Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Research article

Adoption of E-learning systems: An integration of ISSM and

constructivism theories in higher education
Amer Mutrik Sayaf
Educational Technology Department, College of Education, University of Bisha, Bisha 61922, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Based on constructivism theory and the Information System Success Model, this study suggests a
E-Learning system research model that examines the factors that influence students’ collaborative engagement and
Interactivity with peers satisfaction in an e-learning system setting. This study intends to validate the theoretical concepts
Information quality
and the Information System Success Model (ISSM) on e-learning platforms for user satisfaction
System quality
Users’ satisfaction
and collaborative activity in order to expand the adoption of e-learning systems in higher edu­
cation. This research used a questionnaire as the primary data collection method to obtain in­
formation for the study from 300 responses from different students at the University of Bisha, who
all use e-learning platforms. The results were achieved using structural equation modeling, a
quantitative research technique (SEM-AMOS). All of the study’s hypotheses were supported,
according to the findings of the structural model and hypothesis testing. The outcomes of peer
interaction (IP) and instructor interaction (IL) have a favorable impact on satisfaction and
teamwork, which have a beneficial impact on the usage of e-learning in higher education. This is
advantageous for sustainability as well as the adoption of e-learning systems. Finally, the study
demonstrates that user happiness and collaborative involvement have a favorable impact on the
utilization of e-learning systems. As a result, universities should promote e-learning as a long-
term educational strategy.

1. Introduction

Prodigious information and communication technology (ICT) advancements have impacted nearly every element of modern life
with the Internet’s explosive growth. In order to achieve the intended goals and reap the benefits associated with them, the information
system (IS) has become deeply ingrained in practically every sector, including businesses, organizations, industries, and the education
sector [1,2]. Due to its improved capacity for providing high-quality teaching, the education sector is among those promising and
lucrative industries that are most affected by the adoption of technology. However, the adoption level of e-learning affects the
e-learning environment [3,4]. The majority of institutions and their managements throughout the world presently rely on the Internet
and the IS for their educational activities since the Internet has made it possible for academic operations to be conducted without
restrictions regardless of geographical separations [5].
It is believed that the e-learning paradigm represents an expansion of the 1980s-era remote learning model of [6–8]. When it comes
to continuing education during the present global lockdown brought on by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic,
e-learning has proven to be the only option [9]. All educational institutions throughout the world have made significant investments in
e-learning, and many of the courses that were formerly offered only in the traditional classroom setting have been transformed.

E-mail address: abishi@ub.edu.sa.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13014
Received 26 October 2022; Received in revised form 8 January 2023; Accepted 13 January 2023
Available online 24 January 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

According to Ref. [10], e-learning and mobile learning are enabling all types of learning, including formal, informal, and non-formal.
People are obtaining information through mobile devices in a variety of formats and at a very rapid rate in almost every field. In order
to advance the cause of intergenerational education for sustainable development (SD), a pervasive environment for learning at anytime
and anywhere has been made available through this technology-assisted learning paradigm [11]. The triple bottom line (TBL), which
measures sustainability in three dimensions economic, social, and environmental is used [10]. The United Nations has identified
education as one of the five benchmarks for social sustainability [12]. This paradigm will promote social sustainability by offering
environmentally friendly ways to learn. In numerous earlier papers, the success of e-learning projects has been investigated [13].
Although research tends to focus more on the perspectives of students, usage of the Internet by both students and teachers has
shown that it can change the way that traditional learning methods are used in an engaging online environment [5,14,15]. The reason
for this is that both teachers and students can contribute to e-learning platforms. Since it permits access to learning resources without
any time or geographic restrictions, the e-learning system (ELS) has started to serve purposes other than instruction [7,16].
As reported in the literature [5,14,15], the teaching and learning systems have undergone amazing changes in the last ten years. An
educational approach called collaborative activity places a focus on teamwork between teachers, students, and administrators [17]. It
alludes to one of the most efficient teaching strategies and involves methods and settings in which students complete a task on which
they depend and are accountable to one another. In a cooperative activity, there may be few or many participants (a small or large
group), each with a unique set of skills or IQ levels [18–20]. With the help of this teaching approach, students can participate and
communicate their thoughts to the group’s other members. The approach encourages positive and productive communication among
participants for a more enjoyable learning environment [20].
Making it feasible for people to employ technology in their discussions of subjects, including content, viewpoints, encounters, and
technologies, is a primary goal of a collaborative learning system [21]. They are able to stay actively involved and connect their
knowledge to the outside world thanks to it. By using e-learning as a platform for education, students can create and share knowledge,
improving their social acceptance and self-representation [5]. In this regard, El Mhouti et al. [22] called for the promotion of more
effective group learning as well as the comprehension of the interaction between students and teachers with reference to their in­
struction. Students are receptive to new social media that can aid instructors and students in learning more successfully, despite the
fact that they haven’t shown much interest in the current channels for connecting with their professors about their training [23]. In
light of this, an online collaboration tool and an atmosphere for collaborative activities will support the students’ online collaborative
efforts. Despite its many advantages, e-learning is not widely employed in developed nations for a number of different reasons.
However, several colleges have switched to e-learning in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in order to maintain their academic
programs. In almost every nation, outbreaks of coronaviruses are currently wreaking havoc on the population. Most governments have
implemented lockdowns or mobility restrictions to stop the rapid spread of the virus, which has had a significant impact on every
aspect of our everyday lives. Regardless of the economy, the education industry has been one of COVID-19’s major losses. Traditional
teaching strategies have changed as a result. In the event of a pandemic, an e-learning platform can help students and institutions by
presenting new opportunities [24]. Only a few studies, including those by Refs. [25–27], have recognized the value of e-learning in
high-quality educational offerings. Adopting e-learning has many benefits, including increased parental participation, access to more
cutting-edge or novel learning techniques, stronger student motivation, opportunities for self-directed education and adoption,
improved ICT device setup, and more [28]. According to empirical data, academicians at nearby HEIs only occasionally use online
learning [29,30]. There is a gap in our knowledge of the causes of the resistance to e-learning among academics in neighborhood HEIs,
according to a modest body of literature. This makes it possible for academics to look into the factors that influence the adoption of
e-learning for long-term educational sustainability at institutions of higher learning where blended learning is now optional.
Students frequently utilize mobile devices and the Internet, and information technology utilization in the education sector is
growing. The e-learning system has quickly evolved into a requirement for institutions as a result. The acceptance and adoption of
online-based e-learning by students demonstrate their enthusiasm for it. However, researchers found some inconsistencies in their
results. Even though mobile services have been added to learning platforms at educational institutions, researchers found that e-
learning and student curiosity aren’t doing as well as they could [31,32]. A learner’s acceptance of and collaborative activity while
using eLearning is influenced by a range of factors. Therefore, thorough and varied analysis of these elements is essential [33,34]. As a
result, the focus of this study is on how college students wish to use and accept an e-learning system for educational sustainability (ES).
According to the study, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused researchers to pay greater attention to e-learning because it is the only way
to continue academic pursuits. For students interested in educational sustainability, the fear of COVID-19 has precluded a link between
external circumstances and user satisfaction with an e-learning system [35,36].
This study objective to investigate the factors that influence interactive with peers, interactive with lecturers, engagement,
perceived technology fit, information quality, system quality, service quality and illustrate the mediating role of users’ satisfaction and
collaborative activity factor in the relationship between system independent factors and adoption of e-learning systems in higher
education. On the other hand, a few study frameworks can forecast a student’s BI. This study was motivated by the lack of a framework
to predict students’ intention to use and adoption of an eLearning system (AE). However, these techniques encourage item reuse rather
than facilitating collaborative work carried out through communication and collaboration among writers. This study provides three
new insights into how student intent to use an e-learning system for collaborative activity and learner satisfaction can improve e-
learning system adoption by (i) identifying variables that affect student collaborative activity and satisfaction to use e-learning for
collaborative activity; (ii) investigating relationships between variables; and (iii) making recommendations for future research.

2
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

1.1. Adoption e-learning system in higher education

The learning procedures at several University of Bisha universities are now being integrated with various software systems,
including management learning systems (MLS) and Blackboard [15,37,38]. As a result, information and communication technology
(ICT) has enhanced management communications, student-teacher collaboration, interpersonal relationships, and overall educational
achievement. Furthermore, a lot of studies have shown how effective e-learning platforms are for delivering distant education. One
description of an e-learning system is "the combined use of modern computers and information and communications technology (ICT)
to provide teaching, information, and learning content” [39]. An e-learning system is instead characterized as a kind of information
system (IS) based on Internet technology that offers the student an infinite number of independent and adaptable teaching and learning
opportunities [38,40,41]. The learning processes have been significantly simplified by this technology-based solution [42,43].
Among the crucial components of an e-learning system are benchmarks, the learning environment, learning outcomes, cost-benefit
analysis, and ISSM models. A general model assessment of the effectiveness of e-learning programs is important, according to a body of
academic research [15,44–46]. Based on information system theory, academics have proposed and evaluated two models: the in­
formation system success model (ISSM) and the technology acceptance model (TAM) [15,44–46]. The findings of their research
encouraged the establishment of an open-systems paradigm founded on general systems theory, which operates on widely
acknowledged concepts and principles with organized and participatory information transmission [47–50].

2. Research model and hypotheses

Three independent variables system quality, information quality, and service quality are used in the ISSM Model, which is depicted
in Fig. 1, to conceptualize the success determinants of information system attributes. Individually or collectively, each of these in­
dependent variables influences "learner satisfaction,” and each has an impact on "individual or organization,” which influences how
effective an information system is (see Fig. 1). In Ref. [51] proposed an ISSM for measuring IS success in organizations to acquire net
benefits. They suggested that IS success is a multifaceted and symbiotic paradigm. Therefore, it is indispensable to study the in­
terrelationships among those dimensions and control them. Subsequently, numerous scholars suggested some reforms to this model
[42,48]. Consequently, in Ref. [39] incorporated some of the changes that scholars suggested and accordingly restructured their old
model with the updated ISSM, as illustrated in Fig. 1. They decided to augment the dimensions of service quality and user satisfaction.
The new model cited service, system, information quality, system use, and user satisfaction as the critical success factors that lead to
the adoption of e-learning systems. The researchers contended that if IS success evaluation is desired, then the factors influencing its
subsequent use are service, system, information, and quality. User satisfaction and collaborative activity are the outcomes of positive
or negative adoptions that will promote the use of IS [52]. Moreover, the research model studies all aspects of constructivism
(interaction with peers, interaction with lecturers, engagement, and collaborative activity). So, this learning will utilize constructivism
[53,54] to support a fundamental idea: learning is a constructive and active method. Furthermore, our research will use the ISSM
pioneered by Refs. [51,53]integrated with constructivism.

2.1. Interactive with peer

According to Ref. [55], interaction should be emphasized and studied in all forms of education, whether in-person or online. It is a
process that gives students the opportunity to look for new information and develop connections with their teachers, fellow students,
and the subject matter of their learning activities [56]. It has been discovered that learning activities play a significant role in shaping
students’ learning outcomes [57]. The most important component in determining students’ satisfaction with online learning and
learning results, according to a cross-country survey undertaken by Ref. [57] during the COVID-19 epidemic, was interaction.

Fig. 1. Research model.

3
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

Due to technological limitations, interactions in online learning have been noticeably underdeveloped [58], and the importance of
interaction has been largely ignored in the literature on distance education [59]. Interaction, which is a crucial part of e-learning
systems, has not been properly defined or underlined in the research on remote education, according to Ref. [60]. But according to the
research done by Ref. [61], there is more interaction and enjoyment in face-to-face classes than there is in online ones.
Three dimensions of interaction can be distinguished: interaction with teachers, interaction with peers, and interaction with the
subject [56]. According to Ref. [62]. According to Ref. [62], regular communication with teachers accounts for 60% of students’
satisfaction with online learning, particularly at the beginning of a course.
This is due to the fact that in an online learning environment, instructors must provide each learner with advice, direction, and
assistance based on their specific needs; conduct formal and informal evaluations; ensure that learners are making progress; inspire
learners; and support learners in applying what they have learned [56,63]. Additionally [64], argued that learner-learner contact in
online learning, which enables students to engage, share, and discuss ideas as well as participate in group activities, is crucial for both
student enjoyment and academic performance.
Additionally, social interaction with classmates promotes high levels of student satisfaction with a course [65]. In a similar vein, it
has been found that contact with the material is highly related to the caliber of the course material, which in turn influences student
satisfaction [66]. Learners are more motivated and content when the content is of higher quality [67,68]. On the other hand, a few
studies indicated that user satisfaction in several US Massive Open Online Courses was unaffected by learner-learner or
learner-instructor interactions [69,70]. In order to create interaction, this study combines these two elements.
H1. Interacting with peer pressure will increase user satisfaction.
H2. Interacting with peer pressure will have a good effect on t Collaborative activity.

2.2. Interactive with lecturers

Numerous studies have examined the use of social media and mobile devices in higher education for interacting with peers. 90% of
professors [71] use social media for either professional or academic purposes outside of the classroom. The most popular websites for
professional outcomes are Facebook and YouTube, with over two-thirds of the teachers using one of these platforms for class sessions
and 30% posting content to encourage students to read and study resources [71–73]. Social media and mobile device use in higher
education is a relatively new phenomenon with a largely unexplored research area. According to a survey of Economics faculty stu­
dents at the University of Mortar in Bosnia and Herzegovina [54,71], students are prepared to actively use social networking sites (like
SlideShare, etc.) for learning, notably e-learning and communication. Social media is already utilized for information sharing and the
sharing of materials. The majority of faculty members utilize social media for professional purposes, share content with distant stu­
dents, and cooperate using mobile devices and social media, according to a survey by the U.S. Department of Higher Education. A
better learning environment is also made possible by the interactive features of online and mobile technology. According to 308
graduate and postgraduate students at University of Bisha, there is a good correlation between online conversation, file sharing, in­
formation sharing, entertainment, and learning [74].
H3. User satisfaction will increase as students interact with lecturers.
H4. Collaborative activity will benefit from interaction with the professor.

2.3. Engagement

The physical and mental effort that a student puts into activities that are educationally useful has been defined as "student
engagement” in all types of education [75,76]. This idea has been connected to various aspects of learning, including completion rates,
academic success, and learning satisfaction [77–79]. According to past research [80,81], student involvement is a complex concept
with three core substructures: behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. Student behaviors such as attending class and taking
part in learning activities while abiding by social and institutional norms are specifically connected with behavioral engagement [82].
"Emotional participation” [83] is the term used to describe students’ emotional reactions, both positive and negative, to the educa­
tional process and classroom activities. Additionally, learning efforts made by pupils, such as academic self-control and learning tactics
or approaches, are referred to as "cognitive engagement” [78,83]. According to Ref. [84], all three aspects of student involvement are
interrelated since learning requires students to participate physically (behavioral) as well as psychologically (emotionally and
cognitively). Students will be more likely to be unsatisfied with their learning if they don’t participate in it in any way [78,85].
Therefore, this study suggests the following:
H5. The influence of student participation will increase user satisfaction.
H6. Student participation will have a good influence on Collaborative activity.

2.4. Perceived technology fit

According to Goodhue and Thompson (1995), in terms of task-technology fit (TTF), the properties of a technology are matched with
its task features shortly before customers embrace it [86]. Even while people may recognize the benefit of a technology, they will not
be able to perform any better if it is not well suited to the work at hand [87]. E-learning solutions are routinely developed to assist users

4
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

in carrying out a variety of learning-related tasks efficiently [11]. Task-technology fit is essential for examining the acceptance of
e-learning by combining many perspectives on the fit based on technology. When establishing the task-technology fit, one might take
into account how well a system’s operational activities satisfy a person’s job requirements [86,88]. The task-technology fit describes
the connection between organizational needs, personas, and how well a mobile technology system works [89]. Additionally, the
relationship between task-technology fit and the performance criterion has been established, which may be applied in the broader
context of evaluating how information technology affects a person’s performance [86,88].
H7. The influence of perceived technology fit on user satisfaction will be favorable.
H8. The perception of technology’s suitability will have a favorable effect on Collaborative activity.

2.5. Information quality

Information quality is a major and critical aspect in evaluating the effectiveness of information and e-learning systems due to the
crucial role that information plays in achieving learning objectives and the significant challenges that arise from poor information
quality [90]. The relationship between INQ and utilization as well as user satisfaction was examined using the [39] model. Using
information systems literature [91], show that there is a strong correlation between information quality and use. Studies by Ref. [92]
for knowledge management systems and [93] for health information systems also came to the same conclusion. According to Refs. [94,
95], they demonstrated a substantial link between perceived utility, user satisfaction, and information quality in the same setting.
Researchers in e-learning have empirically examined the connections between information quality and each of the three notions of
usage, satisfaction, and usefulness. For instance Refs. [96,97], discovered a substantial correlation between information quality and
both use and satisfaction with the LMS. In Ref. [98] study of e-learning systems in an organizational environment, the association
between information quality and perceived utility was shown to be substantial, and [99] found a similar result with web-based LMSs
[100].
H9. The influence of information quality will have a favorable effect on user satisfaction.
H10. A favorable impact on collaborative activity will result from information quality fit.

2.6. System quality

The LMS platform is the main setting for knowledge transfer in e-learning [100]. As a virtual classroom, it serves to accomplish
learning objectives by checking attendance, grading students, and even encouraging student interaction [100]. A few system quality
criteria are required [101]. The platform is implemented by the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University and requires
Internet compatibility (on Internet Explorer or Google Chrome browsers) in order to be accessed [102]. To use in a performance, the
pre-recorded video files are downloaded. The LMS platform’s system stability determines how well the downloaded resources display
[103,104]. In this study, stability, download speed, and accessibility are considered to be the three most important aspects of a good
system. These system features are used in the ISSM Model in order to investigate the connection between system attributes and learner
satisfaction [105]. This study makes the supposition that if the system requirements are met, learner satisfaction will increase.
H11. The influence of system quality will have a favorable effect on user satisfaction.
H12. The influence of system quality fit will have a favorable impact on collaborative activity.

2.7. Services quality

The DeLone and McLean model was updated to include this additional architecture [51]. The DeLone and McLean model [106],
which assumed direct correlations between service quality and both utilization and user satisfaction in their model, is related to the
significance of this construct as a measure of information systems performance. The information systems field has used the construct.
For instance Ref. [105], in an online buying system established the link between SRQ and satisfaction. According to Ref. [107], the
direct correlation between SRQ and use in an e-government system is considerable. Similar to this, the association between SRQ and
satisfaction in the context of e-learning was found to be significant in the [108]models. In the study conducted by Ref. [109], it was
demonstrated empirically that the association between SRQ and perceived usefulness provided in the conceptual model created by
Ref. [110]was substantial.
H13. The influence of service quality will increase user satisfaction.
H14. The effectiveness of the services’ quality will have a favorable effect on collaborative activity.

2.8. Collaborative activity

To make up for the loss of interaction in e-learning, collaborative activity is a sort of engagement and socialization process that
encourages involvement, interaction, and communication, whether in a virtual community or in person [103]. In this study, the
instructor assigns specific assignments or projects to groups of students [103]. Each group works on tasks independently, with support
from one another, and shares and evaluates the results of the assignments among group members [111]. These activities are necessary

5
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

to foster dedication, guarantee higher thinking in learners, and promote long-term growth [54]. The instructor’s leadership in the
students’ real commitment will have a significant impact on having a meaningful educational experience, even though it is a little less
regimented but still an important component of learning [112]. Students improve their ability to communicate with their peers to solve
difficulties or plan social events as a result of the online learning environment [22,113]. In order to establish collaborative learning
through online learning in higher education, there are some essential conditions that need to be addressed. The development of active
collaborative learning and the encouragement of cognitive abilities such as reflection and metacognition serve as representations of
these situations [113,114]. According to some researchers, including [115], the use of online learning by students to complete their
assignments has a favorable impact on their level of learning.
H14: User satisfaction will increase as a result of collaborative activities.

2.9. User satisfaction

The cognitive congruence between user satisfaction and website quality is known as satisfaction [115]. According to Ref. [116]
study on e-learning courses, the satisfaction of the class is strongly connected with service quality, system quality, and particularly
information quality. According to e-learning studies [117], individual variances in learning preferences can affect satisfaction. Our
main concern is whether students in the context of higher education are content with the outcomes of e-learning, as was already
mentioned. Therefore, a variety of variables may have an impact on how satisfied the students are. This idea is supported by studies on
student satisfaction with e-learning outcomes [118] and earlier investigations of the theory behind what motivates student-student
interaction, efficient help, learning resources, and the learning environment [119]. According to Ref. [120], there are six factors
that affect how enjoyable e-learning is perceived. Similar to this [121], asserted that interactive learning environments, perceived
self-efficacy, and felt concern may have an impact on reported satisfaction. Users’ satisfaction with using an e-learning system has been
reported to have a substantial impact on users’ intention to use an e-learning system, which in turn has a big impact on the quality of
the system, the information, and the service [121]. Thus, we infer that a number of potential factors may have an impact on how
satisfied users are with their e-learning experience.
H15. The acceptance of e-learning will be positively influenced by user satisfaction.

3. Research methodology

Almost 350 university students were surveyed; a total of 300 questionnaires were returned, resulting in an 85.7% response rate. 50
questionnaires were found to be missing information after manual screening; they were thus disqualified. In support of such exclusions
[122], argued that outliers must be considered since they might cause incorrect statistical inferences. As a result, 300 questionnaires in
total were reliable and valid, and the learning system has been promoted by several institutions, including those in Saudi Arabia. As a
result, the purpose of this study is to use empirical research to construct a model for measuring the adoption of an e-learning system
(AE). The study’s sample comprised students with both undergraduate and graduate degrees who utilized e-learning. Demographic
data was requested from the respondents in the first part. The second segment, which contained 50 items, was devoted to measuring
the research model’s components. A five-point Likert scale was utilized for items including ISSM and constructivism theories, model
constructs, and demographic data, with one indicating strong disagreement and five suggesting strong agreement. The measurement
model’s validity and reliability were evaluated using Amos version 23 and SPSS Statistics version 26. Table 1 reveals that 109 (36.3%)
were female and 191 (63.7%) were male. In addition, 34 respondents (11.3%) were between the ages of 18 and 22, 86 respondents
(28.7%) were between the ages of 23 and 28, 124 respondents (41.3%) were between the ages of 29 and 34, 46 respondents (15.3%)
were between the ages of 35 and 40, and 10 respondents (3.3%) were over the age of 41. For the model’s goodness of fit, factor loadings
were utilized to establish build validity, composite reliability, Cronbach’s, and convergence validity, as stated by Jung et al. (2008).
Cronbach’s was found to be 0.920 based on standardized items. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s) for final test designs is shown in
Table 4; all variables were found to be appropriate. For more details, see Table 4.

Table 1
Demographic profile.
Items Description N %

Gender Male 191 63.7

Female 109 36.3
Age 18–22 34 11.3
23–28 86 28.7
29–34 124 41.3
35–40 46 15.3
41– Above 10 3.3
Specialization Science &Technology 150 50.0
Social Science 81 27.0
Management 49 16.3
Others 20 6.7

6
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

Table 2
Records of the good features of the measurement model.
Model χ2/df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA

Target ≤ 5.0 ≥ 0.90 ≥ 0.90 ≤ 0.09 ≤ 0.08

Model 1 (Final model) 2.52 0.925 0.914 0.048 0.061

Table 3
Validity and reliability.
IL PTF EN IP SEQ SQ IQ CA US

IL 0.857
PTF 0.345 0.762
EN 0.238 0.442 0.783
IP 0.584 0.261 0.222 0.832
SEQ 0.347 0.350 0.295 0.260 0.710
SQ 0.577 0.383 0.354 0.563 0.361 0.834
IQ 0.585 0.303 0.270 0.547 0.321 0.580 0.844
CA 0.639 0.332 0.193 0.609 0.319 0.606 0.588 0.899
US 0.613 0.381 0.314 0.610 0.279 0.631 0.578 0.623 0.843
AE 0.564 0.320 0.207 0.514 0.355 0.582 0.647 0.574 0.578

3.1. Data collection analysis

300 undergraduate and graduate students (local and international) at the University of University of Bisha responded to a struc­
tured questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale to gather the results. Based on these analyses, the sample size of this study (N = 300) is
acceptable according to Krejcie and Morgan (1970). A structured physical survey was used to collect data from students at University
of Bisha in Saudi Arabia to test the theoretically developed model. The sample size was determined by using the following formula:

x2 (p)(q)
SS =
e2

where SS = Sample Size; Z = 1.96 (95% confidence level); P = prevalence level (0.5 used for sample size needed); Q = (1 − p); E =
error term (0.05). By inserting values into the formula, the sample size would be:

1.692 (0.50)(0.50)
SS =
0.052

2.8561(0.25)
SS =
0.0025

0.7140
SS =
0.0025

SS = 285.6
The COVID-19 situation restricting physical movement necessitated administering the questionnaires online via emails and Google
Form links. Both undergraduate and graduate students received an online version of the questionnaire. User satisfaction and
collaborative engagement were affected by the interconnected components of e-learning systems. Therefore, each and every one of the
variables satisfies the Cronbach alpha coefficient, which ranges from 0.70 to 0.90. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient, which is 0.920, is
examined in the reliability analysis. The inter-construct correlations linked to the variable (IC) had to be less than 0.80, the AVE rate
had to be greater than or equal to 0.5, and the AVE square had to be higher [123]. These three criteria were used to assess discriminant
validity. Additionally, loadings of confirming factors of 0.7 and higher were discovered. Cronbach’s alpha scores of 0.70 or above and
composite dependability were deemed acceptable [122].

3.2. Measurement model analysis

For university students, 300 sample questionnaires were given out. All of them have proven to be helpful. The construction
components confirmed that prior investigations had supported the material validity of the measurement scales. The survey form that
was chosen was as follows: Interactivity with peers and lecturers was adopted from Refs. [124,125]; perceived technology fit from
Ref. [126]; engagement from Refs. [127,128]; information quality from Refs. [7,11,129]; system quality from Refs. [7,129]; service
quality from Refs. [7,11,129]; users’ satisfaction from Refs. [7,11,130]; collaborative activity from Ref. [131]. In the end, adoption of
e-learning systems was adopted from Refs. [7,132] and any permissible outside loading.

7
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

Table 4
Load, CR, AVE, alpha.
Construct Items Load CR AVE Alpha

Interactive with peer IP_1 0.875 0.913 0.679 0.911

IP_2 0.832
IP_3 0.690
IP_4 0.882
IP_5 0.826
Interactive with lecturers IL_1 0.850 0.914 0.680 0.912
IL_2 0.839
IL_3 0.851
IL_4 0.829
IL_5 0.750
Perceived technology fit PTF_1 0.795 0.895 0.631 0.895
PTF_2 0.819
PTF_3 0.833
PTF_4 0.751
PTF_5 0.772
Engagement EN_1 0.782 0.895 0.632 0.895
EN_2 0.798
EN_3 0.846
EN_4 0.784
EN_5 0.760
Information quality IQ_1 0.844 0.925 0.713 0.925
IQ_2 0.851
IQ_3 0.843
IQ_4 0.860
IQ_5 0.822
System quality SQ_1 0.819 0.912 0.674 0.909
SQ_2 0.825
SQ_3 0.827
SQ_4 0.828
SQ_5 0.805
Services quality SEQ_1 0.892 0.912 0.677 0.908
SEQ_2 0.902
SEQ_3 0.822
SEQ_4 0.630
SEQ_5 0.837
Collaborative activity CA_1 0.872 0.922 0.703 0.920
CA_2 0.817
CA_3 0.777
CA_4 0.830
CA_5 0.891
User satisfaction US_1 0.789 0.899 0.639 0.897
US_2 0.818
US_3 0.804
US_4 0.814
US_5 0.772
Adoption of e-learning AE_1 0.862 0.906 0.926 0.722
AE_2 0.876
AE_3 0.873
AE_4 0.797
AE_5 0.838

4. Data analysis

4.1. Measurement model and validity and reliability analysis

SEM was used in this work as a key statistical method in AMOS 23 to examine the outcomes depending on CFA. Over convergence
was investigated using this model [123]. Additionally, according to Ref. [122], "goodness-of-fit” techniques such as standard
chi-square, chi-square, RFI, TLI, and the IFI, the model fits well when the CFI value is greater than or equal to 0.90. Additionally, as
shown in Table 2, where "RMR” is acceptable, the "RMSEA” complies with the recommended standard of less than or equal to.08 to
support the needed suit [122]. The model’s suitability indices, specifically, are AVE and CA. To satisfy all parameters, CR values
between 0.895 and 0.926 are acceptable, as are CA values between 0.895 and 0.928. Furthermore, the AVE varied between 0.631 and
0.722, exceeding the anticipated value of 0.50 (see Table 4). This suggests that all of the loading factors are significant and above the
threshold of 0.50, satisfying the presented correlations [122,123] and measuring the independent, mediator, and dependent variables
mentioned in Fig. 2. These variables are measured in Table 3 and are independent, mediator, and dependent variables.

