the global level, after face-to-face education was common in most countries of the world. From this aspect, assessing students’ satisfaction with the platforms used in e-learning is very important. In this study, students’ satisfaction with Microsoft Teams was measured, as it is one of the most important programs used in the educational process in various educational institutions.

OBJECTIVE:

This study uses five variables from the UTAUT2 model namely; performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating conditions, social influence, price value, as well as two new variables which include student satisfaction, and flexibility to study the learning satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

METHODS:

520 questionnaires were distributed to Yarmouk and Ajloun National Universities students to collect the required data, and the data was analyzed using Smart PLS.

RESULTS:

The results showed that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, price value, facilitating conditions, student confidence, and flexibility are important indicators of satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study adds to the body of knowledge by building a conceptual model capable of effectively predicting student satisfaction with the Microsoft Teams platform. It concluded that the expected benefit from using Microsoft Teams will increase student satisfaction.

Keywords

Microsoft teams UTAUT2 ministry of higher education and scientific research performance expectancy effort expectancy

Malik Khlaif Gharaibeh received his Ph.D. degree in Management Information Systems from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang, Malaysia. At present, Malik is an Assistant professor of Management Information Systems at Ajloun National University. He published around 15 papers in international journals as well as participated in several international conferences. His current research interests are technology adoption, mobile commerce, mobile tourism with a special focus on mobile applications. Furthermore, He is a reviewer in many international journals and conferences.

1 Introduction

At the global level, the teaching and learning process has moved rapidly from the traditional form to a mixture of the traditional form and the electronic form [1]. This rapid transition came as a result of several factors, such as the cheap prices of devices such as smartphones and laptops, in addition to the emergence of applications such as Facebook, YouTube and WhatsApp, and thus the way people lived changed in terms of customs, traditions and even ways of education [2]. The issue of e-learning raised several questions for discussion, the most important of which is what is the quality of this type of education and the extent of students’ satisfaction with e-learning [3]. Although e-learning is applied in most countries of the world, the issue of user satisfaction still raises controversy [4]. In recent years, the issue of student satisfaction with e-learning has received great attention from researchers around the world [5 –7].

In the Jordanian context, the option to go to e-learn-ing in Jordanian universities has become mandatory with the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic. Later, the Jordanian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research issued an executive action plan to integrate e-learning in its two forms, full e-learning and blended e-learning in the higher education system. This plan has been implemented from the beginning of 2021 and ends at the end of 2023. Officials in Jordan confirm that the goal of this plan is not only to confront the epidemiological situation but also to keep pace with the requirements of modernity, as e-learning is currently widely spread globally [8]. All public and private Jordanian universities must implement this executive plan. The students had to make bigger adjustments in how they learn because the teaching process was always in the classroom where they can’t go now. Moreover, many of them may not be well equipped with technological tools. Some students also live in areas where there is no Internet coverage, so satisfaction with e-learning is a major challenge facing universities in Jordan [9].

A number of previous studies examined the factors that increase students’ desire for e-learning [10] but in the context of schools and a number of other studies examined students’ intention to use or accept e-learning [11, 12]. The idea of this research is based on the fact that e-learning is a reality imposed on Jordanian universities. Accordingly, the issue of using or accepting e-learning for students is an inevitable issue, but student satisfaction with these electronic educational platforms can be measured. In the same context, most of the previous studies dealt with the subject of e-learning as a temporary period due to the Covid-19 pandemic and assumed that face-to-face learning would return after the end of the pandemic. This hypothesis is confirmed by the executive plan of the Jordanian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, which forced Jordanian universities to integrate e-learning with face-to-face education.

Ajloun National University (a private university) and Yarmouk University (a public university) in Jordan rely on the Microsoft Teams platform in their e-learning system. This study seeks to measure student satisfaction with this platform used in teaching. The rest of the research sections were distributed as follows. The second section presents the most important theories and variables used in studying student satisfaction with e-learning platforms. The third section reviews the proposed hypotheses. The fourth section describes the methodology and the elements of the questionnaire, while the fifth section summarizes the most important results and discusses the results in detail, followed by the sixth section that clarifies the conclusion, and finally, the seventh section deals with the limitations and directions for future research.

2 Literature review

Innovation in technology has always been the focus of researchers’ attention [13 –16], so in recent years the issue of adopting e-learning has attracted many researchers as it harnesses technology in the educational process [17]. In fact, there are many theories that can be applied to measure students’ satisfaction with electronic educational platforms, for example, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [18] Which has been employed in many studies in the context of e-learning [19 –21]. Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) [22] e.g. [23, 24]. UTAUT and UTAUT2 [25, 26] were also repeatedly selected as a base model [27, 28]. There are other theories that have been used, such as Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) [29] and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [30], but mostly TAM, IDT, UTAUT, and UTAUT2 are the most used in the field of technology acceptance.

When comparing the previous theories, it is clear that the UTAUT2 model is the most capable of predicting the field of technology acceptance, in addition to being the most used among researchers, as it was noted that this model was employed in many areas such as acceptance of technology, intention to use technology, and satisfaction with technological innovations [27 , 31–34]. Based on this advantage that distinguishes the UTAUT2 from other theories, five independent variables were included in this study’s model, which are: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and price value. In addition, two independent variables were added to the study model because they are suitable for the field of e-learning and were not addressed by previous researchers, namely: student confidence and flexibility.

Fig. 1

UTAUT2 model.

Fig. 2

Proposed research model.

3 Hypotheses development

This section deals with the justifications for choosing the study variables as well as previous studies that discussed these variables [35] found that performance expectance positively contributed to MOOC acceptance among university students. This study assumes that studying through the Microsoft Teams platform will increase their academic achievement. The Microsoft Teams platform allows recording lectures that enable the student to return to the lecture and watch it at any time. It is expected that effort expectancy will play a major role in evaluating the Microsoft Teams platform, as this platform allows a large number of students to meet with the lecturer from anywhere and at any time [36]. In addition to the ease of use of the platform, it also provides features such as a camera, audio, and raising the hand. In other words, giving lectures virtually through the Microsoft Teams platform is a simulation of lectures that take place on the university campus [37] showed that effort expectancy significantly affects intention to use Learning Management System (LMS) among university students.

Several previous studies revealed that social influence is an important factor in determining the acceptance of technology or customer satisfaction with technology [38]. These studies also see that the importance of social impact lies in that it positively affects other factors such as performance expectancy and effort expectancy [39]. In general, customers’ opinions about services or products are greatly influenced by the evaluations of others, whether they are family members, colleagues or friends [40]. Facilitating conditions include removing all technological and organizational obstacles or restrictions to facilitate the service for the customer [41]. In the context of this study, facilitating conditions were used from several aspects such as knowledge, resources, internet speed and technical support. Availability of all these facilities will greatly affect student satisfaction with the Microsoft Teams platform.

Another decisive construct in determining the degree of satisfaction with technology is price value. This construct means all costs associated with the use of technology [42]. Jordanian universities do not provide internet packages to students when using electronic platforms, knowing that downloading and using Microsoft Times is free for students. Anyway, previous studies indicated the importance of price value, as considered that when universities provide free data access, this increases students’ satisfaction with the electronic platforms used in education [43]. One of the important advantages that support e-learning at the expense of traditional learning is that the classroom in e-learning is more interactive [44] because students who suffer from shyness are more motivated to participate through e-learning [45]. Therefore, this study came to confirm the results of previous studies, which concluded that e-learning enhances the student’s confidence to participate and express his/her opinion easily [46].

Previous studies indicated that flexibility is an essential point in the e-learning process since e-learning via the Microsoft Teams platform is not restricted by the place factor. In other words, e-learning allows some people who are unable to come to university campuses to study without facing pressure. E-learning also increases the exchange of information and knowledge between students and peers in an easy and fast way [47].

Depending on the explanations related to each variable above, the study hypotheses were proposed as follows:

H1: Performance expectancy positively influences satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

H2: Effort expectancy positively influences satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

H3: Effort expectancy positively influences performance expectancy.

H4: Social influence positively influences satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

H5: Social influence positively influences performance expectance.

H6: Social influence positively influences effort expectancy.

H7: Facilitating conditions positively influence satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

H8: Price value positively influences satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

H9: Student confidence positively influences satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

H10: Flexibility positively influences satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

4 Methodology

In this study, the target population was Jordanian university students as well as a convenience sampling method has been applied. Of the 600 questionnaires, 34 incomplete and 46 invalids for statistical analysis were excluded. Therefore, this study relied on 520 questionnaires valid for statistical analysis. Data were collected from students of Ajloun National University and Yarmouk University during the second semester of 2021/2022 from 1 January 2022 to 15 February 2022. 5-point Likert scale has been used for all items ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree; while 5 = Strongly Agree. After reviewing the literature, the questionnaire was designed based on selecting the most appropriate items that serve the context of this study. Five variables were adopted from the UTAUT2 modified model, which includes performance expectancy (3 items), effort expectancy (4 items), facilitating conditions (4 items), social influence (4 items), price value (3 items). Other 2 variables were selected to fit the context of this study which include student confidence (3 self-developed items) and flexibility (3 self-developed items). PLS, 3.3 was used for data analysis by employing both the PLS algorithm and bootstrapping techniques. Table 1 presents the variables and items adopted in this study. This proposed model assists in understanding the perception of students regarding Microsoft Teams.

Table 1
Items for all constructs

Constructs Items Origin

Performance expectancy I think Microsoft Teams is useful in my education process. [26]

I think Microsoft Teams increases my chances of achieving things that are important to me in my education process.

I think using Microsoft Teams enables me to perform education activities more quickly.

Effort expectancy Learning how to use Microsoft Teams for educational activities is easy for me.

My interaction with Microsoft Teams in educational activities is clear and understandable.

I think Microsoft Teams s easy to use in educational activities.

It is easy for me to become skillful at using Microsoft Teams in educational activities.

Facilitating conditions I have the necessary resources to use Microsoft Teams in educational activities.

I have the necessary knowledge to use Microsoft Teams in educational activities.

Microsoft Teams in educational activities is compatible with other technologies I use.

I think I can get help from others when I have difficulties using Microsoft Teams in educational activities.

Social influence People who influence my behavior think that I should be satisfied with Microsoft Teams in my educational activities.

People who are important to me think that I should be satisfied with Microsoft Teams in my educational activities.

People in my environment who are satisfied with Microsoft Teams in educational activities have more prestige than those who are not satisfied.

Having Microsoft Teams in educational activities is a status symbol in my environment.

Price value Microsoft Teams for educational activities is reasonably priced.

Microsoft Teams for educational activities is a good value for the Money.

Microsoft Teams for educational activities provides a good value.

Satisfaction with Microsoft teams My expectations from Microsoft Teams were met. Self-developed

I am satisfied with Microsoft Teams in my educational activities.

The quality of the content in Microsoft Teams is high.

Student confidence I feel more confident when I participate in lectures through Microsoft Teams. Self-developed

I do not feel shy when I participate in lectures through Microsoft Teams.

I think Microsoft Teams improves my academic achievement.

Flexibility Sharing information and knowledge among students is high in Microsoft Teams. Self-developed

The level of interaction between the student and the lecturer is high in Microsoft Teams.

With Microsoft Teams, I can watch lectures later by recording.

Constructs	Items	Origin
Performance expectancy	I think Microsoft Teams is useful in my education process.	[26]
	I think Microsoft Teams increases my chances of achieving things that are important to me in my education process.
	I think using Microsoft Teams enables me to perform education activities more quickly.
Effort expectancy	Learning how to use Microsoft Teams for educational activities is easy for me.
	My interaction with Microsoft Teams in educational activities is clear and understandable.
	I think Microsoft Teams s easy to use in educational activities.
	It is easy for me to become skillful at using Microsoft Teams in educational activities.
Facilitating conditions	I have the necessary resources to use Microsoft Teams in educational activities.
	I have the necessary knowledge to use Microsoft Teams in educational activities.
	Microsoft Teams in educational activities is compatible with other technologies I use.
	I think I can get help from others when I have difficulties using Microsoft Teams in educational activities.
Social influence	People who influence my behavior think that I should be satisfied with Microsoft Teams in my educational activities.
	People who are important to me think that I should be satisfied with Microsoft Teams in my educational activities.
	People in my environment who are satisfied with Microsoft Teams in educational activities have more prestige than those who are not satisfied.
	Having Microsoft Teams in educational activities is a status symbol in my environment.
Price value	Microsoft Teams for educational activities is reasonably priced.
	Microsoft Teams for educational activities is a good value for the Money.
	Microsoft Teams for educational activities provides a good value.
Satisfaction with Microsoft teams	My expectations from Microsoft Teams were met.	Self-developed
	I am satisfied with Microsoft Teams in my educational activities.
	The quality of the content in Microsoft Teams is high.
Student confidence	I feel more confident when I participate in lectures through Microsoft Teams.	Self-developed
	I do not feel shy when I participate in lectures through Microsoft Teams.
	I think Microsoft Teams improves my academic achievement.
Flexibility	Sharing information and knowledge among students is high in Microsoft Teams.	Self-developed
	The level of interaction between the student and the lecturer is high in Microsoft Teams.
	With Microsoft Teams, I can watch lectures later by recording.

