Computers & Education: Doo Young Lee, Mark R. Lehto

Computers & Education 61 (2013) 193–208
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension

of the Technology Acceptance Model
Doo Young Lee a,1, Mark R. Lehto b, *
a
Department of Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University, 53 Myungryun-dong Jongro-gu, International Hall, Seoul 110-745, South Korea
b
School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, 315 North Grant Street, Grissom Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2023, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The present study was framed using the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to identify determinants
Received 3 May 2012 affecting behavioral intention to use YouTube. Most importantly, this research emphasizes the motives
Received in revised form for using YouTube, which is notable given its extrinsic task goal of being used for procedural learning
11 August 2012
tasks. Our conceptual framework included two proximal antecedents of behavioral intention as proposed
Accepted 1 October 2012
by the TAM – perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Additionally, the four first-order constructs
of user satisfaction, content richness, vividness, and YouTube self-efficacy, as well as one second-order
Keywords:
construct of content richness, were additionally incorporated into the framework by elaborating the
Procedural learning
The Technology Acceptance Model theoretical structure. Sample data was collected from 432 respondents who were given the opportunity
YouTube to engage in procedural learning through YouTube in a lab setting. The results derived from fitting the
structural equation model on the sample indicated that behavioral intention was significantly influenced
by both perceived usefulness and user satisfaction. Moreover, task-technology fit, content richness,
vividness, and YouTube self-efficacy emerged as significant predictors of perceived usefulness. However,
perceived ease of use was not significantly predictive of either perceived usefulness or behavioral
intention. Our proposed model explained 43.8% of the variance in behavioral intention. Overall findings
suggest that YouTube may augment its function as a common channel for procedural learning and
instruction.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Procedural learning is an integral part of many common activities (Rodriguez, 2002). It is characterized as psychomotor skill acquisition
about “how-to-do something” through step-by-step procedural instructions (Ellis & Whitehill, 1996; Gordon, 1994). Much effort has been
invested in studying how the mode of procedural instructions can affect learning, transfer, and performance within the conceptual
frameworks of cognitive processing (Palmiter & Elkerton, 1993; Van Hooijdonk & Krahmer, 2008; Zacks & Tversky, 2003). At the most
practical level, however, people usually desist from using procedural instruction in application to real work settings (Eiriksdottir and
Catrambone, 2011). This may be due to the fact that they encounter problems in understanding procedural materials designed in
complicated layouts or presented in technical terms.
With the advancements in information technology, YouTube now appears to be a promising learning channel for one-time procedural
tasks. Since its launch in 2005, YouTube has become the most popular free video-sharing website for user-created content (UCC) or user-
generated content (UGC) (Ryu, Kim, & Lee, 2009; Shifman, 2011). A unique feature of YouTube is that it enables any subscribed member to
create, upload, and share a wide range of content ranging from homemade video to movie scenes (Lange, 2007). It is not surprising that
YouTube is filled with large amounts of easily accessible motor sequence learning content. Examples include cases where YouTube is queried
regarding laptop memory replacement, first aid (Michas & Berry, 2000), troubleshooting printer jam clearance (Rodriguez, 2002) or
handheld device assembly (Watson, Butterfield, Curran, & Craig, 2010). People are then able to download the complete procedures to learn,
directly watching the sequences in motion with actual objects, to the development of their procedural motor skills. Indeed, procedural
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 765 494 5428; fax: þ1 765 494 1299.
E-mail addresses: bugabuga@skku.edu (D.Y. Lee), lehto@purdue.edu, markrlehto@gmail.com (M.R. Lehto).
1
Tel.: þ82 10 3649 5964; fax: þ82 2 740 1856.
0360-1315/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001
194 D.Y. Lee, M.R. Lehto / Computers & Education 61 (2013) 193–208
learning seems to be a particularly applicable area for the educational use of YouTube (Rössler, Lahner, Schebesta, Chiari, & Plöchl, 2012).
However, attention has not been devoted to the understanding of how people perceive its potential as a new learning medium.
2. Research objective
The present study aims to develop and validate a conceptual framework for user acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning. It is
important to note that procedural learning is a task extrinsic to YouTube. The intrinsic task that YouTube is intended for is also the one for
which it is most commonly accessed: sharing and watching video content created by users themselves in a voluntary and participatory
manner. Gefen and Straub (2000) offered a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic tasks. The former concerns a task where an infor-
mation system itself provides support for the inherent goal achievement, while the latter is marked by the task where a system is
instrumentally used to have substantial impacts on separable outcome values outside the scope of the intrinsic task. Muthitacharoen et al.
(2006) emphasized the importance of examining how users accept using a single system to accomplish extrinsic tasks given the versatile
and flexible nature of recent information technology (p. 4). Literature suggests that extrinsic task behavior is prompted by extrinsic
motivation (Rigby, Deci, Patrick, & Ryan, 1992), which refers to “[.] doing something because it leads to a separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci,
2000, p. 55).
In the present study, the user acceptance process is driven by the most significant acceptance model present in the literature of
management information systems – the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000b). The TAM is
grounded in the motivational model (Muthitacharoen et al., 2006), particularly with respect to including a key construct of perceived
usefulness as a form of extrinsic motivation. The utility and applicability of the TAM has been well supported by a considerable body of past
research across a wide range of educational settings (Ong & Lai, 2006; Pituch & Lee, 2006; Sánchez & Hueros, 2010). Importantly, a body of
studies on the TAM has incorporated domain-specific external variables into the standard model, providing an elaboration of its theoretical
structure. The present study extends the TAM by including five additional constructs of user satisfaction, task-technology fit, content
richness, vividness, and YouTube self-efficacy to provide further insight into the user acceptance in a specific learning context.
3. Literature review & development of research hypotheses
3.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
User acceptance is defined as the prospective user’s predisposition toward using the system (Swanson, 1988). Agarwal (2000) stated that
user acceptance is a critical factor for demonstrating the value of the system. The TAM (Davis, 1989) is an influential socio-technical model
that aims to explain user acceptance of an information system. In the TAM, a user’s behavioral intention to use an information system
reflects the user acceptance of the system. The TAM hypothesizes that a user’s intention is the most immediate predictor of usage behavior.
Intention, in turn, is jointly determined by the user’s attitude and perceived usefulness of the system. Attitude refers to his or her personal
evaluation regarding the usage of the system. Perceived usefulness is the user’s belief that using the system will improve his or her
performance (Davis, 1989), which is a representation of the perceived outcome of the experience (Niederhauser & Perkmen, 2010). The TAM
further theorizes that attitude is jointly influenced by perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Davis (1989) defined perceived ease of
use as “[.] the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be free of effort” (p. 320). In the TAM, perceived ease
of use is assumed to indirectly affect behavioral intention by impacting perceived usefulness.
However, a significant body of past studies have modified the original version of the TAM by removing the construct of attitude due to its
weak role as a mediator between behavioral intention and the two beliefs of perceived usefulness and ease of use (Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1989; Szajna, 1996; Teo, 2009; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000a; Yen, Wu, Cheng, & Huang, 2010; Yi, Jackson, Park, & Probst, 2006).
Venkatesh (2000) pointed out that the simplified version of the TAM may be superior to the original model in predicting user acceptance, by
including the direct effects of both perceived usefulness and ease of use on behavioral intention.
The preceding review indicates that the TAM may serve as a useful theoretical framework for the present study. Notably, the TAM
provides its robustness in predicting behavioral intention or behavior when the user is under complete volitional control (Limayem, Hirt, &
Chin, 2001; Rawstorne, Jayasuriya, & Caputi, 1998; Wang & Butler, 2007). In the mandatory context of organizational information system
acceptance, for example, a system is used by users in the way that is intended by the organization (e.g., mandated usage of learning
management systems on campus). On the contrary, volitional control involves a setting where motivation to use an information system is
maintained by users aiming to achieve a goal (Conner & Norman, 2005; Corno, 1993; Hartwick & Barki, 1994; Kuhl, 1985). The volitional
nature of user acceptance is expected in this study. This follows because, when involved in informal self-directed learning activities, people
are given control over deciding which resources will be most effective to their learning (Bellotti, Mikulecka, Napoletano, & Rohrova, 2006).
That is, they can decide at will to select the instruction mode by judging whether it helps them in acquiring the knowledge and skills they
need. Taken together, and in line with the simplified TAM mechanism, it is hypothesized that user acceptance of YouTube for learning
procedural tasks will be determined by the two key constructs of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The conceptual framework
derived from this discussion is presented in Fig. 1. Three conventional relationships of the TAM are formulated in the following research
hypotheses:
H1a: Perceived usefulness positively affects behavioral intention.

