User Acceptance of Learning Innovation: A Structural Equation Modelling Based On The GUAM Framework

Education and Information Technologies
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10341-x
User acceptance of learning innovation: A structural

equation modelling based on the GUAM framework
A. C. Obienu 1 & F. I. Amadin 2
Received: 23 June 2020 / Accepted: 16 September 2020/

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract
The continuing quest to ensure user acceptance is an ongoing management challenge and
one that has occupied information systems researchers to such an extent that technology
acceptance research is now considered to be among the more mature areas of exploration.
Several models have been developed and validated in different contexts to help explain
technology acceptance. Among these models, UTAUT is the most robust, and influential
model in predicting acceptance of information technology by its users. Despite being a
robust model, UTAUT was limited (throttled) by its poor variance on Learning Innovations.
Hence, inappropriate for learning innovation adoption. Aiming to solve this problem, this
study proposed and validated a generic usability and acceptance model (GUAM) with a
view to measure behavioural intention in accepting and using learning innovations. Our
proposed GUAM incorporates four constructs: user expectancy, institutional supports, social
influence, and perceived system expectations. Individual differences—such as, age, gender,
awareness, accessibility, and experience—were hypothesized to moderate the effects of
these constructs on behavioral intention and innovation use. Measures for the study were
developed while some were adopted from previous studies, and a questionnaire tagged
Learning Innovations Adoption Questionnaire was used. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses were used to test and better understand the underlying structure of the
proposed model, using structural equation modelling (SEM). Results from the survey with
learning innovation use data, of 1357 respondents supported our generic model. Compared
to UTAUT, the proposed GUAM produced a substantial improvement in the variance
explained in behavioral intention (72%) and technology use (63%) of learning innovations.
This study proved that domain-based model outperforms a general adoption model, which
attempts to address several classes of technologies.
Keywords Learning innovation . Technology acceptance model . Structural equation

Modelling . UTAUT . GUAM
1 Introduction
The introduction of the technological innovations into the learning environment has
ushered in a new era of teaching and learning (Park 2009). If properly used,
technological innovations hold great promise to enhance teaching and learning in

addition to shaping workforce opportunities. To Hariri and Roberts (2015), Learning
Innovations (LIs) are all forms of technological innovations that impact learning. Some
salient and meaningful research show that LIs do exist (Mayes et al. 2009; Nachmias
and Ram 2009). These include Interactive Whiteboard (Dostál 2011), Learning Man-
agement Systems such as Edmodo, Moodle (Marchewka et al. 2007; El-Gayar and
Moran 2006), Google Apps for Education (Amadin et al. 2018a, b; Yamin and Lee
2010), Virtual Learning Environment (Van-Raaij and Schepers 2008), e-Library (Latif
et al. 2011), and email system (Amadin and Obienu 2016; Yamin and Lee 2010).
However, because they are new and not considered the norm, they tend to be confined
and their usage limited (Hariri and Roberts 2015).
Understanding users’ acceptance is a key factor for the development and success of
learning innovations (LIs). Although the use of these innovations may help learning
institutions improve their services, but their usage is not guaranteed by the intended
users (Oye et al. 2012). Thus, it is vital to understand the factors leading to their
acceptance (Rogers 2003). Rahman et al. (2011, b) noted that “the acceptance of any
information system by the intended users is usually determined by certain factors”.
These factors have been studied by several researchers (Thong et al. 2004; Venkatesh
et al. 2003), and several models (Venkatesh et al. 2003) have been developed to explain
the behavioural intention and usage of information systems. These include the Tech-
nology Acceptance Model (TAM) developed by Davis (1989); the Theory of Reasoned
Action (TRA) developed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975); the Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB) developed by Ajzen (1991); the Motivational Model (MM) developed
by Davis et al. (1992); a combined Theory of Planned Behaviour/Technology Accep-
tance Model (C-TPB-TAM), the Model of PC Utilization (MPCU) developed by
Thompson et al. (1991); the Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT) developed by Rogers
(1995, 2003); the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) developed by Bandura(1986) and the
Unified theory of acceptance and use (UTAUT) developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003).
Among these models, the UTAUT (see Fig. 1) is the most influential and robust
model in explaining acceptance of technological innovations by its users (Venkatesh
et al. 2003). The model was built through the review, mapping, and integration of eight
extant models stated above. According to the UTAUT, four constructs are deemed to be
direct determinants of user acceptance and usage behavior: Performance Expectancy,
Effort Expectancy, Social Influence, and Facilitating Conditions. In addition, there are
four constructs that have moderate effect on the four key hypotheses: gender, age,
experience and voluntariness (Venkatesh et al. 2003). Since its development, UTAUT
has served as a baseline model and has been applied to the study of a variety of
technologies in different settings. Supporting this, Lahtinen (2012) noted that UTAUT
is fundamentally a general adoption model which is not context-dependent.
Despite being a robust model, UTAUT was limited to the fact that UTAUT’s
variance on Learning Innovations (LIs) is poor (Mbete and Raisamo 2014; Hsu
2012; Yeboah et al. 2014), hence, inappropriate for learning innovations (Amadin
et al. 2018a, b; Hariri and Roberts 2015; Lahtinen 2012; Straub 2009). A model that
is focused on a specific class of technology will be more explanatory compared to a
general model that attempts to address several classes of technology (Evwiekpaefe et al.
2018; Amadin et al. 2018a, b). Also made evident in the literature is the fact that there is
a trend of using external constructs alongside with UTAUT, to shed light and identify
Fig. 1 Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (Venkatesh et al. 2003)”.
factors likely to influence LI adoption (Mohammad 2014; Williams et al. 2011).

Supporting this, Evwiekpaefe et al. (2018) criticized UTAUT, stating that UTAUT
model does not handle specific domains; hence, the model is constantly being modified
or extended (Oye et al. 2012; Nassuora 2012, Jong and Wang 2009). Researchers in the
field of LIs, that adopted UTAUT model had to modify/extend UTAUT model first by
adding new constructs (see Table 1), before adapting it in their study (Oye et al. 2012;
Nassuora 2012, Maldonado et al. 2011; Latif et al. 2011; Yamin and Lee 2010; Jong
and Wang 2009; El-Gayar and Moran 2006).
For instance, Latif, et al. (2011) extended UTAUT to investigate postgraduate
students’ intention to use digital library in Malaysian. The modified UTAUT takes
into account “Information quality” and “system quality”, as a key determinant of
behavioural intention to use and system use. Results reveals significance of perfor-
mance expectancy, information quality, and effort expectancy, while system quality
had no effect on digital library use. Likewise, the work of Abu-Al-Aish and Love
(2013), entitled “Factors Influencing Students’ Acceptance of M-Learning: An Inves-
tigation in Higher Education”, extended the UTAUT model to understand factors/
variables likely to influence mobile learning acceptance in higher education. This
modified model accounted for “Quality of Service” and “Personal innovativeness”,
alongside with the UTAUT constructs. Their result reveals that influence of lecturers,
performance expectancy, quality of service, effort expectancy, and personal innova-
tiveness were all predictors that affect intention to use m-learning. However, most
modified models of UTAUT were targeted on the acceptance and use of a single
technology (Oye et al. 2012; Latif et al. 2011; Yamin and Lee 2010; El-Gayar and
Moran 2006), thereby resulting in several fragmented models. Despite these modified/
extended models on LI adoption, challenges persist (Martins et al. 2014). The extant
models lack the ability to propose appropriate evaluation criteria for learning institu-
tions (Hariri and Roberts 2015). This has impelled several researchers to question the
Table 1 UTAUT and its extensions towards learning innovations
Authors Variable Findings Conceptual Gap

Proposed
Hariri and Roberts UTAUT “Findings revealed that SRE and VI 1. The model was based on the
(2015) +SRE are main predictors of academic experience of university staff
+SL staff acceptance and use learning only, needs to be validated with
+RE innovations.” from students’ perspective.
+TR 2. Although it accounted for
+VI educational related factors, it
neglected some of the
contributions made by other
researchers. This includes attitude
towards using technology,
technology accessibility,
technology awareness etc.
3. Need further empirical validation
since most proposed construct
was found insignificance.
4. This model was tested for limited
sample size.
Abu-Al-Aish and “UTAUT” “The results indicate that PE, EE, SI, 1. This model is based on the
Love (2013) +QoS QoS, and PI were main experience of students’
+PI significant factors that affect BI perspective only, needs to be
to adopt m-learning.” validated with from university
staff perspective.
2. The model assumed that users are
aware of the technology being
provided.
Chian-Son (2012) UTAUT “SI, PI, SL, PE, and PC significantly 1. This model lacks the ability to
+ PI influenced e-library acceptance.” propose appropriate assessment
+ SL criteria for learning institutions.
2. The model was developed to
measure the acceptance of a
single technology (e-library
acceptance).
Oye et al. (2012) UTAUT “Findings indicate that PE, AX and 1. The model was developed to
+ AX ATUT are the most influential measure only staff members
+ SE predictors of ICT acceptance and acceptance of ICT.
+ATUT use.” 2. The model assumed that users are
aware of the technology being
provided.
3. It failed to account for SRE and
VI, which has been proven to
predict users’ acceptance.
Latif et al. (2011) UTAUT “Finding reveals that PE, EE and IQ 1. The model was developed to
+IQ are positively related to the BI to measure students’ acceptance of
+SQ use digital library.” digital library.
2. The theoretical perspective on
user acceptance is very weak in
providing prescriptive guidance
to researchers when investigating
adoption in schools.
3. The model neglected the
researchers.
Table 1 (continued)
Authors Variable Findings Conceptual Gap

Proposed
Maldonado et al. UTAUT “The study suggests e-LM and SI as 1. The model is silent about several
(2011) + a significant on e-portal accep- factors relating to staff/students’
e-LM tance”. acceptance.
2. This model does not give the full
picture whether an individual will
adopt a particular technology or
not.
Dulle and UTAUT “Amongst their findings, PE, EE, 1. No further empirical work carried
Minishi-Majanja +TA ATUT, and TA, were established out to validate the model.
(2011) +ISE as the key determinants for the 2. The model was developed
+ATUT researchers’ BI of open access specifically for open access
usage.” usage.
Yamin and Lee UTAUT “Finding reveals that ATUT, EE, 1. The model was developed to
(2010) + VU and PE are the main predictors of measure the acceptance and use
+AX BI to use the stud e-mail system”. of university e-mail system.
+SE 2. The model is weak in providing
+ATUT directions for improvements in
learning institution.
Giannakos and UTAUT “Learners who are using longer 1. The model was developed mainly
Panayiotis +SCT webcasts have significant higher for the adoption and use of a
(2011) +TPB levels of Behavioural Intention to single technology.
use it. Social influence and PE 2. The literature lacks further
are influenced by Webcast research validating and
duration.” supporting the use of the
model.””
Pynoo et al. (2011) UTAUT “PE and SI appeared to be the main 1. The education specific factors
predictors of DLE. EE and FC are were not measured in the original
of minor importance, UB UTAUT model, thereby
predicted by ATUT and BI.” rendering UTAUT inefficient
within the higher-education con-
text.
Marchewka et al. “UTAUT” “Finding reveals that EE and SI 1. The model was not developed
(2007) influence BI to use course within the higher education
management software.” context.”
2. There is a trend of using other
constructs alongside with the
existing models, to shed light and
identify factors likely to influence
LI adoption
El-Gayar and UTAUT “Results showed that variables of 1. The model was mainly to evaluate
Moran (2006) + SE PE, EE, ATUT, SE are key users’ acceptance of mobile
+ATUT components of BI.” computing devices Tablet PC.
+ANX 2. The model neglected the
researchers.
ATUT Attitudes Towards Use of Technology, BI Behavioural Intent, CAX Computer Anxiety, e-LM - E-
learning motivation, ISE Internet Self Efficacy, IQ Information Quality, CSE Computer Self Efficacy, PE
Performance Expectancy, SRE Student Requirements and expectation. SL Student Learning, SQ Systems
Quality, QoS Quality of Service, PI Personal Innovativeness, TA Technology Awareness, IV Innovation
Visibility, VU Voluntariness of Use
suitability of the extant models in this intricate issue in IS research, indicating a possible
gap for researchers to fill.
From our review, findings revealed that researchers are now confronted with a
choice among several of models, of which they must choose a “favoured model” and
mostly ignore the contributions from other models or “pick and choose” constructs
(variables) across the extant models. It is therefore questioned if the models of
acceptance and usage that were developed, modified and extended for a particular
technology in a specific environment can be adequately used with its predefined
dimensions in a changing technology/environment (Evwiekpaefe et al. 2018;
Lahtinen 2012). Obviously, this has posed a limitation on the general use of extant
models since it is not clear which specific model to be adopted to accomplish a specific
goal (Evwiekpaefe et al. 2018). Thus, the need for the development of a generic model,
which can predict the adoption of several learning innovations became paramount. By
doing so, future researchers would need not to search, collate and integrate constructs
from different models but instead could just apply the generic model to gain an
understanding of a variety of problems related to learning innovation adoption. To this
end, this study dedicated itself to the development of a base (generic) model for
Learning Innovations. Such a focused model will provide developers and educators
with levers to augment acceptance and use (Park 2009; Brown et al. 2010).
2 Conceptual framework and hypotheses development
2.1 Conceptual framework
In literature, several constructs (see Table 1) seemed to be significant direct determi-

nants of behavioural intention or usage (Venkatesh et al. 2003). Of these, we hypoth-
esized that four main constructs will play major roles as direct determinants of “user
acceptance” and “usage behavior”: “user expectancy”, “social influence”, “institutional
supports” and “perceived system expectations”. Figure 2 presents a multi-level generic
framework to be tested and analyzed.
The upper part of Fig. 2 represents “higher-level contextual factors”. This include
Institutional Supports, Perceived System Expectations and Social Influence, with an
arrow pointing from each box in the higher-level factors to the base model. Institutional
attributes include facilitating conditions (Park et al. 2011), technology awareness,
technology accessibility (Park et al. 2011), trialability, and technology self-efficacy
that have cross-level effects (that is, main constructs and/or moderating constructs). In
addition, system attributes, which include task-fit, students’ requirements and expecta-
tions, and students’ learning, also act as contextual factors to the baseline model.
Finally, social attributes (e.g., subjective norm, social factor, social Image) serve as
“higher-level contextual factors” that have cross-level impacts on the base model.
As the central part of Fig. 2 shows, UTAUT was extended with the theoretical
mechanisms from UTAUT2 (Venkatesh et al. 2012). According to Venkatesh et al.
(2016), “user expectancy includes performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social
influence, hedonic motivation, and price value that influence behavioral intention and
technology use”. Since “price value” construct is not relevant in an institutional context
(Venkatesh et al. 2012), we omitted it (Park 2009). The lower part of Fig. 2 depicts
Fig. 2 A generic usability and acceptance model (GUAM) for learning innovation
“individual-level contextual factors”. The moderating effects of “gender’, “age”, and

“experience” in “UTAUT” were merged to form the individual attributes (Venkatesh
et al. 2003). Also, we added “technology awareness” and “technology accessibility” as
a moderating effect which the arrow pointing from the individual attributes box to the
base model depicts.
2.2 Model constructs
This section is a discussion of the various variables incorporated within the generic
framework, and the various moderating variables.
2.3 User expectancy (UE)
User Expectancy means “the degree which a person believes in using a particular
system or learning innovation” (Park 2009). There are four variables used in different
models that are in line with the user expectancy construct. These are “performance
expectancy”; “effort expectancy”; “attitude towards using a technology” and “hedonic
motivation” as shown in Table 2.
User expectancy is considered one of the main predictors of intention” (Lakhal et al.
2013; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Sumak et al. 2010). In the school context, the researchers
theorized that “user expectancy will have a positive influence on the behavioural
intention to use the learning innovation.”
2.4 Social influence (SI)
Venkatesh et al. (2003) defined Social influence as “the degree to which use of a certain
system (or innovation) is influenced by peers.” For example, “if an instructor decides to
use a smart board during his/her lectures, social influence factor would be what the
instructor thinks are the views/thoughts other colleagues have of him/her while using
the smart board to teach. Table 3 outlined the three constructs relating to social
attributes (Venkatesh et al. 2012): “Social factors”, “Subjective norm” and “Social
image”.
Despite several literature supports on the role of “social influence” factor in
influencing learning innovation adoption” (Lakhal et al. 2013; Sumak et al. 2010;
Rogers 2003), Venkatesh et al. (2003) argued that the construct (social influence) is
insignificant in a voluntary context. However, they noted that social influence is mainly
significant when the technology usage is mandatory. In the context of this study, the
researchers theorized that “social influence will have a positive influence on the
behavioural intention to use the learning innovation.”
2.5 Institutional supports (IS)
Institutional Supports emphasizes any institution’s support or influence on one’s

learning innovation usage (Park 2009). This construct (Institutional supports) was built
on the concepts of five variables used in extant models: “facilitating condition;
trialability; technology self-efficacy; technology awareness and technology accessibil-
ity”, as shown in Table 4.
Research findings from numerous studies revealed that this construct (institutional
supports) is the main predictor of the behavioural intention to use (Lakhal et al. 2013;
Jong and Wang 2009) or innovation actual usage (Venkatesh et al. 2003; Thompson et al.
1991). According to Venkatesh et al. (2003), Institutional support is considered a key factor
Table 2 User Expectancy: constructs, meanings and literature support
S/ Construct Definition Literature Support

N
a Performance “The degree to which an individual believes “Davis 1989, Venkatesh and Davis 2000;
Expectancy that using the technology will help him or Greenhalgh, et al. 2005; Rogers 2003;
her achieve a better school performance.” Venkatesh et al. 2003; Sumak et al.
2010; Lakhal et al. 2013; Hariri and
Roberts 2015”
b “Effort “The degree of ease associated with the use “Davis 1989; Moore and Benbasat 1991;
Expectancy” of the system (or innovation)” Oye et al. 2012.”
c Attitude “An Individual’s positive or negative feeling Oye et al. 2012; Yoo and Huang 2011;
towards (evaluative effect) about performing the Dulle and Minishi-Majanja 2011;
using a target behavior (e.g., using a system).” Yamin and Lee 2010; El-Gayar and
Technology Moran 2006; Oshlyansky et al. 2007
d “Hedonic “The degree to which an individual derived “Lewis et al. 2013; Venkatesh et al.
Motivation” fun or pleasure from using a technology” 2012; Maldonado et al. 2011; Wang
et al. 2009”
Table 3 Social constructs: constructs, meanings and literature support

N
a “Subjective “The person’s perception that people who “Venkatesh et al. 2003; Taylor and Todd
Norm” are important to him think he should or 1995; Mathieson, et al. 2001; Fishbein
should not perform the behavior in and Ajzen 1975; Davis 1989”
question.”
b “Social “The individual’s internalization of the “Venkatesh et al. 2003; Thompson et al.
Factors” reference group’s subjective culture, and 1991”
specific interpersonal agreements that the
individual has made with others, in
specific social situations.”
c “Social “The degree to which use of an innovation is “Venkatesh et al. 2003; Moore and Benbasat
Image” perceived to enhance one’s image or 1991”
status in one’s social system.”
for the successful adoption of several learning innovations. Supporting this, Shea et al.
(2005), sees the construct (Institutional supports) as a crucial element in the success of online
teaching. In the context of this study, the researchers theorized that “institutional supports
will have an influence on both behavioural intention and actual use”.
2.6 Perceived system expectations (PSE)
Perceived System Expectations are “how the capability of the system to enhance users’
job performance” (Park 2009). These include “the capabilities of the system, its
features, potential use, and benefits. The three main constructs from different models
that relate to system context are Task-Fit; “Students’ Requirements and Expectations,
and Students’ Learning,” as shown in Table 5.”
Research findings from several studies revealed that “Perceived system expectations
have a positive significant influence and also a key predictor of the behavioural
intention to use or innovation use. In line with this, Hariri and Roberts (2015) found
out that Perceived system expectations is one of the key constructs influencing the
acceptance and use of several learning innovations. In the context of this study, the
researchers theorized that Perceived system expectations will have an influence on both
behavioural intention and actual use.”
2.7 Behavioural intention (BI)
Davis in Venkatesh et al. (2003) defined Behavioural intention (BI) as “the individual‘s
readiness to perform a specific action or behaviour”. This implies that, the higher the
behavioural intention to accomplish a certain behavior is, the more likely such act will
occur (Ajzen 1991). Supporting this, Venkatesh et al. (2003) noted that the higher the
User expectancy, Institutional supports and Social influence factors, the higher the
Behavioural Intention will be.
An example of Behavioural intention construct within an institution is when an
instructor uses a teaching technique. As his/her experience increases, routine behavior
Table 4 Institutional constructs: constructs, meanings and literature support

N
a “Facilitating “The degree to which an individual Venkatesh et al. 2003; Hariri and Roberts
Conditions” believes that an institutional and 2015; Jong and Wang 2009;
technical infrastructure exists to support Lakhal et al. 2013
use of the system”
b “Trialability” “Trialability is defined as the possibility to Rogers 2003; Odumeru 2013
experiment, on a limited basis, with an
innovation”
c “Technology “The belief that one has about the “Indrati et al. (2014); Oye et al. (2012);
Self-Efficacy” capability to perform a behavior” Yu (2012) Dulle and Minishi-Majanja
(2011); El-Gayar and Moran (2006)”
d Technology Technology awareness refers to being Chiemeke et al. (2014); Krueklai et al.
Awareness mindful of the technology that is (2013); Dulle and Minishi-Majanja
recently becoming popular and is (2011); Tibenderana et al. (2010).
readily accepted in schools
e Technology “The degree of ease with which a Chiemeke and Evwiekpaefe (2011);
Accessibility university student/staff can access Park (2009).
and use a learning innovation”
becomes automatic and is guided more by the associated cues (Jasperson et al. 2005).
Consistent with extant models, behavioural intention is expected to have a positive
influence on actual usage of learning innovations. This is hypothesized as: “Behav-
ioural intention to use a learning innovation will have a significant positive influence on
actual use of the learning innovation.”
2.8 Use behaviour (UB)
Use Behaviour is simply the adoption and use of the learning innovations. This
construct (Use Behaviour) is a “dependent variable” that has been adopted by several
LI acceptance models/theories. These include the Theory of Reasoned Action, and the
Theory of Planned Behaviour. Agarwal and Prasad (2000) posited that “individual‘s
behaviour (that is, use) is influenced by the preceding forming intention to perform it”.
Several researchers (including Hariri and Roberts 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2003) have
found that the construct (Use behavior) is significantly influenced by the behavioural
intention. Likewise, the researchers will examine the effect that may be caused by the
earlier discussed independent constructs (UE, SI, IS and PSE), on this dependent
construct (UB).”
2.9 Moderators
Bearing in mind the likely moderating variables “when investigating learning innova-
tion adoption, will help predict some of the conflicts between the variables or the
variances in the explaining power found between the several adoption models/theories
in the literature (Sun and Zhang 2006). A moderating variable is an interacting term
which is said to emerge when the relationship between independent and dependent
variables is surprisingly weak or inconsistent relationship or no relationship at all, thus
the moderating variable is introduced to reduce or strengthen the relationship.
Supporting this, Venkatesh et al. (2003) noted that the inclusion of moderating
variables would enhance the predictive power of the adoption model.
Venkatesh, et al. (2003) unlocked ample opportunities for future researchers to
enhance our understanding of learning innovation acceptance and usage. Thus, they
suggested; “While the variance explained by UTAUT is quite high for behavioural
research, further work should attempt to identify and test additional boundary condi-
tions of the model in an attempt to provide an even richer understanding of technology
adoption and usage behaviour. This might take the form of additional theoretically
motivated moderating influences, different technologies (e.g., collaborative systems, e-
commerce applications), different user groups (e.g., individuals in different functional
areas), and other organizational contexts (e.g., public or government institutions).
Results from such studies will have the important benefit of enhancing the overall
generalizability of research model and/or extending the existing work to account for
additional variance in behaviour” (Venkatesh, et al. 2003). Therefore, this research
considered the moderating influence of certain variables: gender, age, awareness,
accessibility and experience.”
& Gender: Gender is the first moderating variable to be considered in this study. “In a
study by Peluchette and Rust (2005), they pointed out that male and female
lecturers have significant differences as regard to learning innovation preference.
Therefore, the difference between male and female is expected to be significant.”
& Age: Age is another moderator variable that will be investigated in this study.
Venkatesh et al. (2003) reveals that young innovation users gave more weight to
extrinsic reward. Supporting this, Sun and Zhang (2006) noted that age can
moderate a number of relationships.”
& Experience: Experience will also be considered in this study. Several researchers
(including Quazi and Talukder 2011; Venkatesh et al. 2003) found that experience
can influence the perception of technological innovations.
Table 5 System constructs: constructs, meanings and literature support

N
a Task-Fit “The degree to which the target system or technology is Chen (2011),
applicable to his or her learning” Hartwick and
Barki (1994).
b “Students‘Requirements “The degree to which an individual perceives that the Hariri and Roberts
and Expectation” use of an e-learning video conferencing tool can help (2015)
meet or exceed students‘requirements and expecta-
tions”
c “Students’ Learning” “The degree to which an individual perceives that using Hariri and Roberts
a learning innovation can improve (2015)
students‘learning.”
& Accessibility: Accessibility is also be considered as one of the moderator variable.

Park (2009) reveals that technology accessibility influence the adoption and use of
learning innovations.
& Awareness: Awareness is another moderator that will be considered in this study.
Wan et al. (2012) noted that an individual’s awareness of consequence will
significantly influenced their behavioural intention. Also, Omar (2011) found
technology awareness to perfectly moderate the relationship between the variables.
In summary, seven hypotheses (see Table 6 and Fig. 2) were postulated in this study.
Some of these hypotheses are for relationships that have been tested previously but
need to be re-examined as a result of introducing a generic model, modifications made
to the measures, and because the new model is tested for the first time in this context.
3 Materials and method
The research framework posited in Fig. 2 was empirically tested with a quantitative
survey (Venkatesh et al. 2003). Data collected were aggregated and pooled across
several learning innovations (Learning management systems such as Edmodo, Google
Classroom, Canvas, e-libraries; Virtual learning environment; Interactive smartboard;
digital library; Google apps for education). With the intent of developing a generic
model, such aggregation is needed in this research. Thus, any influence that may result
from testing the generic model against a single learning innovation can be minimized.
Furthermore, it allows for a better understanding of its suitability and helps explain its
adoption across different learning innovations. Staff members within the four institu-
tions (see Table 8), in addition with some selected students participated in the study.
The overall design of the research is cross-sectional but embedded in different levels
of triangulations (repeated cross-sectional studies, with different samples and aspects of
the phenomenon). By cross-sectional, the study is interested in understanding the users’
adoption and use of leaning innovation at a point in time, not necessarily how those
variables change over time. A questionnaire data collection technique was applied for
this fieldwork. The GUAM factors are measured by the items shown in Table 7. Each
item is scored a 7-point likert rating scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 =
strongly agree. The seven-point scale was employed to minimize a social desirability
bias and is in line with previous studies in IS research (Hariri and Roberts 2015). Some
of the items were adopted from previous studies, which were modified to fit the context
and purpose of this study.
To analyze the data, “the Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (PLS-PM)” approach
was implemented (Hair et al. 2017; Hariri and Roberts 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2003).
There are several reasons why PLS-PM was selected, which included the sample size
(Hair et al. 2010). All constructs had three (3) indicants, which makes identification
more complex using covariance-based methods, and the primary focus for this study is
on the model’s overall predictive capacity or influence on the endogenous variables”
(Venkatesh et al. 2003). Also, we have quite a number of interaction terms and PLS is
capable of testing these effects” (Venkatesh et al. 2012). PLS-PM considers both the
size of relationship effect and also the overall predictive ability (Hariri and Roberts
2015). Supporting this viewpoint, Hair et al. (2017) assert that PLS is primarily
Table 6 Research hypotheses: hypothesis and literature support
# Hypothesis Literature Support
H1 “User Expectancy will have a significant positive influence Proposed by our study
on Behavioural Intention to use learning innovation”
H2 “Social Influence will have a significant positive influence Hariri and Roberts 2015; Park 2009;
on Behavioural Intention to use learning innovation” Venkatesh et al. 2012; Sumak et al.
2010;.
H3a “Institutional Supports will have a significant influence on Proposed by our study
Behavioural Intention to use learning innovation”
H3b “Institutional supports will have a significant influence on Proposed by our study
actual Use Behaviour of learning innovation”
H4a “Perceived System Expectations will have a significant Proposed by our study
positive influence on Behavioural Intention to use
learning innovation”
H4b “Perceived System Expectations will have a significant Proposed by our study
influence on actual Use Behaviour of learning
innovation”
H5 “Behavioural intention to use a learning innovation will Venkatesh et al. 2012; Oye et al. 2012;
have a significant positive influence on actual Use Venkatesh et al. 2003.
Behaviour of learning innovation”
intended for causal-predictive analysis in situations of high complexity but low theo-
retical information. Given this study is in the early stages of model development, the
use of PLS was deemed appropriate (Hariri and Roberts 2015).”
Generally, the resulting generic model is a combined model that consists of two
components: “(1) a measurement model (that specifies the relationships between the
latent constructs and their indicator variables), and (2) a structural model (that specifies
causal relationships between the latent constructs).”
3.1 Measurement model
The measurement model specifies how the latent variables of the structural model are
measured in terms of the observed variables, which is represented by a pair of factor
equations (see Eq. 1):
Where:
Y is the vector of the observed dependent variables,
X is a vector of the observed independent variables,
ξ and δ are vectors of unique factors (that is, errors in measurement),
Λy and are matrices of loadings of the observed y variables and the observed x
Λx variables on the latent variables and the latent ξ variables respectively.
Table 7 The GUAM items
Construct I t e m Item
Code
User Expectancy (UE) UE_3 Learning through LI makes class participation and collaboration more
interesting
UE_4 Using Learning Innovation in learning is fun and entertaining,
compared to traditional method.
UE_5 Learning innovations make it easier to study course content
Institutional Support (IS) IS_1 I am aware that Learning Innovations (LIs) provided by my institution
are meant for staff and students’ use.
IS_2 My institution has made available the needed resources (adequate
computers and internet connectivity) for LIs Usage
IS_4 My institution has equipped me with the necessary skills to use any of
learning innovation I see fit.
Social Influence (SI) SI_1 People whose opinions I value would expect me to use the LI.
SI_2 Being conversant with the LIs increases my effectiveness as a
lecturer/student
SI_3 I agree with my institution support with the use of LIs for the
educational purposes
Perceived System PSE_2 Using Learning innovations leads to my exploration of new perspective
Expectations (PSE) during learning process.
PSE_3 Using LI helps me meet or exceed my expectations as a staff/student
PSE_5 I structure the LI I use to be sure that it enhances my students’ learning
process
Behavioural Intention (BI) BI_1 I intend to use LI more because it is appropriate for my
teaching/learning style.
BI_2 In future, I intend to use LI more because of the benefits.
BI_3 I will strongly recommend other peers to use learning innovations for
their teaching/learning/research purposes.
Use Behaviour (UB) UB_1 I use learning innovations for accessing online learning resources.
UB_2 I use learning innovations for online discussion and interaction
UB_3 I use learning innovations to turn in assignments
Scale labels: 1 - Strongly Disagree, 2 - Disagree, 3 - Slightly Disagree, 4 - Undecided, 5 - Slightly Agree, 6 -
Agree, 7 – Strongly Agree
3.2 Structural equation model
The structural model or latent variable model reveals the causal relationship(s) among
the latent variables (see Eq. 2):
Where:
is a vector of latent dependent variables,
ξ is a vector of latent independent variables,
ζ is a vector of errors in equations,
ß is a matrix of coefficients relating the latent dependent variables to one another,

and.
Γ
is a matrix of coefficients relating the latent independent variables to the latent(1)
dependent variables.
Hence, the structural equation model is a general matrix representation in which the
assumed causal relationships between latent variables are described. The equations of the
measurement model in essence describe the multivariate regressions of y on and of x on ξ.
Once an acceptable measurement model is developed, the measurement model will then be
converted into a hybrid model (measurement and structural model combined).”
In this study, SmartPLS v3.2.8 is used to design measurement and structural models.
SmartPLS is a free tool to design. SEM (Ringle et al. 2005). The models created in
SmartPLS are measured with Partial Least Square analysis (Hair et al. 2017; Hansmann
and Ringle 2004). Several criteria are generally used to assess model fit. This include
“Chi-square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Goodness of Fit
Index (GFI) and Parsimony Normed Fit Index (PNFI), which are all recommended to
be greater than 0.7 (Hair et al. 2017). Several researchers recommend that multiple fit
criteria be used to minimize biases in results” (Hair et al. 2017). Hence, we adopted
several fit criteria as to abate biases in findings. Thereafter, we compared GUAM (2)
model with UTAUT (Base model) to see if the variance explained by the domain base
model will outweigh that of a general adoption model.
4 Results analysis
4.1 Data and descriptive statistics
In line with previous researches (Hariri and Roberts 2015, Venkatesh et al. 2003), data
were gathered from four institutions in Nigeria (University of Jos, University of Uyo,
Covenant University, Madonna University) to“validate GUAM and add external va-
lidity of the preliminary test. The major details regarding the four participating institu-
tions are provided in Table 8. Using the Smart-PLS v3.2.8 software, we first examined
the measurement model before testing the various structural models (Hair et al. 2017).”
Out of 1600 participants contacted (400 academic staff members and 1200 students)
who started the questionnaire, only 274 staff members and 1142 students completed it,
making a total of 1416 respondents. Some of these responses were partial responses. As
a result, they were dropped. Upon the successful collection of the research data, several
statistical analyses were performed to examine the underlying relationships in the
research model using 1357 useable completed responses.
4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
CFA is “performed to validate the measurement model. Measurement model can be

assessed with convergent validity, discriminant validity and Multicollinearity” (Hair
et al. 2017). “In order to verify the convergent validity, Factor Loadings, Composite
Reliability, Average variance Extracted values were considered.”
4.3 Measurement model
By running PLS algorithm, the measurement model in Fig. 3 was created.” Ac-
cording to Hair et al. (2017), Factor loadings should be higher than 0.7 for
convergent validity. The results of CFA factor loadings are given in Table 9. From
Table 9, all outer loadings (CFA) were higher than the 0.7 recommended value by
(Hair et al. 2017), with the exception of UE_5, IS_2, IS_4 and UB_2 which had a
loading of 0.641, 0.628, 0.512 and 0.604 respectively.” However, these items were
retained due to their “content validity and also the fact that discarding them does not
further improve the average variance extracted values” (Hair et al. 2017). With
regard to“composite reliability, the researchers opined that it should be higher than
0.7” (Hair et al. 2017). As seen in Table 3, all constructs exceeded the 0.7 (between
0.715 to 0.816) threshold, “confirming the achievement of reliability for the
model.”Also, Average variance Extracted should be higher than 0.5. As seen in
Table 9, the values obtained ranged between 0.500 to 0.598, which were all greater
than the 0.5 criterion (Hair et al. 2017). The analysis of the figures for the
measurement model indices as depicted in Table 9, show that internal consistency
was achieved for the measurement model.”
4.4 Discriminant validity
“Discriminant validity was performed to show that all of the constructs were different
from each other (Kumar and Bervell 2019; Gefen and Straub 2005). Within this study,
the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion was employed. Results obtained are
shown in Table 10.”The criterion “is to have Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio values less
than 0.85 (in the strict sense) or less than 0.90 (an acceptable parameter) (Bervell and
Umar 2017; Henseler et al. 2015). The Table 10 shows that all of the constructs were
different from each other. The bolded figures (0) also indicated that there is no
discrimination between the same variable within the table.”
Since the measurement model has proven to be reliable and valid, the next step is to
develop the structural model, to explore the various paths and test the hypotheses
summarized in Table 6.
5 Structural model, moderation, and mediation
In assessing the structural model, Hair et al. (2017); Dijkstra and Henseler (2015); and
Vinzi et al. (2010) recommend the analysis of the paths relationships, confidence
interval, co-efficient of determination (R2) and predictive relevance of model (Q2).”
5.1 Path analysis
After validating the measurement model via convergent and discriminant validity, PLS
bootstrapping (BT) algorithm was run to find out the t values, to investigate the relations
between latent variables. The Fig. 4 shows the path coefficients and t values over the arrows
meanwhile showing the significant and non-significant relations. The criterion is to have t
values greater than 1.96 (alongside with p value <0.05).”From Table 11, “we assessed the
Table 8 Study sample characteristics
Factors Frequency Percentage (%)
Institution Name
Covenant University 349 25.72%
Madonna University 360 26.53%
University of Jos 315 23.21%
University of Uyo 333 24.54%
Total 1357 100.00%
Institution Type
Public 648 47.75%
Private 709 53.25%
Total 1357 100.00%
Respondent Category
Staff 251 18.50%
Students 1106 81.50%
Total 1357 100.00%
Gender
Male 608 44.80%
Female 749 55.20%
Total 1357 100.00%
Age
<20 years 354 26.09%
20–30 years 501 36.92%
30–40 years 330 24.32%
>40 years 172 12.67%
Total 1357 100.00%
Academic Qualification
O’Level 625 46.06%
B.Sc. 312 22.99%
M.Sc. 260 19.16%
Ph.D. 160 11.79%
Total 1357 100.00%
determinants of behavioural intention of staff and students towards various learning inno-
vations use and actual use.
The results indicate that perceived system expectations (t = 6.994, p < 0.001), social
influence (t = 3.395, p < 0.001) and user expectancy (t = 2.111, p < 0.01) were signifi-
cant predictors of behavioural intention towards Learning innovations usage. Construct
such as institutional supports was insignificant in determining behavioural intention of
staff/students since its t value is less than 1.96 and p value greater than 0.05″ (Hair et al.
2017). Additionally, the significant determinants of use behaviour of Learning innova-
tions were perceived system expectations (t = 2.792, p < 0.01), institutional supports
Fig. 3 Measurement (Path Analysis) model
(t = 4.557, p < 0.001) and behavioural intention (t = 6.380, p < 0.001). “Assessment of
the confidence intervals for each significant path showed unidimensionality, which
indicates a high confidence (up to 97.5%) in the significant paths.”
& Coefficient of determination (R2)
Table 12 contains the results on the coefficient of determination for the endogenous
constructs within this study. Coefficient of determination which is the variance ex-
plained by each of the predictor variable on the endogenous factor was 0.723 for overall
Learning Innovation usage intention. According to the criteria by Kline (2015), coef-
ficient values of 0.25, 0.50 and 0.70 indicate weak, moderate and high, respectively.”
This means that the model explained 72.3% variance in staff/students’ intentions to
use Learning innovation when enabling factors (user expectancy, institutional supports,
perceived system expectations, and social influence) are modelled together. This
coefficient of determination value indicates that for the endogenous variable (BI), the
variance explained was relatively high as well as the variance explained by the model
on actual usage (63.3%).”
& Predictive relevance of the Model (Q2)
“Figures for assessing the predictive relevance of the tested model are depicted in
Table 13. Predictive relevance (Q2) is said to be weak, moderate or strong, when the
values are 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 respectively (Hair et al. 2017; Kline 2015). From
Table 13, each endogenous construct obtained a value that was higher than 0.15,
indicating high model predictive relevance for the hypothesized model of the study.”
Table 9 “Internal consistency measures for structural model
Construct Indicators Factor Composite Alpha (α) Average Variance

Loading (λ) reliability Extracted (AVE)
User Expectancy (UE) UE_3 0.803

UE_4 0.762 0.781 0.868 0.545
UE_5 0.641
Institutional Supports (IS) IS_1 0.862
IS_2 0.628 0.715 0.849 0.500
IS_4 0.512
Social Influence (SI) SI_1 0.749
SI_2 0.839 0.816 0.804 0.598
SI_3 0.727
Perceived System Expectations (PSE) PSE_2 0.732
PSE_3 0.700 0.755 0.885 0.506
PSE_5 0.702
Behavioural Intention (BI) BI_1 0.709
BI_2 0.778 0.795 0.842 0.565
BI-3 0.766
Use Behaviour (UB) UB_1 0.811
UB_2 0.604 0.750 0.789 0.504
UB_3 0.700
& Goodness -of- Fit Index
Goodness-of-Fit (GOF) is applied as an index for the complete model fit to verify that
the model sufficiently explains the empirical data (Henseler and Sarstedt 2012;
Tenenhaus et al. 2005). As regards model fit, the model went through a number of
iterations until a good model was realized. Based on experts’ recommendations (e.g.
Hair et al. 2017; Henseler and Sarstedt 2012) and by following a number of iterations to
improve mode fit, the above CFA model (see Fig. 4) was reached as it adequately fits
the data. Table 14 shows the goodness of fit indices of the final CFA model, which
indicate that a good model fit has been attained.
Table 10 Values for discriminant validity assessment
Construct PSE BI IS SI UB UE
PSE 0
BI 0.839 0
IS 0.240 0.261 0
SI 0.699 0.688 0.380 0
UB 0.653 0.764 0.402 0.690 0
UE 0.692 0.617 0.168 0.664 0.518 0
Fig. 4 Bootstrap image for path analysis
5.2 IPMA for BI towards learning innovation utilization
Results from Important-Performance Map Analysis (IPMA analysis) is shown in

Table 15, and depicted by the graph in Fig. 5. “From Table 15 and Fig. 5, the IPMA
showed that the most important performing interaction factor determining staff/stu-
dents’ Learning innovation usage intention was perceived system expectations (0.448:
83.867). This was followed by social influence (0.227: 81.580). ”.
5.3 IPMA for UB towards learning innovation utilization
Results from IPMA analysis is shown in Table 16 and depicted by the graph in Fig. 6.
From Table 16 and Fig. 6, the IPMA showed that the most important performing
Table 11 Path analysis results
Relationships “Beta-Value” “T- Statistics” f-Squared (f2) p value “Confidence Interval”
2.5% 97.5%
BI ➔ UB 0.666 6.380** 0.367 0.000 0.301 0.576

IS ➔ BI 0.053 1.239 0.009 0.216 −0.024 0.122
IS ➔ UB 0.248 4.557** 0.166 0.000 0.128 0.315
PSE ➔ BI 0.704 6.994** 0.772 0.000 0.330 0.584
PSE ➔ UB 0.059 2.794** 0.003 0.005 0.047 0.302
SI➔ BI 0.159 3.395* 0.037 0.001 0.092 0.362
UE ➔ BI 0.022 2.111* 0.001 0.035 0.002 0.219
*p < 0.01; **p < 0.001

Table 12 Model variance
Construct R Square R Square Adjusted
BI 0.723 0.720
UB 0.633 0.630
interaction factor determining staff/students’ actual Leaning innovation usage was

behavioural intention (0.448: 84.646), indicating the extent of the influence of behav-
ioural intention on actual use of LI.” The is inline previous studies (Venkatesh et al.
2003; Amadin and Obienu 2016).
5.4 GUAM and UTAUT models comparison
In line with Venkatesh et al. (2012), “we run four separate models to test the support for
baseline UTAUT (direct effects only), baseline UTAUT (direct and moderated effects),
GUAM (direct effects only) and GUAM (direct and moderated effects). Table 17
reports the results of predicting behavioral intention and use in keeping with UTAUT
and GUAM.”
As shown in Table 17, the basic structure of UTAUT was confirmed, except for
effort expectancy (EE). “There were significant effects for performance expectancy
(PE), and social influence (SI) on behavioral intention (BI), and both BI and facilitating
conditions (FC) had significant impacts on use. When interaction terms were included,
significant path coefficients were found with all higher-order interaction terms, such as
PE × GDR × AGE; EE × AGE × GDR× EXP; and SI × AGE × GDR × EXP when
predicting BI, and FC × AGE × EXP when predicting use. The variance in.
behavioral intention explained by UTAUT with direct effects only and UTAUT with
moderated effects also was quite good at 33% and 41% respectively, and the variance
explained in technology use was 22% and 28%, respectively.”
“More so, the basic structure of GUAM was also confirmed. As shown in Table 17,
there were significant effects for user expectancy (UE), perceived system expectations
(PSE), and social influence (SI) on behavioral intention (BI), and BI, PSE and
institutional supports (IS) had significant impacts on use. When interaction terms were
included, significant path coefficients were found with all higher-order interaction
terms, such as PSE × AGE × GDR; UE × AGE × GDR; and SI × AGE × GDR ×
Table 13 “Model predictive relevance values”
Constructs “SSO” “SSE” “Q2 (=1-SSE/SSO)”
PSE 1089.000 1089.000

BI 1089.000 738.966 0.321
IS 1089.000 1089.000
SI 1089.000 1089.000
UB 1089.000 822.608 0.245
UE 1089.000 1089.000
Table 14 Model Fit Indices for final model
Model-Fit Obtained “Recommended Values (Henseler and Sarstedt 2012; Hair et al. 2010)”
Parameters Values
A. Absolute Fit Indices

Chi-square 206.711
(χ2):
DF: 118
P value: 0.000 “Recommended to be less than 0.05”
RMSEA 0.079 “Recommended to be less than 0.1″
GFI: 0.853 “Between 0 and 1. Higher values indicate good model fit. A value of 1 indicates
perfect fit.”
B. Incremental Fit Indices
CFI: 0.908 “Between 0 and 1. Higher values indicate good model fit. Values close to 1
indicate very good fit.”
NFI: 0.875 “Recommended to be above 0.8”
TLI: 0.879 “Recommended to be above 0.8”
C. Parsimonious Fit Indices
CMIND/DF: 1.752 “Below 5. The less, the better”
AGFI: 0.814 “Recommended to be above .80”
PNFI: 0.802 “Between 0 and 1. Higher values indicate good model fit. A value of 1 indicates
perfect fit.”
CMIN/DF Chi-square/degree of freedom, P Probability value, RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approx-
imation, GFI Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index, CFI Comparative Fit Index, NFI
Normed Fit Index, TLI Tucker Lewis Index, PNFI Parsimony Normed Fit Index
EXP when predicting BI, and PSE x AGE x GDR x ACC; IS x AGE x AWA x EXP;
BI x ACC x EXP when predicting use.”
The direct effects only explained 54% of the variance in behavioral intention and the
GUAM including interaction terms explained 72% of the variance in behavioral
intention. Likewise, in explaining technology use, GUAM’s direct effects only model
and moderated model explained 45% and 63% of the variance, respectively.”
5.5 Discussion of findings
While learning innovations development and deployment continues to increase, expe-

riences and benefits of these innovations have largely not been widespread (Hariri and
Table 15 IPMA values for behavioural intention
Constructs Importance Performance
PSE 0.488 83.867

SI 0.227 81.580
UE 0.126 84.735
IS 0.053 72.579
Fig. 5 IPMA for Learning Innovations Behavioural Intention
Roberts 2015; Oye et al. 2012). Thus, “it is important to understand the reasons leading
to the acceptance and use of technological innovations in schools” (Venkatesh et al.
2003). This study proposes and validates a generic usability and acceptance model
(GUAM) with a view to measuring behavioural intention to accept and use learning
innovations. Our proposed GUAM incorporates four constructs: user expectancy,
institutional supports, social influence, and perceived system expectations. “Individual
differences— namely, age, gender, awareness, accessibility, and experience—are hy-
pothesized to moderate the effects of these constructs on behavioural intention and
technology use.
We assessed the determinants of behavioural intention of staff and students towards
various learning innovations and actual use. Based on the results from a two-stage
survey with learning innovation use data collected after the first survey, of 1,357
respondents supported our generic model. The results indicate that perceived system
expectations (t = 6.994, p < 0.001), social influence (t = 3.395, p < 0.001) and user
expectancy (t =2.111, p < 0.01) were significant predictors of behavioural intention
towards Learning innovations usage. Additionally, perceived system expectations (t =
2.792, p < 0.01), institutional supports (t = 4.557, p < 0.001) and behavioural intention
(t = 6.380, p < 0.001) were significant predictors of actual usage. To this end, all the
research hypotheses were supported, except for the influence of institutional supports
Fig. 6 IPMA for learning innovations use behaviour

Table 16 IPMA values for LI Use behaviour
Constructs Importance Performance
BI 0.448 84.646
PSE 0.373 83.867
IS 0.204 72.579
on behavioural intention, which has a t-value less than 1.96 and p-value greater than
0.05. It is also worth noting that the main predictor of LI actual usage in this study was
perceived system expectations.” The IPMA result proved the variable to be the main
factor in determining the extent of actual usage of LI.
H1 was hypothesizing the influence of user expectancy on their behavioural inten-
tion to use learning innovation. The results showed that user expectancy positively
affects staff and students’ intentions to use learning innovation (H1: β = 0.022, t =
2.111, p < 0.05). This implies that user expectancy, which is the degree to which a
person believes in using a particular learning innovation, is significant predictor of
behavioural intention. Therefore, H1 is supported. This is in line with the previous
studies discussing the relationship between user expectancy and behavioural intentions
(Amadin et al. 2018a, b; Venkatesh et al. 2016; Venkatesh et al. 2003; Wong et al.
2013). Sun and Zhang (2006) in their review of a number of studies found that in 71 out
of 72 studies, Perceived Usefulness mostly had a significant influence on behavioural
intention. Yamin and Lee (2010) used ‘modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology’ (UTAUT) to study the acceptance and behavioural intention of the
UCSI Student E-mail system and observed that user expectation influences behavioral
intention significantly. In another study, Tosuntas et al. (2014) used ‘Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology’ (UTAUT) to study the acceptance of interactive
whiteboard in education and observed that user expectation influences behavioral
intentions of the users significantly. This finding supports the fact that positive gains
derived from system usage, especially towards the execution of job or task related
purposes, in turn influences the intention formation of users towards that innovation.
H2 was hypothesizing the influence of staff and students’ social influence on
their behavioural intention to use learning innovation. The results showed that
social influence had a significant direct effect on behavioural intention to use
learning innovation (H2: β = 0.159, t = 3.395, p < 0.01). This implies that social
influence is a significant predictor of behavioural intention of university staff.
Therefore, H2 is accepted. This hypothesis confirms the previous literature that
social influence has a significant effect on usage intention within higher education
sector (Tosuntas et al. 2014). The significant impact of social influence on usage
intentions has also been observed in other contexts (Venkatesh and Davis 2000).
The significant effect of social influence is the result of that the use of learning
innovations were deemed necessary by those who were important in the institution
including their Head of Departments and principal officers etc. Hence, social
influence may be seen as an advantage by the administration of the University
in creating usage intention towards learning innovation. Likewise, if students are
instructed strictly by the administration and lecturers to used learning innovation
Table 17 Structural model results: UTAUT and GUAM”
DV: Behavioural Intention “UTAUT” GUAM
“D Only” “D + I” “D Only” “D + 1”
R2 .33 .41 .54 .72

Adj. R2 .33 .40 .54 .72
Social influence (SI) .38** .42 .22** .16**
Performance Expectancy .21 .00
Effort expectancy (EE) .46** .32
User Expectancy (UE) .11 .02*
Perceived System Expectations (PSE) .62 .70***
Institutional Supports (IS) .12 .06
Gender (GDR) .05 .01
Age (AGE) .02 .06
Awareness (AWA) .04 .03
Accessibility (ACC) .01 .06
“Experience (EXP)” .02 .01
“PE x AGE X GDR” .22**
“EE x AGE x GDR x EXP” −.31*
“SI x AGE x GDR x EXP” .19*** .15*
“IS x AGE x AWA x EXP” −.01
“UE x AGE X GDR” −.17**
“PSE x AGE x GDR “ −.24***
DV: Use Behaviour “D Only” “D + I” “D Only” “D + 1”
R2 .22 .28 .45 .63
Adj. R2 .22 .27 .45 .63
Behavioural Intention (BI) .11** .01*** .31** .68
Facilitating conditions (FC) .58** .52*
Institutional Supports (IS) .27*** .21*
Perceived System Expectations (PSE) .12*** .04
Age (AGE) .02 .01
Awareness (AWA) .04
Accessibility (ACC) .04
Experience (EXP) .06* .01
BI x EXP .04** .00
BI x ACC x EXP .02**
“FC x AGE x EXP” .12**
“IS x AGE x AWA x EXP” .22***
“PSE x AGE x GDR x ACC” .19**
NB: “a D only: Direct effects only; D + I: Direct effects and interaction terms
b ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
c Grayed out cells are not applicable for the specific column
and/or if some students start adopting and using learning innovation, the partici-
pation of the others may increase quickly. Therefore, relevant authorities must still
focus on various ways to increase students’ acceptance and use of learning
innovation.
Nonetheless, a support was not found for H3a hypothesizing the significant effect of
institutional supports on their intentions to use learning innovation (H7: β = 0.053, t =
1.239, p > 0.05). Therefore, H3a is rejected. Given the results obtained then, the greater
the habit of students, the more likely they are to have a greater usage intention, and a
greater probability of actual use of learning innovation. This is in line with the previous
studies discussing the relationship between facilitating conditions (institutional sup-
ports) and behavioral intentions (Venkatesh et al. 2003).
In contrast to actual use, H3b, the result showed that Institutional supports also
have a significant influence on actual Use Behaviour of learning innovation (H3b:
β = 0.248, t = 4.557, p < 0.001). This implies that institutional supports is a strong
predictor of behavioural intention of university staff. Therefore, H3b is accepted.
These significant effects imply that it is important for learning institutions to have
infrastructure for supporting staff and students’ intentions to use learning innova-
tions. Evidence from scholars such as Eckhardt et al. (2009) and Venkatesh et al.
2003) shows that when academics feel that they are well supported in a variety of
ways, they will be more inclined to use the system. Learning institutions must
ensure that their staff and students have free access to the resources necessary for
the use of the learning innovations. More so, regular training can be organized;
experts may offer continuous consultancy and support to the students in order to
provide instant solution to the encountered problems.
H4a was hypothesizing the influence of Perceived System Expectations for
using a learning innovation on behavioural intention to use learning innovation.
The results showed that perceived system expectations positively affects staff and
students’ intentions to use learning innovation (H 4a : β = 0.704, t = 6.994,
p < 0.001). This implies that Perceived System Expectations, which is the degree
on how the capability of the system can enhance users’ job performance, is
significant predictor of behavioural intention. Therefore, H4a is supported. Ac-
cording to Saad (2010), Knowledge provides the technology users with the ability
to comprehend the need for a new technology and this would eventually promote
compliance. The first step towards inculcating knowledge is to create awareness.
Increased awareness of a new technology initiative is essential to gain public
acceptance and confidence, particularly in learning innovation (Noor, et al. 2014).
Thus, it is paramount to educate the intended users on what is expected from the
new innovation, as to increase their levels of compliance.
In comparison to actual use, Perceived System Expectations also had significant
positive influence on actual use behaviour of learning innovation (H4b: β = 0.059, t =
2.794, p < 0.01). This implies that Perceived System Expectations both predict behav-
ioural intention and actual use of learning innovations. Therefore, H4b is supported. The
satisfaction provided by learning innovation to students had a propensity to generate
their routine usage of the technology. As they got excited in using learning innovation,
there was the zeal for continuity in utilizing this technology. Overtime, usage of
learning innovation became natural to students which culminated into habit formation
(Kumar and Bervell 2019).
Finally, H5 was hypothesizing the influence of staff and students’ behavioural

intention on their actual use behaviour of learning innovation. The results showed that
behavioural intention positively affects staff and students’ actual use behaviour of
learning innovation (H5: β = 0.666, t = 6.380, p < 0.001). This implies that behavioural
intention, which is the user‘s readiness to perform a specific action or behaviour, is
significant predictor of actual usage. Therefore, H5 is supported. Previous studies
(Venkatesh et al. 2016; Oye, et al. 2012) reported that behavioural intention will
determine frequency of use, the extent of use; willingness and the consistency with
which learning innovation are expected to be used (Oye, et al. 2012) and use behaviour
(Venkatesh, et al. 2003).”
It is worth noting that the main predictor of use behaviour in this study was
behavioural intention. The IPMA result also proved the variable to be the most
important factor in determining the extent of actual usage of learning innovation by
staff/ students. Evidence from scholars such as Venkatesh et al. (2003) supports this
finding. The IPMA result also showed that perceived system expectations, which is
how the capability of the system to enhance users’ job performance, was the most
important variable in determining staff/students’ intention towards learning inno-
vations. This is in contrast with other findings where performance expectancy
(which liken to User expectancy construct) is the main predictor of users’ intention.
This was partly because the intended users are beginning to understand the benefits
of using the innovation. To this effect, it is important to educate intended users on
the benefits of using the new innovation. Staff/students therefore need to recognize
and exploit the various opportunities offered by learning innovations in this era,
especially if they are to be used to enhance the quality of teaching and learning
(Modernization of Higher Education Group 2013). As potential users realize the
benefits that learning innovation can offer, they will support the creative use of it
(Brown, et al. 2010).
6 Findings
The findings of this study are as follows:
& The study reaffirmed that UTAUT model is inappropriate for predicting learning
innovation adoption.
& There is a significant positive relationship between user expectancy, institutional
supports, social influence and perceived system expectations with the UTAUT
endogenous variables.
& “Perceived system expectations are important in determining both the variance
explained in behavioural intention (t = 6.994, p < 0.001), and use behavior (t =
2.792, p < 0.01).”
& IPMA analysis revealed that Perceived system expectation is more effective in
determining behavioural intention (0.448: 83.867), rather than user expectancy
(0.126: 84.735).
& “Most importantly, the study found that domain-based model outperforms a general
adoption model, which attempts to address many classes of technologies.”
7 Contributions to the literature
The research has contributed the following to knowledge:”
& Identified unique criteria that influences the usability and acceptance of Learning
Innovations.
& Development of a generic model for learning innovation adoption, explaining 72%
variance in behavioural intentions, which exceeds that of the base model (41%).
Table 18 shows the summary of the results of the seven (7) hypotheses that were
tested. Overall, the results support the applicability and validity of GUAM as a
theoretical base to predict staff/students’ behavioral intentions and use of LIs.
Compared to UTAUT, the proposed GUAM produced a substantial improvement
in the variance explained in behavioral intention (72%) and technology use (63%).
All of these represent significant jumps in variance explained compared to the
baseline UTAUT when used on learning innovation.” This study confirms the
assertion of Evwiekpaefe et al. (2018), which states that a domain-based model
will outperforms a general adoption model. Such a focus model will provide
developers and managers with levers to augment LI acceptance and usage.”
8 Conclusion and suggestion for further studies
The current study examined adoption and use of learning innovations among
academics and students in higher institutions. The study also investigated the
Table 18 Summary of hypotheses’ results
# Hypothesis Moderators t - p - Results

value value
H1 “User Expectancy have a significant positive influence on Gender, Age 2.111 0.035 Accepted
Behavioural Intention to use learning innovation”
H2 “Social Influence have a significant positive influence on Gender, Age, 3.395 0.001 Accepted
Behavioural Intention to use learning innovation” Experience
H3a “Institutional Supports have a significant influence on None 1.239 0.216 Rejected
Behavioural Intention to use learning innovation.”
H3b “Institutional supports have a significant influence on Age, 4.557 0.000 Accepted
actual Use Behaviour of learning innovation.” Accessibility,
Experience
H4a “Perceived System Expectations have a significant positive Gender, Age 6.994 0.000 Accepted
influence on Behavioural Intention to use learning
innovation.”
H4b “Perceived System Expectations have a significant Gender, Age, 2.794 0.003 Accepted
influence on actual Use Behaviour of learning Accessibility
innovation.”
H5 “Behavioural intention to use a learning innovation have a Accessibility, 6.380 0.000 Accepted
significant positive influence on actual Use Behaviour.” Experience
factors influencing adoption and use of learning innovations. Three key variables
determined behavioural intention of staff/students towards learning innovations.
User expectancy, perceived system expectations and social influence were signif-
icant in sharpening the usage intentions of staff/students for Learning innovations.
However institutional supports have insignificant influence on behavioural inten-
tion to use learning innovations. Additionally, perceived system expectations,
institutional supports and behavioural intention were significant predictors of
actual usage.”
The study was limited to four universities, two public and two privates in
Nigeria. It is therefore recommended that further studies should be conducted in
other geographical zones that present different contexts from the one studied. The
current study was also limited to only Universities. Future research should be
conducted in other universities, polytechnics, and colleges of Education. This
should include public, state, and private institutions. This would offer a holistic
view of how learning innovations are being used in teaching/learning in higher
institutions, and provide the baseline data necessary for planning in learning
institutions.” Future research should extend and cover other variables in the
GUAM. More empirical studies should be conducted on the interactions among
the moderating factors of GUAM, as to develop a more parsimonious model on LI
adoption and use.”
References
Abu-Al-Aish, A., & Love, S. (2013). Factors influencing students’ acceptance of M-learning: An investigation
in higher education. The International Journal of Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning,
14(5), 82–107.
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (2000). A field study of the adoption of software process innovations by information
professionals. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 47(3), 295–308.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50(2), 179–211.
Amadin, F. I. and Obienu, A. C. (2016). “Intention to use University E-mail system based on modified
UTAUT model: Perspectives of University of Benin Postgraduate Students”. 6th iSTEAMS multidisci-
plinary Cross_Border Conference University of professional studies, Accra Ghana 2016. Pp. 621–628.
Amadin, F. I., Obienu, A. C., & Osaseri, R. O. (2018a). Main barriers and possible enablers of Google apps
adoption among university staff members. Nigerian Journal of Technology, 37(2), 432–439.
Amadin, F. I, Obienu, A. C., and Uduehi, O. M. (2018b): Modeling acceptance and usability for learning
innovations: The conceptual gaps. 10th International Conference on Education, Business, Humanities
and Social Sciences Studies (EBHSSS-18), North-West University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory (p. 544). Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Bervell, B., & Umar, I. N. (2017). Validation of the UTAUT model: Re-considering non-linear relationships
of Exogeneous variables in higher education technology acceptance research. Eurasia Journal of
Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6471–6490.
Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating
technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9–
53.
Chen, J. L. (2011). The effects of education compatibility and technological expectancy on e-learning
acceptance. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1501–1511.
Chian-Son, Y. (2012). Factors affecting individuals to adopt Mobile banking: Empirical evidence from the
UTAUT model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 2012.
Chiemeke, S. C., & Evwiekpaefe, A. E. (2011). A conceptual framework of a modified unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model with Nigerian factors in E-commerce adoption.
International Research Journals, 2(12), 1719–1726.
Chiemeke, S. C., Evwiekpaefe, A. E., Okpo, J. A., & Irhebhude, M. E. (2014). A framework for electronic
commerce adoption: A study in Kaduna state, Nigeria. Science World Journal, 9(3), 20–26.
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
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, 1111–1132.
Dijkstra, T. K., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS-PM estimators for linear
structural equations. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 81, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
csda.2014.07.008.
Dostál, J. (2011). Reflections on the use of interactive whiteboards in instruction in international context. The
New Educational Review, 25(3), 205–220.
Dulle, F. W., & Minishi-Majanja, M. K. (2011). The suitability of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
of Technology (UTAUT) model in open access adoption studies. Information Development, 27(1), 32–
45.
Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2009). Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents' social
influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 11–24.
El-Gayar, O. F., & Moran, M. (2006). College students’ acceptance of tablet PCs: An application of the
UTAUT model. Decision Sciences Institute (DSI), 5(3), 2845–2850.
Evwiekpaefe, A. E., Chiemeke, S. C., & Haruna, M. Z. (2018). Individual and organizational acceptance of
technology theories and models: Conceptual gap and possible solutions. The Pacific Journal of Science
and Technology, 10(2), 189–197.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and
research. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co..
Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-GRAPH: tutorial and
annotated example. CAIS, 16, 91–109.
Giannakos, M., & Panayiotis, V. (2011). Investigating the effect of duration in educational webcast adoption.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 160–164.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2005). Diffusion of innovations in
health service organisations : A systematic literature review. Malden: Blackwell.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis with readings
(3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, S. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hansmann, K.-W., and Ringle, C. M. (2004). SmartPLS Manuel. Retrieved on 14th May, 2018 from http://
www.iblunihh.de/manual.pdf.
Hariri, A., & Roberts, P. (2015). Adoption of innovation within universities: Proposing and testing an initial
model. Creative Education, 6, 186–203.
Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use.
Management Science, 40(4), 440–464.
Henseler, J., & Sarstedt, M. (2012). Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Partial Least Squares Path Modeling.
Computational Statistics, 28(2), 565–580.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135.
Hsu, H. (2012). The acceptance of Moodle: An empirical study based on UTAUT. Scientific Research, 3, 44–
46.
Indrati, A., Minaji, E., Binastuti, S., and Raharjo, P. D. (2014) Comparation of model unified theory of
acceptance and use technology (UTAUT) and technology acceptance model (TAM) for internet adoption
of credit union staff, in proc. of the first international credit union conference on social micro finance and
community development, BKCU Kalimantan - Gunadarma University, pp.64–69.
Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive
behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 525–557.
Jong, D., and Wang, T. S. (2009). "Student acceptance of web-based learning system," Paper presented at the
2009International Symposium on Web Information Systems and Applications (WISA’09), Nanchang,
People’sRepublic of China, May 22–24.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling methodology in the social
sciences (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Publication.
Krueklai, S.; Kiattisin, S. and Leelasantitham, A. (2013). Analysis of factor affecting in unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) e-healthcare of government hospitals in Thailand, in proc. of
ISS & MLB, September 24-26, 2013, pp.443-451.
Kumar, J. A., and Bervell, B. (2019). Google Classroom for mobile learning in higher education: Modelling
the initial perceptions of students. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2).
Lahtinen, M. (2012). “E-invoice adoption in organisation”. Department of Marketing, Hanken School of
Economics: Helsinki, Finland.
Lakhal, S., Khechine, H., & Pascot, D. (2013). Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video confer-
encing in a distance course: Integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model. Journal of Computing in
Higher Education, 25(2), 93–121.
Latif, A., Adnan, J., & Zamalia, M. (2011). Intention to use digital library based on modified UTAUT model:
Perspectives of Malaysian postgraduate students. World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, 3(4), 34–40.
Lewis, C. C., Fretwell, C. E., Ryan, J., & Parham, J. B. (2013). Faculty use of established and emerging
technologies in higher education: a unified theory of acceptance and use of technology perspective.
International Journal of Higher Education, 2(2), 22–34.
Maldonado, U. P. T., Khan, G. F., Moon, J., & Rho, J. J. (2011). E-learning motivation and educational portal
acceptance in developing countries. Online Information Review Volume, 35, 2011.
Marchewka, J., Liu, C., & Kostiwa, K. (2007). An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student
perceptions using course management software. Communications of the IIMA, 7(2), 93–104.
Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popoviča, A. (2014). Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified
theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. International Journal of
Information Management 34(1), 1–13.
Mathieson, K., Peacock, E., & Chin, W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: The influence of
perceived user resources. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 32, 86–112.
Mayes, T., Morrison, D., Mellar, H., Bullen, P., & Oliver, M. (2009). Transforming higher education through
technology-enhances learning. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Mbete, J. S., & Raisamo, R. (2014). Investigating students behavioral intention to adopt and use mobile
learning in higher education in East Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 10(3), 4–20.
Modernization of Higher Education Group. (2013). Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning in
Europe’s Higher Education Institutions.
Mohammad, I. A. (2014). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), A decade of
validation and development. Fourth international conference on ICT in our lives 2014 ―information
systems supporting decision making” Alexandria, Egypt, December 20–22, 2014.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192–222.
Nachmias, R., & Ram, J. (2009). Research insights from a decade of campus-wide implementation of web-
supported academic instruction at Tel Aviv University. International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning, 10(2).
Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Students acceptance of Mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Learning Management Systems, 1(1), 1–9.
Noor, F. M. N., Anna, A. C. A., & Leelanayagi, R. (2014). The unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT) and the goods and service tax (GST) application system. Research Journal of
Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 8(17), 1911–1916.
Odumeru, J. A. (2013). Going cashless : Adoption of Mobile banking in Nigeria. Arabian Journal of Business
and Management Review, 1(2), 9–17.
Omar, K. A. (2011). Determinants of e-Gov adopt in Kuwait: The case of the traffic violation E-payment
system (TVEPS) paper presented at the second Kuwait conference on e-services and e-systems, Kuwait,
2011.
Oshlyansky, L.; Cairns, P., and Thimbleby, H. (2007). Validating the unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology (UTAUT) tool cross-culturally. In Proc. of the 21st British computer society HCI group
conference, Lancaster University, UK, Pp. 3-7.
Oye, N. D., Iahad, N. A., Rahim, A., & Zairah, N. (2012). A comparative study of acceptance and use of ICT
among university academic staff of ADSU and LASU: Nigeria. International Journal of Science and
Technology, 1(1), 40–52.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in Understanding University Students'
behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Park, S. H., Lee, L., & Yi, M. Y. (2011). Group-level effects of facilitating conditions on individual
acceptance of information systems. Information Technology and Management, 12(4), 315–334.
Peluchette, J. V., & Rust, K. A. (2005). Technology use in the classroom:Preferences of management faculty
members. Journal of Education for Business, 80(4), 200–205.
Pynoo, B., Devolder, P., Tondeur, J., Braak, J. V., Duyck, W., & Duyck, P. (2011). Predicting secondary
school teachers’ acceptance and use of a digital learning environment: A cross-sectional study. Computers
in Human Behaviour, 27, 568–575.
Quazi, A., & Talukder, M. (2011). Demographic determinants of adoption of technological innovation.
Journal of Computer Information, 51(3), 38–46.
Rahman A., Jamaludin, A. and Mahmud, Z. (2011). Intention to use digital library based on modified UTAUT
model: Perspectives of Malaysian postgraduate students. International Journal of Social, Behavioral,
Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 5(3).
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0 (beta), retrieved on 24th September, 2018 from
https://www.smartpls.de.
Rogers, M. E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, M. E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Saad. N. (2010). The use of technology (audiovisual aids) in teaching English as a foreign language in
Benghazi secondary schools (unpublished master thesis). Leicester University.
Shea, P., Pickett, A., & Li, C. S. (2005). Increasing access to higher education: A study of the diffusion of
online teaching among 913 college faculty. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 6(2), 1–16.
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning.
Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.
Sumak, B., Polancic, G., and Hericko, M. (2010). An empirical study of virtual learning environment adoption
using UTAUT. In 2010 second international conference on Mobile, hybrid, and on-line learning pp. 17–
22.
Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models.
Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Tenenhaus, M., Esposito Vinzi, V., Chatelin, Y.-M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, 48, 159–205.
Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing :Toward a conceptual model of
utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
Thong, J., Hong, W., & Tam, K. (2004). What leads to user acceptance of digital libraries? Communications of
the ACM, 47(11), 79–83.
Tibenderana, P., Ogao, P., Ikoja-Odongo, J., & Wokadala, J. (2010). Measuring levels of end-users’
acceptance and use of hybrid library services. International Journal of Education and Development using
Information and Communication Technology IJEDICT, 6(2), 33–54.
Tosuntas, S. B., Karadag, E., & Orhan, S. (2014). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive
whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81, 169–178.
Van-Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in
China. Computers in Education, 50(3), 838–852.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four
longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 45(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, A., Morris, M. G., & Davis, G. B. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology:
Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A
synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376. https://
doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428.
Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). Handbook of partial least squares. Berlin: Springer.
Wan, C., Cheung, R., & Shen, G. Q. (2012). Recycling attitude and behaviour in university campus: A case
study in Hong Kong. Facilities, 30(13/14), 630–646.
Wang, Y., Wu, W., & Wang, H. (2009). Investigating the Determinants and Age and Gender Differences in
the Acceptance of Mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.
Williams, M. D., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., and Lal, B. (2011). Is UTAUT really used or just cited for the
sake of it? A systematic review of citations of UTAUT’s originating article. In ECIS Proceedings.
Wong, K., Russo, S., & McDowall, J. (2013). Interactive whiteboard acceptance: applicability of the UTAUT
model to student teachers. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 22, 1–10
Yamin, M., and Lee, Y. (2010). Level of acceptance and factors influencing students’ intention to use UCSI
University’s E-mail system. 2010 International Conference on User Science and Engineering, Shah Alam,
13–15 December 2010, pp. 26–31.
Yeboah, A., Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (2014). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of
Adopting an Innovation Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Yoo, S. J., & Huang, W. D. (2011). Comparison of web 2.0 technology acceptance level based on cultural
differences. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 241–252.
Yu, C. (2012). Factors affecting individuals to adopt Mobile banking: Empirical evidence from the UTAUT
model. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 13(2), 104–121.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Affiliations
A. C. Obienu 1 & F. I. Amadin 2
* A. C. Obienu
obienu.anayochukwu@bmu.edu.ng
F. I. Amadin
frankamadin@uniben.edu
1
Department of Information Technology, Bayelsa Medical University, Yenagoa, Bayelsa State, Nigeria
2
Department of Computer Science, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria

User Acceptance of Learning Innovation: A Structural Equation Modelling Based On The GUAM Framework

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

User Acceptance of Learning Innovation: A Structural Equation Modelling Based On The GUAM Framework

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Education and Information Technologies

User acceptance of learning innovation: A structural

A. C. Obienu 1 & F. I. Amadin 2

Received: 23 June 2020 / Accepted: 16 September 2020/

Keywords Learning innovation . Technology acceptance model . Structural equation

technological innovations hold great promise to enhance teaching and learning in

factors likely to influence LI adoption (Mohammad 2014; Williams et al. 2011).

Table 1 UTAUT and its extensions towards learning innovations

Authors Variable Findings Conceptual Gap

Authors Variable Findings Conceptual Gap

2 Conceptual framework and hypotheses development

2.1 Conceptual framework

In literature, several constructs (see Table 1) seemed to be significant direct determi-

“individual-level contextual factors”. The moderating effects of “gender’, “age”, and

2.2 Model constructs

2.3 User expectancy (UE)

2.4 Social influence (SI)

2.5 Institutional supports (IS)

Institutional Supports emphasizes any institution’s support or influence on one’s

Table 2 User Expectancy: constructs, meanings and literature support

S/ Construct Definition Literature Support

Table 3 Social constructs: constructs, meanings and literature support

S/ Construct Definition Literature Support

2.6 Perceived system expectations (PSE)

2.7 Behavioural intention (BI)

Table 4 Institutional constructs: constructs, meanings and literature support

S/ Construct Definition Literature Support

2.8 Use behaviour (UB)

Table 5 System constructs: constructs, meanings and literature support

S/ Construct Definition Literature Support

& Accessibility: Accessibility is also be considered as one of the moderator variable.

3 Materials and method

Table 6 Research hypotheses: hypothesis and literature support

# Hypothesis Literature Support

3.1 Measurement model

Table 7 The GUAM items

3.2 Structural equation model

ß is a matrix of coefficients relating the latent dependent variables to one another,

4.1 Data and descriptive statistics

4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

CFA is “performed to validate the measurement model. Measurement model can be

4.3 Measurement model

4.4 Discriminant validity

5 Structural model, moderation, and mediation

5.1 Path analysis

Table 8 Study sample characteristics

Factors Frequency Percentage (%)

Fig. 3 Measurement (Path Analysis) model

& Coefficient of determination (R2)

& Predictive relevance of the Model (Q2)

Table 9 “Internal consistency measures for structural model

Construct Indicators Factor Composite Alpha (α) Average Variance

User Expectancy (UE) UE_3 0.803

& Goodness -of- Fit Index

Table 10 Values for discriminant validity assessment

Fig. 4 Bootstrap image for path analysis

5.2 IPMA for BI towards learning innovation utilization

Results from Important-Performance Map Analysis (IPMA analysis) is shown in

5.3 IPMA for UB towards learning innovation utilization

Table 11 Path analysis results

Relationships “Beta-Value” “T- Statistics” f-Squared (f2) p value “Confidence Interval”

BI ➔ UB 0.666 6.380** 0.367 0.000 0.301 0.576