Environment and Social Psychology

Exploring factors influencing AI-powered E-learning system adoption intention: An empirical study on mediation and moderation effects

Jiyun Chen

International College, Krirk University, Bangkok, 10220, Thailand

TsangKai Chang

International College, Krirk University, Bangkok, 10220, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i3.3551

Keywords: AI; e-learning system; adoption intention; IDT; TAM

---

Abstract

The prevalence of artificial intelligence (AI) technology in modern society has profoundly changed traditional communication and learning methods. As the application of AI technology in e-learning systems becomes increasingly pervasive, there is an urgent need for research on issues related to the behavioral intention of AI-powered e-learning systems. This study employs an integrated framework combining Innovation Diffusion Theory (IDT), the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), and self-efficacy theory to analyze factors that empirically examine factors influencing college students' behavioral intentions in e-learning. It identifies the mediating mechanism underlying the relationship between adoption intentions and its antecedents and examines the moderating effect of self-efficacy. A purposive questionnaire was distributed online among college students. A total of 298 responses were drawn. A quantitative survey methodology included Chi-square analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Structural Equation Modeling. The results show that college students' adoption intention determinants are AI-powered e-learning system traits (relative advantage, complexity, observability) and satisfaction. Furthermore, the impacts of AI-powered e-learning system traits on adoption intention are mediated by satisfaction. Self-efficacy positively moderates the impact of innovation traits on adoption intention. The discussion and implications present theoretical advancements in elucidating the mechanism of adoption intention and putting forward instructive recommendations for improving the adoption intention of technology-driven innovations in the digitalized education era.

---

References

[1]. 1.Nasri W, Charfeddine L. Factors affecting the adoption of internet banking in Tunisia: An integration theory of acceptance model and theory of Planned Behavior. The Journal of High Technology Management Research 2012; 23(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hitech.2012.03.001

[2]. 2.Al-Fraihat D, Joy M, Masa’deh R, et al. Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior 2020; 102: 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004

[3]. 3.Liu A, Urquía-Grande E, López-Sánchez P, et al. Research into microfinance and ICTs: A bibliometric analysis. evaluation and program planning 2023; 97:102215.

[4]. 4.Liu F, Zou ZJ. Determinates of the competitiveness of provincial forest health care industry in China. Ecological Economy 2023; 9(4):344–358.

[5]. 5.Wang Y, Zhang N, Zhao X. Understanding the determinants in the different government AI adoption stages: Evidence of local government chatbots in China. Social Science Computer Review 2020; 40(2):089443932098013. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980132

[6]. 6.Habibie TJ, Yasirandi R, Oktaria D. The analysis of Pangandaran fisherman’s actual usage level of GPS based on TAM model. Procedia Computer Science 2022; 197:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.115

[7]. 7.Raneem Rashad Saqr, Sabah Abdullah Al-Somali, Sarhan, M. Y. Exploring the acceptance and user satisfaction of AI-driven e-learning platforms (Blackboard, Moodle, Edmodo, Coursera and edX): An integrated technology model. Sustainability 2023; 16(1): 204–204. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010204

[8]. 8.Chaka C. Is Education 4.0 a sufficient innovative, and disruptive educational trend to promote sustainable open education for higher education institutions? A review of literature trends. Frontiers in Education 2022; 7:824976. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.824976

[9]. 9.Mohammadi H. Investigating users’ perspectives on e-learning: An integration of TAM and IS success model. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 45:359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.044

[10]. 10.Mohammadi H. Social and individual antecedents of m-learning adoption in Iran. Computers in Human Behavior 2015; 49:191–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.006

[11]. 11.Joo YJ, Lim KY, Kim EK. Online university students’ satisfaction and persistence: Examining perceived level of presence, usefulness and ease of use as predictors in a structural model. Computers & Education 2011; 57(2):1654–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.02.008

[12]. 12.George B, Wooden O. Managing the strategic transformation of higher education through artificial intelligence. Administrative Sciences 2023; 13(9):196. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13090196

[13]. 13.Papadakis S, Kiv AE, Kravtsov HM, et al. Revolutionizing education: Using computer simulation and cloud-based smart technology to facilitate successful open learning. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2023; 1–18. https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3358/paper00.pdf

[14]. 14.Aggarwal D, Sharma D, Saxena AB, et al. Smart education: An emerging teaching pedagogy for interactive and adaptive learning methods. Journal of Learning and Educational Policy 2024; 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55529/jlep.44.1.9

[15]. 15.Chonraksuk J, Boonlue S. Development of an AI predictive model to categorize and predict online learning behaviors of students in Thailand. Heliyon 2024; 10(11): e32591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32591

[16]. 16.Al-Gahtani SS. Testing for the applicability of the TAM model in the Arabic context. Information Resources Management Journal 2008; 21(4): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.4018/irmj.2008100101

[17]. 17.Chen J, Xu Z, Gu J. Construction of virtual simulation training bases in vocational colleges from the perspective of the technology acceptance model: Taking the representative intangible cultural heritage of Zishan pottery carving as an example (Chinese). Ke Chen Yu Jiao Xue 2024; 40(12):59–66.

[18]. 18.Wang C, Chen C. Review of the Application of Innovation Diffusion Theory in IT Field (Chinese). Value Engineering 2012; 31(1):162–164.

[19]. 19.Zhu M. Construction of accurate push service model of libraries in western hunan ethnic minority areas based on innovation diffusion theory model (Chinese). Science and Technology Information 2022; 20(2):219–222.

[20]. 20.Sandberg J, Barnard Y. Interviews on AI and education: Education and technology: What do we know? and where is AI? AI Communications 1993; 6(1):47–58. https://doi.org/10.3233/aic-1993-6104

[21]. 21.Sandu N, Gide E. Adoption of AI-Chatbots to enhance student learning experience in higher education in India. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET); 26–28 September 2019; Magdeburg, Germany. IEEE; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1109/ithet46829.2019.8937382

[22]. 22.UNESCO. Education for sustainable development goals: learning objectives. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444

[23]. 23.Furey H, Martin F. AI education matters. AI Matters 2019; 4(4):13–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3299758.3299764

[24]. 24.Hanycz SA, Antiperovitch P. A practical review of generative AI in cardiac electrophysiology medical education. Journal of Electrocardiology 2025; 90:153903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2025.153903

[25]. 25.Yang X. Accelerated move for AI education in China. ECNU Review of Education 2019; 2(3):347–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119878590

[26]. 26.Moore GC, Benbasat I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 1991; 2(3):192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192

[27]. 27.Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989; 13(3):319–340.

[28]. 28.Bandura A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 1977; 84(2): 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

[29]. 29.Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 1st ed. Free Press; 1962.

[30]. 30.Al-Rahmi WM, Yahaya N, Alamri MM, et al. Integrating innovation diffusion theory with technology acceptance model: Supporting students’ attitude towards using a massive open online courses (MOOCs) Systems. Interactive Learning Environments 2019; 29(8): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629599

[31]. 31.Yu X, Lei LH. Research on influence factors of learners adopting MOOC: Based on user surveys of Tsinghua university’s “online school” (Chinese). Modern Distance Education 2014; 155(5):3–8. https://doi.org/10.13927/j.cnki.yuan.2014.05.015

[32]. 32.Mkhize P, Mtsweni ES, Buthelezi P. Diffusion of innovations approach to the evaluation of learning management system usage in an open distance learning institution. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 2016; 17(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i3.2191

[33]. 33.Choe MJ, Noh GY. Combined model of technology acceptance and innovation diffusion theory for adoption of smartwatch. International Journal of Contents 2018; 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5392/IJoC.2018.14.3.032

[34]. 34.Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. Free Press; 1983.

[35]. 35.Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press; 2003.

[36]. 36.Davis FD. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results [PhD thesis]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1986. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192

[37]. 37.Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Contemporary Sociology 1975; 6(2):244. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065853

[38]. 38.Abdullah F, Ward R, Ahmed E, et al. Investigating the influence of the most commonly used external variables of TAM on students’ perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) of e-portfolios. Computers in Human Behavior 2016; 63(63): 75–90.

[39]. 39.Al Masarweh M. Evaluating m-learning system adoption by faculty members in Saudi Arabia using concern-based adoption model (CBAM) stages of concern. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 2019; 14(05): 153. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14i05.8296

[40]. 40.Tarrant MA, Manfredo MJ, Driver BL. Recollections of outdoor recreation experiences: A psychophysiological perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 1994; 26(4):357–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1994.11969967

[41]. 41.Jan SK. The relationships between academic self-efficacy, computer self-efficacy, prior experience, and satisfaction with online learning. American Journal of Distance Education 2015; 29(1):30–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2015.994366

[42]. 42.Mailizar M, Burg D, Maulina S. Examining university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic: An extended TAM model. Education and Information Technologies 2021; 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10557-5

