Perceived Utility and Learning by Dominican University Students in Virtual Teaching–Learning Environments: An Analysis of Multiple Serial Mediation Based on the Extended Technology Acceptance Model




virtual teaching-learning environmnet, extended technology acceptance model, higher education, information and communications technology


The global pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus brought about a true revolution in the predominant teaching–learning processes (i.e., face-to-face environment) that had been implemented up to that point. In this regard, virtual teaching–learning environments (VTLEs) have gained unprecedented significance. The main objectives of our research were to define an explanatory theoretical model and to test a multiple serial mediation model with four variables in series (one independent variable plus three mediators) to relate perceived utility (independent variable) in the use of a VTLE and perceived learning (dependent or criterion variable) in such contexts, taking into account the mediation of subjective norm (mediator 1), ease of use (mediator 2), and intention to use behavior (mediator 3), and using the extended technology acceptance model as the theoretical framework. Additionally, we aimed to analyze the direct and indirect relationships and effects among the variables that constituted the proposed model. Methodologically, the research can be classified as a cross-sectional causal ex post facto design. A representative sample of students enrolled in higher education institutions in the Dominican Republic was used as the research population, and a standardized Likert scale was administered to measure the five dimensions of the proposed model. Finally, it is worth noting that the obtained results indicate that all direct and indirect effects considered in the model were statistically significant, except for the indirect effect, where the four predictor variables were arranged in series to verify their influence on the criterion variable: perceived learning.

Author Biographies

Clemente Rodríguez-Sabiote, Faculty of Education Sciences, Campus de Cartuja, University of Granada, Spain

Clemente Rodríguez-Sabiote is full professor at the University of Granada (Spain) in the Department of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education, where he teaches educational research methodology subjects. Author of numerous impact articles indexed in WoS and SCOPUS, he has also participated and is currently participating in several R+D+I research projects.

Ana T. Valerio-Peña, Higher Institute of Teacher Training Salomé Ureña, Recinto Emilio Prud’Homme, Dominican Republic

Ana T. Valerio-Peña is Master's Degree in Management of Educational Centres and Master's Degree in Training of Trainers with ISFODOSU (Dominican Republic), 2006-2013. Academic Director of the Emilio Prud'Homme Campus, ISFODOSU, 2014-2020. Coordinator of the research group: Educational Innovation in Virtual Environments (IEEV)  from 2018 to present.

Roberto A. Batista-Almonte, Higher Institute of Teacher Training Salomé Ureña, Recinto Emilio Prud’Homme, Dominican Republic

Roberto A. Batista-Almonte   Roberto A. Batista-Almonte is Professor of Social Sciences at ISFODOSU (Dominican Republic) and a member of the research group Educational Innovation in Virtual Environments (IEEV) from 2018 to present.

Álvaro M. Úbeda-Sánchez, Faculty of Humanities and Educational Science. Campus de la Lagunillas, University of Jaén. Spain

Álvaro Úbeda-Sánchez is a lecturer at the University of Jaén (Spain) in the Department of Pedagogy. Author of numerous high impact articles, he is also actively involved in several R+D+I research projects.


Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for e-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256.

Adov, L., & Mäeots, M. (2021). What can we learn about science teachers’ technology use during the COVID-19 pandemic? Education Sciences, 11(6), Article 255.

Araka, E., Maina, E., Gitonga, R., Oboko, R., & Kihoro, J. (2021). University students’ perception on the usefulness of learning management system features in promoting self-regulated learning in online learning. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 17(1), 45–64.

Arteaga Sánchez, R., & Duarte Hueros, A. (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1632–1640.

Baez-Estradas, M. L., & Ossandón Núñez, Y. (2015). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de presencia social de las mentes en red y su aplicación en el Entorno Virtual de Enseñanza Aprendizaje UTAmed [Psychometric properties networked minds social presence measure and its application in the teaching learning virtual environment UTAmed]. Universitas Psychologica, 14(3), 843–854.

