International Journal of


EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 4 (April 2023), Pages: 136-144


 Original Research Paper

The role of Internet security awareness as a moderating variable on cyber security perception: Learning management system as a case study


 Adel Abdulmohsen Alfalah *


 Management and MIS Department, College of Business Administration, University of Hail, Hail, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile:

 Digital Object Identifier:


The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of different dimensions of cyber security perception on university students’ attitudes towards using a learning management system (LMS) and to what extent these relationships can be moderated by Internet security awareness. To accomplish this, an extensive review of technology adoption literature has been conducted, and a theoretical model was presented. The study applied a quantitative-based approach that used a survey questionnaire to collect 261 responses from college-level students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To test the research model, the researcher used SmartPLS version 3 which applies partial least squares-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Analysis showed that perceived privacy, trust in the Internet, trust in the university, and perceived cyber risk are key influencers factors on attitude and that all these correlations are moderated by Internet security awareness except for the association between trust in the university and attitude. The outcome of the study contributes to academia by enriching the existing literature on technology adoption in educational settings. The results also benefit practitioners and policymakers in terms of enhancing the awareness of LMS users which in turn leads to a better attitude towards system use.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

 Keywords: Technology adoption, Learning management system, Internet security awareness, SmartPLS

 Article History: Received 5 October 2022, Received in revised form 18 January 2023, Accepted 22 January 2023


No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


 Alfalah AA (2023). The role of Internet security awareness as a moderating variable on cyber security perception: Learning management system as a case study. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(4): 136-144

 Permanent Link to this page


 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5


 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 


 References (44)

