Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES:

EXTENDING UTAUT2 WITH PERSONAL INNOVATIVENESS
Amillia Amid
Information Technology & Resources Module, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, MALAYSIA
amillia84.amid@gmail.com

Rosseni Din
STEM Enculturation Centre, Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, MALAYSIA
rosseni@ukm.edu.my

ABSTRACT
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are online learning environment that have gained widespread
acceptance, particularly in higher education institutions (HEIs). Because MOOCs can promote educational
information, autonomous learning, and lifelong learning, they require continuous use. Although it is common
to find studies on MOOCs in HEIs, research on the acceptance of MOOCs and use preferences among HEIs
remains novel. Drawing on the Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2),
the authors identify the factors that influence the acceptance and use of MOOCs among university students.
Moreover, this article provides a significant theoretical contribution through the introduction of a new
construct in the domain of information technology: personal innovativeness. Data was collected from 218
university students in Malaysia using purposive sampling and analyzed using Smart Partial Least Squares. The
findings indicated that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions,
hedonic motivation, habit, and personal innovativeness in the IT domain have a significant impact on MOOC
acceptance and use among university students. This study contributes to a better understanding of how new
technology is accepted and used such as MOOCs, as well as other forms of learning technology in HEIs.

Keywords: Massive Open Online Courses, acceptance and use, Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and
Use of Technology (UTAUT2), higher education, personal innovativeness (PI).

INTRODUCTION

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have a significant impact on the education field, particularly distance
education. MOOCs are defined as online learning methods available to students around the world to improve
their skills (Altalhi, 2020). They are different from traditional online courses as they possess unique
characteristics such as immensity of scale, openness, and diversity (Tyler Sr., 2020; Lopes et al., 2014; Badi
& Ali, 2016). MOOCs are open, large-scale, structured web-based courses that can be delivered by institutions
of higher education (Deng, 2017) or taught for free over the Internet. Like any other online learning
technology, MOOCs provide important benefits to students and learners. MOOCs also improve learning
performance (Wang & Zhu, 2019). At present, a huge number of HEIs and universities make use of MOOCs.
A MOOC is a suitable media for personalization of learning in the 21st century (Din, 2015). This is due to the
nature of MOOCs. A MOOC is envisaged as a learning tool to give experience with tailored pedagogy,
curriculum, media and environment to meet learners’ different learning needs and aspirations that incorporates
technology and the use of mobile devices to help all learners achieve optimum levels of learning beyond what
could be imagined just a few decades ago (Din, 2015).

One critical issue to be addressed is how to ensure continuous use of MOOCs, rather than initial acceptance
(Ouyang et al., 2017). Therefore, by considering the importance and demand for MOOCs among learners,
several global universities have begun to deliver them through partnerships with MOOCs providers on their
own websites (Pappano, 2012; Vardi, 2012). These MOOCs are available to any learner with Internet access
– which is seen as a wise step to promote MOOCs globally. In addition, MOOCs can assist university graduates
who lack job experience or skills by allowing them to enroll in online courses taught by experts and academics.

To cite this document:

Amid, A. & Din, R. (2021). Acceptance and use of massive open online courses: Extending UTAUT2 with personal innovativeness.
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1): 57-66.
 58
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

Since 2008, the number of MOOCs has expanded rapidly. According to previous studies, more than 500
universities delivered more than 4200 MOOCs to 35 million students (Shah, 2017). Nevertheless, the
completion rate of MOOCs has been questioned (less than 10%) and there is a consistently high dropout (or
non-retention) of MOOC learners (Fianu et al., 2018; Hew et al., 2018; Ma & Lee, 2020). According to Rai
and Chunrao (2016) and Chen (2017), approximately 7%–10% of learners complete the courses after signing
up for MOOCs. In isolation, this figure appears to be enormous; however, when contrasted with the number
of potential recipients of MOOCs, a few hundred million, it is clear there is an enormous gap. Thus, it is vital
to understand what will inspire individual learners to accept and use MOOCs for learning in order to fill this
gap. Recognizing the factors that influence the acceptance and use of MOOC is important for learners and it
is also a major part of the process for MOOCs activities. Several studies have been conducted on MOOCs,
with some focusing on learners’ motivation for using them (Shrader et al, 2016), course completion (Chang et
al., 2015), and the design of online learning materials for MOOCs. However, analyzing previous studies
reveals that few research on MOOC acceptance and utilization have been done. By incorporating the personal
innovativeness (PI) factor from the domain of information technology into the Extended Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), the authors investigate which specific factors in the IT domain
influence the acceptance and use of MOOCs among university students. The findings of this study are expected
to provide a theoretical contribution to the body of knowledge in the IT domain. The several models and
theories that have been used for the adoption of technology are discussed before the theoretical and conceptual
framework are presented.