H2a: Perceived ease of use positively affects behavioral intention.
H2b: Perceived ease of use positively affects perceived usefulness.
A vast body of research on the TAM has indicated that user acceptance is influenced by both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (Davis,
Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1992; Lee, Cheung, & Chen, 2005; Teo, Lim, & Lai, 1999; Venkatesh, Speier, & Morris, 2002). In contrast to extrinsic
motivation, intrinsic motivation denotes “the performance of an activity for no apparent reinforcement other than the process of performing
the activity per se” (Davis et al., 1992, p. 1112). For example, an intrinsically motivated individual is likely to engage in an activity for its own
D.Y. Lee, M.R. Lehto / Computers & Education 61 (2013) 193–208 195
Task
User
technology
satisfaction
fit
Relevance
H3
H4 H1b
Content
Timeliness
richness
H5
Perceived Behavioral
usefulness H1a intention
Sufficiency H6
Vividness
H7 H2b
H2a
YouTube Perceived
self-efficacy ease of use
Fig. 1. The proposed conceptual framework 44.
sake or because “it is inherently interesting or enjoyable” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 55). In the context of user acceptance of learning system, Lee
et al. (2005) indicated that intrinsic motivation is derived from emotional feelings such as pleasure, unhappiness or frustration. For example,
their measurement of intrinsic motivation included “I would have fun using [Internet-based learning medium]” (Lee et al., 2005, p. 1100).
With reference to the work of Davis et al. (1992), Gefen and Straub (2000) asserted that extrinsic motivation should have a stronger impact
on user acceptance of an information system than intrinsic motivation does, in a case where the system is instrumentally used by individuals
to perform extrinsic tasks. In the present study, it is possible that intrinsic motivation may not be necessarily reflective of user acceptance. In
other words, individuals may accept using YouTube for procedural learning only if they believe that they will get the instrumental value
derived from use of YouTube, but not relying on their emotional feelings. The present study thus does not consider intrinsic motivation as
a determinant of user acceptance.
3.2. User satisfaction
User satisfaction is considered an important factor affecting the success of learning systems (Shee & Wang, 2008; Wu, Tennyson, & Hsia,
2010). It is the degree to which users are satisfied and pleased with their prior use of an information system (Szymanski & Hise, 2000). One
may argue that attitude and satisfaction are closely related concepts (Bhattacherjee, 2001a; LaTour & Peat, 1979). However, a conceptual
difference may exist, such that attitude relates to emotion regarding the use of a system, while satisfaction concerns the evaluation of the
emotion based upon the outcomes achieved by the system (Liao, Palvia, & Chen, 2009; Oliver, 1981; Tan, Yang, & Teo, 2007). For example,
users may be satisfied with a system even if they themselves are unfavorable toward using the system.
A close review of educational literature illustrates that satisfaction occurs when individuals are confident that a clear understanding of
learning is achieved and their learning outcomes meet or exceed their perception of expected outcomes (Andres, 2006; Hui, Hu, Clark, Tam,
& Milton, 2008; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, & Palma-Rivas, 2000). The TAM conceptualizes perceived usefulness as a measure of performance-
related expected outcome on a retrospective basis (Halilovic & Cicic, 2011; Saadé, 2007). Since both the satisfaction and perceived usefulness
of an information system are formed while responding to past learning experiences, satisfaction is likely determined by the realized
perceived usefulness of its users. Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, and Yeh (2008) provided empirical evidence on the positive relationship between
user satisfaction on e-learning and its perceived usefulness. User satisfaction, in turn, may have a direct impact on the formation of
behavioral intention. In educational settings, it is considered a prerequisite for the users’ intent to use a learning system. Liaw (2008) found
a positive causal relationship between satisfaction of use and the behavioral intention to use an e-learning system. The satisfaction-
intention association reflects that the higher or lower user satisfaction is with an information system, the more or less likely it is that
the user will intend to use the system, respectively.
The standard version of the TAM does not consider the influence of user satisfaction on the acceptance of an information system.
However, the TAM has been claimed to extend beyond its proximal constructs to provide a more comprehensive framework for the
acceptance of a particular technology. In continuation of this issue, the present study modifies the TAM by attempting to add user satis-
faction into the construct’s sphere of consideration. In combination with the established relationships from the foregoing review, the
following two hypotheses are proposed:
H1b: Perceived usefulness positively affects satisfaction.

