Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China

2008, Computers & Education

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2006.09.001

Abstract

The success of a virtual learning environment (VLE) depends to a considerable extent on student acceptance and use of such an e-learning system. After critically assessing models of technology adoption, including the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), TAM2, and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Usage of Technology (UTAUT), we build a conceptual model to explain the differences between individual students in the level of acceptance and use of a VLE. This model extends TAM2 and includes subjective norm, personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology, and computer anxiety. Data were collected from 45 Chinese participants in an Executive MBA program. After performing satisfactory reliability and validity checks, the structural model was tested with the use of PLS. Results indicate that perceived usefulness has a direct effect on VLE use. Perceived ease of use and subjective norm have only indirect effects via perceived usefulness. Both personal innovativeness and computer anxiety have direct effects on perceived ease of use only. Implications are that program managers in education should not only concern themselves with basic system design but also explicitly address individual differences between VLE users.

References (64)

  1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 16, 227-248.
  2. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28, 557-582.
  3. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9, 204-215.
  4. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30, 361-391.
  5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
  6. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
  7. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2, 285-309.
  8. Bennell, P., & Pearce, T. (2003). The internationalization of higher education: exporting education to developing and transitional economies. International Journal of Educational Development, 23, 215-232.
  9. Bommer, M., & Jalajas, D. S. (1999). The threat of organizational downsizing on the innovative propensity of R&D professionals. R&D Management, 29, 27-34.
  10. Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. H. (2002). Investigating healthcare professionals' decisions to accept telemedicine technology: an empirical test of competing theories. Information & Management, 39, 297-311.
  11. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  12. Chin, W. W. (2001). PLS Graph user's guide, version 3.0. Houston: C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. (1999). Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 307-341). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  13. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Information Systems Research, 6, 118-143.
  14. Cool, K., Dierickx, I., & Jemison, D. (1989). Business strategy, market structure and risk-return relationships: a structural approach. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 507-522.
  15. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1002.
  16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
  17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
  18. Gilroy, F. D., & Desai, H. B. (1986). Computer anxiety: sex, race and age. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 711-719.
  19. Hackbarth, G., Grover, V., & Yi, M. Y. (2003). Computer playfulness and anxiety: positive and negative mediators of the system experience effect on perceived ease of use. Information & Management, 40, 221-232.
  20. Howard, G. S., & Mendelow, A. L. (1991). Discretionary use of computers: an empirically derived explanatory model. Decision Sciences, 22, 241-265.
  21. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management, 41, 853-868.
  22. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195-204.
  23. Igbaria, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (1990). Computer anxiety and attitudes towards microcomputer use. Behavior and Information Technology, 9, 229-241.
  24. Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega, 23, 587-605.
  25. Igbaria, M., & Nachman, S. A. (1990). Correlates of user satisfaction with end user computing: an exploratory study. Information & Management, 19, 73-82.
  26. Igbaria, M., & Parasuraman, S. (1989). A path analytic study of individual characteristics, computer anxiety, and attitudes towards micro- computers. Journal of Management, 15, 373-388.
  27. Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: the impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 263-299.
  28. Kanfer, R., & Heggested, E. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: a person-centered approach to work motivation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 1-57). Greenwich: JAI Press.
  29. Karahanna, E., Ahuja, M., Srite, M., & Galvin, J. (2002). Individual differences and relative advantage: the case of GSS. Decision Support Systems, 32, 327-341.
  30. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease of use. Information & Management, 35, 237-250.
  31. Kegerreis, R. J., Engel, J. F., & Blackwell, R. D. (1970). Innovativeness and diffusiveness: a marketing view of the characteristics of early adopters. In D. Kollat, R. Blackwell, & J. Engels (Eds.), Research in consumer behavior (pp. 671-689). New York: Holt, Rinehold, and Winston.
  32. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191-204.
  33. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., & Sambamurthy, V. (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27, 657-678.
  34. Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: a meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16, 59-72.
  35. Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students' acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3, 7-26.
  36. McInerney, V., McInerney, D. M., & Sinclair, K. E. (1994). Student teachers, computer anxiety and computer experience. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11, 27-50.
  37. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192-222.
  38. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (in press). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.
  39. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
  40. Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y., & Wang, Y.-S. (2004). Factors affecting engineers' acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41, 795-804.
  41. Peterson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11, 261-275.
  42. Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y.-K. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222-244.
  43. Robinson, L., Jr., Marshall, G. W., & Stamps, M. B. (2005). Sales force use of technology: antecedents to technology acceptance. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1623-1631.
  44. Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
  45. Rosen, P. A. (2004). The effect of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology on the acceptance and use of technology: a working paper. In Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of the decision sciences institute (pp. 6421-6426).
  46. Schepers, J. J. L., & Wetzels, M. G. M. (2006). Technology acceptance: a meta-analytical view on subjective norm. In Proceedings of the 35th European Marketing Academy Conference, Athens, Greece.
  47. Schillewaert, N., Ahearne, M. J., Frambach, R. T., & Moenaert, R. K. (2005). The adoption of information technology in the sales force. Industrial Marketing Management, 34, 323-336.
  48. Selim, H. M. (2003). An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education, 40, 343-360.
  49. So, J. C. F., & Bolloju, N. (2005). Explaining the intentions to share and reuse knowledge in the context of IT service operations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9, 30-41.
  50. Straub, D. W., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. H. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Information & Management, 33, 1-11.
  51. Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 53-78.
  52. Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42, 85-92.
  53. Thatcher, J. B., & Perrewe ´, P. L. (2002). An empirical examination of individual traits as antecedents to computer anxiety and computer self-efficacy. MIS Quarterly, 26, 381-396.
  54. Thode, H. C. Jr., (2002). Testing for normality. New York: Marcel Dekker.
  55. Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., & Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15, 124-143.
  56. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favourable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23, 239-260.
  57. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342-365.
  58. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
  59. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
  60. Vijayasarathy, L. R. (2004). Predicting consumer intentions to use on-line shopping: the case for an augmented technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 41, 747-762.
  61. Wu, J. H., & Wang, S. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical investigation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42, 719-729.
  62. Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2001). Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quarterly, 25, 371-390.
  63. Dr. Erik van Raaij is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. He holds a PhD degree in marketing from the University of Twente (The Netherlands). Erik van Raaij has published in the Journal of Business Research, Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, and Industry and Higher Education, among other journals. His research interests include business-to-business relationships, new technologies in marketing and purchasing, and e-learning.
  64. Jeroen Schepers M.Sc. is a PhD candidate at the Department of Technology Management, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. He has presented papers and contributed to proceedings of the European Marketing Academy Conference, INFORMS Marketing Science Conference, and published a paper in Managing Service Quality. His research interests include technology adoption and organizational innovation management.