Theories and Models in Technology Adoption

Several models/theories related to technology adoption, with a new construct are described in this section.
Among regularly utilized models are the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and the Extended Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
(UTAUT2).

A. Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

The Technology Acceptance Model was developed by Davis (1989) to describe an individual’s acceptance of
information technology and is an extension of the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The objective of TAM is to clarify determinants of computer acceptance among users. It replaces the 'attitude
beliefs’ construct in TRA with two new constructs: Perceived Usefulness (PU) and Perceived Ease of Use
(PEOU) to study attitudes towards use and Behavioral Intention (BI) to influence actual use. The degree to
which a person believes that using a particular system would improve his or her work performance is referred
to as PU, whereas the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would be effort-free is
referred to as PEOU (Cheah et al., 2011).

The TAM does not include the ‘subjective norms’ construct due to uncertainty of theoretical and psychometric
status to parse the constructs (Davis, 1989). As the TAM evolved, new external constructs were introduced
such as system quality, compatibility, computer anxiety, enjoyment, computing support, and experience
(Davis, 1989). These constructs affected PU, PEOU, BI, and actual use or behavior. Although the TAM
remains popular and has been applied in numerous studies on technology adoption, researchers have recently
presented more theories that focus on organizational and consumer perspectives.

B. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) is an integrated model used to identify
users’ acceptance of technology (Venkatesh et al., 2003). UTAUT is a theory most frequently employed to
explain technology acceptance in the education field and in business and information systems (Hamdan et al.,
2015). Venkatesh et al. compared and tested constructs from eight different models of new technology
adoption and utilisation. The following were the eight models and theories: (1) Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA), (2) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), (3) Motivational Model (MM), (4) Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB), (5) Combined TAM and TPB (C-TAM-TPB), (6) Model of PC Utilization (MPCU), (7)
Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), (8) Social Cognitive Theory. Venkatesh et al. (2003) then proposed
UTAUT to explain technology acceptance and use of ICTs in the organizational field. The UTAUT focuses
on four direct constructs (Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Facilitating Conditions, and Social
Influence). Numerous studies have applied UTAUT to explain the acceptance and use of technology. A review
of the literature reveals that these four constructs are significant indicators of the technology adoption (Huang

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 59
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

& Kao, 2015; Decman, 2015; Tosuntas et al., 2015). The authors of the current study also explore whether the
construct of behavioral intention affects the use of technology. Venkatesh et al. (2003) also identified an
important role for several moderator constructs, namely (1) age, (2) gender, (3) experience, and (4) voluntary
dependent on behavioral intentions and the use of technology.

C. Extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2)

The UTAUT2 model is an improved version of UTAUT that explains the acceptance and use of technology
among users. The UTAUT2 model evolved from the results generated using the UTAUT model. The UTAUT2
framework includes four constructs from the UTAUT model (performance expectancy, effort expectancy,
facilitating conditions, and social influence) as well as three additional constructs (hedonic motivation, price
value and habit) as precursors of behavioral intention and use behavior. Hedonic motivation is defined as the
enjoyment or pleasure gained from employing a technology; price value is defined as the cognitive trade-off
customers make between the perceived advantages of the applications and the monetary cost of utilizing them;
and habit is defined as a perceptual construct that reflects the outcomes of previous experiences. In addition,
the UTAUT2 model includes three moderating constructs: (1) age, (2) gender, and (3) experience (Venkatesh
et al., 2012). Previous studies used the UTAUT2 in various technologies such as mobile technology
(Baabdullah et al., 2014), phablets (Huang & Kao, 2015), mobile payments (Morosan & DeFranco, 2016),
capture systems (Farooq et al., 2017) and online games (Xu, 2014). Social media and new technology, such
as MOOCs, have a positive relationship with all of the constructs revealed in this theory (Huang, 2018).
UTAUT2 is used in a few research in the education field, especially in the context of MOOCs. UTAUT2 is
accepted as a valid framework for comprehending and investigating usage intentions within an educational
setting (Prins, 2014). Therefore, the authors of this study examined factors that influence students' acceptance
and utilization of MOOCs. Having reviewed the literature, the following hypotheses were developed for the
study:

H1: Performance expectancy positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H2: Effort expectancy positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H3: Social influence positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H4: Facilitating conditions positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H5: Facilitating conditions positively affect use behavior towards MOOCs

H6: Hedonic motivation positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H7: Habit positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H8: Habit positively affects use behavior towards MOOCs

H9: Behavioral intention positively affects use behavior towards MOOCs

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 60
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

Performance
Expectancy

Effort H1
Expectancy
H2
Social
Influence H3
Behavioral H11 Use
H4 Intention Behavior
Facilitating
Conditions H5
H6
H8
Hedonic
Motivation H7

Habit H10
H9

Personal
Innovativeness

Figure 1. Proposed theoretical framework

D. Personal Innovativeness (PI) in the Domain of Information Technology

Agarwal and Prasad (1998) defined personal innovativeness (PI) as “the willingness of an individual to try out
any new information technology”. In the field of information technology (IT), the term PI also refers to a
person's personal attitudes that reflect his or her tendency to experiment independently and apply new
information technology developments (Raaij & Schepers, 2008). Thus, PI can be defined as the readiness to
use the most recent innovative devices, or a risk-taking inclination associated with users’ engagement with
new advancements in the area of IT (Agarwali & Prasad, 1998). PI is an important construct for the study of
individual behavior toward innovation, which is an old tradition in the study of innovation diffusion spread in
general. PI suggested in this study differs from Rogers’ (1995) "innovative" construct in Innovation Diffusion
Theory, which measures the general reception of innovation when compared with others (Rogers, 1995). In
this research, PI refers to the personal disposition of individuals who wish to attempt using new technologies
in IT. Research has indicated that personal innovativeness (PI) is the personal factor that has the most influence
on digital informal learning (He & Zhu, 2017). The following hypotheses were therefore developed:

H10: Personal innovativeness positively affects behavioral intention to use MOOCs

H11: Personal innovativeness positively affects use behavior towards MOOCs

METHODOLOGY
In this study, a quantitative technique was use to test the research hypotheses. The participants were chosen
using a non-probability purposive selection approach. They were chosen from four public universities in the
Klang Valley: UKM, UPM, UM, and UiTM Shah Alam. Participants were advised that participation was
voluntary and were made aware that they would be asked to complete a questionnaire to assure the quality of
the data. The questionnaire was only administered to participants upon the receipt of written consent. The
questionnaire consisted of two sections. Questions in part A elicited demographic information such as gender,
age, semester of study, university, and MOOC experience. Questions in part B contained questions on their
acceptance and use of MOOCs.

Overall, 288 questionnaires were administered, of which 218 were returned and analysed. There was no
missing data. The sample size was based on the analysis' force of power, based on the number of predictors
(Hair et al., 2017; Ngah et al., 2020). Thus, this study's minimal sample size was 131, 80% power, with 13
predictors. Therefore, 218 respondents were selected in this study. The data was analyzed using Smart Partial

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 61
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

Least Squares version 3.2.7, which employs confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Items from Venkatesh et al.
(2003) and Din (2018) were used, including performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence,
facilitating conditions, and behavioral intention. Items including hedonic motivation, habit, and personal
innovativeness were adopted from Venkatesh et al. (2012) and Farooq et al. (2017).

