Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 93–121 | Cite as

Student behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing in a distance course: integration of autonomy to the UTAUT model

  • Sawsen Lakhal
  • Hager Khechine
  • Daniel Pascot
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine psychological factors which could influence acceptance and use of the desktop video conferencing technology by undergraduate business students. Based on the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, this study tested a theoretical model encompassing seven variables: behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing, performance expectancy, effort expectancy, general social influence, peer social influence, facilitating conditions and autonomy. Data were collected on a sample of 177 undergraduate business students in a compulsory information system distance course using an online questionnaire. The results indicate that the main drivers of the behavioural intentions to use desktop video conferencing are, in order of importance: performance expectancy, facilitating conditions, general social influence and autonomy mediated by performance expectancy (R 2 = 50.5 %). The structural model was further examined across gender and age groups. The results indicated different patterns of strength and significant relationships between groups and with the overall model, suggesting that gender and age played a moderating role. The discussion focused on the most important factors to consider by administrators and faculties in higher education when they come to implement desktop video conferencing in online academic courses.

Keywords

Desktop video conferencing Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) Autonomy Distance course Business education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abdous, M., & Yen, C. J. (2010). A predictive study of learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and live video-streaming learning environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2–3), 82–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. AbuShanab, E., Pearson, J. M., & Setterstrom, A. (2010). Internet banking and customers’ acceptance in Jordan: The unified model’s perspective. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 26(1), 493–524.Google Scholar
  4. Adler, R. W., Milne, M. J., & Stablein, R. (2001). Situated motivation: An empirical test in an accounting class. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 18(2), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agnes, W. S. K. (2012). Relationship between participation in the webinar and students’ behaviours and engagement in online learning. Un-edited master thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  6. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alavi, M., Wheeler, B. C., & Valacich, J. S. (1995). Using IT to reengineer business education: An exploratory investigation of collaborative telelearning. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Al-Gahtani, S. S., Hubona, G. S., & Wang, J. (2007). Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use of IT. Information and Management, 44(8), 681–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the mainstream: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://sloanconsortium.org/resources/entering_mainstream.pdf.
  10. Bakar, A. A., Razak, F. Z. A., & Abdullah, W. S. W. (2013). Assessing the effects of UTAUT and self-determination predictor on students continuance intention to use student portal. World Applied Sciences Journal, 21(10), 1484–1489.Google Scholar
  11. Bandyopadhyay, K., & Fraccastoro, K. (2007). The effect of culture on user acceptance of information technology. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 19(1), 522–543.Google Scholar
  12. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biggs, J. B. (1979). Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning outcomes. Higher Education, 8(4), 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bilodeau, H. (1995). Enseignement à distance à l’aide de tableaux électroniques. Report prepared for the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Birch, A., & Irvine, V. (2009). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in the classroom: Applying the UTAUT model. Educational Media International, 46(4), 295–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bolliger, D., & Martindale, T. (2004). Key factors for determining student satisfaction in online courses. International Journal on E-Learning, 3(1), 61–67.Google Scholar
  18. Bourbon, I., & Hollet-Haudebert, S. (2009). Pourquoi contribuer à des bases de connaissances? Une exploration des facteurs explicatifs à la lumière du modèle UTAUT. Systèmes d’Information et Management, 14(1), 9–36.Google Scholar
  19. Bower, M., Kennedy, G. E., Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2011). Uniting on-campus and distributed learners through media-rich synchronous tools: A national project. Changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings Ascilite Hobart, 2011, 150–155.Google Scholar
  20. Brown, S. A., Dennis, A. R., & Venkatesh, V. (2010). Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(2), 9–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen, C., Wu, J., & Yang, S. C. (2008). Accelerating the use of weblogs as an alternative method to deliver case-based learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(2), 331–349.Google Scholar
  22. Cheng, Y. K., Cheng, K. W. E., Kwok, K. F., & Cheung, T. K. (2004). New medium teaching method for power electronics. In Proceedings of the first international conference on power electronics systems and applications, pp. 278–283.Google Scholar
  23. Cheng, Y. S., Yu, T. F., Huang, C. F., Yu, C., & Yu, C. C. (2011). The comparison of three major occupations for user acceptance of information technology: Applying the UTAUT model. iBusiness, 3(2), 147–158.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: Methodology for business and management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Chin, W. W. (2001). PLS-Graph User’s Guide, Version 3.0. C.T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, USA. Retrieved August 7, 2012, from http://carma.wayne.edu//Documents/OCT1405/PLSGRAPH3.0Manual.hubona.pdf.
  26. Chin, W. W., & Dibbern, J. (2010). An introduction to a permutation based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis: Results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross cultural analysis of the sourcing of information system services between Germany and the USA. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 171–193). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Costa, P. T., & McCrea, R. R. (1992a). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Costa, P. T., & McCrea, R. R. (1992b). Manual for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  30. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. de Gara, C., & Boora, R. (2006). Using Elluminate as a simple solution for telehealth initiatives for continuing medical education. In T. Reeves & S. Yamashita (Eds.), Proceedings of world conference on e-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education 2006 (pp. 476–480). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  34. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  35. Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2009). Who influences whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social influence on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information Technology, 24(1), 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fabry, D. L. (2012). Using student online course evaluations to inform pedagogy. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 5(1), 45–52.Google Scholar
