Abstract
The question of what drives learners to adopt and use certain technologies over others, generally referred to as technology acceptance in the literature, is of interest to educational technology researchers, to policymakers, and developers in educational institutions. Technology acceptance models can inform adoption and implementation decisions. Despite the growing literature on technology acceptance, there is less evidence from countries with the lowest economic development indicators such as Nepal. The present study investigates the factors motivating technology use in the Nepali context. The study is grounded in an extended technology acceptance model (TAM) applied to using the internet for learning (not limited to online learning environments). The data were collected from 126 school students in Nepal (Mage = 15.19). We found empirical support for our proposed research model. There were strong relationships between computer self-efficacy and perceived enjoyment, and perceived enjoyment and behavioral intention. We found no influence of perceived usefulness or attitude on behavioral intention, contrary to theorized relationships and the empirical literature. Our findings show that the extended TAM translates to understudied populations such as Nepali secondary school students and suggests that it is sensitive to local situational differences that influence technology acceptance behaviors.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbas, T. (2016). Social factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing and developed countries. Journal of Hospitality And Tourism Technology, 7(2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhtt-11-2015-0042.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Arnett, J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.7.602.
Baller, S., Battista, A., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (2016). The networked readiness index 2016 (pp. 1–36). Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Chapter1.1_2016.pdf.
Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9587-0.
Bhuasiri, W., Xaymoungkhoun, O., Zo, H., Rho, J. J., & Ciganek, A. P. (2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843–855.
Center for Education Innovations. (2015). Integration of Technology in Schools. Retrieved 22 July, 2017 from http://www.educationinnovations.org/program/integration-technology-schools.
Cheung, W., & Huang, W. (2005). Proposing a framework to assess Internet usage in university education: An empirical investigation from a student’s perspective. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 237–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00455.x.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
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. https://doi.org/10.1006/imms.1993.1022.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Dawadi, B. R., & Shakya, S. (2016). ICT implementation and infrastructure deployment approach for rural Nepal. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing and Information Technology (pp. 319–331). Switzerland: Springer.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017a). Examining the antecedents of social networking sites use among CEGEP students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2103–2123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9535-4.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017b). Examining CEGEP students’ acceptance of CBLEs: A test of acceptance models. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2523–2543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9559-9.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017c). Examining the antecedents of Facebook acceptance via structural equation modeling: A case of CEGEP students. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 9(1), 69–89.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). The role of behavioral expectations in technology acceptance: A CEGEP case study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9158-9.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: 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.
Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202.
Hamner, M., & Qasi, R. (2009). Expanding the technology acceptance model to examine personal computing technology utilization in government agencies in developing countries. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 128–136.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/imds-09-2015-0382.
Inan, F., & Lowther, D. (2009). Factors affecting technology integration in K-12 classrooms: A path model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(2), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9132-y.
Jahan, S. (2016). Human development report 2016 (pp. 1–286). New York, NY. Retrieved 22 July, 2017 from http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 740–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: What is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404.
Kock, N. (2015a). WarpPLS. Retrieved from http://www.warppls.com.
Kock, N. (2015b). WarpPLS 5.0 user manual. ScripWarp Systems. Retrieved from http://cits.tamiu.edu/WarpPLS/UserManual_v_5_0.pdf.
Lai, H., & Chen, C. (2011). Factors influencing secondary school teachers’ adoption of teaching blogs. Computers & Education, 56(4), 948–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.010.
Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.-N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use E-learning systems. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 124–137.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40(3), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4.
Lemay, D., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2017). “Passion and concern for privacy” as factors affecting snapchat use: A situated perspective on technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.022.
Lemay, D. J., Morin, M. M., Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2018). Modeling students’ perceptions of simulation-based learning using the technology acceptance model. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 20, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2018.04.004.
Lu, J., Yu, C., Liu, C., & Yao, J. (2003). Technology acceptance model for wireless Internet. Internet Research, 13(3), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240310478222.
Marangunić, N., & Granić, A. (2014). Technology acceptance model: A literature review from 1986 to 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1.
Ministry of Education. (2016). Eduation in figures 2016 (pp. 1–26). Kathmandu: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.np/assets/uploads/files/Nepal_Education_in_Figures_2016.pdf.
Musa, P. F. (2006). Making a case for modifying the technology acceptance model to account for limited accessibility in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 12(3), 213–224.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use E-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Park, N., Roman, R., Lee, S., & Chung, J. E. (2009). User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: An application of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Information Management, 29(3), 196–209.
Pherali, T. (2011). Education and conflict in Nepal: possibilities for reconstruction. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513590.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sang, G., Valcke, M., van Braak, J., Tondeur, J., & Zhu, C. (2010). Predicting ICT integration into classroom teaching in Chinese primary schools: Exploring the complex interplay of teacher-related variables. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00383.x.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44(1), 90–103.
Shields, R. (2011). ICT or I see tea? Modernity, technology and education in Nepal. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767724.2010.513536.
Stash, S., & Hannum, E. (2001). Who goes to school? Educational stratification by gender, caste, and ethnicity in Nepal. Comparative Education Review, 45(3), 354–378. https://doi.org/10.1086/447676.
Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors affecting students’ acceptance of E-learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(1), 54.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., Liu, X., & Tarhini, T. (2017). Examining the moderating effect of individual-level cultural values on users’ acceptance of E-learning in developing countries: A structural equation modeling of an extended technology acceptance model. Interactive Learning Environments, 25(3), 306–328.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Teo, T. (2008). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: A Singapore survey. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1201.
Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494821003714632.
Teo, T., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2017). The role of attachment in Facebook usage: A study of Canadian college students. Interactive Learning Environments, 5, 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1315602.
Teo, T., & Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209–213.
Teo, T., & Noyes, J. (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57(2), 1645–1653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.002.
Teo, T., & Van Schalk, P. (2009). Understanding technology acceptance in pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.3860/taper.v18i1.1035.
The World Bank. (2017). Data Nepal. Retrieved 22 July 2017, from http://data.worldbank.org/country/nepal.
UNESCO. (2015). Education for all: National Review report (pp. 1–125). Kathmandu, Nepal: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002327/232769E.pdf.
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), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.
Venkatesh, V. (2006). Where to go from here? Thoughts on future directions for research on individual-level technology adoption with a focus on decision making. Decision Sciences, 37(4), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2006.00136.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481.
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.
Williams, M., Rana, N., & Dwivedi, Y. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-09-2014-0088.
Wodon, Q. (2015). Technology in the classroom: Learning from OLE Nepal|global partnership for education. Globalpartnership.org. Retrieved 23 July 2017, from http://www.globalpartnership.org/blog/technology-classroom-learning-ole-nepal.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Perceived usefulness |
Using Internet would enable me to accomplish my homework more quickly |
Using Internet will improve my performance |
Using Internet will increase my productivity |
Using Internet will enhance my effectiveness |
Internet is useful to my learning |
Compared to previous practices, using Internet improves the quality of my learning |
Compared to previous practices, using Internet enhances my effectiveness in doing my homework |
Compared to previous practices, using Internet increases my productivity |
Perceived ease of use |
I can use Internet to learn easily |
I can learn to use new Internet easily |
Learning to use Internet is easy for me |
I find it easy to use Internet to do what I want |
My interaction with Internet does not require much effort |
It is easy for me to become skillful at using Internet |
I find Internet easy to use |
Compared to previous practices, using Internet makes it easier for me to do my homework |
Computer self-efficacy |
I can use Internet even if there is no one to teach me |
I can use Internet with minimal help |
I can figure out (learn) how to use Internet on my own |
Technology complexity |
Using Internet takes up too much of my time |
Learning with Internet is so complicated that it is difficult to understand what is going on |
It takes too long to learn how to use Internet such that it is not worth the effort |
Using Internet is a complex activity |
Subjective norm |
People who influence my behavior think that I should learn with Internet |
People who are important to me think that I should learn with Internet |
The people whose views I respect support learning with Internet |
Perception of external control |
I have control over my use of Internet |
I have the knowledge necessary to use Internet |
Given the resources, opportunities and knowledge, it is easy for me to use Internet |
Using Internet is compatible with the values I hold about my learning process |
Facilitating conditions |
When I encounter difficulties in using Internet, guidance is available to me inselecting a website to use |
When I encounter difficulties in using Internet, specialized instruction concerning Internet is available to me |
When I encounter difficulties in using Internet, a specific person is available to provide assistance |
When I encounter difficulties in using Internet, I know where to seek assistance |
When I encounter difficulties in using Internet, I am given timely assistance |
Job relevance |
Using Internet matches the way I learn |
Using Internet is consistent with my beliefs about learning |
Using Internet does not significantly change my existing learning routine |
Attitude |
Once I start using Internet, I find it hard to stop |
I look forward to those aspects of learning that require the use of Internet |
I like learning with Internet |
I have positive feelings towards the use of Internet |
I think it is a good idea to use Internet |
Perceived enjoyment |
Using Internet makes learning more interesting |
Using Internet for learning is fun |
I have fun using Internet |
Using Internet is pleasant |
I find using Internet to be enjoyable |
I find learning with Internet to be enjoyable |
The actual process of learning with Internet is pleasant |
I have fun learning with Internet |
Triability |
If I heard about a new technology, I would look for ways to experiment with it |
Among my peers, I am usually the first to try out new technology |
I like to experiment with new technology |
School influence |
The school is committed to a vision of using Internet in learning |
The school is committed to supporting my efforts in using Internet for learning |
The school strongly encourages the use of Internet for learning |
The school will recognize my efforts in using Internet for learning |
The use of Internet for learning is important to the school |
Teacher influence |
My class teacher thinks that using Internet is valuable for learning |
My class teacher’s opinions are important to me |
If my class teacher has started to use Internet support his/her teaching, I would be encouraged to use Internet to learn |
The teachers in my school support the learning with Internet |
Peer influence |
My classmates think that using Internet is valuable for learning |
My classmate’s opinions are important to me |
If most of my classmates have started to use Internet to support their learning, this fact would press me to do the same |
Behavorial intention |
I intend to learn using the Internet in the future |
I expect that I would learn with the Internet in the future |
I expect that I would learn with the Internet in the future |
I plan to learn with the Internet in the future |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teo, T., Doleck, T., Bazelais, P. et al. Exploring the drivers of technology acceptance: a study of Nepali school students. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 495–517 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09654-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09654-7