N Kourakos Abstract For ICTPI 2006

Technology Acceptance for a Sustainable E-learning
Nikolaos Kourakos
Phd Candidate SOI, Centre for HCI Design, City University, London, UK.
e-mail: snadek@gmail.com
Abstract
It is argued that the rapid evolution of Information and Communications

Technology (ICT) and specifically of multimedia and Internet, has given the motive to
introduce them to the education system. The online delivery of education starts in
1990s with the parallel explosion of the Internet usage. According to E. Masie (2001)
'The real truth about e-learning's future," in a few years "there will not be a division
between e-learning and traditional learning, as learning will naturally evolve to
utilise technological progress to improve learning efficiency".
As Zhang (Zhang et al, 2004) claims the today’s economy, the knowledge-based
economy has an ever-increase demand for new ways of delivery education. This issue
has led to very dynamic changes in learning activities. The new K-economy requires
people and especially working staff to acquire knowledge and skills in a timely
manner and to make decisions under various circumstances. So the issues of life long
learning and continuous training is a major issue. The delivery of instruction and
teaching materials electronically to remote students via internet is what we call e-
learning.
After four decades of e-learning initiatives, the crucial point for today’s e-learning
implementation is to pass to a sustainable phase. As many authors notice, the
sustainable implementation of e-learning especially from Universities is a current hot
item (Krupaa, Mandl & Jense, 2002). There are lots of factors that need to be
considered while implementing an e-learning solution. There is a need to identify the
factors that support and boost sustainability of e-learning. One of the most critical
factors is the acceptance of the solution from the participants. Performing a literature
review, we found a noticeable number of researches in this area.
This paper makes an exploratory study in the area of e-learning and the models
that exams the technology acceptance of this solution, especially by learners. It
describes various models that seek to explain learner’s behavioral and actual intention
to use a technology system.
The study on technology (e-learning) acceptance models is useful for both
academic and practitioners of e-learning, especially under the sustainability issues.
Literature review
There is large variety of studies focus on ICT acceptance (Ngai, Poon & Chan,
2005; Abdul-Gader, 1996Adams, Nelson &Todd, 1992; Igbaria, Guimaraes & Davis,
1995). As mentioned before a plethora of models have been developed to explain the
technology acceptance in general and Information and Communication Technology
(ICT) in particular.
The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975) to explain and predict the people’s behavior in a specific situation (figure1 &
table1 in appendix)
The Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is another well-known model.
TPB is a well known theory (grounded on sociology) that has been used to explain
social behavior and information technology use (Ajzen, 1985, 1991; Conner &
Armitage, 1998; Dillon & Morris, 1996; Sutton, 1998; Kwon & Onwuegbuzie, 2005)
(figure2, table2, appendix).
More specifically, according to Ajzen (Ajzen, 1985, 1991), intension is an
immediate predictor of behavior. This intension is loaded by SN (i.e. perceived social
pressure), PBC (the beliefs about the ability to control the behavior) and one’s attitude
towards a behavior. Further more, a behavioral belief (a specific behavior lead to a
specific outcome), weighted by the evaluated desirability of this outcome forms an
attitude (Kwon & Onwuegbuzie, 2005).
Task technology fit model (TTF).Dishaw and Strong (Dishaw & Strong, 1988)
claims that the only reason for IT use is if the available to the end user functions fit
the user needs and activities. The basic version of TTF that has been tested (Goodhue
& Thompson, 1995) (figure3 appendix). Actually, the TTF match the demands of a
task and the capabilities of the chosen technology. The very early version does not
include the ‘Actual Tool Use’ as an outcome variable, because they didn’t focus on
behavior. As Goodhue (1998; 1995) notice, individual abilities, such as computer
literacy and experience become common additions in later versions of TTF. Dishaw et
al (2002) provide us with another modification of the TTF including the factor of
computer self-efficacy.
Innovation diffusion theory (IDT) (Rogers, 1993), is another model also
grounded in social psychology. Since 1940’s the social scientists coin the terms
diffusion and diffusion theory (Rogers, 1983). This theory provides a framework with
which we can make predictions for the time period that is necessary for a technology
to be accepted. Constructs are the characteristics of the new technology, the
communication networks and the characteristics of the adopters. We can see
innovation diffusion as a set of four basic elements: the innovation, the time, the
communication process and the social system. Here, the concept of a new idea is
passed from one member of a social system to another. Moore and Benbasat (1991)
redefined a number of constructs for use to examine individual technology acceptance
such as relative advantage, easy of use, image, compatibility and results
demonstrability.
Expectation-disconfirmation model (EDT) according to Premkumar &
Bhattacherjee (2006) is based on expectation-disconfirmation-satisfaction paradigm.
Oliver (1980) introduced EDT to explain the critical factors of consumer
satisfaction/dissatisfaction, in the marketing area. Here product information and
marketing formed a pre-usage initial expectation. After that the customers use the
product and form a perception of product performance. The comparison of initial
expectation vs. perceived performance drives to the disconfirmation for the product.
After that the customer forms his/her satisfaction level..
The EDT is validated in IT by Bhattacherjee (2001) in a study for online
banking services. Further more Bhattacherjee and Premkumar (2004) used EDT in
order to explain changes in beliefs and attitudes toward IT usage.
Technology acceptance model (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989). TAM
was adapted from the Theory of Reasoned Action –TRA-. Maybe the most well-
known and widely accepted and cited model is the technology acceptance model
(TAM). Davis (1985; 1989) developed the TAM to explain the computer usage and
acceptance of information technology. As Money & Turner (2004) notice, the
Institute for Scientific Information Social Science Citation indexed more than 300
journal citations of the initial TAM paper published by Davis et al. (1989). (The
Davis’s model is shown in figure5, appendix).
According to Davis (1993, p.1) ‘user acceptance is often the pivotal factor
determine the success or failure of an information system’. The term external variables
include all the system design features. These features have a direct influence on perceived
usefulness (PU) and perceived easy of use (PEOU), while attitude toward using has an
indirect influence effect to the actual system use. Davis (1993, p. 477) defines PEOU as
“the degree to which an individual believes that using a particular system would be free of
physical and mental effort”, and PU as “the degree to which an individual believes that
using a particular system would be enhance his/her job performance. As Davis et al (1989)
states, the goal is to provide us with an explanation of the determinants of information
systems acceptance. Similar to TRA user beliefs determine the attitude toward using the
information system. This attitude drives to intention behavior to use which lead to actual
system use.
Dishaw and Strong (1999, pp. 9-21) pointed out a weak point of TAM about task
focus. According to them TAM differs from TRA “in two keys”. The first is that define
PEOU and PU as external variables that determine the intension to use not the actual use.
The second key is that TAM does not include subjective norms.
Yi (Yi et al., 2005), claims that TAM and IDT have similarities, More specific PEOU and
PU are conceptual similar to relative advantage and complexity (the opposite of easy of
use). As Taylor and Todd (1995) claims, TAM performs slightly better compared with the
Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).Table3 (appendix) summarizes the implementation of
TAM in wide range of areas.
Venkatesh and Davis (2000), proposed an extension of TAM, the TAM2. TAM2
include social influence process such subjective norm, and cognitive instrumental process
such as job relevance, output quality and result demonstrability. The figure6 (appendix)
describes the revised TAM
Venkatesh et al. (2003), proposed the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use
as a composition of eight prominent models (TRA, TAM, Motivational Model, TPB,
Combined TAM-TPB, PC Utilization, IDT and Social Cognitive Theory).
Summary
However every attempt of building an e-learning system, apart from the

