vocational college students' acceptance of web-based summative listening comprehension test in an...

7/26/2019 Vocational College Students' Acceptance of Web-based Summative Listening Comprehension Test in an EFL Course

1/10

Full length article

Vocational college students' acceptance of web-based summative

listening comprehension test in an EFL course

Harun Cigdem a, *, Mustafa Ozturk b , Abdullah Topcu a

a Turkish Land Forces Non-Commissioned Ofcer Vocational College, Balikesir, Turkeyb Hacettepe University, School of Foreign Languages, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 9 December 2015

Received in revised form

20 March 2016

Accepted 22 March 2016

Available online 28 March 2016

Keywords:

Behavioral intention

Web based listening test

Technology acceptance

Military vocational college

EFL course

Online testing

a b s t r a c t

There is a substantial increase in the utilization of web-based assessment procedures to assist teaching

and learning processes in higher education institutions. Despite their benets, institutions use them to a

limited extent due to a number of factors inuencing both instructors' and students' behaviors. This

study examines students' acceptance of a web-based summative listening test administered in the 2014

e2015 academic year within an English as a Foreign Language' course at a two-year post-secondary

military school in Turkey. The participants consisted of 602 military students. As a model, Computer

Based Assessment Acceptance Model based on Technology Acceptance Model was adopted in order to

analyze the participants' perceptions on a web-based summative listening comprehension test. The data

were collected via an online questionnaire. A structural equation modeling analysis was utilized to

analyze the relationships among factors. The general results showed that perceived ease of use and

perceived playfulness had a direct inuence on the participants' behavioral intentions to use web-based

tests. In other words, web-based tests are expected to be used if they are easy to use and playful enough.

2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Seeing that students' frequent use of computers andthe Internet

is increasing rapidly, web-based testing (WBT) is also becoming a

prevalent system as an alternative to traditional assessment prac-

tices in all educational settings around the world. WBT is related to

the conceptualization and administration of assessments as a so-

phisticated way of using web technologies (Cigdem & Oncu, 2015)

with the aim of expanding educational assessments in universities,

schools or other industry. WBT's becoming widespread resides in

the fact that an increasing number of faculty members have started

to realize the convenience of creating, implementing, and man-aging assessment as parts of learning management systems

(Llamas-Nistal, Fernandez-Iglesias, Gonzalez-Tato, & Mikic-Fonte,

2013). WBT is seen as a noteworthy method for instructors, espe-

cially regarding high-stake tests, because it aims to optimize the

goals and techniques of teaching and testing in shorter times (Pino-

Silva, 2008) and the delivery or administration of the assessment is

not supposed to be at a xed time or place (Cigdem& Oncu, 2015;

Jeong, 2014).

There have been numerous advantages of WBT for both test-

developers and test-takers such as exibility of time and place;

enhanced resource use; immediate and real-time feedback; high

interaction with test-takers; quick results and real-time score re-

ports; automated grading and reporting; easier data management;

cost reduction; more productive managing, organizing, and

deploying of exams; time-saving evaluation of learners' strengths

and weaknesses; and learners' self-evaluation (Abedi, 2014; Bull &

McKenna, 2004;Chou, Moslehpour, & Huyen, 2014; Cigdem & Tan,

2014; Llamas-Nistal et al. 2013; Morris, 2008; Terzis, Moridis, &

Economides, 2013; Zakrzewski&

Steven, 2000). Along with suchadvantages, an effective WBT system is required to provide

authentic assessment activities and meaningful feedback as well as

to support multidimensional perspectives (Gikandi, Morrow, &

Davis, 2011).

As test developers and test takers are being immersed in WBT

systems, a greater number of educational researchers tend to work

on the acceptance of WBT systems with the purpose of dening the

variables that might explain the acceptance issue. Users' perceived

acceptance of a technology or behavioral intentions to use a tech-

nology have been studied and described by many researchers

previously as in the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) (Ajzen &

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected](H. Cigdem),mustafaozturk@hacettepe.

edu.tr(M. Ozturk),[email protected](A. Topcu).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . co m / l o c a t e / c o m p hu m b e h

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070

0747-5632/

2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Computers in Human Behavior 61 (2016) 522e531
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbehhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070http://www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbehhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07475632http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.070&domain=pdfmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/10

Fishein, 1980); the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991);

the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, Bagozzi, &

Warshaw, 1989); the Unied Theory of Acceptance and Use of

Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003); and

the Computer Based Assessment Acceptance Model (CBAAM)

(Terzis &Economides, 2011). Considering the scope of the current

research, the CBAAM was adopted and studied with the aim of

determining the students' intentions to use a WBT system in the

case of a summative assessment of Listening Comprehension in

English.