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

Respondents of the study were mostly between the ages of 23–34 years, as seen in the demographic profiles
in Table 1, indicating that they were in the learner development phase. The respondents' gender ratio was
imbalanced, with considerably more female respondents (165) than male respondents (53). One reason for this
might be gender differences in the courses that were taken. Female students prefer courses that mostly provide
MOOCs in their subject, such as art, literature, history, education, and foreign language, whereas male students
tend to select science, technology, engineering, mechanics, and mathematics (Huang, 2018) courses.
Regarding how long students had been using a MOOC for their subject, 14.7% of respondents had been using
a MOOC since semester one, 6.9% since semester two, 21.6% since semester three, and 7.8% since semester
four. In addition, 32.6% of respondents had been using a MOOC since semester five, 10.1% since semester
six, and 6.4% since the final and seventh semester of their studies. There was a balanced proportion of
respondents from all four universities in Malaysia (29.4% UKM, 23.4% UPM, 25.7% UiTM Shah Alam, and
21.6% UM).

The hypotheses were then tested using Smart PLS version 3.2.7. Smart PLS is a variance-based software that
was utilized in this study to predict relationships between constructs. Because there was no expectation of
getting a model fit by repeating the covariance matrix, variance-based software was ruled out for the study
(Hair et al., 2017). The two steps in the analysis included the measurement model and the structural model.

Table 1: Respondent Profile

Construct Category Frequency %

Gender Male 53 24.3
Female 165 75.7
Age Less than 20 14 6.4
20 – 24 192 88.1
25 – 29 9 7.1
30 – 34 3 1.4
Semester 1 32 14.7
2 15 6.9
3 47 21.6
4 17 7.8
5 71 32.6
6 22 10.1
7 and above 14 6.4
University UKM 64 29.4
UPM 51 23.4
UiTM Shah Alam 56 25.7
UM 47 21.6
Experience Less than 1 year 123 56.4
1 – 3 years 88 40.4
4 – 6 years 7 3.2
Total 218 100

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 62
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

A. Measurement Model

The outer model (Hair et al., 2017) is another name for the measurement model. In the theoretical framework,
the measurement model was used to determine the validity of the item and construct relationship. The
measuring model included both convergent and discriminant validity. According to Hair et al. (2014),
convergent validity is obtained when Cronbach's alpha is ≥ 0.7, the Composite Reliability (CR) is ≥ 0.7 and
the average variance explained (AVE) is ≥ 0.5. Table 2 shows the complete list of convergent validity
outcomes. Discriminant validity, the second type of validity, reveals that the construct is distinct from other
theoretical constructs and examines how much each indicator represent a construct. To confirm that the
constructs are statistically unique and distinct from other constructs, an appropriate assessment of discriminant
validity is required. As proposed by Henseler et al. (2015), the HTMT ratio is employed as a measure of
discriminant validity. As a general rule, if the HTMT value is larger than 0.85, there is a probable discriminant
validity concern (Hair et al., 2017). Table 3 indicates that discriminant validity in the present study is less than
0.85, 0.90 and 1.00. Table 3 shows that the study had discriminant validity because all HTMT values were
lower than the value given by Franke and Sarstedt (2019).

B. Structural Model

As previously indicated, the data was analyzed using variance-based partial least square (PLS) structural
equation modelling (SEM). Calculations were performed using Smart-PLS-3.2.7. To get the path coefficient
(beta) values, all hypothesized path relations were run through the structural model, and t-values analysis was
also used to determine the significance of the relationships. As suggested by Hair et al. (2017), the
bootstrapping technique was used to test the hypotheses. Of the 11 hypotheses, only one was unsupported, as
indicated in Table 4. Specifically, performance expectancy was found to be contributing positively to
behavioral intention (ß = 0.097, t = 2.081, P < 0.05), effort expectancy was found to be contributing positively
to behavioral intention (ß =0.119, t = 2.748, P < 0.05), and social influence was found to be contributing
positively to behavioral intention (ß =0.220, t = 4.723, P < 0.05). However, facilitating conditions was not
positively contributing to behavioral intention (ß = -0.093, t = 1.626, P < 0.05). Additionally, facilitating
conditions was found to be contributing positively to use behavior (ß = -0.122, t = 1.953, P < 0.05), hedonic
motivation was found to be contributing positively to behavioral intention (ß = 0.293, t = 4.742, P < 0.05),
habit was found to be contributing positively to behavioral intention (ß = 0.197, t = 3.175, P < 0.05), and habit
was found to be contributing positively to use behavior (ß = 0.190, t = 2.648, P < 0.05).