H3: Satisfaction positively affects behavioral intention.
3.3. Task-Technology Fit (TTF)
The TAM has been criticized for its lack of task focus. For example, Nance and Straub (1996) stated that, while a user perceives that
a system is useful and easy to use for a task, the TAM is less able to explain, “[.] whether or not the system provides the capabilities needed
for the task” (p. 2). However, the ability of an information system to support a task can be expressed by the model of Task-Technology Fit
(TTF) (Dishaw & Strong, 1999; Goodhue & Thompson, 1995; Strong, Dishaw, & Bandy, 2006).
The TTF attempts to explain how the characteristics of task and technology affect the outcome of technology utilization (Pagani, 2006;
Strong et al., 2006). In the model, a task and a technology denote the behavioral requirements for accomplishing given goals (Zigurs &
Buckland, 1998), and the tool that is used by a user to perform his or her task (Fuller & Dennis, 2009), respectively. A basic model of the
TTF consists of four major constructs – task characteristics, technology characteristics (or functionality), task-technology fit, and technology
utilization (Lin & Huang, 2008; Strong et al., 2006). Consideration of the fit between task and technology – “task-technology fit” – is central
to the model. It is concerned with the extent to which “[.] a technology provides features and support that ‘fit’ the requirements of a task”
(Goodhue & Thompson, 1995, p. 214). To summarize, the ultimate tenet of the TTF model is that the greater support a given technology
provides for a task, the higher perception of task-technology fit, and the higher technology utilization by the user.
The TAM and the TTF offer distinctive explanations of the mechanisms behind the user’s choice to accept an information system or
technology. However, Dishaw and Strong (1999) noted that the TAM in combination with the TTF may provide more explanative power over
either the TAM or the TTF model alone. Several empirical studies are notable with respect to their attempts to integrate the TAM with the TTF
in a complementary manner (Chang, 2008; Klopping & McKinney, 2004; Wu, Chen, & Lin, 2007; Yen et al., 2010). Literature suggests that
a better fit between task and technology will yield the expectation of improved learning outcome (Carswell & Venkatesh, 2002; McGill &
Klobas, 2009). It is thus reasonable to expect that task-technology fit positively impacts perceived usefulness (Chang, 2010). In the present
study, task-technology fit can be thought of as the perceived compatibility between the preferred way of learning procedural tasks (i.e.,
realistic visual demonstration) and YouTube technology (i.e., visual media). The present study incorporates the construct of task-technology
fit into our conceptual framework to examine its influence on perceived usefulness.
H4: Perceived task-technology fit positively affects perceived usefulness.
3.4. Content richness
Content richness is operationally defined here as the abundance of learning resources that users can access to enrich their learning
activity. The item measurement of content richness or similar concepts (i.e., information quality, Tung & Chang, 2008) involves three
dimensions: relevance, timeliness, and sufficiency (Jung, Perez-Mira, & Wiley-Patton, 2009). Relevance is “[.] the match between the
content [provided] and users’ information needs” (Park, Roman, Lee, & Chung, 2009, p. 199). Shih (2004) noted that people seek relevant
information in order to match their current knowledge state with their ability to perform the task. Timeliness (or currentness, De Wulf,
Schillewaert, Muylle, & Rangarajan, 2006) refers to the extent to which an information system provides users with up-to-date informa-
tion (Doll & Torkzadeh, 1988). Lastly, sufficiency is the extent to which an information system provides a sufficient amount and variety of
information to users.
Several studies have indicated that a higher perception of the content richness offered by a system leads to a higher perception of the
usefulness of the system. For example, content quality (Lee, 2006) and information quality (Park, Son, & Kim, 2012), which are closely related
to the content richness discussed here, were found to be significant predictors of perceived usefulness of e-learning systems and employee
training programs, respectively. Jung et al. (2009) found that perceived content had a direct effect on the perceived usefulness of mobile TV.
When applied to the domain of this study, YouTube presumably offers high perceptions of rich and fresh sources of procedural content.
Eiriksdottir and Catrambone (2011) articulated that individuals do not perceive inaccurate or out-of-date procedural instructions as being
useful. Furthermore, a growing importance has been assigned to the time-critical practice of procedural tasks that are to be performed
across a wide variety of settings as part of daily behavior. However, conventional procedural instructions still rely upon a demonstration of
generalized snapshots of components or instances for completing a single procedural task. Thereby, people may exhibit greater perception
of usefulness toward a system that is designed so as to be accessible for any of such situational task goals. Collectively, it is expected that the
degree to which users perceive that YouTube provides procedural learning content when requested will influence its perceived usefulness.
H5: Content richness positively affects perceived usefulness.
3.5. Vividness
The term vividness is described as “[.] the ability of a technology to produce a sensorially rich mediated environment” (Steuer, 1992, p.
80). The concept of vividness has its origin in the sensation of telepresence, or “being there” (Reeves, Lombard, & Melwani, 1992). For
example, Sukoco and Wu (2011) noted that a sense of telepresence is jointly evoked by the two stimuli of interactivity and vividness. The
present study solely adopts the last typology to explain the user acceptance process. The logic behind the exclusion of interactivity is that,
given the uni-directional nature of the YouTube environment, viewers are not naturally given any control over modifying its content.
In keeping with the acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning, there may be a persuasive argumentation that a sense of vividness
can increase the perceived quality of experience, which in turn determines the users’ perceptions of its usefulness. For example, Jiang and
Benbasat (2007) noted that more vivid information may lead to an increase of positive perception of online shopping experience. Higher
perception of vividness is created by increasing the representational richness of the information presented, through the incorporation of
high-quality sensory experiences, such as video (Hernandez, 2011). Conversely, text-only presentation is considered as characteristically
possessing low vividness (Griffith & Gray, 2002). Learning by watching a dynamic or realistic visual demonstration has been assumed to
have the potential to support and aid people in learning procedural tasks. For example, literature on mental model construction asserts that
movie or video is claimed to “amplify cognition” (Card, Mackinlay, & Shneiderman, 1999, p. 6), through the nature of explicitly
demonstrating the direction of sequences, motions, and spatial-temporal changes in configuration or scene properties (Arguel & Jamet,
2009; Weiss, Knowlton, & Morrison, 2002). As an intuitive explanation, procedural content can be readily understood through the
“informationally complete” (Watson et al., 2010, p. 84) external presentation of moving scenes on YouTube. Thereby, the greater perception
of its usefulness for procedural learning is likely derived from the users’ stimulated perception, which is afforded by the greater vividness of
the procedural content on YouTube.
H6: Vividness positively affects perceived usefulness.
3.6. YouTube self-efficacy
User acceptance seems to encompass a broad range of perceived system features, as well as individual differences in user characteristics
(Agarwal & Prasad, 1999). As one might expect, acceptance behavior may be open to change when users’ confidence or resistance to use
a system appears to be influential. Self-efficacy has been found to have the potential to provide such an account. It concerns individuals’ self-
confidence that they have the abilities to perform a given task (Bandura, 1986). There is extensive evidence that self-efficacy impacts
competence to learn, persistence in the face of challenges, expected performance of learning tasks, and actual achievement (Lane, Lane, &
Kyprianou, 2004; Pintrich & Schunk, 1995; Schunk, 1983; Zhu, Chen, Chen, & Chern, 2011; Zimmerman, 1995), providing a strong justifi-
cation for its inclusion in the TAM framework.
Self-efficacy operates at situation-specific levels (Agarwal, Sambamurthy, & Stair, 2000; Bandura, 1997; Marakas, Yi, & Johnson, 1998).
Amongst the measures of self-efficacy developed pertaining to various specific domains, computer self-efficacy and Internet self-efficacy
have been investigated as influences on user acceptance in the learning context (Lee, Hsieh, & Chen, 2011; Liao & Huang, 2009; Ong, Lai,
& Wang, 2004). Computer self-efficacy denotes individuals’ beliefs in their own ability to use computers to perform computing tasks
(Compeau & Higgins, 1995). Internet self-efficacy is a specialized construct of computer self-efficacy within the domain of the World Wide
Web (Igbaria & Iivari, 1995). To anchor the user acceptance of YouTube, the present study conceptualizes “YouTube self-efficacy”, by
manipulating the appropriate degree of specificity in the operationalization of item measurements (i.e., the ability to find information on
YouTube).
Igbaria and Iivari (1995) noted that the relationship between self-efficacy and perceived usefulness reflects the influence of self-efficacy
on both motivation to perform a task and subsequent outcome expectations. It seems reasonable to expect that having a sufficient level of
self-efficacy may place a premium on the inception of perceived usefulness. Simply put, the higher the degree of YouTube self-efficacy
individuals possess, the higher the level of motivation to perform a task and successfully achieve the goal, and consequently, the greater
chance to perceive usefulness toward YouTube. A high level of computer or Internet self-efficacy has been illustrated as being a pivotal factor
leading to desired learning outcomes through e-learning systems (Moos & Azevedo, 2009). As mentioned earlier, YouTube itself does not
inherently represent a learning system. However, the present study argues that the specific self-efficacy may act as a prerequisite for
YouTube to be deemed useful for procedural learning tasks. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:
H7: YouTube self-efficacy positively affects perceived usefulness.
4. Data collection
The present study adopted an offline survey approach to empirically validate the proposed conceptual framework.2 Structured
measurement instruments were designed that utilized fixed nominal scales, seven-point Likert scales, and bipolar adjectives of the seven-
point semantic differential scales, in conjunction with four demographic profiles and thirty-nine main questionnaire items. The survey bears
in mind that the conceptual framework consists of five exogenous constructs (perceived ease of use, task-technology fit, content richness,
vividness, and YouTube specific self-efficacy) and three endogenous constructs (behavioral intention, perceived usefulness, and user
satisfaction) (Pearl, 2000). Inspired by the work of De Wulf et al. (2006), the present study attempts to examine the nomological validity of
content richness specified as a second-order construct by testing whether it is reflected in the three first-order constructs of relevance,
timeliness, and sufficiency.
4.1. Development of measurement instrument
The first part of the questionnaire used four fixed nominal scales to collect basic demographic information including age (20–24 to 35–
40), gender (male or female), level of education (high school, college/university or graduate school), and YouTube experience (under 1 year
to over 5 years). The second part employed direct measurement of the study variables. To ensure content validity, the measurement
instruments mostly involved the adaptation of existing validated scales from prior studies (see Appendix A.). The thirty-seven adapted items
were carefully modified to suit the context of this study. One item for the measurement of perceived usefulness (PU4) and one item for
YouTube self-efficacy (YSE2) were self-constructed and added to the measurement scales. All items were assessed by seven-point Likert
scales with anchors ranging from 1 (¼“strongly disagree”) to 7 (¼“strongly agree”), with the exception that two items for the measurement
of user satisfaction were scored on the bipolar semantic-differential scales (satisfied/dissatisfied for US1; pleased/unpleased for US2). One
item for the measurement of perceived ease of use (PEOU4) and two items for user satisfaction (US1 and US2) were reverse-worded and
used negative subscales so as to avoid response bias. The developed instrument was then reviewed by five experienced doctoral students to
2
The survey study was part of a research aimed at testing the educational efficacy of several instructional modes of procedural learning (i.e., textual procedures plus static
visual snapshots vs. auditory procedures plus animation). The administration of the survey was followed by learning tasks, as well as performance tests including evaluation
of the retention and motor skill accuracy across different experimental settings. In the present study, only data from the survey study is discussed. This study was conducted
from February 21 to December 9, 2011.
ensure its accuracy, specificity, and the format of the questionnaire. Lastly, the instrument was translated into Korean, and pilot-tested with
twenty master students. The purpose was to ensure clarity, completeness, and readability. Open-ended qualitative comments were sought
from them. For example, one of the authors asked them whether questionnaire items were clear to understand or confusing. Several items
were refined accordingly in wording and incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire.
4.2. Sampling
A convenience-sampling was employed in the present work. The target sample was chosen from YouTube users aged 20–40 years. An
important criterion for selecting study participants was that they themselves should address a necessity that needed to be taught through
procedural instructions as a guideline for drill-and-practice scenarios in daily life. The sampling was further designed to exclude those with
experiences of learning from YouTube, so that the study could be controlled for any potential confounding effects that might result from the
population. There has been little consensus in the literature so far on how to calculate statistical power or sample size for structural equation
model analysis (Chin, 1998). As a rule of thumb, Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2006) suggested that a sample size of between
150 and 400 may be sufficient to achieve statistical power necessary for structural equation models with three or more measurement items
per construct. In present study, minimum sample size was set at 400 respondents. An invitation to participate in the survey was posted
publicly on several heavily trafficked community websites in South Korea. Confidentiality was assured, in that there would be no identifiers
released at any stages of the study. In addition, a notice was posted on the recruitment board indicating that participants would be paid for
their time and efforts. To increase participation rate (Wright, 2005), a chance to win one of five lottery prizes (equivalent to a US$100 gift
card) was offered as an incentive to participants.
4.3. Survey protocol
The survey was conducted in a secured lab located at Korea University. A total of 467 respondents participated in this study. Prior to the
study phase, they were instructed to read and sign a written informed consent form that described details about the study. Participants were
then asked to complete a demographic questionnaire. This was followed by a session where they were requested to go to YouTube, search for
and watch five procedural instructions so that they could feel that they obtained a common frame of understanding of the study domain and
better prepared for responding to the questionnaire. They were encouraged to proceed at their own pace. No aid was offered during the
session, with an exception given for providing a set of keywords to be queried. These keywords include, for example, laptop memory
replacement, checking of car oil levels, bandaging a wound, changing a car tire, and assembly of computer circuit boards. Thus, all
participants were offered similar types of YouTube resources to ensure treatment equivalency. Lastly, participants were administered
a Web-based survey assessing thirty-nine main questionnaire items. The entire session lasted approximately 40–50 min. Of the respondents
participated in the survey, 432 provided usable survey responses, yielding a net response rate of 92.5%. The final sample consists of 140
females (mean age ¼ 24.6 years, SD ¼ 2.24) and 292 males (mean age ¼ 25.0, SD ¼ 2.61). The majority of respondents had at least one year of
experience using YouTube; this group accounts for 96.8% of total respondents. Table 1 summarizes the sample profile of the respondents.
5. Data analysis
This section begins by presenting descriptive statistics for the items and constructs. A series of scale refinement processes were con-
ducted through assessments of item reliability, the factorial structure of a set of items, and common method bias. The construct validity of
the measurement model was tested through an examination of convergent and discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Lastly,
a maximum likelihood analysis of the structural equation model was performed to test the causal relationships formulated in Section 2. SPSS
15.0 and AMOS 18 for Windows were used to analyze the data. It is important to note that in a typical validation study, an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) is carried out if the nature of the study is exploratory whereas a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is applied to new data set in
which a factorial structure was identified from the EFA (DeVellis, 2003). However, Van Prooijen and Van Der Kloot (2001) noted that “the
same data set is used to derive a factor model by EFA and subsequently test this model by CFA [to rule out inappropriate applications of EFA,
incomparability of EFA and CFA, and inappropriate applications of CFA]” (p. 780). The present study conducted a CFA with the same data set
to allow for a more rigorous test of the factorial structure derived from the EFA.
Table 1
Sample profile of the survey.
Item Demographic Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male 292 67.6
Female 140 32.4
Age 20–24 259 60.0
25–29 99 22.9
30–34 58 13.4
35–40 16 3.7
Level of education High school 43 10.0
College/university 315 72.9
Graduate 74 17.1
YouTube experience Under 1 year 14 3.2
1–2 year 31 7.2
2–3 years 95 22.0
3–4 years 158 36.6
Over 5 years 134 31.0
Total N ¼ 432 100.0
5.1. Descriptive statistics of the measurement instruments
The descriptive statistics of mean and standard deviation were calculated for the items and constructs measured (see Table 2). The means
of all constructs were rated above 5.0 on the one-to-seven scale, ranging from 5.13 (perceived usefulness; SD ¼ 1.24) to 5.76 (user satis-
faction; SD ¼ 1.31). The means of items ranged from 4.84 (PU2; SD ¼ 1.45) to 6.05 (VID1; SD ¼ 1.18). A further characterization of the
descriptive statistics includes the indices for the skewness and kurtosis of the sample data obtained (Teo & Noyes, 2011). As a common
criterion to test the normality assumption for maximum likelihood estimation, Lei and Lomax (2005) suggest the cutoff of an absolute value
of 2.3 for both skewness and kurtosis. As seen in Table 2, the skewness of all the items ranged from 1.478 to .548, and the values of kurtosis
ranged from 1.517 to 1.859, implying that the responses obtained from the survey were fairly normally distributed.
5.2. Scale refinement process
Internal consistency was assessed to determine the extent to which measured items within the same construct were related to each
other. As reported in Table 2, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, calculated for each of the ten subscales, ranged from .767 to .937, all of which
exceeded the recommended cutoff of .7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The results indicate that subscales in the survey questionnaire
exhibited a high internal reliability.
Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were computed for all measured items
prior to proceeding with exploratory factor analysis (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The results provided the suitability of conducting
factor analysis, with statistics of c2 (741) ¼ 12,192.6 (p < .000) and the KMO measure ¼ .848 > .500.
An exploratory factor analysis was performed to ensure the factorial stability of the ten first-order factors. A maximum likelihood
approach was used as the extraction method, because “[.] it allows for the computation of a wide range of indexes of the goodness of fit of
the model” (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999, p. 277). The results indicated that ten components were extracted, accounting
for 68.34% of the total variance. In accordance with Kline (1994), a factor loading above .6 was considered to be acceptable in this study. In
Table 3, it can be seen that most of factor loadings exceeded .6. The three items of BI4, PU2, and VID3 that were loaded below .6 were
eliminated for the purpose of purification.
The presence of common method bias was assessed using Harman’s single factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Table 3 indicates that the
first component captured only 19.27% of the total variance explained. Since a single factor did not emerge from the factor analysis (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003, p. 889), common method bias was considered not to be a threat in the present study.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the measurement instruments.
Construct Item Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s a