theoretical knowledge and the technical documentation, also requires the adoption and
the active support of those that it addresses that is the students. E-learning becomes
more and more important. In order to reduce cost / benefit ratio, we must examine the
gap between system design and system acceptance. So the study of the technology
acceptance models becomes more and more important and critical.
Appendix
Figure1. Theory of Reasoned Action TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
Table1. Structure of TRA.
“an individual’s feelings about

Attitude performing the target behavior”
Behavioral
Toward (Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p.
Beliefs
Behavior 216)
Behavior Intension “the person’s perception that

most people who are important
Subjective Normative to him think he should or
Norm Beliefs should not perform the
behavior in question” (Fishbein
and Ajzen (1975, p. 302)
Figure2. The Theory of Planned Behaviour –TPB- (Ajzen, 1985, 1991)

Table2. Structure of TPB
Attitude Behavioral The same as TRA

Beliefs (BE)
Subjective Norm Normative The same as TRA
(SN) Beliefs (NM)
Behavior Intension Perceived Behavioral Control “the perceived ease
Control (PBC) Beliefs (CP) or difficulty of
performing the
behavior” (Ajzen
1991, p. 188)
Figure3. A basic task-technology fit (TTF) model, adapted from Dishaw & Strong, (p. 11)
Figure4. EDT structure.
Figure5. Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989).