The construct of personal innovativeness was found to be contributing positively to behavioral intention
(ß = 0.313, t = 4.876, P < 0.05) and use behavior (ß =0.198, t = 2.535, P < 0.05) while behavioral intention
was found to be contributing positively to use behavior (ß =0.367, t = 4.623, P < 0.05). Thus, only H4 was not
supported as facilitating conditions was found to have a negative contribution towards behavioral intention to
use MOOCs. Hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, H10 and H11 were all supported. The findings
confirmed past studies by Huang (2018) and Franke and Sarstedt (2019) for performance expectancy, effort
expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions, as well as by Gibson (2019) for hedonic motivation
and habit. Although previous studies have found facilitating conditions to have a positive relationship with
behavioral intention (Arain et al., 2019), the current study revealed the opposite. Nevertheless, this finding
aligns with those from Venkatesh et al. (2012) and Gibson (2019). The authors also found that personal
innovativeness (PI) has a positive relationship with university students' acceptance and utilization of MOOCs.
These findings are in line with those from Tseng et al. (2019) and Gunasinghe et al. (2018).

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 63
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

Table 2: Convergent Validity

Construct AVE Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability

Performance Expectancy (PE) 0.765 0.709 0.867
Effort Expectancy (EE) 0.607 0.792 0.861
Social Influence (SI) 0.718 0.804 0.884
Facilitating Conditions (FC) 0.648 0.821 0.880
Hedonic Motivation (HM) 0.852 0.913 0.945
Habit (H) 0.732 0.877 0.916
Personal Innovativeness (PI) 0.601 0.772 0.856
Behavioral Intention (BI) 0.644 0.724 0.844
Use behavior (UB)* 1.000 1.000 1.000
* Single Item construct

Table 3: Discriminant Validity HTMT

Construct BI EE FC H HM PE PI SI USE
BI
EE 0.327
FC 0.553 0.519
H 0.624 0.119
0.428 0.578
HM 0.750 0.466 0.733 0.585
PE 0.496 0.632 0.551 0.551 0.578
PI 0.374 0.351 0.453 0.637 0.438 0.328
SI 0.595 0.543 0.591 0.626 0.677 0.559 0.472
USE 0.376 0.136 0.193 0.364 0.143 0.196 0.146 0.216

Table 4: Structural Model/ Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis Relationship Beta Error T value P Values Decision VIF

H1 PE→BI 0.097 0.046 2.081 0.019 Supported 1.451
H2 EE→BI 0.119 0.043 2.748 0.003 Supported 1.538
H3 SI→BI 0.220 0.046 4.723 0.000 Supported 1.740
H4 FC→BI -0.093 0.057 1.626 0.052 Unsupported 1.835
H5 FC→USE -0.122 0.062 1.953 0.025 Supported 1.319
H6 HM→BI 0.293 0.062 4.742 0.000 Supported 2.028
H7 H→BI 0.197 0.062 3.175 0.001 Supported 1.925
H8 H→USE 0.190 0.072 2.648 0.004 Supported 2.009
H9 PI→BI 0.313 0.064 4.876 0.000 Supported 1.912
H10 PI→USE 0.198 0.078 2.535 0.006 Supported 2.105
H11 BI→USE 0.367 0.079 4.623 0.000 Supported 2.413

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 64
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

DISCUSSION
The findings of this study showed the effects of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating
conditions, social influence, hedonic motivation, habit, and personal innovativeness on behavioral intention.
In addition, the study examined how this behavioral intention can predict MOOC usage. The findings indicated
that behavioral intention influenced performance expectancy and effort expectancy. This result is in line with
Venkatesh et al. (2012). Social influence appears to have a significant contribution on behavioral intention,
which is also consistent with previous studies. However, facilitating conditions were identified in UTAUT2
as having both a direct and indirect impact on behavioral intention. Nonetheless, the indirect impact through
behavioral intention is not supported by this study. To find the source of this problem, more investigation is
required. One reason might be that students use MOOCs for academic purposes only. Alternatively, it might
be that students did not expect more support from their respective universities regarding the technology. The
findings also indicated that facilitating conditions has a negative relationship with behavioral intention.
Hedonic motivation and habit, two new constructs added by Venkatesh et al. (2012) in the UTAUT2 model,
had a significant impact on behavioral intention to use MOOC. Personal innovativeness was also significant.
This finding is consistent with past studies (Gunasinghe et al., 2018; Dhiman et al., 2019).