2. Literature review

As the researchers have been driven to examine the factors that

affect user's perceptions on the adoption and acceptance of WBT

systems, there has been a considerable amount of literature por-

traying the application of the CBAAM in various educational con-

texts. To exemplify, Dermo (2009) surveyed 130 undergraduate

students participating in an online (formative/summative) assess-

ment system during the 2007e2008 academic year and found that

the reliability, security, validity, and accessibility of the system were

accepted by the participants coming from different academic pro-

grams like management, informatics and engineering, life sciences,social sciences and education, and therefore learning was promoted

among them. As another example, Terzis and Economides (2011)

worked on the perceptions of introductory informatics course

students on the acceptance of WBT. Their results indicated that

perceived ease of use and perceived playfulness had a direct effect

on the use of computer-based assessments, whereas perceived

usefulness had only an indirect effect. In Sorensen's (2013)survey

on students' perceptions about e-assessments in a college chem-

istry course, the participants thought that e-assessment facilitated

their learning. With that study, more frequent implementations of

e-assessment in other courses was also suggested. In a study con-

ducted with military students at a Mathematics course, it was seen

that students having computers and the Internet at home as well as

prior web-based exam experiences were more optimistic about thecomputer-based assessments than the other students (Cigdem &

Tan, 2014). In another survey done with military students,

Cigdem and Oncu (2015) investigated perceptions on WBT in a

computer networks course and found that the contents of the

questions signicantly affected perceived usefulness and that

perceived usefulness had a great inuence on users' behavioral

intentions.

All those attempts reveal that an increasing number of educa-

tional settings adopt or use WBT systems to deliver and manage

their assessment procedures more efciently and more conve-

niently. Since language testing is one of those settings, this study

investigates the factors that are likely to inuence learners in-

tentions to use WBT systems in the assessment of their listening

comprehension. Even though WBTsystemsare thought to be usefulin the realm of language testing, whether such systems are

preferred over paper-pencil assessment procedures is not clear

enough (Pino-Silva, 2008). Therefore, the current study is thought

to be an important step to look into the perceptions of the students

on WBT systems when assessing a fundamental skill of language

education, which is listening comprehension.

3. Signicance of the study

Turkish educational system is trying to raise generations who

can speak at least one foreign language, which is frequently English,

to be able to internationalize its institutions and citizens, and thus

promote language teaching at all levels of education, particularly in

higher education. Having graduates who can understand and speak

English is one of the primary policies of many higher education

institutions. This fact makes language teaching and testing in

higher education a difcult and demanding task. Although teaching

the skills of reading and writing are managed to some extent in

current implementations, there is still a limited competence in

teaching and testing of listening and speaking skills. An important

attempt is thought to carry out a computer assisted system to

expand teaching and testing of such skills to be able to make it

more practical and widespread. From this point forth, this study

will be a good basis for the upcoming value of teaching and testing

of listening comprehension through technology in higher educa-

tion. Although the major contribution of the study was to look into

the variables inuencing the students' intentions to use a WBT

system, this study aimed to contribute to the eld through an

attempt to implement a WBTsystem within the context of a foreign

language course, in particular for an underestimated sub-skill,

which is Listening Comprehension. Various forms of WBT systems

were adopted previously in various content areas; yet, such studies

were limited in number and scope for language teaching contexts.

Apart from this, the current research setting, which is a unique

post-secondary higher education institution among its types, adds

to the signicance of the study.

4. Research model and hypotheses

Computer Based Assessment Acceptance Model (CBAAM) was

proposed byTerzis and Economides (2011)on the basis of previous

acceptance models such as TAM, TPB and UTAUT as well as with the

inclusion of additional variables in order to describe behavioral

intention to use a WBT system. Eight variables were included

within the model: perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,

computer self-efcacy, social inuence, facilitating conditions,

perceived playfulness, content, and goal expectancy. On the whole,

Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use were adopted from

the TAM (Davis, 1989); Computer Self Efcacy was adopted from

Social Cognitive Theory (Compeau & Higgins, 1995); Perceived

Playfulness was adopted from an extended TAM version byMoonand Kim (2001); and Facilitating Conditions and Social Inuence

were adopted from the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Apart from

those, two more variables,Goal Expectancy, which is rooted in Self-

Management of Learning (Wang, Wu, &Wang, 2009) andContent

were introduced byTerzis and Economides (2011)to the model.

As illustrated in Fig.1, the CBAAMsuggests that users' intentions

to use a WBT system is directly linked to perceived ease of use,

perceived playfulness, perceived usefulness, and content of web

based test. Apart from those links, perceived ease of use is dened

by computer self-efcacy and facilitating conditions; whereas

perceived playfulness is dened by perceived usefulness, goal ex-

pectancy, and content of web based test. On the other hand,

perceived usefulness is also inuenced by social inuence, goal

expectancy, and content of web-based test.

4.1. Perceived playfulness (PP)

Moon and Kim (2001)offered Perceived Playfulness (PP) in the

TAM, as a key belief constructed through an individual's personal

experience with a system, Perceived Playfulness (PP) is dened as

the pleasure the individual feels objectively when committing a

particular behavior or carrying out a particular activity. PP, as a

signicant variable, is attributed to have a positive impact on

behavioral intention to accept and use the Internet or a WBT system

(Moon &Kim, 2001; Terzis & Economides, 2011) and determined

by the aspects of concentration, curiosity, and enjoyment (Terzis &

Economides, 2011). In this framework, it is about the arousal of an

individual's enjoyment, cognitive curiosity, and concentration

H. Cigdem et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 61 (2016) 522e531 523


3/10

during an activity. Our hypothesis for the current concept was as

follows:H1. PP would have a positive effect on the Behavioral Intention to

use WBT.

4.2. Perceived usefulness (PU)

As one of the important factors introduced within the TAM,

Perceived Usefulness (PU) is dened as the level that a person

thinks using a certain system would enhance his/her job perfor-

mance within an organizational content(Davis, 1989, p. 320) and

as the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better

than its precursor (Rogers, 2003). PU was found tobe a strong factor

directly inuencing the behavioral intention to use a technology in

various educational research contexts (Cigdem & Oncu, 2015; Ong& Lai, 2006; Sun, Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008; Van Raaij &

Schepers, 2008; Venkatesh &Davis, 2000). In this sense, a useful

WBT is attributed to increase perceived playfulness (Terzis &

Economides, 2011). Therefore, we hypothesized:

H2. PU would have a positive effect on the Behavioral Intention to

use WBT.

H3. PU would have a positive effect on PP.

4.3. Perceived ease of use (PEU)

Perceived Ease of Use (PEU), which is dened as the degree to

which a person believes that using a particular system would be

free of effort (Davis, 1989; Rogers, 2003), is the second major

variable of the TAM (Davis, 1989). A lot of research put forward

evidences on the positive impact of the PEU on behavioral inten-

tion, perceived usefulness and perceived playfulness (Terzis &

Economides, 2011; Venkatesh, 1999; Venkatesh &Davis, 1996). In

this context, as the level of PEU regarding an e-learning system

increases, the acceptance and use of that system by the participants

is most likely to increase (Teo, Lee, &Chai, 2008). In this line, we

had the following hypotheses:

H4. PEU would have a positive effect on the Behavioral Intention

to use WBT.

H5. PEU would have a positive effect on PU.

H6. PEU would have a positive effect on PP.

4.4. Computer self-efcacy (CSE)

Explained as an individual's feelings of his/her ability to use

computers (Compeau & Higgins, 1995), Computer Self Efcacy

(CSE) was claimed to have a direct effect on PEU and an indirect link

to the behavioral intention (Terzis & Economides, 2011). Building

on this claim, we also hypothesized:

H7. CSE would have a positive effect on PEU.

4.5. Social inuence (SI)

Integrated into the CBAAM as a variable from the UTAUT (Teo,

2009; Teo et al., 2008) and used in the LMS acceptance models

frequently (Van Raaij &Schepers, 2008; Wang et al., 2009), Social

Inuence (SI) is related to individuals' beliefs of how they areinuenced by the opinions and judgments of their colleagues,

friends, family members, and superiors (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;

Taylor & Todd, 1995; Venkatesh et al., 2003). SI was measured

through three key variables: Subjective Norm, Image and Volun-

tariness (Karahanna& Straub, 1999; Venkatesh et al., 2003). SI was

claimed to be one of the major determinants explaining behavioral

intention within certain acceptance models like TAM2 and UTAUT

and to have a positive effect on PU in LMS and WBT contexts (e.g.

Cigdem & Topcu, 2015; Terzis & Economides, 2011; Wang et al.,

2009). Although a signicantly positive effect of SI only on PU

was found within the CBAAM, SI was said to determine users'

behavioral intentions indirectly through PU (Terzis & Economides,

2011). Our hypothesis for this concept was as follows:

H8. SI would have a positive effect on PU.

4.6. Facilitating conditions (FC)

Facilitating Conditions (FC) was also adopted from the UTAUT

(Teo, 2009; Teo et al., 2008) and used in the LMS acceptance models

(Van Raaij & Schepers, 2008; Wang et al., 2009). FC represents a

variety of factors that possibly inuence a person's perceptions to

execute a course of action and depends on the system itself and its

providers. FC might stand for technical support such as helpdesks

and online support services; resource factors such as time and

money (Lu, Liu, Yu, & Wang, 2008); policies, regulations, and legal

environment of a system; communication activities and active

participation of organizational staff (Bueno &

Salmeron, 2008).

Fig. 1. Computer based assessment acceptance model.