8
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

Fig. 2. Outcomes of the proposed model for all response groups.

Fig. 3. Results for the proposed model.

9
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

4.2. Structural equation model analysis

The route modeling analysis was used to investigate how peer interaction, lecture interaction, and engagement factors influenced
the use of e-learning systems, as well as constructivism and ISSM as perceived technology fit, information quality, system quality, and
service quality factors on e-learning utilization for user satisfaction through collaborative activity. The results are given and evaluated
in light of the results of the hypothesis testing. The structural equation model was examined by the authors using CFA in the next step of
the process. Because all of the assumptions established between the fifteen fundamental components, or hypotheses, were accepted,
Fig. 3 shows the structural model. The structural model is presented in Table 5, which demonstrates that the model’s key statistics are
quite robust, indicating applicability and a useful model for verifying the assumptions. All initial hypotheses were supported by the
study’s findings, which show that e-learning positively affects the adoption model in higher education. The results also support
theories concerning the direction of the interaction between the structural model and the variables in the model. The un-standardized
coefficients and standard errors of the structural model are presented in Table 4. Fig. 3 depicts all of the hypotheses between the
seventeen key constructs; fifteen of them were accepted, and only two were rejected: "no engagement between users for CA (0.06-H7),
and "no service quality for CA” (0.03-H14), "IP have on e-learning system having user satisfaction (0.24-H1) and collaborative activity
(0.26-H2), "IL have on e-learning system having user satisfaction (0.24-H (0.15-H8), IQ is related to US with an e-learning system
(0.11-H9) and collaborative activity (0.17-H10), SQ is related to US with an e-learning system (0.26-H11) and collaborative activity
(0.25-H12), SEQ is related to US with an e-learning system (0.26-H13), collaborative activity is related to US with an e-learning system
(0.14-H15), and adoption of an e-learning system (0 (0.44-H17). In addition, Fig. 3 and Table 5 illustrate the path coefficient and
loading value of the path lines inside the Amos. Only two of the fifteen hypotheses that were put forth for this study were rejected. In
detail, as proposed for the relationships between interactivity with peers and users’ satisfaction (H1) (β = 0.236, t = 4.760), and
Collaborative activity (H2) (β = 0.257; t = 4.784), the hypotheses are supported. For the relationship between interactivity with
lecturers and users’ satisfaction (H3) (β = 0.178; t = 3.434), and Collaborative activity (H4) (β = 0.277; t = 4.937), the hypotheses are
supported. The hypotheses H5 and H6 is also supported where perceived technology-fit is significantly predicted by users’ satisfaction
(β = 0.115; t = 2.637) and collaborative activity (β = 0.105; t = 2.162). Moreover, the significant role of engagement and user
satisfaction (H7) is also reported (β = 0.064; t = 1.558) and the hypothesis isn’t accepted. In the same way, the results for engagement
and collaborative activity (H8) (β = − 0.150, t = − 3.287) indicate support. For the relationship between information quality with
users’ satisfaction (H9) (β = 0.111 t = 2.267) and information quality with collaborative activity (H10) (β = 0.167, t = 3.103) are
accepted. For the hypotheses H11 and H12, the direct effect of system quality on users’ satisfaction (β = 0.263, t = 4.933) and system
quality on collaborative activity (β = 0.248, t = 4.258), the hypotheses are accepted. Moreover, the significant role of service quality
and user satisfaction (H13) is also reported (β = − 0.111; t = − 2.697) and the hypothesis is accepted. In the same way, the results for
service quality and collaborative activity (H14) (β = 0.028, t = 0.597) indicate Unsupported. Furthermore, results for collaborative
activity to users’ satisfaction and Adoption of e-learning system (H15, H16), (β = 0.140, t = 2.713) and (β = 0.334, t = 5.634) indicate
support for the hypotheses. Finally, users’ satisfaction is also informed to be a significant predictor for Adoption of e-learning system
for educational sustainability (H17) (β = 0.438, t = 7.163); the hypothesis is supported.

5. Discussion and implication

By creating a research model centered on the function of collaborative activity as a source of sustainability in higher education, this
study enhanced our theoretical understanding of how to employ e-learning as a source of educational sustainability. This study
demonstrates the beneficial relationships between the characteristics of the learning environment and learner retention. It also
highlights the link between learner satisfaction and the instructor’s participation in the online learning environment. This is one of the

Table 5
Hypothesis testing results of structural model.
H Factors Estimate S.E. C.R. P-value Results

H1 IP———— > US 0.236 0.050 4.760 0.000 Accepted

H2 IP———— > CA 0.257 0.054 4.784 0.000 Accepted
H3 IL ———— > US 0.178 0.052 3.434 0.000 Accepted
H4 IL ———— > CA 0.277 0.056 4.937 0.000 Accepted
H5 PTF———— > US 0.115 0.044 2.637 0.008 Accepted
H6 PTF———— > CA 0.105 0.049 2.162 0.031 Accepted
H7 EN———— > US 0.064 0.041 1.558 0.119 Rejected
H8 EN———— > CA − 0.150 0.046 − 3.287 0.001 Accepted
H9 IQ———— > US 0.111 0.049 2.267 0.023 Accepted
H10 IQ ———— > CA 0.167 0.054 3.103 0.002 Accepted
H11 SQ ———— > US 0.263 0.053 4.933 0.000 Accepted
H12 SQ ———— > CA 0.248 0.058 4.258 0.000 Accepted
H13 SEQ ———— > US − 0.111 0.041 − 2.697 0.007 Accepted
H14 SEQ ———— > CA 0.028 0.046 0.597 0.550 Rejected
H15 CA ———— > US 0.140 0.051 2.713 0.007 Accepted
H16 CA ———— > AE 0.334 0.059 5.634 0.000 Accepted
H17 US ———— > AE 0.438 0.061 7.163 0.000 Accepted

10
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

first studies to look at how e-learning is used for teaching and learning in higher education at University of Bisha using constructivism
theory and the ISSM paradigm. Users’ satisfaction and collaborative activity learning are significantly influenced by their interactions
with peers, lectures, engagement, perceived technological fit, information quality, system quality, and service quality (see Fig. 3). The
adoption of e-learning systems for long-term educational sustainability was impacted by the degree of user happiness and collaborative
participation. As a result, the findings supported the established hypotheses and the design of the research methodology. The findings
demonstrate that collaborative involvement had an effect on users’ satisfaction with the usage of e-learning tools for teaching and
learning in higher education. To put it another way, before university students and instructors will adopt e-learning for long-term
educational sustainability, they must see proof of collaborative activity and user satisfaction. E-learning ought to be widely adop­
ted and offer straightforward instructions. The results also showed how crucial it is for instructors to explain how students should use
online learning to study course material because users’ acceptance of online learning for long-term educational sustainability grows
with their satisfaction with it. In order to examine the factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system for teaching and
learning in higher education, this study included the ISSM model, which successfully explained the adoption practice of e-learning
during COVID-19 as perceived by students in higher education from students’ and lecturers’ universities. The research model takes into
account the implementation of e-learning for teaching and learning in higher education as well as the constructivism theory parts IP,
IL, PTF, EN, IQ, SQ, SEQ, US, and CA. Therefore, the study model determines that constructivism theory variables and the ISSM model
have the biggest impact on user satisfaction and adoption of e-learning systems for educational institutions when used as a teaching
and learning tool.
The results show that peer interaction plays a key role in learning, supporting hypotheses H1 and H2, and showing that IP has a
positive impact on users’ satisfaction with and involvement in collaborative activities related to the use of e-learning in education. To
put it another way, the high IP factor and appropriateness of the e-learning system encourage user satisfaction and collaborative
learning. The benefits of e-learning and the main intellectual property that goes with it have been extensively studied by academics.
The results of this investigation thus support earlier findings [71,133]. The results of the study provide significant evidence for the
interactivity with lectures variable, confirming hypotheses H3 and H4 that interactivity with lectures has a favorable effect on users’
satisfaction and collaborative learning. Or, to put it another way, when an e-learning system is acceptable and simple to use, the higher
interactivity with lectures contributes to improved user satisfaction of the e-learning system in education and subsequently increased
collaborative engagement.
The advantages of interactive lectures in the context of online learning have been examined by several academics. The study’s
findings support previous connections between factors [71,133,134]. Therefore, using e-learning to connect with mentors and peers
leads to improved user happiness and collaborative activity, which in turn affects e-learning adoption. The higher education authority
should offer a space where students can develop their intellectual abilities. According to the empirical study, communication devices
let students recover information and communicate with others in real-time regarding sharing the contents of learning materials, which
increases student satisfaction. Additionally, such advanced communication tools would be more beneficial for students who are un­
comfortable speaking in front of their peers; teachers might become more accessible online for collaborative learning and teaching in a
global setting [10].
The study’s findings also validate Hypotheses H5 and H6, providing strong evidence that the perceived technology-fit (PTF)
component has a positive effect on users’ satisfaction and collaborative engagement. When e-learning is desirable and appropriate in
educational institutions, a greater perceived technology-fit factor contributes to increased user enjoyment and group participation.
According to the results, a number of dimensions, including perceived technology fit, showed a favorable and substantial link with
students’ happiness, indicating a rise in their usage intentions and an impact on their performance. These studies’ findings about the
important benefits of perceived technological fit, user pleasure, and collaborative engagement are supported by earlier research. Thus,
it can be concluded that before choosing to use e-learning, students assess its suitability for fulfilling their academic needs and its
relevance to their education. Thus, the outcomes of this study support previous findings of numerous connections [36,126,135].
The next parameter is engagement; the results of the study did not support the relationship between engagement and the users’
satisfaction variable, supporting hypothesis (H7) that engagement does not have a beneficial effect on users’ contentment. These
findings, however, did not agree with those of the earlier studies [71,136]. Furthermore, the study’s results substantially support the
engagement variable, confirming hypothesis (H8) [127] and showing that engagement influences collaborative activity for teaching
and learning in higher education positively [54,71].
The students’ high levels of involvement, contentment, and collaborative activity further suggested that they valued the benefits of
their online education during the epidemic. The students expressed agreement that they had a strong internal motivation for and
favorable views regarding their online learning, and that they actively engaged in it [54,71].
To put it another way, the growing use of an e-learning system as a collaborative activity in education is a result of increased
engagement with and acceptance of the system. Numerous scholars have looked into the importance of involvement in the area of e-
learning. The results of this investigation thus lend support to past studies [54,71,137].
The study’s findings also show a strong relationship between information quality with user satisfaction and collaborative
engagement for e-learning use as educational sustainability, lending support to the hypotheses (H9 and H10).
This demonstrates that user satisfaction and collaborative engagement are influenced by the quality of the information available.
Information quality factors such as providing students with sufficient and required information, concise and clear information,
updated content, and an attractive design of the content are important for students to enjoy and enjoy their experience with e-learning
and contribute to their overall satisfaction. Students can complete their learning assignments more rapidly thanks to the e-learning
system’s organization of the content and information into logical and understandable components [54,71].
Moreover, the increased information quality encourages continued use of the system as a long-lasting educational tool,

11
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

demonstrating that technology is appropriate when an e-learning system influences information quality and is deemed acceptable.
Prior studies have looked into the importance of information quality in the context of e-learning. As a result, the findings of this study
support prior connections between variables [11]. These findings, however, did not agree with those of the earlier studies [7].
Additionally, this study’s results significantly support the system quality variable, confirming hypotheses (H11 and H12),
demonstrating that system quality affects users’ satisfaction and collaborative activity for e-learning use as a sustainable educational
practice.
Our research shows that students view an e-learning system’s usefulness in providing helpful functions for efficient learning when it
offers high-quality functions to achieve learning goals and tasks and facilitate the learning process. Additionally, if comparable ca­
pabilities are offered, students may constantly access course materials, interact with their peers, and communicate with instructors,
they will view the system as valuable. According to Ref. [138], these elements lead to students’ happiness and collaborative activity
with the system and improve their willingness to use the system.
In the context of e-learning, previous studies have emphasized the significance of system quality. Thus, the findings of this study
support earlier conclusions [7,11] about the connections between numerous parameters. The findings categorically support hypothesis
(H13) and demonstrate that student’s satisfaction is positively impacted by student involvement in educational institutions. They also
clearly support the service quality component. On the other hand, hypothesis (H13) shows that user satisfaction and using the
e-learning system have a relationship.
Our research suggests that students’ happiness and collaborative activity with the e-learning system enhance if they obtain
appropriate technical support services from a help desk or technical staff. Students who receive high-quality technical support from
technical staff have a higher perception of the value of the e-learning system, which improves their use of it.
The results demonstrate a substantial and positive association, supporting the premise. The results of this investigation thus support
earlier findings of various correlations [11]. While the study’s results disproved the relationship between service quality and
collaborative activity, they didn’t support Hypothesis (H14), which states that service quality doesn’t have a beneficial influence on
collaborative activity. In other words, students’ perceptions of the collaborative nature of the e-learning system and the system’s use
are unaffected by the quality of services provided to them by IT employees.
These findings, however, did not agree with those of the earlier studies [7,71]. Both H15 and H16 were positively correlated with
the collaborative activity, with the adoption of e-learning platforms and user satisfaction having greater effects. When an e-learning
system improves collaborative activity, user satisfaction and e-learning system adoption rise in direct proportion. Several studies have
looked at the importance of teamwork in the world of online learning. As a result, using e-learning for group projects that satisfy
mentors and peers leads to improved student engagement, which in turn influences how readily students embrace e-learning systems.
The higher education authority should offer a space where students can develop their intellectual abilities. According to the empirical
study, it can be concluded that engaging in collaborative activities helps students find information and communicate with others about
the contents of educational materials in real-time.
Therefore, this study’s findings are consistent with earlier ones [103,139]. Last but not least, the study’s results show that the users’
satisfaction variable has a substantial correlation with the adoption of e-learning systems in schools, confirming Hypothesis (17). To
put it another way, the more users who are satisfied with an e-learning system, the more likely it is to be used in educational settings.
Numerous academics have looked into the value of user satisfaction in the context of e-learning. As a result, the findings of this study
support earlier connections between variables [7,140].

5.1. Theoretical and practical implications

The first contribution of this research is the creation of a multi-dimensional, all-inclusive model for assessing the effectiveness of e-
learning. The model was created based on a thorough assessment of the literature and consideration of four methods for determining if
e-learning is successful: the constructivism theory and the ISSM model. Because various viewpoints have been taken into account in
relation to various aspects of interaction with peers and lecturers, perceived technology fit, engagement, information quality, system
quality, service quality, users’ satisfaction, collaborative activity, and adoption of e-learning systems, and because these encompass the
key elements of the existing approaches, this new model is believed to be comprehensive.
Second contribution: this study went a step further and provided an empirical analysis of the model created by including the
variables that affect the uptake of e-learning systems. Interactivity with peers and lecturers, perceived technological fit, engagement,
content quality, system quality, and service quality are the seven types of criteria postulated and empirically explored as antecedents of
users’ satisfaction, collaborative activity, and adoption of e-learning systems. The discovery of e-learning success variables is the
second contribution of this research, and all of these components taken as a whole are valid and significant metrics.
The third contribution of this work, however, is that it is one of the first to provide a thorough characterization of e-learning success
variables and experimentally evaluate the correlations between the measures in a single model. The performance of the developed
model is the focus of the fourth contribution. The model demonstrated a substantial mediating predictive power for the use of e-
learning between collaborative activity and user pleasure. The final contribution, the study, offers significant theoretical advance­
ments for constructivism and the ISSM. By suggesting an expansion of the ISSM model literature and constructivism theories, it
contributes to those fields of study. This study also supports the validity of the ISSM model for assessing the effectiveness of e-learning
programs in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, this study differs from earlier studies in the following ways: The first implication relates to the
importance of established structures. The positive association between constructivism aspects like interaction with peers and lecturers,
engagement, and the ISSM model’s information quality, system quality, and service quality is particularly crucial for user satisfaction
and collaborative activity. Since e-learning should be viewed as simple and advantageous, universities may use technology to explain

12
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

how to use it by providing instructional tools to help students and lecturers understand how to use it. Third, it’s important to educate
students about the many benefits of technology, such as how it can be used to deliver course content or accomplish other long-term
learning goals. As a result, students will be more motivated to use and implement e-learning for the long-term success of education.
Although this research demonstrates that there is statistical support, it has a number of drawbacks. Since all of the respondents in this
sample are from the same university, more participants from different majors would be required in future studies. Since the sample
lacked qualitative evidence, it was founded on students’ expectations, which might not coincide with teachers’ perspectives. It is
suggested that follow-up studies be conducted in other countries.

6. Conclusion and future work

E-learning is expected to become a common method of instruction and learning in higher education. Given the system’s importance
in promoting globalization and regional integration, developing economies, which strive to catch up with their counterparts in
advanced economies, are currently stepping up their adoption and/or deployment of e-learning systems. In order to create effective
adoption and/or implementation policies, governments and policymakers in emerging economies must be aware of the relevant
considerations. This study looked into the crucial factors that influence users’ satisfaction and cooperative behavior among distance
learning students at University of Bisha. The constructivism theory and information systems success model served as the study’s
guiding principles. A survey instrument was filled with 300 valid replies from University of Bisha distance education users after
questionnaires were distributed to university students.
This research used Version Amos 23 of the Amos paradigm to process and examine the information obtained from the surveys. The
measurement and structural models underwent evaluations. In answer to the research questions, we find that, first, peer interaction,
interactive lectures, information quality, system quality, and service quality are the characteristics that influence users’ satisfaction
and collaborative behavior of distance learners. Second, according to our findings, a strong predictor of learning outcomes for distant
learners in an online learning environment is contentment. The links between determinants of users’ satisfaction and the collaborative
activity of distance learning students at University of Bisha were shown to be mediated by users’ satisfaction and activity. It is crucial to
maximize educational institutions’ e-learning expenditures because it was discovered that users’ satisfaction and collaborative
engagement were efficient mediators of the relationship between each of the instructor characteristics and the adoption of an e-
learning system by distance learning students. It is crucial to examine different contexts and settings for qualities that could influence
how e-learning is employed during epidemics like COVID-19. Even though this research reveals meaningful information regarding
factors affecting collaborative activity and user satisfaction with e-learning by students, Still, some limitations exist, like the fact that
data was collected from students of King Saud University only. It is advised that the authors repeat their research in other provinces
other than Saudi Arabia, which has a different ecology, and take these limitations into consideration. The business of respondents also
affects the study, and the variables used may be subject to change over time, so longitudinal studies can give more generalized results.
In the future, more external variables could be added to examine their impact on the ISSM and constructivism theories, and the effect of
demographic variables on the ISSM and constructivism theories in the Saudi Arabian context could also be studied.

Author contribution statement

Amer Mutrik Sayaf, Ph.D: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Data availability statement

Data included in article/supp. material/referenced in article.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank the University of Bisha in Saudi Arabia for giving me a sabbatical leave to do the research.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13014.

13
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

References

[1] A. Ibrahim, Factors affecting the adoption of ICT by administrators in the university for development studies tamale: empirical evidence from the UTAUT
model, Int. J. Sustain. Manag. Inf. Technol. 4 (2018) 1, https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsmit.20180401.11.
[2] A.M. Al-Rahmi, A. Shamsuddin, U. Alturki, A. Aldraiweesh, F.M. Yusof, W.M. Al-Rahmi, A.A. Aljeraiwi, The influence of information system success and
technology acceptance model on social media factors in education, Sustain. Times 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147770.
[3] J.K. Lee, W.K. Lee, The relationship of e-Learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-Learning environmental quality, Comput. Hum. Behav. 24
(2008) 32–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.12.001.
[4] A.Y. Alqahtani, A.A. Rajkhan, E-learning critical success factors during the covid-19 pandemic: a comprehensive analysis of e-learning managerial
perspectives, Educ. Sci. 10 (2020) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10090216.
[5] J. Martins, F. Branco, R. Gonçalves, M. Au-Yong-Oliveira, T. Oliveira, M. Naranjo-Zolotov, F. Cruz-Jesus, Assessing the success behind the use of education
management information systems in higher education, Telematics Inf. 38 (2019) 182–193, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.001.
[6] J.-F. Martínez-Cerdá, J. Torrent-Sellens, I. González-González, Socio-technical e-learning innovation and ways of learning in the ICT-space-time continuum to
improve the employability skills of adults, Comput. Hum. Behav. 107 (2020), 105753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.019.
[7] D. Al-Fraihat, M. Joy, R. Masa’deh, J. Sinclair, Evaluating E-learning systems success: an empirical study, Comput. Hum. Behav. 102 (2020) 67–86, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004.
[8] M. Salam, M.S. Farooq, Does sociability quality of web-based collaborative learning information system influence students’ satisfaction and system usage? Int.
J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 17 (2020) 26, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00189-z.
[9] X. Jiang, H. Zhang, T. Wang, C. Zhang, The association of self-control, self-efficacy, and demographic characteristics with home-based E-learning behavior in
nursing and midwifery undergraduates: a cross-sectional study under the COVID-19 epidemic, Nurse Educ. Today 120 (2023), 105628, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105628.
[10] M.M. Alamri, M.A. Almaiah, W.M. Al-Rahmi, Social media applications affecting students’ academic performance: a model developed for sustainability in
higher education, Sustain. Times 12 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166471.
[11] A.S. Al-Adwan, N.A. Albelbisi, O. Hujran, W.M. Al-Rahmi, A. Alkhalifah, Developing a holistic success model for sustainable e-learning: a structural equation
modeling approach, Sustain. Times 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169453.
[12] A.B.A. Avelar, M.C. Farina, The relationship between the incorporation of sustainability in higher education and the student’s behavior: self-reported
sustainable behavior scale, Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2021-0260.
[13] Abdulhafeez Muhammad, A. Shaikh, Q.N. Naveed, M.R.N. Qureshi, Factors affecting academic integrity in E-learning of Saudi arabian universities. An
investigation using delphi and aHP, IEEE Access 8 (2020) 16259–16268, https://doi.org/10.1109/aCCESS.2020.2967499.
[14] A. Maqsood, J. Abbas, G. Rehman, R. Mubeen, The paradigm shift for educational system continuance in the advent of COVID-19 pandemic: mental health
challenges and reflections, Curr. Res. Behav. Sci. 2 (2021), 100011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2020.100011.
[15] A. Alhabeeb, J. Rowley, Critical success factors for eLearning in Saudi Arabian universities, Int. J. Educ. Manag. 31 (2017) 131–147, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJEM-01-2016-0006.
[16] A. Salahshouri, K. Eslami, H. Boostani, M. Zahiri, S. Jahani, R. Arjmand, A.B. Heydarabadi, B.F. Dehaghi, The university students’ viewpoints on e-learning
system during COVID-19 pandemic: the case of Iran, Heliyon 8 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08984.
[17] J. Fernandez-Rio, N. Sanz, J. Fernandez-Cando, L. Santos, Impact of a sustained Cooperative Learning intervention on student motivation, Phys. Educ. Sport
Pedagog. 22 (2017) 89–105, https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2015.1123238.
[18] R. Castro, Blended learning in higher education: trends and capabilities, Educ. Inf. Technol. 24 (2019) 2523–2546, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-
09886-3.
[19] C. Troussas, F. Giannakas, C. Sgouropoulou, I. Voyiatzis, Collaborative activities recommendation based on students’ collaborative learning styles using ANN
and WSM, Interact. Learn. Environ. (2020) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1761835.
[20] A.M. Sayaf, M.M. Alamri, M.A. Alqahtani, W.M. Alrahmi, Factors influencing university students’ adoption of digital learning technology in teaching and
learning, Sustain. Times 14 (2022) 493, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010493.
[21] L. Yekefallah, P. Namdar, R. Panahi, L. Dehghankar, Factors related to students’ satisfaction with holding e-learning during the Covid-19 pandemic based on
the dimensions of e-learning, Heliyon 7 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07628.
[22] A. El Mhouti, A. Nasseh, M. Erradi, J.M. Vasquèz, Enhancing collaborative learning in Web 2.0-based e-learning systems: a design framework for building
collaborative e-learning contents, Educ. Inf. Technol. 22 (2017) 2351–2364, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9545-2.
[23] M.N. Khan, M.A. Ashraf, D. Seinen, K.U. Khan, R.A. Laar, Social media for knowledge acquisition and dissemination: the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
collaborative learning driven social media adoption, Front. Psychol. 12 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648253.
[24] X.-Y. Wang, G. Li, S. Malik, A. Anwar, Impact of COVID-19 on achieving the goal of sustainable development: E-learning and educational productivity, Econ.
Res. Istraživanja. (2021) 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.1927789.
[25] S.N. Samsudeen, R. Mohamed, University students’ intention to use e-learning systems: a study of higher educational institutions in Sri Lanka, Interact.
Technol. Smart Educ. 16 (2019) 219–238, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-11-2018-0092.
[26] P.M.S. Choi, S.S. Lam, A hierarchical model for developing e-textbook to transform teaching and learning, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 15 (2018) 92–103,
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-12-2017-0063.
[27] S. Ali, M.A. Uppal, S.R. Gulliver, A conceptual framework highlighting e-learning implementation barriers, Inf. Technol. People 31 (2018) 156–180, https://
doi.org/10.1108/ITP-10-2016-0246.
[28] W.A. Rausch, P. Levi, Asynchronous and synchronous cooperation, in: Distrib. Auton. Robot. Syst. 2, Springer Japan, 1996, pp. 245–256, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-4-431-66942-5_22.
[29] Q. Al-Maatouk, M.S. Othman, A. Aldraiweesh, U. Alturki, W.M. Al-Rahmi, A.A. Aljeraiwi, Task-technology fit and technology acceptance model application to
structure and evaluate the adoption of social media in academia, IEEE Access 8 (2020), 78427, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2990420. –78440.
[30] A. Gunasinghe, J.A. Hamid, A. Khatibi, S.M.M.F. Azam, The adequacy of UTAUT-3 in interpreting academician’s adoption to e-Learning in higher education
environments, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 17 (2020) 86–106, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2019-0020.
[31] H.-J. Kim, J.-M. Lee, J.-Y. Rha, Understanding the role of user resistance on mobile learning usage among university students, Comput, Educ. Next 113 (2017)
108–118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015.
[32] H. Hamidi, A. Chavoshi, Analysis of the essential factors for the adoption of mobile learning in higher education: a case study of students of the University of
Technology, Telematics Inf. 35 (2018) 1053–1070, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.016.
[33] S.A. Nikou, A.A. Economides, Mobile-based assessment: investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use, Comput. Educ. 109 (2017) 56–73,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005.
[34] L. Briz-Ponce, A. Pereira, L. Carvalho, J.A. Juanes-Méndez, F.J. García-Peñalvo, Learning with mobile technologies – students’ behavior, Comput. Hum. Behav.
72 (2017) 612–620, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.027.
[35] P. Qiao, X. Zhu, Y. Guo, Y. Sun, C. Qin, The development and adoption of online learning in pre- and post-COVID-19: combination of technological system
evolution theory and unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, J. Risk Financ. Manag. 14 (2021) 162, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040162.
[36] A.M. Al-Rahmi, W.M. Al-rahmi, U. Alturki, A. Aldraiweesh, S. Almutairy, A.S. Al-adwan, Exploring the factors affecting mobile learning for sustainability in
higher education, Sustain. Times 13 (2021) 7893, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147893.
[37] T. Adeyinka, S. Mutula, A proposed model for evaluating the success of WebCT course content management system, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (2010)
1795–1805, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.007.
[38] S. Eom, Testing the seddon model of information system success in an e-learning context: implications for evaluating DSS, in: Lect. Notes Bus. Inf. Process.,
Springer Verlag, 2013, pp. 19–33, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41077-2_2.

14
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

[39] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, in: J. Manag, Inf Syst, E. M (Eds.), The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update, Sharpe Inc.,
2003, pp. 9–30, https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748.
[40] M.M. Alomari, H. El-Kanj, N.I. Alshdaifat, A. Topal, A framework for the impact of human factors on the effectiveness of learning management systems, IEEE
Access 8 (2020) 23542–23558, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2970278.
[41] S.B. Eom, N.J. Ashill, A system’s view of E-learning success model, Decis. Sci. J. Innovat. Educ. 16 (2018) 42–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/dsji.12144.
[42] B. Al-shargabi, O. Sabri, S. Aljawarneh, The adoption of an e-learning system using information systems success model: a case study of Jazan University, PeerJ
Comput. Sci. 7 (2021) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.723.
[43] W.M. Al-Rahmi, N. Yahaya, M.M. Alamri, I.Y. Alyoussef, A.M. Al-Rahmi, Y. Bin Kamin, Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance
model: supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) systems, Interact. Learn. Environ. 29 (2021) 1380–1392, https://
doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629599.
[44] Y.C. Liu, Y.A. Huang, C. Lin, Organizational factors’ effects on the success of e-learning systems and organizational benefits: an empirical study in Taiwan, Int.
Rev. Res. Open Dist. Learn. 13 (2012) 130–151, https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v13i4.1203.
[45] A. Alhabeeb, J. Rowley, E-learning critical success factors: comparing perspectives from academic staff and students, Comput, Educ. Next 127 (2018) 1–12,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.007.
[46] H. Al-Harrasi, Z. Al-Khanjari, M. Sarrab, Proposing a new design approach for M-learning applications, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Its Appl. 9 (2015) 11–24, https://doi.
org/10.14257/ijseia.2015.9.11.02.
[47] A. Hassanzadeh, F. Kanaani, S. Elahi, A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities, Expert Syst. Appl. 39 (2012) 10959–10966, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028.
[48] O. Sabri, Applying the updated delone and mclean is success model for enterprise cloud computing readiness, Int. J. Cloud Appl. Comput. (IJCAC) 6 (2016)
49–54, https://doi.org/10.4018/ijcac.2016040105.
[49] H.D. Martin, S.S. Modi, S.S. Feldman, Barriers and facilitators to PDMP IS Success in the US: a systematic review, Drug Alcohol Depend. 219 (2021), 108460,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108460.
[50] U. Marjanovic, M. Delić, B. Lalic, Developing a model to assess the success of e-learning systems: evidence from a manufacturing company in transitional
economy, Inf. Syst. E-Bus. Manag. 14 (2016) 253–272, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-015-0282-7.
[51] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable, Inf. Syst. Res. 3 (1992) 60–95, https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.3.1.60.
[52] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information systems success measurement, found, Trends® Inf. Syst. 2 (2016) 1–116, https://doi.org/10.1561/2900000005.
[53] M. Vygotsky, L. S, Cole, Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes, Account, Aust. (RLE Accounting) (1978) 503, 503.
[54] N. Alalwan, W.M. Al-Rahmi, O. Alfarraj, A. Alzahrani, N. Yahaya, A.M. Al-Rahmi, Integrated three theories to develop a model of factors affecting students’
academic performance in higher education, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 98725–98742, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2928142.
[55] J. Guiller, A. Durndell, A. Ross, Peer interaction and critical thinking: face-to-face or online discussion?, Learn, Instrumentalist 18 (2008) 187–200, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.001.
[56] M.G. Moore, Editorial: three types of interaction, Am. J. Dist. Educ. 3 (1989) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1080/08923648909526659.
[57] H. Baber, Social interaction and effectiveness of the online learning – a moderating role of maintaining social distance during the pandemic COVID-19, Asian
Educ. Dev. Stud. 11 (2021) 159–171, https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-09-2020-0209.
[58] J. Dron, C. Seidel, G.L.- Alt-J, undefined, Transactional distance in a blended learning environment, Taylor Fr 12 (2004) 163–174, https://doi.org/10.1080/
0968776042000216219, 2004.
[59] S. Manca, Snapping, pinning, liking or texting: investigating social media in higher education beyond Facebook, Internet High, Educ. Next 44 (2020), 100707,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.100707.
[60] Y. Lou, R.M. Bernard, P.C. Abrami, Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: a theory-based meta-analysis of empirical literature, Educ.
Technol. Res. Dev. 54 (2006) 141–176, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8252-x.
[61] S. Bali, M.C. Liu, Students’ perceptions toward online learning and face-to-face learning courses, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1108/1/012094.
[62] I. Jung, S. Choi, C. Lim, J. Leem, Effects of different types of interaction on learning achievement, satisfaction and participation in web-based instruction,
Innovat. Educ. Teach. Int. 39 (2002) 153–162, https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290252934603.
[63] T. Anderson, L. Rourke, D.R. Garrison, W. Archer, Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context, J. Async. Learn. Network 5 (2001), https://
doi.org/10.24059/olj.v5i2.1875.
[64] M. Kurucay, F.A. Inan, Examining the effects of learner-learner interactions on satisfaction and learning in an online undergraduate course, Comput. Educ. 115
(2017) 20–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.010.
[65] E. Skinner, C. Furrer, G. Marchand, T. Kindermann, Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? J. Educ. Psychol.
100 (2008) 765–781, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012840.
[66] S. Kim, D.J. Kim, Structural relationship of key factors for student satisfaction and achievement in asynchronous online learning, Sustain. Times 13 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126734.
[67] W.O. Oyediran, A.M. Omoare, M.A. Owoyemi, A.O. Adejobi, R.B. Fasasi, Prospects and limitations of e-learning application in private tertiary institutions
amidst COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria, Heliyon 6 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05457.
[68] J.P. Wilson, The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development, Ind. Commerc. Train. 44 (2012) 438–439, https://
doi.org/10.1108/00197851211268045.
[69] Y.C. Kuo, A.E. Walker, K.E.E. Schroder, B.R. Belland, Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in
online education courses, Internet High, Educ. Next 20 (2014) 35–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.001.
[70] B.G. Gameel, Learner satisfaction with massive open online courses, Am. J. Dist. Educ. 31 (2017) 98–111, https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462.
[71] J.A.N. Ansari, N.A. Khan, Exploring the role of social media in collaborative learning the new domain of learning, Smart Learn, Environ. Times 7 (2020),
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00118-7.
[72] A.E.E. Sobaih, M.A. Moustafa, P. Ghandforoush, M. Khan, To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 58 (2016) 296–305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.002.
[73] V. Benson, S. Morgan, F. Filippaios, Social career management: social media and employability skills gap, Comput. Hum. Behav. 30 (2014) 519–525, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.015.
[74] M.I.M. Eid, I.M. Al-Jabri, Social networking, knowledge sharing, and student learning: the case of university students, Comput. Educ. 99 (2016) 14–27,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.04.007.
[75] A.W. Astin, Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education, in: Coll. Student Dev. Acad. Life Psychol. Intellectual, Soc. Moral Issues, 2014,
pp. 251–263.
[76] G.D. Kuh, What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: benchmarks for effective educational practices, Change 35 (2003) 24–32, https://doi.
org/10.1080/00091380309604090.
[77] P. Baron, L. Corbin, Student engagement: rhetoric and reality, High Educ. Res. Dev. 31 (2012) 759–772, https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.655711.
[78] B.W. Gao, J. Jiang, Y. Tang, The effect of blended learning platform and engagement on students’ satisfaction—— the case from the tourism management
teaching, J. Hospit. Leisure Sports Tourism Educ. 27 (2020), 100272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2020.100272.
[79] R. Fisher, Á. Perényi, N. Birdthistle, The positive relationship between flipped and blended learning and student engagement, performance and satisfaction,
Act. Learn. High. Educ. 22 (2021) 97–113, https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418801702.
[80] J.A. Fredricks, M. Filsecker, M.A. Lawson, Student engagement, context, and adjustment: addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues,
Learn, Instrumentalist 43 (2016) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002.

15
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

[81] J. Maroco, A.L. Maroco, J.A.D.B. Campos, J.A. Fredricks, University student’s engagement: development of the university student engagement inventory
(USEI), psicol, Reflexão e Crítica. 29 (2016) 21, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0042-8.
[82] J. Sinval, J.R. Casanova, J. Marôco, L.S. Almeida, University student engagement inventory (USEI): psychometric properties, Curr. Psychol. 40 (2021)
1608–1620, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0082-6.
[83] K.C. Manwaring, R. Larsen, C.R. Graham, C.R. Henrie, L.R. Halverson, Investigating student engagement in blended learning settings using experience
sampling and structural equation modeling, Internet High Educ. 35 (2017) 21–33, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.06.002.
[84] M. Janosz, Part IV commentary: outcomes of engagement and engagement as an outcome: some consensus, divergences, and unanswered questions, in: Handb.
Res. Student Engagem., Springer US, 2012, pp. 695–703, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_33.
[85] J.C.Y. Sun, R. Rueda, Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education, Br. J. Educ.
Technol. 43 (2012) 191–204, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x.
[86] D.L. Goodhue, R.L. Thompson, Task-technology fit and individual performance, MIS Q, Manag. Inf. Syst. 19 (1995) 213–233, https://doi.org/10.2307/
249689.
[87] A. Qashou, Influencing factors in M-learning adoption in higher education, Educ. Inf. Technol. 26 (2021) 1755–1785, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-
10323-z.
[88] F. Abdullah Moafa, K. Ahmad, W.M. Al-Rahmi, N. Yahaya, Y. Bin Kamin, M.M. Alamri, Develop a model to measure the ethical effects of students through
social media use, IEEE Access 6 (2018) 56685–56699, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2866525.
[89] S.M. Hizam, H. Akter, I. Sentosa, W. Ahmed, Digital competency of educators in the virtual learning environment: a structural equation modeling analysis, IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 704 (2021), 012023, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/704/1/012023.
[90] E. Aparício, Learning systems success, Dist. Learn. 15 (2016) 57–74.
[91] A. Rai, S.S. Lang, R.B. Welker, Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test and theoretical analysis, Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (2002) 50–69, https://
doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.1.50.96.
[92] L.A. Halawi, R.V. McCarthy, J.E. Aronson, An empirical investigation of knowledge management systems’ success, J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 48 (2007) 121–135.
[93] B. Kositanurit, O. Ngwenyama, K.M. Osei-Bryson, An exploration of factors that impact individual performance in an ERP environment: an analysis using
multiple analytical techniques, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 15 (2006) 556–568, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000654.
[94] P. Seddon, M.-Y. Kiew, A partial test and development of delone and mclean’s model of IS success, Australas. J. Inf. Syst. 4 (1996), https://doi.org/10.3127/
ajis.v4i1.379.
[95] H.N. Sabeh, M.H. Husin, D.M.H. Kee, A.S. Baharudin, R. Abdullah, A systematic review of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success in an
E-learning context, IEEE Access 9 (2021) 81210–81235, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3084815, 2010-2020.
[96] J.E. Klobas, T.J. McGill, The role of involvement in learning management system success, J. Comput. High Educ. 22 (2010) 114–134, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12528-010-9032-5.
[97] S. Eom, N.J. Ashill, J.B. Arbaugh, J.L. Stapleton, The role of information technology in e-learning systems success, Hum. Syst. Manag. 31 (2012) 147–163,
https://doi.org/10.3233/HSM-2012-0767.
[98] H.J. Chen, Linking employees’ e-learning system use to their overall job outcomes: an empirical study based on the IS success model, Comput. Educ. 55 (2010)
1628–1639, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.005.
[99] I. Mwalumbwe, J.S. Mtebe, Using learning analytics to predict students’ performance in moodle learning management system: a case of Mbeya University of
science and technology, Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 79 (2017) 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2017.tb00577.x.
[100] S. Ghavifekr, Factors affecting use of e-learning platform (SPeCTRUM) among University students in Malaysia, Educ. Inf. Technol. 22 (2017) 75–100, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9435-z.
[101] L. Pham, Y.B. Limbu, T.K. Bui, H.T. Nguyen, H.T. Pham, Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from
Vietnam, Int. J. Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 16 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0136-3.
[102] W. Bao, COVID -19 and online teaching in higher education: a case study of Peking University, Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2 (2020) 113–115, https://doi.
org/10.1002/hbe2.191.
[103] S.J. Lee, H. Lee, T.T. Kim, A study on the instructor role in dealing with mixed contents: how it affects learner satisfaction and retention in e-learning, Sustain.
Times 10 (2018), https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030850.
[104] N. Ullah, W.M. Al-Rahmi, A.I. Alzahrani, O. Alfarraj, F.M. Alblehai, Blockchain technology adoption in smart learning environments, Sustain. Times 13 (2021)
1–18, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041801.
[105] M.M. Alam, N. Ahmad, Q.N. Naveed, A. Patel, M. Abohashrh, M.A. Khaleel, E-learning services to achieve sustainable learning and academic performance: an
empirical study, Sustain. Times 13 (2021) 1–20, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052653.
[106] E.R. DeLone, H. William, E. McLean, William DeLone, H. McLean, The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success : a ten-year update, J. Manag.
Inf. Syst. 19 (2003) 9–30.
[107] Y.S. Wang, Y.W. Liao, Assessing eGovernment systems success: a validation of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success, Govern. Inf. Q. 25
(2008) 717–733, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.06.002.
[108] A. AlMulhem, Investigating the effects of quality factors and organizational factors on university students’ satisfaction of e-learning system quality, Cogent
Educ 7 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1787004.
[109] G. Chopra, P. Madan, P. Jaisingh, P. Bhaskar, Effectiveness of e-learning portal from students’ perspective, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 16 (2019) 94–116,
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2018-0027.
[110] Y. Hagos, M. Garfield, S. Anteneh, Measurement factors model for e-learning systems success, in: Proc. - Int. Conf. Res. Challenges Inf. Sci., IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6,
https://doi.org/10.1109/RCIS.2016.7549361.
[111] W.M. Al-Rahmi, N. Yahaya, U. Alturki, A. Alrobai, A.A. Aldraiweesh, A. Omar Alsayed, Y. Bin Kamin, Social media – based collaborative learning: the effect on
learning success with the moderating role of cyberstalking and cyberbullying, Interact. Learn. Environ. (2020) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/
10494820.2020.1728342.
[112] A.M. Al-Rahmi, W.M. Al-Rahmi, U. Alturki, A. Aldraiweesh, S. Almutairy, A.S. Al-Adwan, Acceptance of mobile technologies and M-learning by university
students: an empirical investigation in higher education, Educ. Inf. Technol. 27 (2022) 7805–7826, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10934-8.
[113] P.A. Ertmer, T.J. Newby, W. Liu, A. Tomory, J.H. Yu, Y.M. Lee, Students’ confidence and perceived value for participating in cross-cultural wiki-based
collaborations, Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 59 (2011) 213–228, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-011-9187-4.
[114] W.M. Al-Rahmi, M.S. Othman, L.M. Yusuf, Effect of engagement and collaborative learning on satisfaction through the use of social media on Malaysian higher
education, Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 9 (2015) 1132–1142, https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.9.2608.
[115] T. Chen, G. Cong, L. Peng, X. Yin, J. Rong, J. Yang, Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the covid-19 pandemic,
Healthcare 8 (2020) 200, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8030200.
[116] J.C. Roca, C.M. Chiu, F.J. Martínez, Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model, Int. J. Hum. Comput.
Stud. 64 (2006) 683–696, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.01.003.
[117] P.E. Ramírez-Correa, F.J. Rondan-Cataluña, J. Arenas-Gaitán, J.L. Alfaro-Perez, Moderating effect of learning styles on a learning management system’s
success, Telematics Inf. 34 (2017) 272–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.006.
[118] S.K. Taghizadeh, S.A. Rahman, D. Nikbin, M.M.D. Alam, L. Alexa, C. Ling Suan, S. Taghizadeh, Factors influencing students’ continuance usage intention with
online learning during the pandemic: a cross-country analysis, Behav. Inf. Technol. 41 (2021) 1998–2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1912181.
[119] V. Benigno, G. Trentin, The evaluation of online courses, J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 16 (2000) 259–270, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2729.2000.00137.x.
[120] P.C. Sun, R.J. Tsai, G. Finger, Y.Y. Chen, D. Yeh, What drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner
satisfaction, Comput. Educ. 50 (2008) 1183–1202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.

16
A.M. Sayaf Heliyon 9 (2023) e13014

[121] S.S. Liaw, H.M. Huang, Perceived satisfaction, perceived usefulness and interactive learning environments as predictors to self-regulation in e-learning
environments, Comput. Educ. 60 (2013) 14–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.07.015.
[122] J.F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, J.A. Mena, An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research, J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 40 (2012) 414–433, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6.
[123] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, J. Mar. Res. 18 (1981) 39, https://doi.org/
10.2307/3151312.
[124] Y.M. Cheng, Students’ satisfaction and continuance intention of the cloud-based e-learning system: roles of interactivity and course quality factors, Educ. Train.
62 (2020) 1037–1059, https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10-2019-0245.
[125] N.T.T. Ho, S. Sivapalan, H.H. Pham, L.T.M. Nguyen, A.T. Van Pham, H.V. Dinh, Students’ adoption of e-learning in emergency situation: the case of a
Vietnamese university during COVID-19, Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 18 (2020) 246–269, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-08-2020-0164.
[126] I.Y. Alyoussef, E-learning acceptance: the role of task–technology fit as sustainability in higher education, Sustain. Times 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/
su13116450.
[127] J. Yang, M.Y.P. Peng, S.H. Wong, W.L. Chong, How E-learning environmental stimuli influence determinates of learning engagement in the context of COVID-
19? SOR model perspective, Front. Psychol. 12 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.584976.
[128] V.N. Hoi, H. Le Hang, The structure of student engagement in online learning: a bi-factor exploratory structural equation modelling approach, J. Comput.
Assist. Learn. 37 (2021) 1141–1153, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12551.
[129] Y.T. Prasetyo, A.K.S. Ong, G.K.F. Concepcion, F.M.B. Navata, R.A.V. Robles, I.J.T. Tomagos, M.N. Young, J.F.T. Diaz, R. Nadlifatin, A.A.N.P. Redi, Determining
factors affecting acceptance of e-learning platforms during the covid-19 pandemic: integrating extended technology acceptance model and delone & mclean is
success model, Sustain. Times 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158365.
[130] A.M. Sayaf, M.M. Alamri, M.A. Alqahtani, W.M. Al-Rahmi, Information and communications technology used in higher education: an empirical study on digital
learning as sustainability, Sustain. Times 13 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137074.
[131] K.S. Lee, P.S. Tsai, C.S. Chai, J.H.L. Koh, Students’ perceptions of self-directed learning and collaborative learning with and without technology, J. Comput.
Assist. Learn. 30 (2014) 425–437, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12055.
[132] A. Bessadok, Analyzing student aspirations factors affecting e-learning system success using a structural equation model, Educ. Inf. Technol. (2022), https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11015-6.
[133] L. She, L. Ma, A. Jan, H. Sharif Nia, P. Rahmatpour, Online learning satisfaction during COVID-19 pandemic among Chinese university students: the serial
mediation model, Front. Psychol. 12 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.743936.
[134] N.A. Jogezai, F.A. Baloch, M. Jaffar, T. Shah, G.K. Khilji, S. Bashir, Teachers’ attitudes towards social media (SM) use in online learning amid the COVID-19
pandemic: the effects of SM use by teachers and religious scholars during physical distancing, Heliyon 7 (2021), e06781, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2021.e06781.
[135] S. Butt, A. Mahmood, S. Saleem, The role of institutional factors and cognitive absorption on students’ satisfaction and performance in online learning during
COVID 19, PLoS One 17 (2022), e0269609, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269609.
[136] M. Umar, I. Ko, E-Learning, Direct effect of student learning effectiveness and engagement through project-based learning, team cohesion, and flipped learning
during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sustain. Times 14 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031724.
[137] M.B. Ulla, W.F. Perales, Facebook as an integrated online learning support application during the COVID19 pandemic: Thai university students’ experiences
and perspectives, Heliyon 7 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08317.
[138] Ö. Efiloğlu Kurt, Ö. Tingöy, The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in higher education: an empirical study in Turkey, and the UK, Int. J.
Educ. Technol. High. Educ. 14 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0064-z.
[139] A.M. Al-Rahmi, A. Shamsuddin, E. Wahab, W.M. Al-Rahmi, U. Alturki, A. Aldraiweesh, S. Almutairy, Integrating the role of UTAUT and TTF model to evaluate
social media use for teaching and learning in higher education, Front. Public Health 10 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.905968.
[140] T. Alhussain, W.M. Al-Rahmi, M.S. Othman, Students’ perceptions of social networks platforms use in higher education: a qualitative research, Int. J. Adv.
Trends Comput. Sci. Eng. 9 (2020) 2589–2603, https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/16932020.

17