Keywords:Adoption of Technology,E-Learning,COVID-19,Models,Acceptance Model,TAM,
AbstractDuring COVID-19 education system is very suffered not only by students but also by teachers. All universities, colleges, and schools adopted the E-Learning system during COVID-19. During this pandemic, we used the E-learning tools by the digital tools Zoom, and Google Meet. This paper is based on how we use the different technology models for the adoption of the E-Learning tools and adoption of E-learning tools affected the students during COVID-19 and also students are agree to adopt these tools. Questionnaires are prepared based on the adoption of E-learning tools and filled by the collegiate students. Learning organizations like Schools, colleges, and universities in India are presently based on old-style learning procedures and shadow the conservative location of face-to-face communication/lectures in a classroom. Most of the theoretical models are used earlier for the adoption of the E-learning sector ongoing combined learning, still, most of them are constructed with old steps. The determination of this study was to measure students’ observations of the usefulness of the technology for the acceptance of the model in the adoption of E-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic in rural areas in Punjab. The discoveries propose that the adapted TAM is a good predictor of consumer behavior in using the Internet. We initiate that attitude in the direction of using the Internet performances as a strong conjecturer of interactive purpose to practice, and definite technique of Internet technologies. Future researchers can use the subsequent implementation to test how customers adopt and accept Internet-based presentations.
I. Adeoye IA, Adanikin AF, Adanikin A (2020) COVID-19 and E-learning: Nigeria tertiary education system experience. Int J Res Innov Appl Sci 5(5):28–31
II. Alone, Kimwise. (2017). ADOPTION OF E-LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES IN EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS/ORGANIZATIONS: A LITERATURE REVIEW.
III. Ang, M. C., Ramayah, T., & Amin, H. (2015). A theory of planned behavior perspective on hiring Malaysians with disabilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34(3), 186-200
IV. Barker P. On being an online tutor Innovations in Education and Teaching International 2002 39 (1) 7 13 [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]
V. Beetham H. e-Learning research: emerging issues? Research in Learning Technology 2005 13 (1) 81 89 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
VI. Carey, J. M., & Day, D. (2005). Cultural aspects for technology acceptance: Asian perspectives and research techniques. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, Omaha, NE.
VII. Chau, P., & Hu, P. (2001). Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model of comparison approach. Decision Sciences, 32(4), 699–719. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00978.x
VIII. Chuttur,M.(2009).Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments and future directions. Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37). Maslin Masrom (2007), “Technology Acceptance Model and E-learning”, 12th International Conference on Education, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, University Brunei Darussalam, 21-24
IX. Dearing, James & Cox, Jeffrey. (2018). Diffusion Of Innovations Theory, Principles, And Practice. Health Affairs. 37. 183-190. 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1104.
X. Dishaw, M. T., Strong, D. M., & Bandy, D. B. (2004). The impact of task-technology fit in technology acceptance and utilization models. Paper presented at the Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York.
XI. Good M. On the way to online pedagogy Teaching and learning online: pedagogies for new technologies Stephenson J. Kogan Page London 2001 166 174 [Google Scholar]
XII. Haythornthwaite, Caroline & Andrews, Richard & Kazmer, Michelle & Bruce, Bertram & Montague, Rae-Anne & Preston, Christina. (2007). Theories and models of and for online learning. First Monday. 12. 10.5210/fm.v12i8.1976.
XIII. Hojjati, S. N., & Khodakarami, M. (2016). Evaluation of factors affecting the adoption of smart buildings using the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Advanced Networking and Applications, 7(6), 2936
XIV. MacVaugh, Jason & Schiavone, Francesco. (2010). Limits to the diffusion of innovation: A literature review and integrative model. European Journal of Innovation Management. 13. 197-221. 10.1108/14601061011040258
XV. Njenga, J. K. (2011). ELearning adoption in Eastern and Southern African higher education institutions. A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Information Systems, University of the Western Cap
XVI. Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H.,Pahnila, S. (2004). Consumer acceptance of online banking: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Internet Research, 14(3), 224–235. doi:10.1108/10662240410542652
XVII. Salmon G. E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning online Kogan Page London 2000 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
XVIII. Sun, H. (2003). An integrative analysis of TAM: Toward a deeper understanding of technology acceptance model. Paper presented at AMCIS ‘03, Tampa, FL
XIX. T. V. Paul, “An evaluation of the effectiveness of E-learning, mobile learning and instructor-led training in organizational training and development,”The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1-13, 2014.
XX. T. Ramayah and M. Jantan, “Technology acceptance: An individual perspective current and future research in malaysia”, Review of Business Research, vol. 2, no. 1, (2004), pp. 103 111
XXI. THE LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION MODELS AND THEORIES FOR THE NOVELTY TECHNOLOGY JISTEM – Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21-38, 2017
XXII. Thorpe M. Rethinking learner support: the challenge of collaborative online learning Open Learning 2002 17 (2) 105 115 [Taylor & Francis Online],
XXIII. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis and F.D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”, MIS quarterly, (2003), pp. 425–478