Bansah, A. K., & Darko Agyei, D. (2022). Perceived convenience, usefulness, effectiveness and user acceptance of information technology: Evaluating students’ experiences of a learning management system. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 31(4), 431–449.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinctions in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Bueno, S., & Salmerón, J. L. (2008). TAM-based success modeling in ERP. Interacting with Computers, 20(6), 515–523.

Calderón, S. J., Tumino, M. C., & Bournissen, J. M. (2020). Realidad virtual: impacto en el aprendizaje percibido de estudiantes de Ciencias de la Salud [Virtual reality: Impact on the perceived learning of students of health sciencies]. Tecnología, Ciencia y Educación, 16, 65–82.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

Gallego-Gómez, C., De-Pablos-Heredero, C., & Montes-Botella, J. L. (2021). Change of processes in the COVID-19 scenario: From face-to-face to remote teaching–learning systems. Sustainability, 13(19), Article 10513.

Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105.

Garson, D. G. (2008). Factor analysis: Statnotes. North Carolina State University, Public Administration Program.

Hamutoglu, N. B., Gemikonakli, O., Duman, I., Kirksekiz, A., & Kiyici, M. (2020). Evaluating students experiences using a virtual learning environment: Satisfaction and preferences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 437–462.

Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64, 19–54

Hernández-Sellés, N. (2021). La importancia de la interacción en el aprendizaje en entornos virtuales en tiempos del COVID-19 [The relevance of interaction in virtual learning environments during COVID-19]. Publicaciones, 51(3), 257–275.

Herrador-Alcaide, T. C., Hernández-Solís, M., & Sanguino Galván, R. (2019). Feelings of satisfaction in mature students of financial accounting in a virtual learning environment: an experience of measurement in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1), Article 20.

Hrastinski, S. (2019). What do we mean by blended learning? Tech Trends, 63, 564–569.

Huang, H.M., Rauch, U., & Liaw, S. S. (2010). Investigating learners’ attitudes toward virtual reality learning environments: Based on a constructivist approach. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1171–1182.

Huffman, W. H., & Huffman, A. H. (2012). Beyond basic study skills: The use of technology for success in college. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 583–590.

Igartua, J.J., & Hayes, A. F. (2021). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Concepts, computations, and some common confusions. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, Article e49.

Islam, A. K. M. N. (2013). Investigating e-learning system usage outcomes in the university context. Computers & Education, 69, 387–399.

Kortemeyer, G., Dittmann-Domenichini, N., Schlienger, C., Spilling, E., Yaroshchuk, A., & Dissertori, G. (2023). Attending lectures in person, hybrid or online—How do students choose, and what about the outcome? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), Article 19.

Limniou, M., & Smith, M. (2010). Teachers’ and students’ perspectives on teaching and learning through virtual learning environments. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(6), 645–653.

Lockee, B. B. (2021). Online education in the post-COVID era. Nature Electronics, 4(1), 5–6.

Martin, F., Xie, K., & Bolliger, D. U. (2022). Engaging learners in the emergency transition to online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 54(sup.1), S1–S13.

Martín-García, A. V., Martínez-Abad, F., & Reyes-González, D. (2019). TAM and stages of adoption of blended learning in higher education by application of data mining techniques. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(5), 2484–2500.

Mohamed, A. S. (2021). Experience sharing on virtual COOP training to mechanical engineering students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(20), Article 11401.

Montagud Mascarell, M. D., & Gandía Cabedo, J. L. (2014). Entorno virtual de aprendizaje y resultados académicos: evidencia empírica para la enseñanza de la Contabilidad de Gestión [Virtual learning environment and academic outcomes: Empirical evidence for the teaching of management accounting]. Revista de Contabilidad, 17(2), 108–115.

Ngai, E., Poon, J., & Chan, Y. (2007). Empirical examination of adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48(2), 250–267.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

Quevedo-Arnaiz, N. V. Q., García-Arias, N. G., & Cañizares-Galarza, F. P. C. (2021). Development of research competences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revista Conrado, 17, 312–320.