H. Cigdem et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 61 (2016) 522e531524


4/10

Within the scope of the current research, FC was set to cover all the

support provided by the staff during the WBT and hypothesized to

have a positive effect on PEU.

H9. FC would have a positive effect on PEU.

4.7. Goal expectancy (GE)

The signicance of the concepts like self-direction, self-man-

agement, self-discipline, goal orientation, and personal outcome

expectations (Smith, Murphy, & Mahoney, 2003; Yi & Hwang,

2003; Shih, 2008) has been mentioned in previous studies. Based

on Self-Management of Learning (Wang et al., 2009), Goal Expec-

tancy (GE) occurs as a variable inuencing individuals' beliefs that

they are prepared appropriately to use a WBT through two di-

mensions: learners' satisfaction with their preparation for the WBT

and their desirable level of success. Goals, either specic or difcult,

serve a purpose towards high performance. Sometimes, greater

achievements come with more difcult goals. Therefore, it might

notbe a good strategy forinstructorsto include easy assignments to

support learning experiences as loss of interest in the course or

even dropouts might occur as a result (Locke, 1996; Locke &

Latham, 1990). In a summative assessment within the scope of

the CBAAM, a positive effect of GE on PU and on PP was demon-

strated. In this framework, our hypotheses were:

H10. GE would have a positive effect on PU.

H11. GE would have a positive effect on PP.

4.8. Content (C)

Students are able to learn concepts and improve their perfor-

mances by answering sample practice questions on each concept

and taking continuous feedback on their responses (Moreno &

Mayer, 2007; Tennyson, 1980; Tennyson & Buttrey, 1980).

Learning concepts could depend on learners' attributes and theirprior knowledge (Tennyson & Park, 1980). Referring to the learners'

conceptualizations of the content of the WBT, Content (C) was also

adapted as a variable from previous studies tot in the WBTcontext

(Shee & Wang, 2008; Wang, 2003). The items of WBT system were

based on EFL course content. If items in WBT were clear, under-

standable and relevant to the course content, then it was more

likely to expect utility and satisfaction by students (Terzis &

Economides, 2011). It was indicated that C could inuence

perceived usefulness (Cigdem & Oncu, 2015), goal expectancy,

perceived playfulness, and behavioral intention to use a WBT sys-

tem (Terzis & Economides, 2011). Besides, it appeared as a signi-

cant variable to determine e-learners' satisfaction (Wang, 2003). In

the light of all those points, we had the following hypotheses

regarding the Content:

H12. C would have a positive effect on PU.

H13. C would have a positive effect on PP.

H14. C would have a positive effect on GE.

H15. C would have a positive effect on the Behavioral Intention to

use WBT.

5. Method

5.1. Research context and participants

This study was conducted in a compulsory EFLcourse taught at a

post-secondary military school and with 1986 military students

from various academic programs. Although all the students

participated in the assessments, only 602 of them responded to the

online questionnaire.

Among those 602 students, 65 of them were from the depart-

ment of Computer Technology, 265 from the department of Elec-

tronics and Communication Technologies, 133 from the department

of Business Administration, 33 from the department of Electrics, 70

from the department of Mechatronics, and 36 from the department

of Construction. The participants' age ranged from 17 to 23 with an

average of 19.65.

The participants had two distinct listening tests. In the rst one,

they were provided with 20 multiple-choice items and the mean

value for all the student groups was 62 out of 100. The second one

included a variety of tasks through 15 items such as drag and drop,

ll-in-the gaps, matching, and multiple-choice types (see Fig. 2).

The overall score of this test was not as high as the rst one (M 45

out 100).

5.2. Data collection instrument

The data were collected quantitatively through an online

questionnaire uploaded on the learning management systemwhere the students are supposed to take their end-of-semester

listening comprehension exams. The questionnaire included 24

ve-point Likert-type items which were adapted from the TAM

literature and administered in Turkish. Table 1 displays the cate-

gories within the scale and the items within each category except

for the items excluded from the analyses as they indicated poor

factorial loadings (i.e.


5/10

nal model returned c2 549.378, df 215; c2/df 2.555 with

probability level p 0.00 < 0 .05. Several t indices are reported

here, including the root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA) 0.051, goodness oft index (GFI) 0.932, adjusted GFI

(AGFI) 0.905, in which GFI and AGFI were greater than 0.80 and

RMSEA was lower than 0.08. All these values suggested that the

Fig. 2. A screenshot of computer based listening exam.

Table 1

Items and constructs.