Behavioral intention (Mean ¼ 5.57, SD ¼ 1.23) BI1 5.59 1.17 .508 .783 .767
BI2 5.55 1.19 .580 .670
BI3 5.74 1.19 .766 .427
BI4 5.41 1.35 .832 .274
Perceived usefulness (Mean ¼ 5.13, SD ¼ 1.24) PU1 5.09 1.15 .548 1.182 .867
PU2 4.84 1.45 .141 .782
PU3 5.14 1.16 .490 1.248
PU4 5.26 1.16 .227 1.450
PU5 5.33 1.21 .210 1.517
Perceived ease of use (Mean ¼ 5.33, SD ¼ 1.14) PEOU1 5.39 1.16 .658 .542 .925
PEOU2 5.07 .97 .555 1.309
PEOU3 5.39 1.18 .701 .608
PEOU4 5.46 1.19 .767 .487
User satisfaction (Mean ¼ 5.76, SD ¼ 1.31) US1 5.65 1.23 .643 .219 .797
US2 5.81 1.37 1.071 .539
US3 5.82 1.32 .987 .177
Task-technology fit (Mean ¼ 5.66, SD ¼ 1.04) TTF1 5.69 1.00 .642 .040 .921
TTF2 5.65 1.05 1.023 1.651
TTF3 5.72 1.07 .767 .444
TTF4 5.57 1.03 .596 .385
Relevance (Mean ¼ 5.53, SD ¼ 1.05) RLV1 5.41 1.01 .219 .362 .901
RLV2 5.49 1.06 .196 .798
RLV3 5.69 1.06 .860 .825
Timeliness (Mean ¼ 5.33, SD ¼ 1.13) TME1 5.42 1.10 .374 .380 .896
TME2 5.34 1.11 .429 .112
TME3 5.23 1.17 .335 .641
Sufficiency (Mean ¼ 5.36, SD ¼ 1.14) SUF1 5.45 1.13 .553 .045 .825
SUF2 5.36 1.12 .523 .094
SUF3 5.27 1.16 .379 .457
Vividness (Mean ¼ 5.73, SD ¼ 1.29) VID1 6.05 1.18 1.478 1.859 .817
VID2 5.94 1.11 1.098 .547
VID3 5.16 1.48 .739 .126
VID4 5.77 1.19 .827 .268
YouTube self-efficacy (Mean ¼ 5.66, SD ¼ 1.48) YSE1 5.51 1.36 .671 .597 .937
YSE2 5.73 1.51 1.031 .013
YSE3 5.44 1.39 .597 .715
YSE4 5.93 1.38 1.290 .873
YSE5 5.79 1.51 1.131 .201
YSE6 5.58 1.65 .925 .340
Table 3
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and rotated component matrix: loadings and cross-loadings of item measures.
Item Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
BI1 .091 .204 .112 .035 .052 .028 .010 .859 .014 .169
BI2 .056 .266 .073 .040 .010 .013 .033 .759 .020 .317
BI3 .089 .177 .156 .058 .069 .004 .038 .640 .055 .222
BI4a .050 .079 .019 .005 .046 .074 .025 .234 .080 .175
PU1 .076 .889 .129 .031 .109 .077 .096 .163 .092 .075
PU2a .003 .360 .012 .015 .091 .014 .065 .123 .067 .158
PU3 .044 .883 .165 .047 .126 .073 .114 .162 .076 .069
PU4 .086 .690 .189 .026 .163 .182 .097 .111 .092 .095
PU5 .079 .716 .239 .056 .160 .167 .111 .183 .096 .026
PEOU1 .184 .087 .034 .935 .005 .056 .026 .020 .028 .000
PEOU2 .160 .047 .034 .814 .043 .027 .024 .100 .057 .030
PEOU3 .175 .047 .082 .917 .029 .021 .033 .024 .040 .015
PEOU4 .241 .025 .013 .728 .014 .032 .025 .033 .001 .023
US1 .062 .127 .158 .044 .065 .046 .015 .169 .053 .633
US2 .054 .115 .126 .001 .055 .040 .010 .257 .005 .768
US3 .053 .071 .074 .026 .032 .084 .066 .233 .037 .692
TTF1 .010 .095 .920 .005 .101 .031 .080 .067 .028 .085
TTF2 .021 .113 .857 .009 .024 .015 .035 .070 .030 .104
TTF3 .039 .132 .801 .015 .048 .078 .012 .101 .102 .089
TTF4 .038 .199 .766 .082 .089 .086 .025 .086 .068 .101
RLV1 .032 .090 .073 .027 .043 .822 .220 .078 .202 .062
RLV2 .038 .155 .071 .031 .071 .795 .206 .057 .204 .067
RLV3 .050 .144 .079 .032 .076 .762 .266 .009 .205 .099
TME1 .011 .131 .048 .033 .034 .219 .826 .004 .218 .062
TME2 .045 .110 .025 .039 .001 .227 .858 .021 .254 .053
TME3 .005 .191 .050 .006 .035 .218 .690 .019 .181 .002
SUF1 .027 .154 .103 .004 .055 .220 .215 .030 .671 .014
SUF2 .026 .100 .086 .002 .063 .186 .196 .017 .875 .064
SUF3 .014 .103 .042 .004 .093 .150 .193 .013 .618 .006
VID1 .068 .083 .082 .015 .810 .057 .032 .061 .082 .052
VID2 .033 .108 .061 .054 .920 .026 .024 .037 .003 .096
VID3a .028 .107 .048 .040 .433 .048 .041 .023 .080 .086
VID4 .013 .176 .032 .040 .768 .012 .021 .036 .001 .177
YSE1 .815 .035 .038 .125 .001 .108 .031 .072 .009 .040
YSE2 .879 .092 .009 .133 .025 .002 .053 .057 .044 .022
YSE3 .758 .005 .015 .143 .006 .138 .046 .046 .019 .009
YSE4 .897 .029 .007 .154 .043 .028 .011 .037 .016 .077
YSE5 .885 .104 .026 .144 .033 .033 .008 .030 .018 .066
YSE6 .766 .069 .031 .096 .086 .063 .054 .052 .022 .037
Eigenvalue 7.515 4.702 3.330 2.667 2.011 1.968 1.705 .998 .982 .822
CVE (%) 19.27 31.33 39.87 46.70 51.86 56.91 61.23 63.84 66.36 68.46
Note. CVE ¼ cumulative variance explained.

Eigenvalues and CVEs were obtained from the unrotated factor solution.
Extraction method: Maximum likelihood.
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
The value in bold represents the item loading exceeding .6 threshold.
a
BI4, PU2, and VID3 were eliminated from the further analyses.
5.3. Construct validity of the measurement model
Construct validity of the measurement model was assessed through a confirmatory factor analysis. The purpose was to determine
whether the sample data provides empirical support for the proposed theoretical structure. Construct validity was evaluated through
an examination of convergent validity and discriminant validity. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), convergent validity is
evidenced when (1) all indicator factor loadings within the construct exceed .7 at the significant level of p < .05, (2) composite
reliability by each construct exceeds .7, and (3) average variance extracted by each construct exceeds .5. As listed in Table 4, most of
the standardized factor loadings exceeded the recommended level of .7. The item US1 that had a loading of .691 was judged to be
acceptable. Moreover, the factor loadings for each of three first-order constructs of relevance (¼.746), timeliness (¼.752), and suffi-
ciency (¼.723) were found to converge on only one construct of content richness. The results indicate that content richness is
a second-order construct determined by its three dimensions discussed in the present study. Table 4 further indicates that composite
reliabilities for each of the constructs ranged between .784 and .939. Thereby, all constructs met the requirement for reliability. For
the assessment of average variance extracted, all values were greater than the cutoff of .5 (see Table 5). Taken together, convergent
validity was demonstrated for a set of measured variables pertaining to seven first-order constructs as well as one second-order
construct.
Discriminant validity of the measurement model was examined through comparisons of the square root of the average variance
extracted by each construct with the respective inter-construct correlations (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 5 indicates that all diagonal
values are greater than the inter-construct correlations, in support of evidence for discriminant validity. It is thus concluded that
measurement instruments adopted in the present study were able to discriminate between different constructs (Bagozzi & Warshaw,
1990).
Table 4
Confirmatory factor analysis: standardized factor loading and composite reliability.
Construct Item Standardized factor loading Composite reliability

Behavioral intention BI1 .875 .870
BI2 .885
BI3 .725
Perceived usefulness PU1 .934 .924
PU3 .934
PU4 .777
PU5 .819
Perceived ease of use PEOU1 .957 .927
PEOU2 .819
PEOU3 .940
PEOU4 .760
User satisfaction US1 .691 .800
US2 .831
US3 .741
Task-technology fit TTF1 .930 .921
TTF2 .869
TTF3 .834
TTF4 .817
Content richness Relevance .746 .784
Timeliness .752
Sufficiency .723
Vividness VID1 .817 .889
VID2 .948
VID4 .787
YouTube self-efficacy YSE1 .819 .939
YSE2 .894
YSE3 .764
YSE4 .915
YSE5 .905
YSE6 .779
5.4. Model fit of the measurement model and structural model
The overall fit of the measurement model (confirmatory factor model) and the structural model (hypothesized model) was interpreted
with a set of the commonly-used fit indices. With respect to these two models, Table 6 reports the statistics of the chi-square to degrees of
freedom ratio (c2/df), the normed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit-index (GFI), the adjusted goodness-of-
fit-index (AGFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Following traditional recom-
mendations, all the indices pointed to a fairly good fit, with the single exception of the NFI for the structural model (¼.898 < .900). To, Liao,
Chiang, Shih, and Chang (2008) noted that values of the NFI above .8 can be considered to be adequate. The overall results demonstrate
a fairly acceptable fit between observed sample data and both the measurement model and structural model based on varying fit indices.
5.5. Hypotheses tests
In testing the proposed hypotheses, structural equation modeling was employed using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 18 for
Windows. The results of the structural equation model analysis are illustrated in Fig. 2. Note that all standardized beta coefficients (b) are
positive.
Behavioral intention to use YouTube for procedural learning was jointly predicted by perceived usefulness (b ¼ .296) and user satis-
faction (b ¼ .503) at the p < .001 significance level. Thus, H1a and H3 were supported. However, the influence of perceived ease of use on
behavioral intention (H2a) was not supported (b ¼ .063, p > .05). These three variables of perceived usefulness, user satisfaction, and
perceived ease of use, together accounted for 43.8% of the variance in behavioral intention. Consistent with the prediction, perceived
Table 5
Average variance extracted and estimated correlations among constructs.
Constructs AVE Construct
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. BI .691 .832a
2. PU .755 .468 .869
3. PEOU .762 .107 .125 .873
4. US .572 .597 .306 .051 .757
5. TTF .746 .268 .358 .074 .303 .864
6. CNT .548 .130 .428 .085 .221 .240 .740
7. VID .729 .158 .293 .035 .216 .182 .157 .854
8. YSE .719 .177 .158 .354 .147 .044 .074 .087 .848
Note. AVE ¼ Average Variance Extracted; BI ¼ Behavioral intention; PU ¼ Perceived usefulness; PEOU ¼ Perceived ease of use; US ¼ User satisfaction; TTF ¼ Task-technology
fit; CNT ¼ Content richness; VID ¼ Vividness; YSE ¼ YouTube self-efficacy.
a
The value in bold represents the square root of AVE.
Table 6
Model-fit indices for the measurement model and the structural model.
Model c2/df NFI CFI GFI AGFI IFI RMSEA

Measurement model 1.990 .909 .952 .876 .853 .952 .048
Structural model 2.149 .898 .943 .862 .842 .943 .052
Recommended values 3.0a .9b .9c .8d .8e .9f .08g
Note. NFI ¼ Normed fit index; CFI ¼ Comparative fit index; GFI ¼ Goodness-of-fit index; AGFI ¼ Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; IFI ¼ Incremental fit index; RMSEA ¼ Root
mean square error of approximation.
a
Gefen, Straub, and Boudreau (2000).
b
Hair et al. (2010).
c
Bentler and Bonett (1980).
d
Doll, Xia, and Torkzadeh (1994) & Seyal, Rahman, and Rahim (2002).
e
Bentler and Bonett (1980).
f
Nargundkar (2008).
g
Hair et al. (2010).
usefulness had a significant and direct effect on user satisfaction (H1b) with b ¼ .302 at the p < .001 level. The amount of variance in user
satisfaction explained by perceived usefulness was 9.1%. It was found that the effect of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness was not
statistically significant (b ¼ .064, p > .05). By contrast, perceived usefulness was significantly predicted by task-technology fit (b ¼ .270,
p < .001), content richness (b ¼ .340, p < .001), vividness (b ¼ .215, p < .001), and YouTube self-efficacy (b ¼ .099, p < .05), providing
supports for H4 thru H7. These four predictors along with perceived ease of use together explained 24.9% of the total variance in perceived
usefulness.
US1 US2 US3
TTF1 .684 .837 .738