Ranellucci, J., Rosenberg, J. M., & Poitras, E. G. (2020). Exploring pre-service teachers’ use of technology: The technology acceptance model and expectancy–value theory. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(6), 810–824.

Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., Úbeda-Sánchez, Á.M., Álvarez-Rodríguez, J., & Álvarez-Ferrándiz, D. (2020). Active learning in an environment of innovative training and sustainability. Mapping of the conceptual structure of research fronts through a bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 12, 1–18.

Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., Valerio-Peña, A. T., & Batista-Almonte, R. (2023). Validation of a scale of the Extended Technology Acceptance Model in the dominican context. Pixel-Bit. Revista de Medios y Educación, 68, 217–244.

Roitsch, J., Moore, R. L., & Horn, A. L. (2021). Lessons learned: What the COVID-19 global pandemic has taught us about teaching, technology, and students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 15(2), 108–116.

Sánchez-Prieto, J.C., Olmos-Migueláñez, S., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2017). MLearning and pre-service teachers: An assessment of the behavioral intention using an expanded TAM model. Computers in Human Behavior, v.72, 644–654.

Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderations effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103.

Severt, K., Shin,Y.H.,Chen, H.S., & DiPietro, R.B. (2020). Measuring the relationships between corporate social responsibility, perceived quality, price fairness, satisfaction, and conative loyalty in the context of local food restaurants, international. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 23(3), 623–645, 10.1080/15256480.2020.1842836

Şimşek, A. S., & Ateş, H. (2022). The extended technology acceptance model for Web 2.0 technologies in teaching. Innoeduca: International Journal of Technology and Educational Innovation, 8(2), 165–183.

Schmidhuber, J., Pound, J., Qiao, B. (2020). COVID-19: Channels of transmission to food and agriculture. Roma. Food and Agriculture Organization.

Talantis, S., Shin, Y. H., & Severt, K. (2020). Conference mobile application: Participant acceptance and the correlation with overall event satisfaction utilizing the technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 21(2), 100–122.

Tan, K. H., Chan, P. P., & Said, N. E. M. (2021). Higher education students’ online instruction perceptions: A quality virtual learning environment. Sustainability, 13(9), Article 10840.

Tırpan, E. C., & Bakirtas, H. (2020). Technology acceptance model 3 in understanding employee’s cloud computing technology. Global Business Review, 25(1), 117–136.

Unger, S., & Meiran, W. R. (2020). Student attitudes towards online education during the COVID-19 viral outbreak of 2020: Distance learning in a time of social distance. International Journal of Technology in Education and Science, 4(4), 256–266.

Urquidi Martín, A. C., Calabor Prieto, M. S., & Tamarit Aznar, C. (2019). Entornos virtuales de aprendizaje: modelo ampliado de aceptación de la tecnología [Virtual learning environments: Extending the technology acceptance model]. Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, 21, Article e22.

Uzunboylu, H., Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). The efficient virtual learning environment: A case study of Web 2.0 tools and Windows Live Spaces. Computers & Education, 56(3), 720–726.

Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.

Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE. Routledge.

Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114.

Wismantoro, Y., Himawan, H., & Widiyatmoko, K. (2020). Measuring the interest of smartphone usage by using technology acceptance model approach. The Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business, 7(9), 613–620.

Yong-Varela, L. A., Rivas Tovar, L. A., & Chaparro, J. (2010). Modelo de aceptación tecnológica (TAM): un estudio de la influencia de la cultura nacional y del perfil del usuario en el uso de las TICS [Technological acceptance model (TAM): A study of the influence of the national culture and of the user profile in the use of ICTS]. Innovar: Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, 20(36), 187–203.

Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 21–29.



How to Cite

Rodríguez-Sabiote, C., Valerio-Peña, A. T., Batista-Almonte, R. A., & Úbeda-Sánchez, Álvaro M. (2024). Perceived Utility and Learning by Dominican University Students in Virtual Teaching–Learning Environments: An Analysis of Multiple Serial Mediation Based on the Extended Technology Acceptance Model. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 25(2), 20–40.



Research Articles