Constructs Items Mean SD Factor loading

Perceived Usefulness (PU) (Davis, 1989),a .921 1.78 0.97

PU1 Using the Computer Based Assessment (CBA) will improve my work. 1.74 0.990 0.91

PU2 Using the CBA will enhance my effectiveness. 1.78 1.025 0.90

PU3 Using the CBA will increase my productivity. 1.82 1.103 0.88

Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU)(Davis, 1989),a .882 2.34 1.23

PEOU1 My interaction with the system is clear and understandable. 2.14 1.336 0.90

PEOU2 It is easy for me to become skillful at using the system. 2.18 1.357 0.89

PEOU3 I nd the system easy to use. 2.70 1.425 0.75

Computer Self Efcacy (CSE)(Compeau& Higgins, 1995),a .853 3.42 1.08

CSE1 I could complete a job or task using the computer. 3.40 1.241 0.87

CSE2 I could complete a job or task using the computer if someone showed how to do itrst. 3.59 1.265 0.84CSE3 I ca n n avi ga te easil y thr ough the W eb to nd any information I need. 3.29 1.210 0.72

Social Inuence(Venkatesh et al., 2003),a .861 2.27 1.20

SI1 People who inuence my behavior think that I should use CBA. 2.27 1.264 0.84

SI2 People who are important to me think that I should use CBA. 2.27 1.310 0.90

Facilitating Conditions (Thompson, Higgins, & Howell, 1991),a .803 2.56 1.27

FC1 When I need help to use the CBA, someone is there to help me. 2.54 1.407 0.81

FC2 When I need help to learn to use the CBA, system's help support is there to teach me. 2.58 1.387 0.83

Content (Terzis & Economides, 2011),a .824 1.58 0.91

C1 CBA's questions were clear and understandable. 1.66 1.055 0.84

C2 CBA's questions were easy to answer. 1.50 0.923 0.84

Goal Expectancy (Terzis & Economides, 2011),a .791 2.61 1.177

GE1 Courses' preparation was suf cient for the CBA 2.35 1.338 0.74

GE2 My personal preparation for the CBA. 2.67 1.383 0.80GE3 My performance expectations for the CBA. 2.83 1.481 0.72

Perceived Playfulness (Moon & Kim, 2001),a .896 1.69 1.33

PP1 Using CBA keeps me happy for my task. 1.68 1.004 0.92

PP2 Using CBA gives me enjoyment for my learning. 1.68 1.010 0.90

PP4 Using CBA will lead to my exploration. 1.72 1.041 0.77

Behavioral Intention to Use CBA (Davis, 1989),a .925 2.00 1.66

BI1 I intend to use CBA in the future. 1.89 1.242 0.80

BI2 I predict I would use CBA in the future. 2.09 1.290 0.94

BI3 I plan to use CBA in the future. 2.05 1.244 0.96



6/10

measurement model tted the data set well. The nal model with

the estimated factor loadings is illustrated in Fig. 3.

In CFA, Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted

(AVE), Maximum Shared Squared Variance (MSV) and Average

Shared Square Variance (ASV) were examined. According to Hair

et al. (2010), high (above 0.70) CR values indicate a good reli-

ability. Table 2 shows that the CRof all the constructs of CBAAM was

found to be higher than 0.70 and the AVE of all the constructs of

CBAAM was found to be higher than 0.50. Next, convergent validity

and discriminant validity were examined. AVE being 0.50 or higher

indicated a good convergent validity. By using the methods rec-

ommended byFornell and Larcker (1981), the discriminant validity

was also tested; by imputing AMOS's correlations and standardized

Fig. 3. Conrmatory factor model.

Table 2

Composite reliability, average variance extracted, maximum shared squared vari-

ance, average shared square variance of constructs.

Constructs CR AVE MSV ASV

Perceived Usefulness 0.92 0.80 0.61 0.31

Perceived Ease of Use 0.89 0.73 0.38 0.26

Computer Self Efcacy 0.86 0.67 0.28 0.15

Social Inuence 0.86 0.76 0.27 0.18

Facilitating Conditions 0.80 0.67 0.27 0.16

Content 0.83 0.71 0.58 0.27

Goal Expectancy 0.80 0.57 0.15 0.12

Perceived Playfulness 0.91 0.78 0.61 0.32

Behavioral Intention 0.93 0.82 0.45 0.24



7/10

regression tables into the validity testing tool within the Stats Tools

Package'(Gaskin, 2012).

Table 2shows that discriminant validity thresholds (MSV< AVE,

ASV < AVE), are realized for all constructs, indicating acceptable

discriminant validity.

6.2. Test of the structural model

After ensuring the validity of the constructs within the mea-

surement model, the structural model was evaluated. To determine

the relationship of the constructs in the proposed model, the

structural equation model was tested using the AMOS 21 with the

default maximum likelihood estimation method. The model

returned c2 733.100, df 230; c2/df 3.187 with probability

level p 0.00 < 0 .05; and RMSEA 0.060, GFI 0.908, and

AGFI 0.880. All t indices obtained in the present study showed

good structural model t to the data for the proposed research

model. The resulting parameters of the research model are dis-

played inFig. 4.