Table3 Tam extensions / implementations.
Researcher Year Field – TAM extensions
F DAVIS 1991 Original TAM
D. Straub et al. 1997 TAM across cultures
M. Igbaria & M. Tan 1997 Technology Acceptance
R Agarwal & E. Karahanna 1998 TAM and Compatibility beliefs
M. Dishaw & D. Strong 1999 Extending TAM with task-technology fit constructs
T. Teo et al. 1999 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Y. Malhorta & D. Galleta 1999 Extending TAM and Social Inluence
A. Lederer et al. 2000 World Wide Web
H. van der Heijden 2000 TAM and Website Usage
H. van der Heijden 2000 E-TAM
J. C-C Lin & H. Lu 2000 Behavioural intention and web site use
J. CC Lin H. Lu 2000 Towards an understanding of the behavioural intention
V. Venkatesh & F. Davis 2000 TAM2
V.Venkatesh & F. Davis 2000 Theoretical extension of TAM
A. Bhattacherjee 2001 E-commerce
J.W Moon & Y.G. Kim 2001 TAM and WWW context
Lei-da Chen 2001 Online consumers
R. Horton et al. 2001 Explaining intanet use with TAM
J. Lee et al. 2002 TAM and Virtual learning environment
J. Thong et al. 2002 TAM and digital libraries
S.-S. Liaw 2002 WWW Environment
W. Chismar S. Wiley-Patton 2002 TAM and Physicians
W. Chismar S. Wiley-Patton 2002 TAM and Internet in Pediatrics
H. Selim 2003 TAM course websites
J-S. Lee et al. 2003 TAM, Social Networking, Distance Learning
L. Stoel & K.H. Lee 2003 Web-based courseware
M.K.O. Lee et al. 2003 Internet based learning
P. Legris et al. 2003 Critical review of TAM
P.Jen-Hua et al. 2003 Law officers
V.Venkatesh et al. 2003 TAM toward a unified view
Y.P. J-H. Hu et al. 2003 School teachers
Yong Jin Kin et al. 2003 The role of attitude
Y-S Wang 2003 TAM Asynchronous learning systems
C. Gardner & D. Alonso 2004 TAM and Internet Technology
C.S. Ong et al. 2004 TAM, engineer's e-learning system
Chorhg-Shyong Ong & Jung-Yu Lai 2004 Gender differences
H. Sun & P. Zhang 2004 Methodological analysis of TAM
H. Sun & P. Zhang 2004 Methodological analysis of TAM
Hee-dong Yang & Youngjin 2004 Revisiting TAM
J-H Wu & S-C Wag 2004 M-commerce
K. Amoako-Gyampah & A.F. Salam 2004 ERP environment
K. Pituch, Y. Lee 2004 TAM and e-learning use
Lei-DA Chen & J. Tan 2004 Virtual stores acceptance
T. Pikkarainen et al. 2004 On-line banking
W. Money, A. Turner 2004 TAM and knowledge management system
C.Colin & A. Goh 2005 Validation of TAM
E. Carayannis & E. Turner 2005 Public Key Information Technology
E.W.T. Ngai et al. 2005 TAM and WebCT
Hung-Pin Shih 2005 Utilization behavior
J.Y. Imsook et al. 2005 TAM and t-commerce
J-H Wu 2005 TAM and mobile commerce
Jieun Yu et al. 2005 t-commerce
L. Dadayan & E. Ferro 2005 E-gov
L.Carter & F. Belanger 2005 E-gov
Figure6. TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000 p.188).
References

N Kourakos Abstract For ICTPI 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N Kourakos Abstract For ICTPI 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

N Kourakos Abstract For ICTPI 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technology Acceptance for a Sustainable E-learning

It is argued that the rapid evolution of Information and Communications

However every attempt of building an e-learning system, apart from the

Figure1. Theory of Reasoned Action TRA (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

Table1. Structure of TRA.

“an individual’s feelings about

Behavior Intension “the person’s perception that

Figure2. The Theory of Planned Behaviour –TPB- (Ajzen, 1985, 1991)

Attitude Behavioral The same as TRA

Figure4. EDT structure.

Figure5. Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989).

You might also like