Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 93–111 | Cite as

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

  • Paul BazelaisEmail author
  • Tenzin Doleck
  • David John Lemay
Article

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.

Keywords

Behavioral intention Online learning technologies Blended-learning Technology acceptance model (TAM) CEGEP K-12, gender differences 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Akram, M. S., & Albalawi, W. (2016). Youths' social media adoption: theoretical model and empirical evidence. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(2), 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.
  7. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change. Tracking Online Education in the United States. LLC: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group.Google Scholar
  8. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Barbour, M.K. (2013). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.openschool.bc.ca/pdfs/state_of_nation-2013.pdf
  11. Barbour, M. K. (2014). State of the nation: K-12 online learning in Canada. Intercambio, 6(2), 27.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Bates, T. (2012). The status of online learning in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.tonybates.ca/2012/06/12/the-status-of-online-learning-in-canada-in-2012/.
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351. doi: 10.2307/3250921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal. (2013). Government of Québec consultations on the future of higher education (pp.1--8). Retrieved from: http://www.ccmm.ca/~/media/files/news/2013/memoireconsultation_enseign_sup_en.pdf.
  20. Canadian Virtual University (CVU). (2012). Online University Education in Canada: Challenges and Opportunities. Retrieved from: http://www.cvu-uvc.ca/Online%20University%20Education%20%20jan17%202012.pdf.
  21. Carpenter, G. (2010). E-learning in the Canadian post-secondary education system. Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cohen, R. (1993). The use of voice synthesizer in the discovery of the written language by young children. Computers & Education, 21(1), 25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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).Google Scholar
  34. Docebo report. Trends, E. L. M. (2014). Forecast 2014–2016 Report. Available online: http://www.docebo.com/landing/contactform/elearning-market-trends-and-forecast-2014-2016-docebo-report.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2015).
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. Donnelly, R. (2010). Harmonizing technology with interaction in blended problem-based learning. Computers & Education, 54(2), 350–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dziuban, C. D., Hartman, J. L., & Moskal, P. D. (2004). Blended learning. EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research Bulletin, 7(1), 12.Google Scholar
  38. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modelling. Akron: University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  41. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: framework principles and guidelines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Ginder, S., Stearns, C. (2014). Enrollment in distance education course, by state: Fall 2012. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014023.pdf.
  45. Global eLearning market to reach $107.3 billion by 2015, according to new report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc. (2012). retrieved from: http://www.prweb.com/releases/distance_learning/e_learning/prweb9198652.htm.
  46. Goodhue, D., & Thompson, R. (1995). Task-technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 213. doi: 10.2307/249689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Government of Quebec (2013). 2013-2014 Budget, Ministère des Finances et de l'Économie. Retrieved from: http://www.budget.finances.gouv.qc.ca/budget/2012-2013/index_en.asp.
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Graham, C. R. (2009). Blended learning models. Brigham Young University: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139–152. doi: 10.2753/mtp1069-6679190202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. iNACOL .(2013). Fast Facts about Online Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.inacol.org /resource/fast-facts-about-online-learning/.
  57. iNACOL .(2015). Blending Learning: The Evolution of Online and Face-to-Face Education from 2008 to 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.inacol.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/iNACOL Blended-Learning-The-Evolution-of-Online-And-Face-to-Face-Education-from-2008-2015.pdf.
  58. 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.Google Scholar
  59. Jarvela, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.Google Scholar
  61. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43, 740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ku, C.H. (2009). Extending the technology acceptance model using perceived user resources in higher education web-based online learning courses. ProQuest.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Lokey-Vega, A., Barbour, M.K. (2015). Introduction (online learning December 2015 special issue). Online Learning, 19(5), 9–12.Google Scholar
  66. Masrom, M. (2007). Technology acceptance model and e-learning. Technology, 21, 24.Google Scholar
  67. Mathieson, K. (1993). Variations in users' definitions of an information system. Information & management, 24(4), 227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. Ménard, L. J. (2009). Report of the Action Group on Student Retention and Success in Quebec. Retrieved from: http://www.bmo.com/bmo/files/images/7/1/knowledge_is_power.pdf.
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Pappas, C. (2015). The Top eLearning Statistics and Facts For 2015 You Need To Know. http://elearningindustry.com/elearning-statistics-and-facts-for-2015, 25(2015), 11–9.
  72. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the horizon, 9(5), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Bönningstedt: SmartPLS. Retrieved from: http://www.smartpls.com.
  77. 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).Google Scholar
  78. Rodriguez, L.F. (2012). The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a Viable Model to Determine the Acceptance of E-learning Technologies in Higher Education Institutions (HEI’s). Retrieved from: https://works.bepress.com/luis_rodriguez/8/.
  79. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  80. 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 .2007Google Scholar
  81. Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1996). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, ‘95–96’. Washington, D.C: Software Publishers Association.Google Scholar
  82. Song, S.M. (2010). E-learning: Investigating students' acceptance of online learning in hospitality programs. Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 11902Google Scholar
  83. 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.Google Scholar
  84. 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.Google Scholar
  85. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J. (1991). Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125. doi: 10.2307/249443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.Google Scholar
  88. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2014 (NCES 2016–006. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80.
  89. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wang, M. J. (2007). Designing online courses that effectively engage learners from diverse cultural backgrounds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Bazelais
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tenzin Doleck
    • 1
  • David John Lemay
    • 1
  1. 1.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations