Weitere Artikel dieser Ausgabe durch Wischen aufrufen
The aim of this study is to examine the factors that an influence higher education students’ intention to use technology. Using an extended technology acceptance model as a research framework, a sample of 314 university students were surveyed on their responses to seven constructs hypothesized to explain their intention to use technology. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and the results showed that perceived usefulness and attitude toward computer use were significant determinants of the intention to use technology, while perceived ease of use influenced intention to use technology through attitude towards computer use. Computer self-efficacy and subjective norm acted as antecedents for perceived usefulness and attitude towards computer use, while facilitating conditions acted as antecedents for perceived ease of use and attitude towards computer use. Together these constructs explained 54.7 % of the variance in students’ intention to use technology. Implications of the findings were also discussed.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694. CrossRef
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391. CrossRef
Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R. M. (2000). The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy: An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 418–430. CrossRef
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. CrossRef
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. CrossRef
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. CrossRef
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. CrossRef
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147. CrossRef
Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 77–98. CrossRef
Bellone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4–29.
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual differences and usage behaviour: Revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 36(2), 58–77. CrossRef
Chan, S. C., & Lu, M. T. (2004). Understanding internet banking adoption and use behaviour: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 22–44.
Chau, P. Y. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 26–33. CrossRef
Chen, K., Chen, J., & Yen, D. (2011). Dimensions of self-efficacy in the study of smart phone acceptance. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 33, 422–431. CrossRef
Chen, Y. C., Lin, Y. C., Yeh, R. C., & Lou, S. J. (2013). Examining factors affecting college students’ intention to use web-based instruction systems: Towards an integrated model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 111–121.
Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T. M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use second life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1136–1144. CrossRef
Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211. CrossRef
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. CrossRef
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. CrossRef
Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 521–535. CrossRef
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50. CrossRef
Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “Digital Natives”: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 392–402.
Guriting, P., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2006). Borneo online banking: Evaluating customer perceptions and behavioural intention. Management Research News, 30, 6–16. CrossRef
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hodden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367. CrossRef
Hoelter, D. R. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344. CrossRef
Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2002). Using a technologically enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109–119. CrossRef
Hoyle, R. H. (2011). Structural equation modelling for social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Hsu, M. K., Wang, S. W., & Chiu, K. K. (2009). Computer attitude, statistics anxiety and self-efficacy on statistical software adoption behaviour: An empirical study of online MBA learners. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25, 412–420. CrossRef
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55. CrossRef
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Lai, M. L. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy and computing experience of professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18–29. CrossRef
Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sens, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems, 29, 269–282. CrossRef
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Who do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40, 191–204. CrossRef
Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 97–125.
Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–72. CrossRef
Macharia, J. K. N., & Pelser, T. G. (2012). Key factors that influence the diffusion and infusion of information and communication technologies in Kenyan higher education. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.729033.
Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9, 126–163. CrossRef
Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Using subjective norms to predict teachers’ computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1), 27–33.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56(2), 429–440. CrossRef
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.
Nandedkar, A., & Midha, V. (2012). It won’t happen to me: An assessment of optimism bias in music piracy. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 41–48. CrossRef
Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education, 48, 250–267. CrossRef
Padilla-Melendez, A., Garrido-Moreno, A., & Aguila-Obra, A. R. D. (2008). Factors affecting e-collaboration technology use among management students. Computers and Education, 51, 609–623. CrossRef
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6–30. CrossRef
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44, 90–103. CrossRef
Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649. CrossRef
Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D. C., & Haab, M. (2005). A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 327–329. CrossRef
Svendsen, G. B., Johnsen, J. A. K., Almås-Sørensen, L., & Vittersø, J. (2013). Personality and technology acceptance: The influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the technology acceptance model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(4), 323–334. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2008). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2009a). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52(1), 302–312. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2009b). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1139–1141. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2010). Establishing gender structural invariance of technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 311–320. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers and Education, 57, 2432–2440. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2013). An initial development and validation of a digital native’s assessment scale (DNAS). Computers and Education, 67, 51–57. CrossRef
Teo, T. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers and Education, 75, 127–135. CrossRef
Teo, T., & Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 22(2), 209–213. CrossRef
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143. CrossRef
Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers and Education, 53(3), 1000–1009. CrossRef
Teo, T., Ursavas, O. F., & Bahcekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modelling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 199–210.
Teo, T., & Wong, S. L. (2013). Modelling key drivers of e-learning satisfaction among student teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 71–95. CrossRef
Tung, F. C., & Chang, S. C. (2008). Nursing students’ behavioural intention to use online courses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1299–1309. CrossRef
Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463–479. CrossRef
Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favourable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239–260. CrossRef
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–366. CrossRef
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. CrossRef
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wallace, L. G., & Sheetz, S. D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information and Management, 51, 249–259. CrossRef
Williams, P. (2002). The learning Web: The development, implementation and evaluation of Internet-based undergraduate materials for the teaching of key skills. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 40–53. CrossRef
Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2013). Interactive whiteboard acceptance: Applicability of the UTAUT model among student teachers. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1–10. CrossRef
Wu, P. F. (2012). A mixed methods approach to technology acceptance research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), 172–187.
Yi, M., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59, 431–449. CrossRef
Yousafzai, S. Y., Pallister, J., & Foxall, G. (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280. CrossRef
Yuen, A. H. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.
Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–30.
- Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach
- Springer US
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA, Best Practices für die Mitarbeiter-Partizipation in der Produktentwicklung/© astrosystem | stock.adobe.com