Table 3 summarizes the results of our hypotheses. Inspecting the

model derived from the analyses, it could be claried that there

appeared a direct positive effect of perceived playfulness andperceived ease of useon the construct of behavioral intention to use

the WBT systems; whereas perceived usefulness did not exert a

direct inuence. Along with these points, perceived usefulness and

content seemed to have a direct positive effect on perceived play-

fulness; on the other hand, the effects of perceived ease of use and

goal expectancy on perceived playfulness were not strong enough

to exert statistically signicant points. On the side of the perceived

usefulness, goal expectancy did not create any positive effect; yet,social inuence, perceived ease of use, and content each contrib-

uted to perceived usefulness through a strong impact. Apart from

Fig. 4. Result of SEM (standardized estimates).

Table 3

Results of hypotheses.

Hypothesis Path Path coef cient Results

H1 PP[ BI 0.446* Supported

H2 PU[ BI 0.192 Not Supported

H3 PU[ PP 0.466* Supported

H4 PEU[ BI 0.167* Supported

H5 PEU[ PU 0.300* Supported

H6 PEU[ PP 0.020 Not SupportedH7 CSE[ PEU 0.362* Supported

H8 SI[ PU 0.241* Supported

H9 FC[ PEU 0.390* Supported

H10 GE[ PU 0.044 Not Supported

H11 GE[ PP 0.069 Not Supported

H12 C[ PU 0.447* Supported

H13 C[ PP 0.418* Supported

H14 C[ GE 0.346* Supported

H15 C[ BI -0.014 Not Supported



8/10

these, computer self-efcacy and facilitating conditions both had a

direct impact on perceived ease of use. Finally, goal expectancy was

directly and positively inuenced by content.

7. Discussion

The major contribution of the current study was to look into the

variables inuencing the students' intentions to use a WBT system

in the context of the foreign language education at a two-year post-

secondary higher education institution. During the study, it was

attempted to implement a WBT system specically for an under-

estimated sub-skill, which is Listening Comprehension. Including

audio les made the design of the listening comprehension test

through the WBT system even much more difcult and time-

consuming, compared to other computer-based tests. Students'

perceptions on the WBT systems were also investigated within the

scope of thisstudy. To illustrate, the factors within the CBAAMwere

analyzed descriptively and it was seen that a great majority of the

mean scores were below the value of 3 and ranged from 1.50 to

3.59, except for the dimension of computer self-efcacy (see

Table 1). All those values descriptively indicated that the partici-

pants had generally negative attitudes towards the WBT systems,which is apparently an inconsistent nding with some previous

studies (Cigdem& Oncu, 2015; Cigdem & Tan, 2014; Dermo, 2009;

Sorensen, 2013). It was deduced that students' getting low marks

from the listening comprehension tests administered through the

WBT system might have led them to perceive the process

negatively.

When the relationships between the variables were investi-

gated through the SEM, an explanatory model (see Fig. 5) was ob-

tained. The general results emerging in the model highlighted

perceived playfulness as the most important determinant of the

behavioral intention to use the WBT systems and perceived use-

fulness had only an indirect impact through perceived playfulness.

This nding was in line with the fundamental proposition of the

CBAAM.As a parallel nding with Terzis and Economides (2011), the

results of the current study also indicated that perceived usefulness

did not exert a direct impact on behavioral intention; however, this

nding was controversial with the TAM literature, because some

prior studies (Cigdem & Oncu, 2015) suggested a very strong effect

of perceived usefulness on behavioral intention. This could mean

that participants' intention to use a computer-based listening

comprehension test would hardly be affected by their perceptions

on the usefulness of the system. This nding could have been

resulted from two other reasons. One is that the WBT aimed to test

listening comprehension. The students did not have sufcient

awareness of foreign language learning, because they are expected

to be low rank military personnel and not to have duties in inter-

national platforms. Another reason might be that students were

novice in using computer as a tool for an exam. Presenting a

consistent result withTerzis, Moridis, and Economides (2012), the

current study did not reveal any signicant inuence of perceived

ease of use on perceived playfulness, which might be discussed

through the characteristics of the contemporary users of such

systems; because they were novice in using computer as an

assessment tool although they took computer-related courses

previously. The difculties experienced during the administration

of the computer-based listening assessment might cause a decrease

in the perceived ease of use and perceived playfulness.

In line with the previous studies such as Cigdem and Topcu

(2015), Terzis and Economides (2011); Terzis et al. (2012);

Venkatesh and Davis (2000), social inuence was attributed to be

a critical determinant of perceived usefulness. Similar ndings

regarding the previous studies might be explained by the social

sharing related to the exam format and item types before the exam

sessions.In addition to those points, it was seen that the content of the

items in the test seemed to affect signicantly the perceived use-

fulness of the systemas in the study ofCigdemand Oncu (2015) and

Terzis and Economides (2011), who suggested that users would

tend to consider the system as useful when their perceptions about

the content of the questions in a WBT system were positive. At this

point, low scores on the content meant that students perceived the

test items harder than they expected and more time-consuming

than they imagined. However, preparing items that are easier to

comprehend and handle could probably have a positive impact on

the use of a computer-based listening comprehension test.

8. Conclusion

This study examined the constructs that inuence students'

behavioral intentions to use WBT in a military vocational college

and concluded that perceived playfulness and perceived ease of use

exerted direct effects on behavioral intention to use WBT. Accord-

ingly, when the students feel that WBT is playful enough and easy

to use, their behavioral intention to use such a system seems

stronger. Bearing this in mind, certain techniques adopted to

Fig. 5. Depicted model for students' behavioral intention to use WBA.



9/10

improve the dimensions of perceived playfulness and perceived

ease of use with other means would have a positive impact on the

systems' being accepted. Besides, some game-based or real life-

oriented themes might be embedded into the items so that they

could facilitate the comprehension and thus the students could nd

the procedures more playful and easy to use.

Perceived usefulness had no direct impact on behavioral

intention to use WBT which contradicted with the TAM literature.

Goal expectancy was positively impacted by content of questions.

Furthermore, computer self-efcacy and facilitating conditions had

direct effect on perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness was

positively impacted by content of test items, perceived ease of use

and social inuence. Finally, perceived usefulness and content of

test items had direct impact on perceived playfulness.

To sum up, WBT is more likely to be playful when it is useful and

the content of WBT items tends to be easier to understand. Most

practical implications for foreign language educators might be that

the content of the audio items should be based on a problem or a

case or a real life situation. This might increase the intention to use

such an application as a result of an increase in the perceived ease

of use and playfulness.

9. Limitations

A wide range of web-based testing systems exist acrossdifferent

educational settings such as the ones that incorporate videos,

graphics, animations and simulations. Yet in the current study, the

students were tested on their listening comprehension and audios

were incorporated into the assessment procedures. Listening

comprehension is among the most challenging skills both in

teaching and testing procedures; thus, it is possible that test-takers

have difculties in all types of listening comprehension tests

whether it is paper-based or computer-based. It is also acceptable

that test-takers reect different interpretations of and attitudes

towards various types of computer-based assessment, but their

perceptions on a computer-based listening comprehension test is

expected to be different from the ones in other subjects. Therefore,

the ndings ought to be interpreted through the lenses of the

subject of listening comprehension' and of the domain of military

students' having no powerful targets related to learning English.

The study on the whole limited to the research context, which is

a two-year post-secondary military vocational college. Broadening

the scope with other post-secondary institutions across various

disciplines would add more value to similar studies. Gender issue

wasanother limitations as the male military students outnumbered

the females. A future study could consider eliminating the imbal-

ance of gender by including more female students.

References

Abedi, J. (2014). The use of computer technology in designing appropriate test ac-commodations for English language learners.Applied Measurement in Education,

27(4), 261e272.Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179e211.Ajzen, I., & Fishein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behav-

iour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bueno, S., & Salmeron, J. L. (2008). TAM-based success modeling in ERP.Interacting

with Computers, 20(6), 515e523.Bull, J., & McKenna, C. (2004). Blueprint for computer-assisted assessment. London:

Routledge-Falmer.Chou, C., Moslehpour, M., & Le Huyen, N. T. (2014). Concurrent and predictive

validity of computer-adaptive freshman English test for college freshman En-glish in Taiwan. International Journal of English Language Education, 2(1),143e156.

Cigdem, H., & Oncu, S. (2015). E-assessment adaptation at a military vocationalcollege: student perceptions. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Tech-nology Education, 11(5), 971e988.

Cigdem, H., & Tan, S. (2014). Students' opinions on administering optional online

quizzes in a two-year college Mathematics course. Journal of Computer andEducation Research, 2(4), 51e73.

Cigdem, H., & Topcu, A. (2015). Predictors of instructors' behavioral intention to uselearning management system: a Turkish vocational college example.Computersin Human Behavior, 52, 22e28.

Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efcacy: development of ameasure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189e211.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptanceof information technology.MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319e340.

Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer

technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35,982e1003.

Dermo, J. (2009). E-assessment and the student learning experience: a survey ofstudent perceptions of e-assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology,40(2), 203e214.

Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows. London, UK: Sage.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An intro-

duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-

observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 39e50.

Gaskin, J. (2012). Stats wiki and stats tools package. http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/.

