Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Factors affecting faculty use of learning technologies: implications for models of technology adoption

  • Tom Buchanan
  • Phillip Sainter
  • Gunter Saunders
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study examines factors associated with the use of learning technologies by higher education faculty. In an online survey in a UK university, 114 faculty respondents completed a measure of Internet self-efficacy, and reported on their use of learning technologies along with barriers to their adoption. Principal components analysis suggested two main barriers to adoption: structural constraints within the University and perceived usefulness of the tools. Regression analyses indicated both these variables, along with Internet self-efficacy, were associated with use of online learning technology. These findings are more consistent with models of technology engagement that recognize facilitating or inhibiting conditions (unified theory of acceptance and use of technology; decomposed theory of planned behavior) than the classic technology acceptance model (TAM). Practical implications for higher education institutions are that while faculty training and digital literacy initiatives may have roles to play, structural factors (e.g., provision of resources and technical support) must also be addressed for optimal uptake of learning technologies.

Keywords

Faculty Technology adoption Education UTAUT TAM Internet self-efficacy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Li Jin and Federica Oradini with some aspects of this project.

References

  1. Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(2), 71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P. (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 243–254. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/jais/vol8/iss4/12/.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. doi: 10.1006/imms.1993.1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eastin, M. S., & LaRose, R. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 6(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00110.x.
  8. Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hsu, M.-H., & Chiu, C.-M. (2004). Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support Systems, 38(3), 369–381. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2003.08.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M., & Abbey, C. (2006). Simulations and games. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(3), 227–242. doi: 10.1177/1469787406069056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Park, N., Lee, K. M., & Cheong, P. H. (2008). University instructors’ acceptance of electronic courseware: An application of the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 163–186. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00391.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Patil, V. H., Singh, S. N., Mishra, S., & Donavan, D. T. (2008). Efficient theory development and factor retention criteria: Abandon the ‘eigenvalue greater than one’ criterion. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 162–170. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176. doi: 10.1287/isre.6.2.144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Torkzadeh, G., & Van Dyke, T. P. (2002). Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 479–494. doi: 10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00010-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425–478. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540.
  17. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431–449. doi: 10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Buchanan
    • 1
  • Phillip Sainter
    • 1
  • Gunter Saunders
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WestminsterLondonUK

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options