5 Results

5.1 Normality

For the normality test, the Skewness and kurtosis values were calculated for each variable of the study [48, 49]. The results showed that all Skewness values are less than 3, which means that they are within the range stipulated in the previous studies. The results also showed that there is no problem in the normal distribution of the data because the kurtosis values were less than 8 as documented in Table 2 [50, 51].

Table 2
Normality test

Construct Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis

Performance expectancy 4.30 0.476 0.648 –1.039

Effort expectancy 4.14 0.528 0.016 –0.021

Social influence 4.14 0.543 –0.054 0.071

Facilitating conditions 4.15 0.491 0.007 0.402

Price value 4.17 0.570 –0.007 –0.206

Student confidence 4.11 0.354 1.611 3.108

Flexibility 4.12 0.518 0.155 0.466

Satisfaction with Microsoft Teams 4.26 0.441 1.069 –0.860

Construct	Mean	Std. Deviation	Skewness	Kurtosis
Performance expectancy	4.30	0.476	0.648	–1.039
Effort expectancy	4.14	0.528	0.016	–0.021
Social influence	4.14	0.543	–0.054	0.071
Facilitating conditions	4.15	0.491	0.007	0.402
Price value	4.17	0.570	–0.007	–0.206
Student confidence	4.11	0.354	1.611	3.108
Flexibility	4.12	0.518	0.155	0.466
Satisfaction with Microsoft Teams	4.26	0.441	1.069	–0.860

5.2 Measurement model

To ensure that there were no problems with regard to Common Method Bias (CMB), Harman’s Single-Factor test was used by performing an Exploratory Factor Analysis test [52, 53]. Looking at the results presented in Table 3, each specific group of items follows its own variable, and its values are higher than the other items. Also, there is no item that follows two variables, so CMB is not a concern in this study.