CONCLUSION
Based on UTAUT2, this study presented findings on university students' acceptance and use of MOOCs, as
well as introducing and verifying a new construct's function and personal innovativeness (PI). This study
contributes to the general body of knowledge by making a theoretical contribution. The findings indicate that
all UTAUT2 constructs, and PI in the IT domain have a positive relationship with university students'
acceptance and use of MOOCs. Furthermore, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, facilitating
conditions, social influence, hedonic motivation, habit, and personal innovativeness are UTAUT2 constructs
that have a significant role in MOOC adoption and use. This study paves the way for future research in various
settings to evaluate the role of personal innovativeness in influencing technology acceptance and use.

Acknowledgment

We would like to convey our utmost appreciation to the STEM Enculturation Research Centre, Faculty of
Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for their support to publish this work using the STEM & Minda
Grant GG-2021-002.

References
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the
Domain of Information Technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204-215.
Altalhi, M. (2020). Toward a model for acceptance of MOOCs in higher education: the modified UTAUT
model for Saudi Arabia. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 1589-1605.
Arain, A. A., Hussain, Z., Rizvi, W. H., & Vighio, M. S. (2019). Extending UTAUT2 toward acceptance of
mobile learning in the context of higher education. Universal Access in the Information Society, 18(3),
659-673.
Baabdullah, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2014). Adopting an extended UTAUT2 to predict
consumer adoption of M-technologies in Saudi Arabia. UK Academy for Information Systems
Conference Proceedings (pp. 5).
Badi, S., & Ali, M. E. A. (2016). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) their impact on the full quality in
higher education institutions Rwaq: Saudi educational platform for MOOC. Journal of Library and
Information Sciences, 4(1), 73-101.
Chang, R. I., Hung, Y. H., & Lin, C. F. (2015). Survey of learning experiences and influence of learning style
preferences on user intentions regarding MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3),
528-541.
Cheah, C. M., Teo, A. C., Sim, J. J., Oon, K. H., & Tan, B. I. (2011). Factors affecting Malaysian mobile
banking adoption: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Network and Mobile Technologies,
2(3), 149-160.
Chen, J. (2017). Motivations and challenges of using Massive Open Online Courses by students and
instructors. International Journal of Education & Teaching Analytics, 1(1), 6-12.

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 65
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information
technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
Decman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education:
The influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272-281.
Deng, J. (2017). Research on higher vocational students’ acceptance and use of MOOC in web software
development course. Boletin Tecnico, 55(7), 689-695.
Dhiman, N., Arora, N., Dogra, N., & Gupta, A. (2019). Consumer of smartphone fitness apps: An extended
UTAUT2 perspective. Journal of Indian Business Research, 12(3), 363-388.
Din, R. (2015). Foreword from the Chief Editor: The inaugural issue of JPL. Journal of Personalized
Learning, 1(1), i-iii.
Din, R. (2018). [Unpublished raw data “Soal selidik penerimaan dan penggunaan MOOC menggunakan
platform open learning”]. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-Markovic, M., & Sajid, A. (2017).
Acceptance and use of lecture capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: Extending
UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329-348.
Fianu, E., Blewett, C., Ampong, G. O. A., & Ofori, K. S. (2018). Factors affecting MOOC usage by students
in selected Ghanaian Universities. Education Sciences, 8(2), 70-91.
Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison
of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430-447.
Gibson, A. (2019). Assessment of acceptance factors impacting adoption and use of business intelligence and
analytics systems among small and medium-size US manufacturing organizations (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Capella). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.
(UMI No. 13859908).
Gunasinghe, A., Hamid, J. A., Khatibi, A., & Azam, S. M. (2018). Does the lecturer’s innovativeness drive
VLE adoption in higher education institutes? (A study based on extended UTAUT). Journal of
information Technology Management, 10(3), 20-42.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Second edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Hamdan, A., Din, R., Abdul Manaf, S. Z., Mat Salleh, N. S., Kamsin, I. F. & Ismail, N. M. (2015). Pendidikan:
satu ulasan sistematik (UTAUT applications in the field of education: A systematic review). Journal
of Advanced Review on Scientific Research, 5(1), 10-29.
He, T., & Zhu, C. (2017). Digital informal learning among Chinese university students: The effects of digital
competence and personal factors. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 14(1), 1-19.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1),
115-135.
Hew, K. F., Qiao, C., & Tang, Y. (2018). Understanding student engagement in large-scale open online
courses: A machine learning facilitated analysis of student’s reflections in 18 highly rated MOOCs.
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3), 69-93.
Huang, C. Y., & Kao, Y. S. (2015). UTAUT2 based predictions of factors influencing the technology
acceptance of phablets by DNP. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 1-23.
Huang, X. (2018). Social media use by college students and teachers: An application of UTAUT2 (Doctoral
thesis, Walden University Minnesota). Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/5012/.
Lopes, A. P., & Soares, F. (2014). A new horizon for online teaching and learning. Proceedings of
EDULEARN14 Conference, Barcelona, Spain. IATED Academy (pp. 5328-5335).
Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2020). Drivers and barriers to MOOC adoption: Perspectives from adopters and
nonadopters. Online Information Review, 44(3), 671–684.
Morosan, C., & DeFranco, A. (2016). It is about time: Revisiting UTAUT2 to examine consumers’ intentions
to use NFC mobile payments in hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 53(2016),
17-29.
Ngah, A. H., Jeevan, J., Salleh, N. H. M., Lee, T. T. H., & Ruslan, S. M. M. (2020). Willingness to pay for
halal transportation cost: The moderating effect of knowledge on the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Environmental Treatment Techniques, 8(1), 13-22.