.932
TTF2 .871
TTF US
TTF3 .833 =9.1%
.813
TTF4
RLV1
.886
RLV2 .868 RLV
.862 .270*** .302*** .503***
RLV3 (5.809) (5.409) (8.708)
.736
PU1
TME1
.897
.929 PU3
TME2 .926 TME .766 CNT
.929
.770
TME3 .340*** .296*** BI1
(6.031) (6.312) .874
.718 PU BI
.881 BI2
SUF1 =24.9% =43.8%
.783 .723
BI3
SUF2 .889 SUF
.766
.691
SUF3 .215*** .809 PU4
(4.580)
PU5
VID1
.815
VID2 .951 VID .099* .064 .063
(2.155) (1.413) (.1.487)
.785
VID4
YSE1
YSE2 .819
.895
YSE3 .763
.915
YSE PEOU
YSE4
.905
YSE5 .780 .957 .820 .940 .759
YSE6 PEOU1 PEOU2 PEOU3 PEOU4
Fig. 2. Results of the structural equation model analysis 45. Note. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. BI ¼ Behavioral intention; PU ¼ Perceived usefulness; PEOU ¼ Perceived ease of
use; US ¼ User satisfaction; TTF ¼ Task-technology fit; CNT ¼ Content richness; VID ¼ Vividness; YSE ¼ YouTube self-efficacy. All numbers are standardized coefficients with the t-
values in parentheses. Dashed paths are not supported.
To summarize, the test of the structural model indicates that the majority of the study variables contributed to the explanation of user
acceptance, but perceived ease of use did not.
6. Discussion
Several past studies have offered insights into key determinants influencing user acceptance of UCC (Oum & Han, 2011; Ryu et al., 2009;
Yang, Hsu, & Tan, 2010). However, most studies were designed to predominantly highlight the intrinsic task of video-sharing. On the other
hand, the educational value of YouTube has been examined in very recent studies (Burton, 2008; Clifton & Mann, 2011; Jones & Cuthrell,
2011; Murugiah, Vallakati, Rajput, Sood, & Challa, 2011). There is evidence that YouTube can be used as an innovative and efficient
learning medium (Jaffar, 2012; Krauskopf, Zahn, & Hesse, 2012). In response to the growing importance of YouTube in educational settings,
the present study was framed with the TAM to identify the motivational factors affecting acceptance behavior. Perhaps the most impor-
tantly, this work emphasized the motives to use YouTube given its extrinsic task goal of being used for procedural learning tasks, which is
a particularly applicable area in the context of demand-driven learning. The popularity of YouTube hinges on its ability to create a social and
digital community of individuals interested in a specialized topic and expertise. Today, users are likely to actively engage in constructing
knowledge or seeking information from accessible resources that meet their needs (Oum & Han, 2011). Duffy (2008) noted that “YouTube
can be used to create a learning community where everyone has a voice, anyone can contribute, and the value lies equally within the
creation of the content and the networks of learners that form around content discovered and shared.” (p. 125). The present study attempted
to expand the vision of YouTube to include broader consideration of a new platform that helps users achieve their specific learning goals.
Consistent with our prediction, perceived usefulness was found to be an immediate predictor of behavioral intention. In light of this
finding, the relationship may be best explained by the role of perceived usefulness as a form of extrinsic motivation in determining
technology usage behavior (Davis, 1989; Igbaria, Parasuraman, & Baroudi, 1996). That is, acceptance might be associated with the efforts of
goal-oriented behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Shang, Chen, & Shen, 2005), which is driven by respondents’ expectations that learning through
YouTube would improve their understanding of “how to do something”. This view is in line with a proposition made by Gefen and Straub
(2000) that perceived usefulness operates directly on affecting user acceptance in cases where performing an extrinsic task is of great
concern.
The present study failed to substantiate the traditional TAM effects of perceived ease of use on both behavioral intention and perceived
usefulness. Perceived ease of use was measured with four items in accordance with Venkatesh et al. (2002), comprising respondents’
perceptions that the use of YouTube would be effortless. A plausible explanation for the insignificant finding may be that respondents did
not place much priority on retaining their perception of ease of use when making acceptance decisions. The weak role of perceived ease of
use in the prediction of user acceptance has been discussed in several studies (Hu, Chau, Sheng, & Tam, 1999; Lee et al., 2005; Wang & Wang,
2009). For example, in a study of mobile learning acceptance (Liu, Li, & Carlsson, 2010), the authors noted that the current m-learning
technology advances usability to the extent that it does not comprise a practical barrier to acceptance. We argue that since most respondents
in the present study reported that they had at least one year of experience using YouTube, the influence of perceived ease of might not
contribute to explaining a significant proportion of the unique variances in perceived usefulness and behavioral intention.
In the present study, the TAM was extended to include the construct of user satisfaction as respondents’ post hoc evaluation, which
reflects the actual past usage experience. In fact, user satisfaction with a particular system has been postulated as being the most salient
determinant of long-term basis intention to use the system (Bhattacherjee, 2001b). One may thus argue that an integrated model that
combines the TAM with a user satisfaction construct would not shape initial user acceptance. However, the selection of the construct was
driven by two major considerations. On the one hand, it is often considered as one of the important measures to evaluate the effectiveness of
learning systems by directly affecting motivation, commitment to learning, and learning performance (Shee & Wang, 2008; Wang, Wang, &
Shee, 2007; Wu et al., 2010). On the other hand, the likelihood of satisfaction should be reflected in the present work since the survey
methodology adopted a free simulation method (Gefen & Straub, 2000), where respondents had a single system, and were actually involved
in the target behavior. It was thus expected that the measure should be characterized by early perceptions of their instrumental outcomes
attracting initial acceptance. Consistent with our prediction, results from the structural equation analysis revealed that behavioral intention
was significantly predicted by user satisfaction, which in turn, was determined by perceived usefulness. Interestingly, the beta coefficient of
user satisfaction-behavioral intention was found to be fairly greater than that of perceived usefulness-behavioral intention. The findings
suggest that respondents might form their intention toward using YouTube primarily relying upon their overall appraisal of how well they
felt through the process of learning, and secondly, on how useful it was in helping them achieve a clear understanding of the performance of
procedural tasks.
The TAM was further expanded to incorporate four additional variables – task-technology fit, content richness, vividness, and YouTube
self-efficacy – to capture their effects on perceived usefulness. As expected, all these four variables emerged as significant predictors. In
particular, the present study tested a higher-order factor model, given that the measurement of content richness was conceptualized as
a second-order construct formed by relevance, timeliness, and sufficiency. Our sample data provided strong support for demonstrating the
nomological validity by relating with the three lower-order constructs for identification (Bollen, 1989). The finding is partly in line with the
work of De Wulf et al. (2006), where their measurement of content was dimensionalized by relevance, currentness, sufficiency, and
credibility. In comparing the beta coefficients calculated for each of the four paths, a noteworthy finding is that YouTube self-efficacy was
a relatively weak predictor of perceived usefulness. This might be due to the fact that the measurements of task-technology fit, content
richness, and vividness clearly specified when/how to use YouTube, but self-efficacy did not. In other words, the measurement of self-
efficacy adopted here might reflect a measurement of “trait-oriented efficacy” (Hsu & Chiu, 2004, p. 371), which relates to “[.] an indi-
vidual’s judgment of efficacy across multiple [YouTube] application domains” (Marakas et al., 1998, p. 129). It is thus possible that the
perceptions of usefulness were relatively less influenced by the measure of YouTube self-efficacy lacking the predictive power of confidence
to accomplish such an advanced task in detail.
Eiriksdottir and Catrambone (2011) noted that people usually do not devote a large amount of cognitive effort to figuring out what the
procedural materials stand for; rather, they tend to use other methods, such as asking someone, or doing trial-and-error experimental
procedures by themselves to achieve their desired task goals (p. 753). This is coherent with a study by Ganier (2004), where the author
pointed out that people rarely read procedural documents or manuals. This may be particularly true in a case where printed instructions are
often difficult to describe the sequence of procedural operation accurately. However, Palmiter and Elkerton (1993) mentioned that “[.]
demonstrations of procedural tasks are often considered as a way to speed up [learning process]” (p. 194). Considering that the acceptance
was found to be strongly influenced by the perceptions for learning performance improvements, our findings suggest that YouTube can
serve as a useful learning alternative to traditional or printed instructional manuals.
7. Conclusions, limitations, and future work
The data described in this work concludes that the TAM provided several insights into the mechanism of the formation of goal-oriented
user acceptance when learning procedural tasks from YouTube. In summary, user acceptance is associated with an individual’s perceptions
of (1) its usefulness, and (2) the evaluation of their feelings in response to the usage experience (Hsieh, Kuo, Yang, & Lin, 2010). In addition,
the usefulness of YouTube is weighted by the perceptions of (1) compatibility between their preferred ways of learning procedural tasks and
the features and support that YouTube provides, (2) the amount of relevant, up-to-date, and sufficient learning resources available on
YouTube, (3) a sense of vividness imposed by the procedural content available on YouTube, and (4) self-efficacy across multiple YouTube
application domains (Marakas et al., 1998). No evidence was found for the influence of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness and
behavioral intention. Our model explained 43.8% of the variance in behavioral intention. Overall findings thus provide modest support for
the applicability of the TAM to this study. Given the use of YouTube as a practical baseline for studying the present work, our findings suggest
that YouTube may augment its function as a common channel for procedural learning and instruction. However, all individuals may not be
equally motivated to recognize its educational value, since it is conventionally seen as a medium for entertainment, rather than an
educational tool.
There are several limitations that should be taken into consideration. First, our conceptual framework was built upon the TAM. This work
can be further augmented by other theoretical frameworks to add to the predictive power of acceptance. For example, the theory of Uses and
Gratifications (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1997) may be expected to broaden the potential for YouTube in educational settings, with its
underlying assumption that users actively seek out specific media and content to fulfill certain needs or goals (Kratz, Gurevitch, & Hass,
1973). Second, our sample data was collected from respondents who interacted with YouTube within a relatively short study time frame.
A consideration of the changes in interaction that would result from increasing the study duration would be an interesting field for further
research. Third, the present study examined the construct of behavioral intention without exploiting its behavioral prediction (i.e., actual
behavior). As mentioned above, however, it would be challenged by the fact that people usually decide to use YouTube outside of educa-
tional purposes. Fourth, our findings should be interpreted with caution since they cannot be generalized to other UCC settings without
additional research. In the present study, YouTube was chosen as the basis of application because it is considered the most popular video-
sharing website that has provided an ever-increasing amount of contents (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Oum & Han, 2011). Furthermore, the
present study was inspired by the fact that YouTube has been credited by several other studies as a potential for innovative learning platform
(Losh, 2011; Park, 2009; White, 2009). However, one may argue that procedural tasks can be also learned through other websites or social
media services that allow people watch video such as Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com) or Sevenload (http://www.sevenload.com). In
a comparison between YouTube and Vimeo, for example, the latter is known to provide more control over how video content is presented to
users based on the variation of the size or dimension of the player, interface, or color of any text. It may be interesting to examine if the level
of user acceptance differs across different types of service providers by specifying vividness variables (Bracken, 2002; Lombard & Ditton,
1997). Comparisons of different platforms or service providers are important as they can help practitioners, managers or researchers
determine which platform is more useful or appropriate for achieving a given goal. Fifth, respondents might find the wording of the item
measurement of user satisfaction confusing (i.e., “My choice to use YouTube for procedural learning was a wise one”, Oliver, 1981), possibly
due to the fact that they did not have a choice but to go through YouTube given our survey setting. Although the item measurement used in
our study has been widely used in the TAM literature (Roca, Chiu, & Martinez, 2006), future research should consider other measurements to
draw more reliable conclusions. Lastly, it is worth noting that the data was collected by employing a convenience-sample population
categorized only by age. Future study should be directed toward addressing the importance of diversity in demographic profiles, allowing
for the differentiation of the role of various constructs and their relationship within the sample.
Author disclosure statement
The authors declare no conflicts of interests related to this work.
Appendix A. Measurement instruments
Behavioral intention (Lee, Hsieh, & Ma, 2011)

BI1: Given the opportunity, I would use YouTube for learning procedural tasks in the future.
BI2: I will recommend others to use YouTube for learning procedural tasks.
BI3: I intend to use YouTube to learn procedural tasks in the future. BI4: I intend to use YouTube as an autonomous procedural learning
tool.**
Perceived usefulness (Huang, Huang, Huang, & Ling, 2012; Larsen, Sørebø, & Sørebø, 2009)
PU1: I think that learning procedural tasks with YouTube improves my ability to perform procedural tasks.
PU2: I think that learning procedural tasks with YouTube improves my desire to perform procedural tasks.**
PU3: I think that learning procedural tasks with YouTube improves my outcome in regards to performing procedural tasks.
PU4: Learning procedural tasks with YouTube increases my understanding of how to perform procedural tasks.
PU5: Using YouTube makes it easier to learn how to perform procedural tasks.
Perceived ease of use (Venkatesh et al., 2002)
PEOU1: My interaction with YouTube is clear and understandable.
PEOU2: I find YouTube to be ease to use.

PEOU3: I think it easy to get YouTube to do what I want it to do.
PEOU4: Interacting with YouTube requires a lot of my mental effort.*
User satisfaction (Oliver, 1981)
My overall experience of the use of YouTube in learning procedural tasks was.
US1: .satisfied/dissatisfied.*
US2: .pleased/unpleased.*
US3: My choice to use YouTube for procedural learning was a wise one.
Task-technology fit (Hoehle & Huff, 2010; McGill & Klobas, 2009)
TTF1: I think that using YouTube would be well suited for the way I like to learn procedural tasks.
TTF2: YouTube would be a good medium to provide the way I like to learn procedural tasks.
TTF3: Using YouTube would fit well for the way I like to learn procedural tasks.
TTF4: I think that using YouTube would be a good way to learn procedural tasks.
Content richness (De Wulf et al., 2006)
Relevance
RLV1: YouTube provides relevant procedure instructional content that I need.
RLV2: YouTube contains very useful procedure instructional content that I need.
RLV3: YouTube provides procedure instructional content that exactly fits my needs.
Timeliness
TME1: YouTube provides recent procedure instructional content that I need.
TME2: YouTube provides new procedure instructional content that I need.
TME3: YouTube provides up-to-date procedure instructional content that I need.
Sufficiency
SUF1: YouTube offers enough procedure instructional contents that I need.
SUF2: I find a satisfactory amount of procedure instructional content that I need on YouTube.
SUF3: YouTube provides sufficient procedure instructional content that I need.
Vividness (Jiang & Benbasat, 2007)