Table 3
Loading of measurement model

EE FC FL PE PV SC SI SMT

Effort1 0.712 0.143 0.173 0.168 0.238 0.216 0.143 0.240

Effort2 0.869 0.177 0.171 0.222 0.243 0.235 0.146 0.300

Effort3 0.733 0.220 0.169 0.126 0.223 0.264 0.191 0.247

Effort4 0.803 0.222 0.155 0.181 0.259 0.269 0.204 0.248

Facilitating1 0.155 0.786 0.146 0.120 0.220 0.206 0.222 0.251

Facilitating2 0.186 0.819 0.208 0.108 0.164 0.178 0.226 0.261

Facilitating3 0.217 0.703 0.130 0.107 0.232 0.203 0.202 0.221

Facilitating4 0.222 0.884 0.179 0.092 0.195 0.177 0.272 0.282

Flexibility1 0.157 0.155 0.807 0.128 0.191 0.114 0.206 0.307

Flexibility2 0.181 0.177 0.880 0.175 0.151 0.179 0.258 0.335

Flexibility3 0.194 0.191 0.811 0.178 0.157 0.198 0.250 0.309

Performance1 0.155 0.075 0.154 0.702 0.139 0.225 0.187 0.317

Performance2 0.182 0.137 0.127 0.812 0.122 0.182 0.240 0.351

Performance3 0.187 0.094 0.170 0.814 0.115 0.175 0.256 0.341

Price1 0.271 0.195 0.161 0.123 0.740 0.167 0.248 0.216

Price2 0.229 0.214 0.182 0.162 0.945 0.190 0.281 0.276

Price3 0.276 0.217 0.150 0.109 0.787 0.146 0.208 0.230

Satisfaction1 0.287 0.268 0.348 0.396 0.254 0.292 0.362 0.902

Satisfaction2 0.293 0.299 0.317 0.363 0.276 0.278 0.340 0.870

Satisfaction3 0.285 0.264 0.325 0.365 0.230 0.289 0.275 0.829

Social1 0.183 0.190 0.216 0.265 0.209 0.230 0.798 0.274

Social2 0.152 0.220 0.226 0.234 0.221 0.198 0.763 0.289

Social3 0.149 0.227 0.226 0.212 0.238 0.197 0.741 0.291

Social4 0.210 0.287 0.247 0.234 0.280 0.220 0.893 0.349

Student1 0.245 0.171 0.185 0.172 0.112 0.782 0.207 0.258

Student2 0.273 0.234 0.136 0.215 0.175 0.748 0.235 0.247

Student3 0.241 0.170 0.153 0.208 0.199 0.870 0.197 0.287

	EE	FC	FL	PE	PV	SC	SI	SMT
Effort1	0.712	0.143	0.173	0.168	0.238	0.216	0.143	0.240
Effort2	0.869	0.177	0.171	0.222	0.243	0.235	0.146	0.300
Effort3	0.733	0.220	0.169	0.126	0.223	0.264	0.191	0.247
Effort4	0.803	0.222	0.155	0.181	0.259	0.269	0.204	0.248
Facilitating1	0.155	0.786	0.146	0.120	0.220	0.206	0.222	0.251
Facilitating2	0.186	0.819	0.208	0.108	0.164	0.178	0.226	0.261
Facilitating3	0.217	0.703	0.130	0.107	0.232	0.203	0.202	0.221
Facilitating4	0.222	0.884	0.179	0.092	0.195	0.177	0.272	0.282
Flexibility1	0.157	0.155	0.807	0.128	0.191	0.114	0.206	0.307
Flexibility2	0.181	0.177	0.880	0.175	0.151	0.179	0.258	0.335
Flexibility3	0.194	0.191	0.811	0.178	0.157	0.198	0.250	0.309
Performance1	0.155	0.075	0.154	0.702	0.139	0.225	0.187	0.317
Performance2	0.182	0.137	0.127	0.812	0.122	0.182	0.240	0.351
Performance3	0.187	0.094	0.170	0.814	0.115	0.175	0.256	0.341
Price1	0.271	0.195	0.161	0.123	0.740	0.167	0.248	0.216
Price2	0.229	0.214	0.182	0.162	0.945	0.190	0.281	0.276
Price3	0.276	0.217	0.150	0.109	0.787	0.146	0.208	0.230
Satisfaction1	0.287	0.268	0.348	0.396	0.254	0.292	0.362	0.902
Satisfaction2	0.293	0.299	0.317	0.363	0.276	0.278	0.340	0.870
Satisfaction3	0.285	0.264	0.325	0.365	0.230	0.289	0.275	0.829
Social1	0.183	0.190	0.216	0.265	0.209	0.230	0.798	0.274
Social2	0.152	0.220	0.226	0.234	0.221	0.198	0.763	0.289
Social3	0.149	0.227	0.226	0.212	0.238	0.197	0.741	0.291
Social4	0.210	0.287	0.247	0.234	0.280	0.220	0.893	0.349
Student1	0.245	0.171	0.185	0.172	0.112	0.782	0.207	0.258
Student2	0.273	0.234	0.136	0.215	0.175	0.748	0.235	0.247
Student3	0.241	0.170	0.153	0.208	0.199	0.870	0.197	0.287

As for the questionnaire items, the items that were adopted from UTAUT2 were validated through previous studies. As for the self-developed items that were entered in this study, they were validated by specialized academics. To test convergent validity, Three types of tests have been performed; all Cronbach’s alpha values were more than 0.70 [54], all Composite Reliability (CR) values were more than 0.70 [49], and all Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were more than 0.50 [55], This means that all study variables fulfill the convergent validity conditions as shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Reliability measures

	Cronbach’s Alpha	rho_A	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
EE	0.862	0.867	0.862	0.611
FC	0.876	0.881	0.875	0.638
FL	0.872	0.874	0.872	0.695
PE	0.822	0.825	0.821	0.605
PV	0.865	0.880	0.867	0.687
SC	0.844	0.848	0.843	0.643
SI	0.878	0.882	0.877	0.641
SMT	0.900	0.902	0.901	0.753

The discriminative validity was confirmed, as each variable is associated with a high value on its variable and a higher value when compared with other variables [56], as shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Discriminant validity measures

	EE	FC	FL	PE	PV	SC	SI	SMT
EE	0.781
FC	0.244	0.799
FL	0.213	0.209	0.834
PE	0.225	0.132	0.193	0.778
PV	0.308	0.251	0.199	0.160	0.829
SC	0.314	0.237	0.197	0.247	0.203	0.802
SI	0.218	0.290	0.286	0.294	0.297	0.264	0.801
SMT	0.332	0.319	0.381	0.432	0.292	0.330	0.377	0.867

6 Hypotheses testing and discussion

Bootstrapping and PLS algorithm techniques have been used to test 10 hypotheses. Figure 3 (Path Model) presents the results of the study. The finding reveals all path coefficients were positive and significant. Performance expectancy was significantly associated with satisfaction with Microsoft Teams Hence, H1 has been accepted. This means that when the student realizes the expected benefits of using Microsoft Teams in the educational process, this will enhance his/her acceptance or satisfaction with this platform. The results of this study agree with many of the results of previous studies, such as [57], which revealed that performance expectancy positively affects blended learning. Effort expectancy has a positive influence on both satisfaction with Microsoft Teams (β= 0.109, p < 0.05) and performance expectancy (β= 0.169, p < 0.01). Therefore, H2 and H3 were accepted. We can conclude that when a student believes that using Microsoft Teams in the educational process is easy, he/she will feel more satisfied with this platform. This result is consistent with [57], which concluded that effort expectancy is significantly associated with blended learning. As expected, social influence was statistically and positively associated with satisfaction with Microsoft Teams (β= 0.123, p < 0.001), performance expectancy (β= 0.257, p < 0.001), and effort expectancy (β= 0.218, p < 0.001). Hence, H4, H5, and H6 were also accepted. This result was supportive of most of the results of previous studies, which agreed that social influence is a very important factor in students’ satisfaction with blended learning [57].

Fig. 3

Structural model results.

Based on this result, the environment surrounding the student, such as colleagues and family, has a significant impact on satisfaction with the Microsoft Teams platform. Facilitating conditions (β= 0.132, p < 0.01) have a positive impact with satisfaction with Microsoft Teams. This means that if the student has some facilities such as the Internet, knowledge and resources, this will increase his satisfaction with the Microsoft Teams platform. The result of this study is an extension of the results of previous studies, which showed that the facilitating conditions is an important factor in the adoption of e-learning [58]. As in previous studies [58], the current study showed that price value has a positive and statistical effect on satisfaction with Microsoft Teams (β= 0.083, p < 0.05). In short, the poverty rate in Jordan is high, so the price of electronic educational services provided by universities should not be expensive. Satisfaction with Microsoft Teams was successfully related to other two constructs i.e., student satisfaction (β= 0.107, p < 0.05), and flexibility (β= 0.204, p < 0.001). Seven constructs accounted for 38.1% of the variance of satisfaction with Microsoft Teams. Therefore, all hypotheses in this study were accepted.

7 Conclusion

The current research attempted to examine the satisfaction with electronic educational platforms in universities, which is classified as an interesting topic among researchers, especially when delving into the problems associated with the educational process. Given that the use of electronic educational platforms in the education sector in Jordan is still in its infancy stage, investigation and knowledge of the main determinants may help in evaluating students’ satisfaction with these platforms and give recommendations to decision-makers in universities to raise the percentage of satisfaction. The importance of this study also stems from the fact that - according to the researcher’s knowledge - there are no studies that accurately dealt with student satisfaction with the Microsoft Teams platform in Jordan. Furthermore, it was necessary to find a suitable theoretical basis capable of identifying the various aspects related to student satisfaction with the Microsoft Teams platform. For this reason, UTAUT2 is a powerful model and was chosen as the basis for this paper. In addition to incorporating student confidence and flexibility as additional variables, it was found that social influence significantly affects two constructs of UTAUT2: performance expectation and effort expectation. The main statistical results supported the predictive validity of the conceptual model by calculating about 38.1% of the variance in the satisfaction with Microsoft Teams. It was emphasized that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, price value, facilitating conditions, student confidence, and flexibility are important indicators of satisfaction with Microsoft Teams.

8 Limitations and directions for future research

The study included some limitations that must be mentioned: First, the study sample included students from Ajloun National and Yarmouk Universities, so the results of this study can not be generalized at the level of Jordan. Future studies could include students from all Jordanian universities. Secondly, this study tested one electronic educational platform, which is Microsoft Teams. In fact, when diversifying the study sample from different universities, there are many electronic educational platforms used in the educational process in other universities, such as Moodle, Zoom, Skype or Blackboard. Third, this study relied on the quantitative method in evaluating students’ satisfaction with educational electronic platforms. For this reason, it is recommended to conduct qualitative studies in this field, because electronic educational platforms are a relatively new topic and need qualitative data that provide the body of knowledge with reliable literature in the future when conducting studies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author has no acknowledgments.

References

Pal

, Vanijja

. Perceived usability evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online learning platform during COVID-19 using system usability scale and technology acceptance model in India. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;119:105535.

Tiyar

, Khoshsima

. Understanding studentsâ€^™ satisfaction and continuance intention of e-learning: Application of expectationâ€ “confirmation model. World Journal on Educational Technology. 2015;7(3):157–66.

Sahu

. Closure of universities due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus. 2020;12(4):e7541. doi:10.7759/cureus.7541

Guri-Rosenblit

, Gros

. E-learning: Confusing terminology, research gaps and inherent challenges. International Journal of e-learning & Distance Education/Revue Internationale du e-learning et la Formation à Distance. 2011;25(1).

Alsadoon

. The impact of social presence on learners’ satisfaction in mobile learning. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET. 2018;17(1):226–33.

, Zhu

, Yang

, Chen

. Student satisfaction, learning outcomes, and cognitive loads with a mobile learning platform. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 2019;32(4):323–41.

Lee

E-Y

, Jeon

YJJ

. The Difference of user satisfaction and net benefit of a mobile learning management system according to self-directed learning: An investigation of cyber university students in hospitality. Sustainability. 2020;12(7):2672.

Ministry of higher education and scientific research. Plans and reports: The executive action plan for integrating e-learning into the higher education system. Available from: https://www.mohe.gov.jo/ebv4.0/root_storage/ar/eb_list_page/executivebusinessplan-2021-2023.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2022].

Gharaibeh

, Gharaibeh

. An empirical study on factors influencing the intention to use mobile learning. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal. 2020;5(5):1261–5.

10.

Jebril

. Investigating online learning satisfaction in jordan schools during the COVID-19 outbreak: The student perspective. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies. 2021;23(4):46–57.

11.

Almaiah

, Al Mulhem

. Analysis of the essential factors affecting of intention to use of mobile learning applications: A comparison between universities adopters and non-adopters. Education and Information Technologies. 2019;24(2):1433–68.

12.

Al-Salman

, Haider

. Jordanian university students’ views on emergency online learning during COVID-19. Online Learning. 2021;25(1):286–302.

13.

Gharaibeh

. What motivate smokers to switch to electronic cigarettes? in 1139th International Conference on Science, Technology, Engineering and Management. Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: International Society for Engineers and Researchers (ISER); 2022.

14.

Gharaibeh

, Gharaibeh

. Understanding adoption intention of mobile shopping applications: Empirical assessment from IDT–perceived risk and enjoyment. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD). 2021;13(2):31–47.

15.

Gharaibeh

, Gharaibeh

, De Villiers

. A qualitative method to explain acceptance of mobile health application: Using innovation diffusion theory. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 2020;29(4):3426–32.

16.

Gharaibeh

, Arshad

MRM

. Current status of mobile banking services in Jordan. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2016;34(7):931–5.

17.

Nortvig

A-M

, Petersen

, Balle

. A literature review of the factors influencing e-learning and blended learning in relation to learning outcome, student satisfaction and engagement. Electronic Journal of e-Learning. 2018;16(1):46–55.

18.

Davis

. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319–40.

19.

Alrajawy

, Isaac

, Ghosh

, Nusari

, Al-Shibami

, Ameen

. Determinants of student’s intention to use mobile learning in Yemeni public universities: Extending the technology acceptance model (TAM) with anxiety. International Journal of Management and Human Science (IJMHS). 2018;2(2):1–9.

20.

Alsharida

, Hammood

, Al-Emran

. Mobile learning adoption: A systematic review of the technology acceptance model from 2017 to 2020. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET). 2021;16(5):147–62.

21.

Saroia

, Gao

. Investigating university students’ intention to use mobile learning management systems in Sweden. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. 2019;56(5):569–80.

22.

Rogers

. Diffusion of innovations. NewYork: Free Press; 1983.

23.

Al-Rahmi

, Yahaya

, Alamri

, Alyoussef

, Al-Rahmi

, Kamin

. Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: Supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) systems. Interactive Learning Environments. 2021;29(8):1380–92.

24.

Goh

, Sigala

. Integrating Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) into classroom instruction: Teaching tips for hospitality educators from a diffusion of innovation approach. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. 2020;20(2):156–65.

25.

Venkatesh

, Morris

, Davis

. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003;27(3):425–78.

26.

Venkatesh

, Thong

, Xu

. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly. 2012;36(1):157–78.

27.

Tseng

, Lin

, Wang

Y-S

, Liu

H-X

. Investigating teachers’ adoption of MOOCs: The perspective of UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments. 2022;30(4):35–650.

28.

Bervell

, Kumar

, Arkorful

, Agyapong

, Osman

. Remodelling the role of facilitating conditions for Google Classroom acceptance: A revision of UTAUT2. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 2021;38(1):115–35.

29.

Bandura

. The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1986;4(3):359–73.

30.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179–211.

31.

Gharaibeh

, Arshad

MRM

, Gharaibh

. Using the UTAUT2 model to determine factors affecting adoption of mobile banking services: A qualitative approach. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. 2018;12(4).

32.

Gharaibeh

, Arshad

MRM

. Determinants of intention to use mobile banking in the North of Jordan: Extending UTAUT2 with mass media and trust. Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2018;13(8):2023–33.

33.

Tandon

. Factors influencing adoption of online teaching by school teachers: A study during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Affairs. 2021;21(4):e2503.

34.

Tandon

, Kiran

. Factors impacting customer satisfaction: An empirical investigation into online shopping in India. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research. 2019;21(1):13–34.

35.

Amid

, Din

. Acceptance and use of massive open online courses: Extending UTAUT2 with personal innovativeness. Journal of Personalized Learning. 2021;4(1):57–66.

36.

Dimitrova

, Sadler

, Hatzipanagos

, Murphy

. Addressing learner diversity by promoting flexibility in e-learning environments. In 14th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, Proceedings IEEE; 2003, pp. 287–91.

37.

Meyliana , Widjaja

HAE

, Santoso

, Surjandy , Fernando

, Condrobimo

. Improving the quality of learning management system (LMS) based on student perspectives using UTAUT2 and trust model. In 4th International Conference on Informatics and Computational Sciences (ICICoS) IEEE; 2020.

38.

Alasmari

, Zhang

. Mobile learning technology acceptance in Saudi Arabian higher education: An extended framework and A mixed-method study. Education and Information Technologies. 2019;24(3):2127–44.

39.

Alshurideh

, Al Kurdi

, Salloum

. Examining the main mobile learning system drivers’ effects: A mix empirical examination of both the Expectation-Confirmation Model (ECM) and the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). In International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics, Springer; 2019.

40.

Gharaibeh

, Gharaibeh

, Bdour

. Exploring intention to adopt mobile commerce: Integrating UTAUT2 with social media. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research. 2020;9(3):3826–33.

41.

Gharaibeh

, Gharaibeh

, Khan

, Abu-ain

WAK

, Alqudah

. Intention to use mobile augmented reality in the tourism sector. Computer Systems Science and Engineering. 2021;37(2):187–202.

42.

Gharaibeh

, Gharaibeh

. A conceptual framework for intention to use travel apps: A study from emerging markets. International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology (IJSSMET). 2022;13(1):1–16.

43.

Kosiba

JPB

, Odoom

, Boateng

, Twum

, Abdul-Hamid

. Examining students’ satisfaction with online learning during the Covid-19 pandemic-an extended UTAUT2 approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2022. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2022.2030687

44.

Hadullo

, Oboko

, Omwenga

. Factors affecting asynchronous e-learning quality in developing countries university settings. International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT. 2018;14(1):152–63.

45.

Vitoria

, Mislinawati

, Nurmasyitah

. Students’ perceptions on the implementation of e-learning: Helpful or unhelpful? In Journal of Physics: Conference Series. IOP Publishing; 2018.

46.

Jusoh

, Almajali

, Abualbasal

. A study of user experience for e-learning using interactive online technologies. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology. 2019;97(15):4036–47.

47.

Paechter

, Maier

, Macher

. Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education. 2010;54(1):222–9.

48.

Tabachnick

, Fidell

, Ullman

. Using multivariate statistics. Vol. 5. Pearson Boston; 2007.

49.

Hair

, Black

, Babin

. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective,Vol. 7. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson; 2010.

50.

Kline

. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford; 2005.

51.

West

, Finch

, Curran

. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedie. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Sage publications, Inc.; 1995, pp. 56–75.

52.

Podsakoff

, MacKenzie

, Lee

J-Y

, Podsakoff

. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879–903.

53.

Lee

S-G

, Trimi

, Kim

. The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption. Journal of World Business. 2013;48(1):20–9.

54.

Nunnally

. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill New York; 1978.

55.

Bhattacherjee

, Sanford

. Influence processes for information technology acceptance: An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly. 2006;30(4):805–25.

56.

Chung

, Koo

, Kim

. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation for using a booth recommender system service on exhibition attendees’ unplanned visit behavior. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;30:59–68.

57.

Rudhumbu

. Applying the UTAUT2 to predict the acceptance of blended learning by university students. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal. 2022; ahead-of-print.

58.

Khan

SMH

, Mustaffa

, Habib

. Online Education in HEIs in Bangladesh moderated by COVID-19: Modified UTAUT2. AIUB Journal of Science and Engineering (AJSE). 2021;20(4):133–41.