  1. Akman I and Turhan C (2017). User acceptance of social learning systems in higher education: An application of the extended technology acceptance model. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(3): 229-237.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldawood H and Skinner G (2018). Educating and raising awareness on cyber security social engineering: A literature review. In the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering, IEEE, Wollongong, Australia: 62-68.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Alfalah A (2021). Visualization of e-gov adoption models in a developing region: A review of the predictors in empirical research. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 17(4): 103-121.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Al-Fraihat D, Joy M, and Sinclair J (2020). Evaluating e-learning systems success: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 102: 67-86.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Almaiah MA, Al-Khasawneh A, and Althunibat A (2020). Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the e-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6): 5261-5280.   [Google Scholar] PMid:32837229 PMCid:PMC7243735
  6. Asiri MJS, Bakar KA, and Ayub AFBM (2012). Factors influencing the use of learning management system in Saudi Arabian higher education: A theoretical framework. Higher Education Studies, 2(2): 125-137.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Bada M, Sasse AM, and Nurse JR (2019). Cyber security awareness campaigns: Why do they fail to change behaviour? ArXiv Preprint ArXiv: 1901.02672.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Bélanger F and Carter L (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(2): 165-176.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Binyamin S, Rutter M, and Smith S (2017). Factors influencing the students' use of learning management systems: A case study of King Abdulaziz University. In the International Conference on e-Learning, Academic Conferences International Limited.7, Orlando, USA: 298-297.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Chapman J (2019). How safe is your data? Cyber-security in higher education. Higher Education Policy Institute, Oxford, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Chawdhry A, Paullet K, and Benjamin D (2011). Assessing Blackboard: Improving online instructional delivery. Information Systems Education Journal, 9(4): 20-26.   [Google Scholar]
  12. Choudrie J, Alfalah A, and Spencer N (2017). Older adults adoption, use and diffusion of e-government services in Saudi Arabia, Hail City: A quantitative study. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii, USA: 2953-2962.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Choudrie J, Alfalah A, Spencer N, and Sundaram D (2018). Are older citizens using the E-Moi portal in Saudi Arabia, Hail City: A quantitative study. In the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Findik-Coşkunçay D, Alkiş N, and Özkan-Yildirim S (2018). A structural model for students' adoption of learning management systems: An empirical investigation in the higher education context. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 21(2): 13-27.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghapanchi AH, Purarjomandlangrudi A, McAndrew A, and Miao Y (2020). Investigating the impact of space design, visual attractiveness and perceived instructor presence on student adoption of learning management systems. Education and Information Technologies, 25(6): 5053-5066.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Grandon EE and Pearson JM (2004). Electronic commerce adoption: An empirical study of small and medium US businesses. Information and Management, 42(1): 197-216.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Grazioli S and Jarvenpaa SL (2000). Perils of Internet fraud: An empirical investigation of deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans, 30(4): 395-410.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Gurung A, Luo X, and Raja MK (2008). An empirical investigation on customer’s privacy perceptions, trust and security awareness in E-commerce environment. Journal of Information Privacy and Security, 4(1): 42-60.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Hair JF, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2): 139-152.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Han I and Shin WS (2016). The use of a mobile learning management system and academic achievement of online students. Computers and Education, 102: 79-89.   [Google Scholar]
  21. Heirdsfield A, Walker S, Tambyah M, and Beutel D (2011). Blackboard as an online learning environment: What do teacher education students and staff think? Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 36(7): 1-16.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR, Sinkovics RR, and Ghauri PN (2009). New challenges to international marketing: Advances in international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK.   [Google Scholar]
  23. Khan IA (2020). Electronic learning management system: Relevance, challenges and preparedness. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 7(5): 471-480.   [Google Scholar]
  24. Litwin MS and Fink A (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu C, Marchewka JT, Lu J, and Yu CS (2005). Beyond concern-A privacy-trust-behavioral intention model of electronic commerce. Information and Management, 42(2): 289-304.   [Google Scholar]
  26. Malhotra NK, Kim SS, and Agarwal J (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model. Information Systems Research, 15(4): 336-355.   [Google Scholar]
  27. McKnight DH, Choudhury V, and Kacmar C (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3): 334-359.   [Google Scholar]
  28. Pavlou PA (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3): 101-134.   [Google Scholar]
  29. Potgieter P (2015). The Awareness behaviour of students on cyber security awareness by using social media platforms: A case study at the central University of Technology. In: Njenga K (Ed.), Proceedings of 4th International Conference on the Internet, Cyber Security and Information Systems 2019, vol. 12: 272–262. Kalpa Publications in Computing, Johannesburg, South Africa.   [Google Scholar]
  30. Purarjomandlangrudi A, Chen D, and Nguyen A (2015). A systematic review approach to technologies used for learning and education. International Journal of Learning and Change, 8(2): 162-177.   [Google Scholar]
  31. Rezgui Y and Marks A (2008). Information security awareness in higher education: An exploratory study. Computers and Security, 27(7-8): 241-253.   [Google Scholar]
  32. Saroia AI and Gao S (2019). Investigating university students’ intention to use mobile learning management systems in Sweden. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5): 569-580.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Shapiro SP (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Sociology, 93(3): 623-658.   [Google Scholar]
  34. Singh H and Miah SJ (2020). Smart education literature: A theoretical analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4): 3299-3328.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Swaak M, De Jong M, and De Vries P (2009). Effects of information usefulness, visual attractiveness, and usability on web visitors' trust and behavioral intentions. In the 2009 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, IEEE, Waikiki, Hawaii: 1-5.   [Google Scholar]
  36. Taiwo AA, Mahmood AK, and Downe AG (2012). User acceptance of eGovernment: Integrating risk and trust dimensions with UTAUT model. In the 2012 International Conference on Computer and Information Science. IEEE, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 109-113.   [Google Scholar]
  37. Tavakol M and Dennick R (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2: 53-55.   [Google Scholar] PMid:28029643 PMCid:PMC4205511
  38. Vichitvanichphong S, Kerr D, Talaei-Khoei A, and Ghapanchi AH (2013). Analysis of research in adoption of assistive technologies for aged care. In the 24th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic Library, Melbourne, Australia.   [Google Scholar]
  39. Warkentin M, Gefen D, Pavlou PA, and Rose GM (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3): 157-162.   [Google Scholar]
  40. Westin AF (1968). Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review, 25(1): 1-6.   [Google Scholar]
  41. Yakubu MN and Dasuki SI (2019). Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning technologies among higher education students in Nigeria: A structural equation modelling approach. Information Development, 35(3): 492-502.   [Google Scholar]
  42. Zaiţ A and Bertea PSPE (2011). Methods for testing discriminant validity. Management and Marketing Journal, 9(2): 217-224.   [Google Scholar]
  43. Zanjani N (2017). The important elements of LMS design that affect user engagement with e-learning tools within LMSs in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1): 19-31.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Zheng Y, Wang J, Doll W, Deng X, and Williams M (2018). The impact of organizational support, technical support, and self-efficacy on faculty perceived benefits of using learning management system. Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(4): 311-319.   [Google Scholar]