[43]. 43.Ratna PA, Mehra S. Exploring the acceptance for e-learning using technology acceptance model among university students in India. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking 2015; 5(2):194. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpmb.2015.068667

[44]. 44.Al-Rahmi WM, Yahaya N, Aldraiweesh AA, et al. Integrating technology acceptance model with innovation diffusion theory: An empirical investigation on students’ intention to use e-learning systems. IEEE Access 2019; 7: 26797–26809. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2899368

[45]. 45.Konstantinos L, Iro V, Papadakis, S, Stavros A, Anastasiou A, Andromachi F, Vassilis K, Nikos K. Determinants of Humanities and Social Sciences Students’ Intentions to Use Artificial Intelligence Applications for Academic Purposes. Information 2024, 15(6); 314–314. https://doi.org/10.3390/info15060314

[46]. 46.ÖZÜDOĞRU G. The effect of distance education on self-efficacy towards online technologies and motivation for online learning. Journal of Learning and Teaching in Digital Age 2021; 7(1). https://doi.org/10.53850/joltida.1003915

[47]. 47.Bandura A. Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 2001; 52(1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1

[48]. 48.Alamri MM. Investigating students’ adoption of MOOCs during COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ academic Self-Efficacy, learning engagement, and learning persistence. Sustainability 2022; 14(2): 714. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020714

[49]. 49.Taghizadeh SK, Rahman SA, Nikbin D, et al. Factors influencing students’ continuance usage intention with online learning during the pandemic: A cross-country analysis. Behaviour & Information Technology 2021; 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2021.1912181

[50]. 50.Peng R, Xiong L, Yang Z. Exploring tourist adoption of tourism mobile payment: An empirical analysis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 2012; 7(1):5–6. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-18762012000100003

[51]. 51.Kim HJ, Lee JM, Rha JY. Understanding the role of user resistance on mobile learning usage among university students. Computers & Education 2017; 113:108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.015

[52]. 52.Kumar BA, Chand SS. Mobile learning adoption: A systematic review. Education and Information Technologies 2018; 24(1):471–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9783-6

[53]. 53.Bhattacherjee A. Understanding and evaluating relevance in IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 2001; 6. https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.00606

[54]. 54.Delone WH, McLean ER. The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 2003; 19(4):9–30.

[55]. 55.Bassi M, Steca P, Fave AD, et al. Academic self-Efficacy beliefs and quality of experience in learning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2006; 36(3): 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9069-y

[56]. 56.Lee JK, Lee WK. The relationship of e-Learner’s self-regulatory efficacy and perception of e-Learning Environmental Quality. Computers in Human Behavior 2008; 24(1): 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.12.001

[57]. 57.Walker SL, Fraser BJ. Development and validation of an instrument for assessing distance education learning environments in higher education: The distance education learning environments survey (DELES). Learning Environments Research 2005; 8(3):289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-005-1568-3

[58]. 58.Koole S, Christiaens V, Cosyn J, et al. Facilitating dental student reflections: Using mentor groups to discuss clinical experiences and personal development. Journal of Dental Education 2016; 80(10):1212–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2016.80.10.tb06204.x

[59]. 59.Hair J, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Prentice Hall; 2009.

[60]. 60.Ly B, Ly R. Internet banking adoption under technology acceptance model—evidence from cambodian users. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 2022; 7:100224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100224

[61]. 61.Selim HM. An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education 2003; 40(4):343–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0360-1315(02)00142-2

[62]. 62.Shaw N. The mediating influence of trust in the adoption of the mobile wallet. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2014; 21(4):449–459.

[63]. 63.Schwarzer R, Mueller J, Greenglass E. Assessment of perceived general self-efficacy on the internet: Data collection in cyberspace. Anxiety, Stress & Coping 1999; 12(2):145–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615809908248327

[64]. 64.Yang J, Tian Y. “Others are more vulnerable to fake news than I am”: Third-person effect of COVID-19 fake news on social media users. Computers in Human Behavior 2021; 125:106950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106950

[65]. 65.Ngah AH, Kamalrulzaman NI, Mohamad MFH, et al. The sequential mediation model of students’ willingness to continue online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning 2022; 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-022-00188-w

[66]. 66.Bentler PM, Chou CP. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods & Research 1987; 16(1): 78–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001004

[67]. 67.Hosmane BS. Improved likelihood ratio tests and Pearson Chi-Square tests for independence in two dimensional contingency tables. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods 1986; 15(6):1875–1888. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610928608829224

[68]. 68.Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 2008; 40(3): 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879

[69]. 69.Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16(3): 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555

[70]. 70.Urbach N, Ahlemann F. Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 2010; 11(2): 5–14.