  37. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Fillion G. (2005). L’intégration des TIC dans la formation universitaire: Une étude des résultats éducationnels des étudiants dans les contextes de présence et de non présence en classe. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, Canada.Google Scholar
  39. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  40. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 91–109.Google Scholar
  42. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Giesbrecht, T., Pfister, J. & Schwabe, G. (2012). A self-determination perspective on IT-based citizen advisory support. In 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii, USA.Google Scholar
  44. Gosmire, D., Morrison, M., & Van Osdel, J. (2009). Perceptions of interactions in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 609–617.Google Scholar
  45. Guichon, N. (2010). Preparatory study for the design of a desktop videoconferencing platform for synchronous language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 169–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harms, P. D., Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2006). Who shall lead? An integrative personality approach to the study of the antecedents of status in informal social organizations. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1994). Virtual classroom plus video: Technology for educational excellence. In Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 94 word conference on educational multimedia and hypermedia, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  48. Karabulut, A., & Correia, A. (2008, March). Skype, Elluminate, Adobe Connect, Ivisit: A comparison of web-based video conferencing systems for learning and teaching. In Society for information technology & teacher education international conference (Vol. 2008, No. 1, pp. 481–484).Google Scholar
  49. Lakhal, S., Frenette, É., Sévigny, S., & Khechine, H. (2012). Influence of personality on choice of business major. International Journal of Management Education, 10(2), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lawson, T., Comber, C., Gage, J., & Cullum-Hanshaw, A. (2010). Images of the future for education? Videoconferencing: A literature review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 19(3), 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lin, J., Chan, H.C., & Jin, Y. (2004). Instant messaging acceptance and use among college students. In: Proceedings of the eighth Pacific Asia conference on information systems, pp. 181–194.Google Scholar
  52. Lin, P. C., Lu, H. K., & Liu, C. (2013). Towards an education behavioral intention model for e-learning systems: An extension of UTAUT. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 47(3), 1120–1127.Google Scholar
  53. Lounsbury, J. W., Smith, R. M., Levy, J. J., Leon, F. T., & Gibson, L. W. (2009). Personality characteristics of business majors as defined by the Big Five and narrow personality traits. Journal of Education for Business, 84(4), 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lu, J., Yu, C. S., & Liu, C. (2009). Mobile data service demographics in urban China. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(2), 117–126.Google Scholar
  55. Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students’ acceptance of a Web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Myers, M. P., & Schiltz, P. M. (2012). Use of Elluminate in online teaching of statistics in the health sciences. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 5(1), 53–62.Google Scholar
  58. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  59. Ouédraogo, B. (2011). Les déterminants de l’intégration pédagogique des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (TIC) par les enseignants à l’Université de Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  60. Pitcher, N., Davidson, K., & Napier, J. G. (2000). Videoconferencing in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(3), 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roca, J. C., & Gagné, M. (2008). Understanding e-learning continuance intention in the workplace: A self-determination theory perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1585–1604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. San Martin, H., & Herrero, A. (2012). Influence of the user’s psychological factors on the online purchase intention in rural tourism: Integrating innovativeness to the UTAUT framework. Tourism Management, 33(2), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schifter, D. B., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 842–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schubert-Irastorza, C., & Fabry, D. (2011). Improving student satisfaction with online faculty performance. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching, 4(1), 168–179.Google Scholar
  65. Skylar, A. A. (2009). A comparison of asynchronous online text-based lectures and synchronous interactive web conferencing lectures. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(2), 69–84.Google Scholar
  66. Sorebo, O., Halvari, H., Gulli, V. F., & Kristiansen, R. (2009). The role of self-determination theory in explaining teachers’ motivation to continue to use e-learning technology. Computers & Education, 53, 1177–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stein, G. H., Shibata, A., Bautista, M. K., & Tokuda, Y. (2010). Webinar: An initial experience with web-based real time interactive clinical seminars for Japanese medical students. General Medicine, 11(2), 87–90.Google Scholar
  68. Tan, P. J. B. (2013). Students’ adoptions and attitudes towards electronic placement tests: A UTAUT analysis. American Journal of Computer Technology and Application, 1(1), 14–23.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Teo, T., & Wong, S. L. (2013). Modeling key drivers of E-learning satisfaction among student teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thompson, R., Higgins, C., & Howell, J. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Urban-Lurain, M., & Weinshank, D. (2000). Computing Concepts and Competencies. In D. G. Brown (Ed.), Interactive learning: Vignette from America’s most wired campus. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  73. U.S. Department of Education (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Retrieved June 6, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
  74. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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
  77. Wang, S.-K., & Hsu, H.-Y. (2008). Use of the webinar tool to support training: The effects of webinar-learning implementation from trainers’ perspective. Journal of Online Interactive Learning, 7(3), 175–194.Google Scholar
  78. Wang, R., Mattick, K., & Dunne, E. (2010). Medical students’ perceptions of video-linked lectures and video-streaming. Research in Learning Technology, 18(1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wilson, B. (1990). Student’s assessment of distance learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business AdministrationLaval UniversityQuebec CityCanada

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options