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness
 66
Journal of Personalized Learning, 4(1) 2021, 57-66.

Ouyang, Y., Tang, C., Rong, W., Zhang, L., Yin, C., & Xiong, Z. (2017). Task-technology fit aware
expectation-confirmation model towards understanding of MOOCs continued usage intention.
Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii (pp. 174-183).
Pappano, L. (2012). The year of the MOOC. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-openonline-courses-are-multiplying-
at-a-rapid-pace.html.
Prins, R. (2014). Measuring Usage Intentions of IT in an Educational Setting [Bachelor’s degree dissertation,
Department of Information Science, University of Amsterdam]. University Library.
https://uba.uva.nl/en/home.
Rai, L., & Chunrao, D. (2016). Influencing factors of success and failure in MOOC and general analysis of
learner behavior. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(4), 262-268.
Roger, E. M., (1995), Diffusion of innovations. Fourth edition. New York: Free Press
Shah, D. (2017). By the numbers: MOOCs in 2017 – Class Central. [Online]. Available from
https://www.class-central.com/report/mooc-stats-2017.
Shrader, S., Wu, M., Owens, D., & Santa Ana, K. (2016). Massive open online courses (MOOCs): Participant
activity, demographics, and satisfaction. Online Learning, 20(2), 199-216.
Tosuntaş, Ş. B., Karadağ, E., & Orhan, S. (2015). The factors affecting acceptance and use of interactive
whiteboard within the scope of FATIH project: A structural equation model based on the unified theory
of acceptance and use of technology. Computers & Education, 81(1), 169–178.
Tseng, T. H., Lin, S., Wang, Y. S., & Liu, H. X. (2019). Investigating teachers’ adoption of MOOCs: the
perspective of UTAUT2. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-16.
Tyler Sr, A. G. (2020). User acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies by faculty in the online classroom: A
correlational study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global database. (UMI No. 27995717).
Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China.
Computers & Education, 50(3), 838-852.
Vardi, M. Y. (2012). Will MOOCs destroy academia? Communications of the ACM, 55(11), 5.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology:
toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.
Venkatesh, V. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory
of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.
Wang, K. & Zhu, C. (2019). MOOC-based flipped learning in higher education: students’ participation,
experience and learning performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 16(1), 1-18.
Xu, X. (2014). Understanding user’s continued use of online games: An application of UTAUT2 in social
network games. MMEDIA 2014 The Sixth International Conference on Advances in Multimedia (pp.
58-65). IARIA.

Acceptance and Use of Massive Open Online Courses: Extending UTAUT2 with Personal Innovativeness