VID1: The procedure instructional content on YouTube is animated.
VID2: The procedure instructional content on YouTube is lively.
VID3: I can acquire procedure instructional content on YouTube from different sensory channels.**
VID4: YouTube contains procedure instructional content that is exciting to the senses.
YouTube self-efficacy (Zhao, Lu, Huang, & Wang, 2010)
YSE1: I feel confident navigating YouTube.
YSE2: I feel confident surfing YouTube.
YSE3: I feel confident navigating YouTube by following hyperlinks.
YSE4: I feel confident going backward and forward to previously visited YouTube pages without being lost.
YSE5: I feel confident finding content on YouTube by using the YouTube search engine.
YSE6: I feel confident looking for information by querying the YouTube database.
Note.
*Denotes the item that was reverse coded.
**Denotes the item that was eliminated for the final analysis.
Parenthesis represents the source(s) of adaptation.
References
Agarwal, R. (2000). Individual acceptance of information technologies. In R. W. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past (pp.
85–104). Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.
Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R. M. (2000). Research report: the evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy: an empirical assessment.
Information System Research, 11(4), 418–430.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 49(2), 411–423.
Andres, H. P. (2006). Multimedia impact on human cognition. In M. Khosrowpour (Ed.), Advanced topics in information resources management (pp. 1–24). Idea Group
Publishing.
Arguel, A., & Jamet, E. (2009). Using video and static pictures to improve learning of procedural contents. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 354–359.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1990). Trying to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 127–140.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bellotti, F., Mikulecka, J., Napoletano, L., & Rohrova, H. (2006). Designing a constructionistic framework for T-learning. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4227, 549–554.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001a). An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201–214.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001b). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bracken, C.C. (2002) Presence and image quality: the case of high-definition TV. In Proceedings of information system division at the annual conference of the International
Communication Association, Seoul, Korea.
Burton, A. (2008). YouTube-ing your way to neurological knowledge. Lancet Neurology, 7(12), 1086–1087.
Card, S., Mackinlay, J., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualisation: Using vision to think. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Carswell, A. D., & Venkatesh, V. (2002). Learner outcomes in an asynchronous distance education environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56(5),
475–494.
Chang, H. H. (2008). Intelligent agent’s technology characteristics applied to online auctions’ task: a combined model of TTF and TAM. Technovation, 28(9), 564–577.
Chang, H. H. (2010). Task-technology fit and user acceptance of online auction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(1&2), 69–89.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.
Clifton, A., & Mann, C. (2011). Can YouTube enhance student nurse learning? Nurse Education Today, 31(4), 311–313.
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2005). Predicting health behaviour: a social cognition approach. In M. Conner, & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice
with social cognition models (pp. 1–27). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1002.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
De Wulf, K., Schillewaert, N., Muylle, S., & Rangarajan, D. (2006). The role of pleasure in website success. Information & Management, 43(4), 434–446.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 36(1), 9–21.
Doll, W. J., & Torkzadeh, G. (1988). The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction. MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 259–274.
Doll, W. J., Xia, W., & Torkzadeh, G. (1994). A confirmation of factor analysis of the end-user computer satisfaction instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(4), 453–461.
Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(2), 119–130, Retrieved
from. http://www.ejel.org/volume6/issue2/p119.
Eiriksdottir, E., & Catrambone, R. (2011). Procedural instructions, principles, and examples: how to structure instructions for procedural tasks to enhance performance,
learning, and transfer. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(6), 749–770.
Ellis, J. A., & Whitehill, B. V. (1996). The effects of explanations and pictures on learning, retention, and transfer of a procedural assembly task. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 21(2), 129–148.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3),
272–299.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuller, R. M., & Dennis, A. R. (2009). Does fit matter? the impact of task-technology fit and appropriation on team performance in repeated tasks. Information Systems Research,
20(1), 2–17.
Ganier, F. (2004). Factors affecting the processing of procedural instructions: implications for document design. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(1), 15–26.
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2000). The relative importance of perceived ease of use in IS adoption: a study e-commerce adoption. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
1(8), 1–28.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Infor-
mation Systems, 4(7), 1–79.
Goodhue, D., & Thompson, R. L. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213–236.
Gordon, S. (1994). Systematic training program design: Maximizing effectiveness and minimizing liability. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.
Griffith, D. A., & Gray, C. C. (2002). The fallacy of the level playing field: the effect of brand familiarity and web site vividness on online consumer response. In A. Paswan (Ed.),
Internet, Intranets, and Extranets: New waves in channel surfing (pp. 88–103). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Halilovic, S., & Cicic, M. (2011). Antecedents of information systems user behaviour: extended expectation-confirmation model. Behaviour & Information Technology, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.554575.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440–465.
Hernandez, M. D. (2011). A model of flow experience as determinant of positive attitudes toward online advergames. Journal of Promotion Management, 17(3), 315–326.
Hoehle, H., & Huff, S. (2010). Advancing task-technology fit theory: a formative-measurement approach to determining task-channel fit for electronic banking channels. In
Proceedings of the information systems foundations: theory building in information systems. The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 30 September–1 October
2010, Retrieved from. http://www.cbe.anu.edu.au/NCISR/INFS/workshop/articles/Hoehle%20and%20Huff%20-%20Advancing%20Task-Technology%20Fit%20Theory.pdf.
Hsieh, C.-C., Kuo, P.-L., Yang, S.-C., & Lin, S.-H. (2010). Assessing blog-user satisfaction using the expectation and disconfirmation approach. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(6), 1434–1444.
Hsu, M., & Chiu, C. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 38(3), 369–381.
Hu, P. J., Chau, Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.
Huang, Y.-M., Huang, Y.-M., Huang, S.-H., & Ling, Y.-T. (2012). A ubiquitous English vocabulary learning system: evidence of active/passive attitudes vs. usefulness/ease-of-use.
Computers & Education, 58(1), 273–282.
Hui, W., Hu, P., Clark, T., Tam, K., & Milton, J. (2008). Technology-assisted learning: a longitudinal field study of knowledge category, learning effectiveness, and satisfaction in
language learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(3), 245–259.
Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23(6), 587–605.
Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., & Baroudi, J. (1996). A motivational and model of microcomputer usage. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 127–143.
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. F. (1997). Building communication theory (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Jaffar, A. A. (2012). YouTube: an emerging tool in anatomy education. Anatomical Sciences Education, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ase.1268.
Jiang, Z., & Benbasat, I. (2007). Investigating the influence of the functional mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 454–470.
Johnson, S. D., Aragon, S. R., Shaik, N., & Palma-Rivas, N. (2000). Comparative analysis of learner satisfaction and learning outcomes in online and face-to-face learning
environments. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 11(1), 29–49.
Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: educational potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools, 28(2), 75–85.
Jung, Y., Perez-Mira, B., & Wiley-Patton, S. (2009). Consumer adoption of mobile TV: examining psychological flow and media content. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1),
123–129.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Cornwall, Great Britain: TJ Press Ltd.
Klopping, I. M., & McKinney, E. (2004). Extending the technology acceptance model and the task-technology fit model to consumer e-commerce. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 22(1), 35–48.
Kratz, E., Gurevitch, M., & Hass, H. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164–181.
Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C., & Hesse, F. W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of YouTube: the role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson
planning with technology. Computers & Education, 58(4), 1194–1206.
Kuhl, J. (1985). Volitional mediators of cognitive-behavior-consistency: self-regulatory processes and action versus state orientation. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action
control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 101–128). Berlin: Springer.
Lane, J., Lane, A. M., & Kyprianou, A. (2004). Self-efficacy, self-esteem and their impact on academic performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 32(3), 247–256.
Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380.
Larsen, T. J., Sørebø, A. M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2009). The role of task-technology fit as users’ motivation to continue information system use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3),
778–784.
LaTour, S. A., & Peat, N. C. (1979). Conceptual and methodological issues in consumer satisfaction research. In L. W. William (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 431–437).
Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Lee, Y.-C. (2006). An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review, 30(5), 517–541.
Lee, M. K. O., Cheung, C. M. K., & Chen, Z. (2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & Management,
42(8), 1095–1104.
Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Chen, Y.-H. (2011). An investigation of employees’ use of e-learning systems: applying the technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information
Technology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.577190.
Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Ma, C.-Y. (2011). A model of organizational employees’ e-learning system acceptance. Knowledge -Based Systems, 24(3), 355–366.
Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of non-normality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 1–27.
Liao, C.-H., & Huang, W.-L. (2009). Community adaptability, computer and Internet self-efficacy, and intention of blended e-learning. International Journal of Society Systems
Science, 1(3), 209–226.
Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Chen, J.-L. (2009). Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: toward a technology continuance theory (TCT). International Journal of Information
Management, 29(4), 309–320.
Liaw, S.-S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the Blackboard system. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 864–873.
Limayem, M, Hirt, S. G., & Chin, W. G. (2001). Intention does not always matter: the contingency role of habit on IT usage behavior. In Proceedings of the 9th European
conference on information systems (ECIS 2001) (pp. 274–286). Bled, Slovenia, June 27–29, 2001.
Lin, T.-C., & Huang, C.-C. (2008). Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: an integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit.
Information & Management, 45(6), 410–417.
Liu, Y., Li, H., & Carlsson, C. (2010). Factors driving the adoption of m-learning: an empirical study. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1211–1219.
Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 3(2), 1–42.
Losh, E. (2011). YouTube pedagogy: finding communities of practice in a distributed learning world. Retrieved from. http://learningthroughdigitalmedia.net/youtube-pedagogy-
finding-communities-of-practice-in-a-distributed-learning-world.
McGill, T. J., & Klobas, J. E. (2009). A task-technology fit view of learning management system impact. Computers & Education, 52(2), 496–508.
Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: toward clarification of the construct and an integrative
framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 126–163.
Michas, I. C., & Berry, D. C. (2000). Learning a procedural task: effectiveness of multimedia presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(6), 555–575.
Moos, D. C., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: a literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2),
576–600.
Murugiah, K., Vallakati, A., Rajput, K., Sood, A., & Challa, N. R. (2011). YouTube as a source of information on cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation, 82(3), 332–334.
Muthitacharoen, A., Pallvia, P. C., Brooks, L. D., Krishnan, B. C., Otondo, R. F., & Retzlaff-Robert, D. (2006). Reexamining technology acceptance in online task behaviours.
Electronic Markets, 16(1), 4–15.
Nance, W. D., & Straub, D. W. (1996). An investigation of task/technology fit and information technology choices in knowledge work. Journal of Information Technology
Management, 7(3&4), 1–14.
Nargundkar, R. (2008). Marketing research: Text and cases (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Tata McGraw Publishing Company.
Niederhauser, D. S., & Perkmen, S. (2010). Beyond self-efficacy: measuring pre-service teachers’ instructional technology outcome expectations. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(3), 436–442.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25–48.
Ong, C.-S., & Lai, J.-Y. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 816–829.
Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers’ acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management,
41(6), 795–804.
Oum, S., & Han, D. (2011). An empirical study of the determinants of the intention to participate in user-created contents (UCC) services. Expert Systems with Applications,
38(12), 15110–15121.
Pagani, M. (2006). Determinants of adoption of high speed data services in the business market: evidence for a combined technology acceptance model with task technology
fit model. Information & Management, 43(7), 847–860.
Palmiter, S., & Elkerton, J. (1993). Animated demonstrations for learning procedural computer-based tasks. Human-Computer Interaction, 8(3), 193–216.
Park, J. C. (2009). Video allows young scientists new ways to be seen. Learning and Leading with Technology, 36(8), 34–35.
Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2009). User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: an application of the technology acceptance model.
International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 196–209.
Park, Y., Son, H., & Kim, C. (2012). Investigating the determinants of construction professionals’ acceptance of web-based training: an extension of the technology acceptance
model. Automation in Construction, 22, 377–386.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1995). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y.-K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47(2), 222–244.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.
Rawstorne, P., Jayasuriya, R., & Caputi, P. (1998). An integrative model of information systems use in mandatory environments. In Proceedings of international conference on
information systems (pp. 325–330). Brisbane, Australia.
Reeves, B., Lombard, M., & Melwani, G. (1992). Faces on the screen: pictures or natural experience? In Proceedings the mass communication division at the annual conference of
the international communication association. Miami, FL.
Rigby, C. S., Deci, E. L., Patrick, B. C., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Beyond the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy, self-determination in motivation and learning. Motivation and Emotion,
16(3), 165–185.
Roca, J. C., Chiu, C.-M., & Martinez, F. J. (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 64(8), 683–696.
Rodriguez, M. A. (2002). Development of diagrammatic procedural instructions for performing complex one-time tasks. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
14(3&4), 405–422.
Rössler, B., Lahner, D., Schebesta, K., Chiari, A., & Plöchl, W. (2012). Medical information on the Internet: quality assessment of lumbar puncture and neuroaxial block
techniques on YouTube. Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.12.048.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, D. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Ryu, M.-H., Kim, S., & Lee, E. (2009). Understanding the factors affecting online elderly user’s participation in video UCC services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3),
619–632.
Saadé, R. G. (2007). Dimensions of perceived usefulness: toward enhanced assessment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(2), 289–310.
Sánchez, R. A., & Hueros, A. D. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.
Schunk, D. H. (1983). Reward contingencies and the development of children’s skills and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(5), 511–518.
Seyal, A. H., Rahman, M. B., & Rahim, M. M. (2002). Determinants of academic use of the Internet: a structural equation model. Behaviour & Information Technology,
21(1), 71–86.
Shang, R.-A., Chen, Y.-C., & Shen, L. (2005). Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations for consumers to shop on-line. Information & Management, 42(3), 401–413.
Shee, D., & Wang, Y. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: a methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications. Computers &
Education, 50(3), 894–905.
Shifman, L. (2011). An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444811412160.
Shih, H.-P. (2004). An empirical study on predicting user acceptance of e-shopping on the Web. Information & Management, 41(3), 351–368.
Steuer, J. (1992). Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42(4), 73–93.
Strong, D. M., Dishaw, M. T., & Bandy, D. B. (2006). Extending task technology fit with computer self-efficacy. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 37(2/3), 96–107.
Sukoco, B. M., & Wu, W. (2011). The effects of advergames on consumer telepresence and attitudes: a comparison of products with search and experience attributes. Expert
Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7396–7406.
Sun, P.-C., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner
satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202.
Swanson, E. B. (1988). Information system implementation: Bridging the gap between design and utilization. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.
Szymanski, D. M., & Hise, R. T. (2000). E-satisfaction: an initial examination. Journal of Retailing, 76(3), 309–322.
Tan, C.-H., Yang, X., & Teo, H.-H. (2007). When counterfactual thinking meets the technology acceptance model: an investigation. In T. McMaster, D. Wastell, E. Ferneley, &
J. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings of international federation for information processing: Organizational dynamics of technology based innovation (pp. 11–15). Boston, MA:
Springer.
Teo, T. (2009). Is there an attitude problem? reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1139–1141.
Teo, T., Lim, V., & Lai, R. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage. OMEGA: International Journal of Management Science, 27(1), 25–37.
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: a structural
equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645–1653.
To, P.-L., Liao, C., Chiang, J. C., Shih, M.-L., & Chang, C.-Y. (2008). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting the adoption of Instant Messaging in organizations. Computer
Standards & Interfaces, 30(3), 148–156.
Tung, F.-C., & Chang, S.-C. (2008). Nursing students’ behavioral intention to use online courses: a questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(9), 1299–
1309.
Van Hooijdonk, C., & Krahmer, E. (2008). Information modalities for procedural instructions: the influence of text, pictures, and film clips on learning and executing RSI
exercises. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 51(2), 50–62.
Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Van Der Kloot, W. A. (2001). Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(5),
777–792.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information System
Research, 11(4), 342–365.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000a). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000b). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the work place. Journal of Applied Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model. Decision Sciences,
33(2), 297–316.
Wang, W., & Butler, J. E. (2007). Effects of adoption determinants in voluntary contexts on IS mandated usage. Journal of Information Science and Technology, 3(3), 5–23.
Wang, W.-T., & Wang, C.-C. (2009). An empirical study of instructor adoption of web-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 761–774.
Wang, Y.-S., Wang, H.-Y., & Shee, D. Y. (2007). Measuring e-learning systems success in an organizational context. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1792–1808.
Watson, G., Butterfield, J., Curran, R., & Craig, C. (2010). Do dynamic work instructions provide an advantage over static instructions in a small scale assembly task? Learning
and Instruction, 20(1), 84–93.
Weiss, R. E., Knowlton, D. S., & Morrison, G. R. (2002). Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: theoretical heuristics for effective design. Computers in
Human Behavior, 18(4), 465–477.
White, J. W. (2009). Coffy, YouTube, and Uncle Ben: the use of film and new media in the teaching of African American Studies at the University of Hawaii. New Media in
Higher Education, 42(1/2), 47–53.
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching Internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages,
and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), Retrieved from. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/wright.html.
Wu, J.-H., Chen, Y.-C., & Lin, L.-M. (2007). Empirical evaluation of the revised end user computing acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 162–174.
Wu, J., Tennyson, R., & Hsia, T. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment. Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164.
Yang, C., Hsu, Y.-C., & Tan, S. (2010). Predicting the determinants of users’ intentions for using YouTube to share video: moderating gender effects. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 13(2), 141–152.
Yen, D. C., Wu, C.-S., Cheng, F.-F., & Huang, Y.-W. (2010). Determinants of users’ intention to adopt wireless technology: an empirical study by integrating TTF with TAM.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 906–915.
Yi, M. Y., Jackson, J. D., Park, J. S., & Probst, J. C. (2006). Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view. Information
& Management, 43(3), 350–363.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(2), 88–100.
Zhao, L., Lu, Y., Huang, W., & Wang, Q. (2010). Internet inequality: the relationship between high school students’ Internet use in different locations and their Internet self-
efficacy. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1405–1423.
Zhu, Y.-Q., Chen, L.-Y., Chen, H.-G., & Chern, C.-C. (2011). How does Internet information seeking help academic performance? – The moderating and mediating roles of
academic self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2476–2484.
Zigurs, I., & Buckland, B. K. (1998). A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 313–334.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 202–231). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Computers & Education: Doo Young Lee, Mark R. Lehto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education: Doo Young Lee, Mark R. Lehto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computers & Education 61 (2013) 193–208

