Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining CEGEP students’ acceptance of computer-based learning environments: A test of two models

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the use of technology in education advances and broadens, empirical research around its use assumes increased importance. Yet literature investigating technology acceptance in certain populations remains scarce. We recently argued that technology acceptance investigations should also consider the modality of the antecedent belief, to distinguish between beliefs of conditionality, and necessity, such that sometimes we are constrained to act by circumstance, and other times we act to obtain a certain outcome, which differently affects our appraisals of situations (Doleck et al. 2016). In this vein, we propose to study technology acceptance with a population that is constrained in their acceptance of certain technologies, such as university or college students’ tacit acceptance of classroom computer applications. In the present paper, we pose the question: what factors affect Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel (CEGEP) students’ technology acceptance, specifically, what are the antecedents to their computer-based learning environment (CBLE) use. To explore this question, we employ a structural equation modeling approach, specifically a partial least square (PLS) approach, using the technology acceptance framework. The present study applies two well-known models of acceptance, the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM; Davis in MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340 1989) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT; Venkatesh et al. in MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478 2003) to investigate the acceptance of CBLEs among CEGEP students and attempts to address technology acceptance in forced-choice situations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agyei, D., & Voogt, J. (2014). Examining factors affecting beginning teachers’ transfer of learning of ICT-enhanced learning activities in their teaching practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(1), 92–105. doi:10.14742/ajet.499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help Design in Interactive Learning Environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320. doi:10.3102/00346543073003277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Feyzi Behnagh, R. (2010). Dysregulated learning with advanced learning technologies. In Paper presented at the fall symposium of the Association for the Advancement of artificial intelligence (AAAI). Arlington, Virginia: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., & Witherspoon, A. M. (2009). Self-regulated learning with hypermedia. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education (pp. 319–339). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, J. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Research monograph. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, J. R. (2012). Motivation and technology for Quebec CEGEP ESL Classes. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. Paper 699.

  • 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, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dečman, M. (2015). Modeling the acceptance of e-learning in mandatory environments of higher education: the influence of previous education and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 272–281. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doleck, T., Basnet, R., Poitras, E., & Lajoie, S. (2015). Mining learner–system interaction data: implications for modeling learner behaviors and improving overlay models. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 421–447. doi:10.1007/s40692-015-0040-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2016). Examining the antecedents of social networking sites use among CEGEP students. Education and Information Technologies. doi:10.1007/s10639-016-9535-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entwistle, N., & Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of E-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21(4), 389. doi:10.2307/249720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A., McNamara, D., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point& Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 225–234. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J., & Azevedo, R. (2010). The measurement of learners’ self-regulated cognitive and metacognitive processes while using computer-based learning environments. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 203–209. doi:10.1080/00461520.2010.515935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In R. R. Sinkovics & P. N. Ghauri (Eds.), Advances in international marketing (pp. 277–320). Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, W., & Senge, P. (1992). Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments. European Journal of Operational Research, 59(1), 183–196. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(92)90014-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43, 740–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kock, N. (2015a). Warp PLS. 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

  • Lajoie, S. P. (2009). Developing professional expertise with a cognitive apprenticeship model: examples from avionics and medicine. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), Development of professional expertise: toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments (pp. 61–83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., & Azevedo, R. (2006). Teaching and learning in technology-rich environments. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 803–821). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. P., & Naismith, L. (2012). Computer-based learning environments. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 716–718). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchewka, J. T., Liu, G., & Kostiwa, K. (2007). An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using course management software. Communications of the IIMA, 7(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, N., Yarzebinski, E., Keiser, V., Raizada, R., William, W. C., Stylianides, G. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2013). Cognitive anatomy of tutor learning: lessons learned with SimStudent. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1152–1163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitrovic, A. (2003). An intelligent SQL tutor on the web. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13(2), 173–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moos, D., & Azevedo, R. (2009). Learning with computer-based learning environments: a literature review of computer self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 576–600. doi:10.3102/0034654308326083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poitras, E. G., Lajoie, S. P., Doleck, T., & Jarrell, A. (2016). Subgroup discovery with user interaction data: an empirically guided approach to improving intelligent tutoring systems. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 204–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, C., & Donthu, N. (2006). 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. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: research issues and findings. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 605–620). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, E. B. (1988). Information system implementation: bridging the gap between design and utilization. Homewood: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, T. A., Venkatesh, V., & Gosain, S. (2009). Model of acceptance with peer support: a social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Quarterly, 33(2), 371–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: a study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302–312. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T. (2015). Comparing pre-service and in-service teachers’ acceptance of technology: assessment of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers & Education, 83, 22–31. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T., Milutinović, V., & Zhou, M. (2016). Modelling Serbian pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards computer use: a SEM and MIMIC approach. Computers & Education, 94, 77–88. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125. doi:10.2307/249443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell, K., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relating learning approaches, perceptions of context and learning outcomes. Higher Education, 22, 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanlehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technologies. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research of educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wold, H. (1982). Soft modeling: the basic design and some extensions. In K. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation (pp. 1–54). Amsterdam: Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B., & Tsikalas, K. (2005). Can computer-based learning environments (CBLEs) Be used as self-regulatory tools to enhance learning? Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 267–271. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4004_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McGill University, 3700 McTavish St., Montreal, QC, H3A 1Y2, Canada

    Tenzin Doleck, Paul Bazelais & David John Lemay

Authors
  1. Tenzin Doleck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Bazelais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David John Lemay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tenzin Doleck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doleck, T., Bazelais, P. & Lemay, D.J. Examining CEGEP students’ acceptance of computer-based learning environments: A test of two models. Educ Inf Technol 22, 2523–2543 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9559-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9559-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation