.png)
Moodle-based Blended Learning: Factors Influencing the Behavioral Intention of Undergraduate Students
Abstract
The demand for blended learning by higher education has increased since COVID-19. Blended learning combines the advantages of both face-to-face and online learning. Many HEIs in developing countries have started to depend on Moodle to offer blended courses to their students, as it is freely available and open source. The current study aims to explore the factors that influence the intentions to use Moodle-based Blended Learning (MBBL) by higher education students in a public university in Jordan, a developing country. For this purpose, we used a modified version of the UTAUT2 model. Data were gathered through a survey that targeted undergraduate students. The study used 319 valid response samples and analyzed the data using SmartPLS 4 software that implements PLS-SEM analysis. The data analysis results show that the factors that influence the students’ behavioral intention to use MBBL are performance expectancy (β = .18), effort expectancy (β = .21), social influence (β = .16), and habit (β = .25). However, the results indicate that facilitating conditions and hedonic motivation factors do not have a significant influence. In addition, the results reveal that result demonstrability has significant effect on both performance expectancy (β = .58) and effort expectancy (β = .52). Also, effort expectancy is found to influence performance expectancy (β = .17). Among the influential factors, habit is identified as the strongest predictor of intentions followed by effort expectancy, whereas social influence is the weakest predictor. The proposed model was able to explain 50% of variance in students’ intentions to use MBBL. The current study provides HEIs with valuable insights needed to improve the MBBL process and enhance the performance of students. It also suggests future research directions that build on this study to reach more generalized and stable results.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
D. Garrison and H. Kanuka, “Blended Learning: Uncovering Its Transformative Potential in Higher Education,” The Internet and Higher Education, vol. 7, pp. 95–105, Apr. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001.
S. A. Raza, W. Qazi, K. A. Khan, and J. Salam, “Social Isolation and Acceptance of the Learning Management System (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 Pandemic: An Expansion of the UTAUT Model,” Journal of Educational Computing Research, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 183–208, Apr. 2021, doi: 10.1177/0735633120960421.
S. B. Dias, S. J. Hadjileontiadou, J. Diniz, and L. J. Hadjileontiadis, “DeepLMS: a deep learning predictive model for supporting online learning in the Covid-19 era,” Sci Rep, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 19888, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76740-9.
“Moodle Documentation,” Moodle. Accessed: Sep. 15, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://docs.moodle.org/404/en/About_Moodle
S. H. P. W. Gamage, J. R. Ayres, and M. B. Behrend, “A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning,” IJ STEM Ed, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 9, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x.
W. I. O’Byrne and K. E. Pytash, “Hybrid and Blended Learning: Modifying Pedagogy Across Path, Pace, Time, and Place,” J Adolescent & Adult Lit, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 137–140, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1002/jaal.463.
A. B. Ustun, F. G. Karaoglan Yilmaz, and R. Yilmaz, “Investigating the role of accepting learning management system on students’ engagement and sense of community in blended learning,” Educ Inf Technol, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 4751–4769, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10639-021-10500-8.
“Moodle in numbers during Covid-19,” Moodle. Accessed: Jan. 23, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://moodle.com/news/moodle-in-numbers-during-covid-19/
“Moodle Story,” Moodle. Accessed: Jan. 26, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://moodle.com/about/the-moodle-story/
“Moodle Statistics,” Moodle. Accessed: Jan. 31, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://stats.moodle.org/
N. Popović, T. Popović, I. R. Dragović, and O. Cmiljanić, “A Moodle-based blended learning solution for physiology education in Montenegro: a case study.,” Advances in physiology education, vol. 42 1, pp. 111–117, 2018, doi: 10.1152/advan.00155.2017.
J. S. Ayala, “Blended learning as a new approach to social work education,” Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 277–288, Apr. 2009, doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700112.
R. Bernard, E. Borokhovski, R. Schmid, R. Tamim, and P. Abrami, “A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: From the general to the applied,” Journal of Computing in Higher Education, vol. 26, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.1007/s12528-013-9077-3.
M. H. Vo, C. Zhu, and A. Diep, “The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis,” Studies In Educational Evaluation, vol. 53, pp. 17–28, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002.
B. Tabassum, M. Moin, Q. Abbas, M. I. Kumbhar, and M. H. N. Khan, “The Impact of Blended Learning on Student Performance,” Journal of Education and Social Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.52223/jess.2024.5217.
L. Ma and C. S. Lee, “Evaluating the effectiveness of blended learning using the ARCS model,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 37, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1111/jcal.12579.
S. Porkodi, B. Khalil, and H. Tabash, “A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Blended Learning Adoption and Technological Acceptance in Higher Education,” International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 2024, doi: 10.5815/ijmecs.2024.01.05.
M. Salcedo, “Perception of Blended Learning in Faculty and Students of Higher Learning,” International Journal of Education and Practice, 2022, doi: 10.18488/61.v10i3.3069.
N. Vaughan, “Perspectives on Blended Learning in Higher Education,” International journal on e-learning, vol. 6, pp. 81–94, 2007.
F. Lazarinis, T. Panagiotakopoulos, S. Armakolas, G. Vonitsanos, O. Iatrellis, and A. Kameas, “A Blended Learning Course to Support Innovative Online Teaching in Higher Education,” European Journal of Education, vol. 60, no. 1, p. e12820, 2025, doi: 10.1111/ejed.12820.
R. Castro, “Blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities,” Educ Inf Technol, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2523–2546, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s10639-019-09886-3.
I. Ishmuradova, A. Chistyakov, A. D. Chudnovskiy, E. V. Grib, S. V. Kondrashev, and S. Zhdanov, “A cross-database bibliometrics analysis of blended learning in higher education: Trends and capabilities,” Contemporary Educational Technology, 2024, doi: 10.30935/cedtech/14478.
U. Dari, A. Halim, and S. Ilyas, “Influence of the Use of the Approach of Blended Learning Model Rotation Based Moodle on Motivation and Cognitive Abilities of Students in the Subjects of Physics,” Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, vol. 8, pp. 195–202, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.29303/jppipa.v8i1.1100.
H. Yuniarti Suhendi, C. Rochman, and M. Dwi Putra Rusmawijaya, “Application of Moodle-based Blended Learning to Improve Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in Straight Motion Materials,” KSS, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.18502/kss.v9i8.15630.
S. Goyal, F. Khaliq, and N. Vaney, “Implementation of the online learning management system ‘Moodle’ as a blended approach to online teaching,” IJPP, vol. 67, pp. 64–72, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.25259/IJPP_208_2022.
D. Lebeaux et al., “Introducing an Open-Source Course Management System (Moodle) for Blended learning on infectious diseases and microbiology: A pre-post observational study,” Infectious Diseases Now, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 477–483, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.idnow.2020.11.002.
A. Manasrah, M. Masoud, Y. Jaradat, M. Irshaidat, N. A. Shaban, and A. Zerek, “Students Engagement in Blended Learning: Evidence from Moodle A Case Study from Engineering Courses,” in 2023 IEEE 3rd International Maghreb Meeting of the Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (MI-STA), May 2023, pp. 435–439. doi: 10.1109/MI-STA57575.2023.10169635.
X. Bi and X. Shi, “On the Effects of Computer-assisted Teaching on Learning Results Based on Blended Learning Method,” Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn., vol. 14, pp. 58–70, 2019, doi: 10.3991/ijet.v14i01.9458.
Venkatesh, Morris, and Davis, “User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 425, 2003.
Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu, “Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,” MIS Quarterly, vol. 36, no. 1, p. 157, 2012, doi: 10.2307/41410412.
S. Alblooshi, “An Empirical Investigation of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology in E-Learning Adoption in Higher Education Institutions in the UAE,” no. 11, 2019.
M.-I. Jaradat, H. Ababneh, K. Fagih, and N. Nusairat, “Exploring Cloud Computing Adoption in Higher Educational Environment: An Extension of the UTAUT Model with Trust,” vol. 29, pp. 8282–8306, May 2020.
S. Rahi, M. Ghani, and A. Ngah, “A structural equation model for evaluating user’s intention to adopt internet banking and intention to recommend technology,” Accounting, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 139–152, 2018.
A. Strzelecki, “Students’ Acceptance of ChatGPT in Higher Education: An Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,” Innovative Higher Education, vol. 49, pp. 223–245, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10755-023-09686-1.
L. Wan, S. Xie, and A. Shu, “Toward an Understanding of University Students’ Continued Intention to Use MOOCs: When UTAUT Model Meets TTF Model,” Sage Open, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 2158244020941858, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1177/2158244020941858.