[71]. 71.Cerny BA, Kaiser HF. A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1977; 12(1): 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1201_3

[72]. 72.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models With Unobservable Variables And Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981; 18(1): 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

[73]. 73.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003; 88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

[74]. 74.Spector PE. Using self-Report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior 1994; 15(5):385–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150503

[75]. 75.Wang L, Huang J. Mediating role of entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and prosocial tendency in the relation between college students’ post-traumatic growth and entrepreneurial intention in the post-COVID-19 era. Frontiers in Psychology 2022; 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.861484

[76]. 76.Bollen, KA. Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons; 1989.

[77]. 77.Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999; 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

[78]. 78.Doll WJ, Xia W, Torkzadeh G. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. MIS Quarterly 1994; 18(4), 453. https://doi.org/10.2307/249524

[79]. 79.Fan X, Thompson B, Wang L. Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999; 6(1), 56–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119

[80]. 80.McDonald RP, Moon-Ho Ringo Ho. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods 2002; 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.7.1.64

[81]. 81.Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 1980; 88(3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588

[82]. 82.Serrano Archimi C, Reynaud E, Yasin HM, et al. How Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility Affects Employee Cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. Journal of Business Ethics 2018; 151(4):907–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3882-6

[83]. 83.Kim S, Gopalan N, Beutell NJ. Sustainability through humility: The impact of humble leadership on work–family facilitation in the U.S. and Japan. Sustainability 2023; 15(19):14367. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914367

[84]. 84.Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. The Guilford Press; 2018. https://www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

[85]. 85.Toothaker LE, Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 1994; 45(1):119. https://doi.org/10.2307/2583960

[86]. 86.Hassanzadeh A, Kanaani F, Elahi S. A model for measuring e-learning systems success in universities. Expert Systems with Applications 2012; 39(12):10959–10966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.03.028

[87]. 87.Zhang L, Gu X. Research on the influencing factors of the innovation diffusion of artificial intelligence in education based on TOE theoretical framework. China Distance Education 2023; 2: 54–63. https://doi.org/10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2023.02.008

[88]. 88.Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000; 46(2):186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

[89]. 89.Venkatesh V, Bala H. Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences 2008; 39(2):273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x

[90]. 90.Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, et al. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27(3):425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

[91]. 91.Nugroho MA, Setyorini D, Novitasari BT. The role of satisfaction on perceived value and e-learning usage continuity relationship. Procedia Computer Science 2019; 161:82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.102

[92]. 92.Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: An expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly 2001; 25(3): 351–370.https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

[93]. 93.Karahanna E, Straub DW, Chervany NL. Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of Pre-Adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly 1999; 23(2):183–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/249751

[94]. 94.Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.

[95]. 95.Siemens G. Learning Analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral Scientist 2013; 57(10): 1380–1400.https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213498851

[96]. 96.Dai X. A Study on mindful agency’s influence on college students’ engagement with online teaching: The mediating roles of e-learning self-efficacy and self-regulation. Acta Psychologica 2024; 243:104146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104146

[97]. 97.Prensky M. Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 2001; 9(5): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816

[98]. 98.Neumann MM, Finger G, Neumann DL. A conceptual framework for emergent digital literacy. Early Childhood Education Journal 2016; 45(4): 471–479.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0792-z

[99]. 99.Dogan ME, Goru Dogan T, Bozkurt A. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in online learning and distance education processes: A systematic review of empirical studies. Applied Sciences 2023; 13(5):3056. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13053056

[100]. 100.Papamitsiou ZK, Economides AA. Learning analytics and educational data mining in practice: A systematic literature review of empirical evidence. Educational Technology & Society 2014; 17(4):49–64.

[101]. 101.Chonraksuk J, Boonlue S. Development of an AI predictive model to categorize and predict online learning behaviors of students in Thailand. Heliyon 2024; 10(11): e32591–e32591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32591

[102]. 102.Mahafdah R, Bouallegue S, Bouallegue R. Enhancing e-learning through AI: Advanced techniques for optimizing student performance. Peer J Computer Science 2024; 10: e2576. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.2576

[103]. 103.Khokhar AS. Digital literacy. International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence 2016; 7(3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdldc.2016070101