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension

3. Literature review & development of research hypotheses

3.1. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

H1a: Perceived usefulness positively affects behavioral intention.

Fig. 1. The proposed conceptual framework 44.

3.2. User satisfaction

H1b: Perceived usefulness positively affects satisfaction.

3.3. Task-Technology Fit (TTF)

H4: Perceived task-technology ﬁt positively affects perceived usefulness.

3.4. Content richness

H5: Content richness positively affects perceived usefulness.

H6: Vividness positively affects perceived usefulness.

3.6. YouTube self-efﬁcacy

H7: YouTube self-efﬁcacy positively affects perceived usefulness.

4.1. Development of measurement instrument

4.3. Survey protocol

Item Demographic Frequency Percentage (%)

5.1. Descriptive statistics of the measurement instruments

5.2. Scale reﬁnement process

Construct Item Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s a

Note. CVE ¼ cumulative variance explained.

5.3. Construct validity of the measurement model

Construct Item Standardized factor loading Composite reliability

5.4. Model ﬁt of the measurement model and structural model

5.5. Hypotheses tests

Constructs AVE Construct

Model c2/df NFI CFI GFI AGFI IFI RMSEA

US1 US2 US3

TTF1 .684 .837 .738

YSE6 PEOU1 PEOU2 PEOU3 PEOU4

7. Conclusions, limitations, and future work

Author disclosure statement

The authors declare no conﬂicts of interests related to this work.

Appendix A. Measurement instruments

Behavioral intention (Lee, Hsieh, & Ma, 2011)

PEOU2: I ﬁnd YouTube to be ease to use.

Vividness (Jiang & Benbasat, 2007)

You might also like