V. Venkatesh and F. Davis, “A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies,” Management Science, vol. 46, pp. 186–204, Feb. 2000, doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
M. A. Camilleri, “Factors affecting performance expectancy and intentions to use ChatGPT: Using SmartPLS to advance an information technology acceptance framework,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 201, p. 123247, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123247.
J. Cohen, J.-M. Bancilhon, and M. Jones, “South African physicians’ acceptance of e-prescribing technology: An empirical test of a modified UTAUT model,” South African Computer Journal, vol. 50, Jul. 2013, doi: 10.18489/sacj.v50i1.175.
K. M. Faqih and M.-I. R. M. Jaradat, “Assessing the moderating effect of gender differences and individualism-collectivism at individual-level on the adoption of mobile commerce technology: TAM3 perspective,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 22, pp. 37–52, 2015.
J.-M. Romero-Rodríguez, M. Ramírez-Montoya, M. Buenestado-Fernández, and F. Lara-Lara, “Use of ChatGPT at University as a Tool for Complex Thinking: Students’ Perceived Usefulness,” Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 2023, doi: 10.7821/naer.2023.7.1458.
G. C. Moore and I. Benbasat, “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 192–222, Sep. 1991, doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
A. Hanif, F. Q. Jamal, and M. Imran, “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model for Use of e-Learning Systems by Digital Learners,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 73395–73404, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2881384.
M. Ismail, E. Çelebi, and H. Nadiri, “How Student Information System Influence Students’ Trust and Satisfaction Towards the University?: An Empirical Study in a Multicultural Environment,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 111778–111789, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2934782.
L. R. Ilmi, “The Acceptance of Primary Health Centre Information System Among Health Staff: An extended TAM Model,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 1232, no. 1, p. 012003, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/1232/1/012003.
C. Ringle, S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker, SmartPLS. (Nov. 18, 2024). SmartPLS GmbH, Bönningstedt, Germany. Accessed: Nov. 18, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.smartpls.com
J. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE, 2017.
C. Fornell and D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 39–50, 1981, doi: 10.2307/3151312.
J. Hair, J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. Ringle, “When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM,” European Business Review, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–24, 2019, doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
J. Henseler, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling,” J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–135, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
A. Strzelecki, “To use or not to use ChatGPT in higher education? A study of students’ acceptance and use of technology,” Interactive Learning Environments, pp. 1–14, May 2023, doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2209881.
O. Aburumman, K. Omar, M. AL Shbail, and M. Aldoghan, “How to Deal with the Results of PLS-SEM?,” 2023, pp. 1196–1206. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-08954-1_101.
J. Hair, C. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet,” The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 19, pp. 139–151, Mar. 2011, doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
J. Henseler, C. Ringle, and R. Sinkovics, “The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing,” in Advances in International Marketing, vol. 20, 2009, pp. 277–319. doi: 10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.
M. Sarstedt, C. Ringle, and J. Hair, “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling,” 2021, pp. 1–47. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2.
H. Ababneh, “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model and Critical Success Factors Model to Predict the Use of Cloud Computing,” Journal of Information Technology Research, vol. 9, pp. 1–17, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.4018/JITR.2016070101.
C.-Y. Su and C.-M. Chao, “Investigating Factors Influencing Nurses’ Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Learning: Using a Modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology Model.,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 13, May 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.673350.
N. Ul-Ain, K. Kaur, and M. Waheed, “The influence of learning value on learning management system use: An extension of UTAUT2,” Information Development, vol. 32, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1177/0266666915597546.
I. Maita, S. Saide, A. Irmayani, and R. E. Indrajit, “User Behavior Analysis in Academic Information System Using Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).” Accessed: Nov. 09, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://discovery.researcher.life/article/user-behavior-analysis-in-academic-information-system-using-unified-theory-of-acceptance-and-use-of-technology-utaut/4479011313923bdb8ed055bfdf45e727
W. Terblanche, I. Lubbe, N. Merwe, and E. Papageorgiou, “Acceptance of e-learning applications by accounting students in an online learning environment at residential universities,” South African Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 37, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1080/10291954.2022.2101328.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47738/jads.v6i4.888
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Journal of Applied Data Sciences
| ISSN | : | 2723-6471 (Online) |
| Publisher | : | Bright Publisher |
| Website | : | http://bright-journal.org/JADS |
| : | taqwa@amikompurwokerto.ac.id (principal contact) | |
| support@bright-journal.org (technical issues) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0