Gikandi, J. W., Morrow, D., & Davis, N. E. (2011). Online formative assessment inhigher education: a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 57(4),2333e2351.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis(7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Jeong, H. (2014). A comparative study of scores on computer-based tests and paper-based tests. Behaviour& Information Technology, 33(4), 410

e422.

Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived use-fulness and ease of use. Information and Management, 35, 237e250.

Llamas-Nistal, M., Fernandez-Iglesias, M. J., Gonzalez-Tato, J., & Mikic-Fonte, F. A.(2013). Blended e-assessment: migrating classical exams to the digital world.Computers & Education, 62, 72e87.

Locke, E. A. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Pre-ventive Psychology, 5, 117e124.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lu, J., Liu, C., Yu, C., & Wang, K. (2008). Determinants of accepting wireless mobiledata services in China. Information & Management, 45(1), 52e64.

Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. In-formation and Management, 38(4), 217e230.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments.Special issue on interactive learning environments: contemporary issues andtrends.Educational Psychology Review, 19, 309e326.

Morris, D. (2008). Economics of scale and scope in e-learning. Teaching in Higher

Education, 33(3), 331e

343.Ong, C., & Lai, J. (2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships amongdominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behaviour, 22(5),816e829.

Pino-Silva, J. (2008). Student perception of computerized tests. ELT Journal, 62(2).Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Shee, D. Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2008). Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-

learning system: a methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applica-tions.Computers & Education, 50(3), 894e905.

Shih, H. (2008). Using a cognitive-motivation-control view to assess the adoptionintention for web-based learning. Computers & Education, 50(1), 327e337.

Smith, P. J., Murphy, K. L., & Mahoney, S. E. (2003). Towards identifying factorsunderlying readiness for online learning: an exploratory study. Distance Edu-cation, 24(1), 57e67.

Sorensen, E. (2013). Implementation and student perceptions of e-assessment in achemical engineering module. European Journal of Engineering Education, 38(2),172e185.

Sun, P., Tsai, R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? an empirical investigation of the critical factors inuencing learner

satisfaction.Computers & Education, 50, 1183e

1202.Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing it usage: the role of prior experience. MIS

Quarterly, 19(4), 561e570.Tennyson, R. D. (1980). Instructional control strategies and content structure as

design variables in concept acquisition using computer-based instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 525e532.

Tennyson, R. D., & Buttrey, T. (1980). Advisement and management strategies asdesign variables in computer-assisted instruction. Educational Communicationand Technology Journal, 28, 169e176.

Tennyson, R. D., & Park, D. C. (1980). The teaching of concepts: a review ofinstructional design literature. Review of Educational Research, 50, 55e70.

Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-serviceteachers.Computers & Education, 52(1), 302e312.

Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers' computerattitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal ofComputer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128e143.

Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer basedassessment.Computers & Education, 56(4), 1032e1044.

Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2012). How Student's personality

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref43http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref42http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref41http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref40http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref39http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref38http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref37http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref36http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref35http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref34http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref33http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref32http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref31http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref30http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref29http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref28http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref27http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref26http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref25http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref24http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref23http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref22http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref21http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref20http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref19http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref18http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref16http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref15http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref14http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref13http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref12http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref11http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref10http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref9http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref8http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref7http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref6http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref5http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref4http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref3http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref2http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref1


10/10

traits affect computer based assessment acceptance: integrating BFI withCBAAM.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1985e1996.

Terzis, V., Moridis, C. N., & Economides, A. A. (2013). Continuance acceptance ofcomputer based assessment through the integration of user's expectations andperceptions.Computers & Education, 62, 50e61.

Thompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J. (1991). Personal computing: toward a con-ceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124e143.

Van Raaij, E. M., & Schepers, J. J. L. (2008). The acceptance and use of a virtuallearning environment in China. Computers & Education, 50(3), 838e852.

Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of

intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23, 239e

260.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of

use: development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451e481.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology

acceptance model: four longitudinal eld studies. Management Science, 46,

186e204.Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of

information technology: toward a unied view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425e478.Wang, Y. (2003). Assessment of learner satisfaction with asynchronous electronic

learning systems. Information and Management, 41(1), 75e86.Wang, Y.-S., Wu, M.-C., & Wang, H.-Y. (2009). Investigating the determinants and

age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journalof Educational Technology, 40(1), 92e118.

Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems:self-efcacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology adoption

model. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 59(4), 431e

449.Zakrzewski, S., & Steven, C. (2000). A model for computer-based assessment: the

catherine wheel principle. Assessment& Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2),201e215.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref54http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref53http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref52http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref51http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref50http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref49http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref48http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref47http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref46http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref55http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref45http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0747-5632(16)30243-6/sref44

vocational college students' acceptance of web-based summative listening comprehension test in an...

Documents