Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Education and Information Technologies
Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies 1/2018

18.03.2017

Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies

verfasst von: Paul Bazelais, Tenzin Doleck, David John Lemay

Erschienen in: Education and Information Technologies | Ausgabe 1/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to investigate pre-university science Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP) students’ behavioral intentions towards using online learning technologies. Heretofore, CEGEP students’ use of technology has received scant attention, yet online learning technologies are found to play an increasingly important role in CEGEP classrooms today. The present study seeks to address this by examining CEGEP students’ use of online learning technologies. Our main research question was: What factors affect CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies? A total of 213 CEGEP students were surveyed, the resulting data was analyzed using the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319, 1989). The findings of this research provide guidance for future implementations of online learning technologies in the CEGEP education system.
Vorheriger Artikel Mobile phone use in two secondary schools in Tanzania
Nächster Artikel Improving educational outcomes & reducing absenteeism at remote villages with mobile technology and WhatsAPP: Findings from rural India

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
Abdullah, F., & Ward, R. (2016). Developing a general extended technology acceptance model for E-learning (GETAMEL) by analysing commonly used external factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 238–256. doi:10.​1016/​j.​chb.​2015.​11.​036.CrossRef
Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R., & Todd, P. A. (1992). Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227–247.CrossRef
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRef
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Akram, M. S., & Albalawi, W. (2016). Youths' social media adoption: theoretical model and empirical evidence. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(2), 22.CrossRef
Alharbi, S., & Drew, S. (2014). Using the technology acceptance model in understanding academics’ behavioural intention to use learning management systems. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 5(1). doi:10.​14569/​IJACSA.​2014.​050120.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. Tracking Online Education in the United States. LLC: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group.
Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Taylor Straut, T. (2016). Online Report Card – Tracking Online Education in U.S Higher Education. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group.
Barbour, M. K. (2014). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Intercambio, 6(2), 27.
Barbour, M. K., Brown, R., Hasler Waters, L., Hoey, R., Hunt, J., Kennedy, K., Ounsworth, C., Powell, A., & Trimm, T. (2011). Online and blended learning: A survey of policy and practice from K-12 schools around the world. Vienna: International Association for K-12 Online Learning.
Bazelais, P., Doleck, T. (2016a). Perceptions of Online Learning and Technology Use: A Study of CEGEP Students. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016 (pp. 987–991). AACE.
Bazelais, P., Doleck, T. (2016b). Investigating the Relative Importance of Antecedents of Behavioral Intentions to Use Online Learning Technologies. In Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology 2016 (pp.354–358). AACE.
Bazelais, P., Lemay, J. D., & Doleck, T. (2016). How does grit impact students’ academic achievement in science? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(1), 33–43.
Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87–122.CrossRef
Carpenter, G. (2010). E-learning in the Canadian post-secondary education system. Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance.
Catchpole, M. J. (1993). Interactive media: the bridge between distance and classroom education. In T. Nunan (Ed.), Distance education futures (pp. 37–56). Adelaide: University of South Australia Press.
Cheung, R., & Vogel, D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: an extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers & Education, 63, 160–175.CrossRef
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRef
Cohen, R. (1993). The use of voice synthesizer in the discovery of the written language by young children. Computers & Education, 21(1), 25–30.CrossRef
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.CrossRef
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.CrossRef
Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19–45.CrossRef
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRef
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.CrossRef
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30.CrossRef
Deutsch, N. (2010). Instructor experiences with implementing technology in blended learning courses in higher education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, 2010). Dissertation Abstracts International, 71(11), 463. (UMI No. 3114720).
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2016). Examining CEGEP students’ acceptance of CBLEs: A Test of Acceptance Models. Education & Information Technologies. Advance online publication. doi:10.​1007/​s10639-016-9559-9.
Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 350–359.CrossRef
Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 7(1), 12.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modelling. Akron: University of Akron Press.
Fillion, G., Limayem, M., LaFerriere, T., & Mantha, R. (2009). Integrating ICT into higher education: investigating onsite and online professors’ points of view. International Journal on E-Learning, 8(1), 17–55.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRef
Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: framework principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information System, 4(7), 2–77.
Graham, C. R. (2006). Blended learning systems: definition, current trends, and future directions. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Pfeiffer Publishing.
Graham, C. R. (2009). Blended learning models. Brigham Young University: IGI Global.CrossRef
Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regualtion, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about partial least squares: comments on Rönkkö & Evermann (2013). Organizational Research Methods, 17(2), 182–209.CrossRef
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015a). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.CrossRef
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015b). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial Least Square. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431. doi:10.​1108/​imr-09-2014-0304.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.CrossRef
Jaeger, B., Freeman, S., Whalen, R., & Payne, R. (2010). Successful students: Smart or tough? Paper presented at 2010 annual conference and exposition: research on the first year. American Society of Engineering Education.
Jarvela, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.CrossRef
Kaleta, R., Skibba, K., & Joosten, T. (2007). Discovering, designing and delivering hybrid courses. In A. G. Picciano & C. D. Dziuban (Eds.), Blended learning: Research perspectives (pp. 111–143). Needham: Sloan Center for Online Education.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43, 740–755.CrossRef
Ku, C.H. (2009). Extending the technology acceptance model using perceived user resources in higher education web-based online learning courses. ProQuest.
Larson, D. K., & Sung, C. H. (2009). Comparing student performance: online versus blended versus face-to-face. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(1), 31–42.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Larsen, K. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and, future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(50), 752–780.
Lokey-Vega, A., Barbour, M.K. (2015). Introduction (online learning December 2015 special issue). Online Learning, 19(5), 9–12.
Masrom, M. (2007). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology, 21, 24.
Mathieson, K. (1993). Variations in users' definitions of an information system. Information & management, 24(4), 227–234.CrossRef
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. US Department of Education.
Muller, E. (2010). Virtual K-12 Public School Programs and Students with Disabilities: Issues and Recommendations. In Project Forum. Project Forum. Available from: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 320, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2007). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007.CrossRef
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRef
Ramírez-Correa, P. E., Arenas-Gaitán, J., & Rondán-Cataluña, F. J. (2015). Gender and acceptance of E-learning: a multi-group analysis based on a structural equation model among college students in Chile and Spain. PloS One, 10(10), e0140460. doi:10.​1371/​journal.​pone.​0140460.CrossRef
Ratna, P. A., & Mehra, S. (2015). Exploring the acceptance for e-learning using technology acceptance model among university students in India. International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking, 5(2), 194–210.CrossRef
Rocher, G. (2008). L’engendrement du cégep par la commission Parent. In L. Héon, D. Savard, & T. Hamel (Eds.), Les cégeps: une grande aventure collective québécoise (pp. 9–16). Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval (PUL).
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Saadé, G., Nebebe, F., & Tan, W. (2007). Viability of the “Technology Acceptance Model” in Multimedia Learning Environments: A Comparative Study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3 .2007
Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1996). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, ‘95–96’. Washington, D.C: Software Publishers Association.
Song, S.M. (2010). E-learning: Investigating students' acceptance of online learning in hospitality programs. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 11902
Statistics Canada. (2008). Postsecondary education – participation and dropping out: Differences across university, college and other types of postsecondary institutions. (Catalogue No. 81–595-M, No. 070). Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Industry.
Tabak, F., & Nguyen, N. T. (2013). Technology acceptance and performance in online learning environments: impact of self-regulation. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 116.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.CrossRef
Thompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125. doi:10.​2307/​249443.CrossRef
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Office of planning, evaluation, and policy development, Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, D.C.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.CrossRef
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (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.CrossRef
Wang, M. J. (2007). Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 294–311.CrossRef
Watson, J., Pape, L., Murin, A., Gemin, B., Vashaw, L. (2014). Keeping pace with K-12 digital learning: an annual review of policy and practice. Evergreen Education Group.
Metadaten
Titel
Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies
verfasst von
Paul Bazelais
Tenzin Doleck
David John Lemay
Publikationsdatum
18.03.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Education and Information Technologies / Ausgabe 1/2018
Print ISSN: 1360-2357
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7608
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9587-0

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Education and Information Technologies 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

Youth texting: Help or hindrance to literacy?

OriginalPaper

Towards a personality understanding of information technology students and their IT learning in UAE university

OriginalPaper

Social networking and academic performance: A review

OriginalPaper

“It must not disturb, it’s as simple as that”: Students’ voices on mobile phones in the infrastructure for learning in Swedish upper secondary school

OriginalPaper

Design, development, and evaluation of a mobile learning application for computing education

OriginalPaper

Different patterns of university students’ integration of lecture podcasts, learning materials, and lecture attendance in a psychology course