The Development and Adoption of Online Learning in Pre- and Post-COVID-19: Combination of Technological System Evolution Theory and Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the outbreak of COVID-19, schools heavily depend on e-learning technologies and tools to shift from in-person class to online. This review article analyzes the changes of technology evolution and technology adoption of e-learning in pre- and post-COVID-19 based on the Technology System Evaluation Theory (TSET) and technology adoption of e-learning based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). We intend to explore the interaction of technology evolution and technology adoption in the different focus of e-learning technology in the two stages and the particularity and heterogeneity of the UTAUT model. The results indicate that (1) The moderating results of technology evolution are proposed and evaluated under the UTAUT model before the COVID-19 outbreak. Studies after the COVID-19 pandemic paid more attention to technology efficiency rather than effectiveness; (2) Research on e-learning focuses on the infrastructure to reach more users after the outbreak of COVID-19 because e-learning is the only way to continue education; (3) COVID-19 fear moderates the relationship between the external factors and the behavior intention of e-learning users. The lack of financial support on technology evolution will directly weaken the implementation of new technology. Social Isolation offers more opportunities for students to engage in e-learning. Meanwhile, it slows down the implementation of e-learning because of out-to-date hardware and software. This article offers an enhanced understanding of the interaction of technology evolution and technology adoption under unexpected environments and provides practical insights into how to promote new technology in a way that users will accept and use easily. This study can be tested and extended by empirical research in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".