Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 124–142 | Cite as

Explaining the intention to use technology among university students: a structural equation modeling approach

  • Timothy Teo
  • Mingming Zhou
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the factors that an influence higher education students’ intention to use technology. Using an extended technology acceptance model as a research framework, a sample of 314 university students were surveyed on their responses to seven constructs hypothesized to explain their intention to use technology. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling and the results showed that perceived usefulness and attitude toward computer use were significant determinants of the intention to use technology, while perceived ease of use influenced intention to use technology through attitude towards computer use. Computer self-efficacy and subjective norm acted as antecedents for perceived usefulness and attitude towards computer use, while facilitating conditions acted as antecedents for perceived ease of use and attitude towards computer use. Together these constructs explained 54.7 % of the variance in students’ intention to use technology. Implications of the findings were also discussed.

Keywords

Technology acceptance model (TAM) Subjective norms Facilitating conditions Computer self-efficacy Structural equation modeling University students 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24, 665–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1999). Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies? Decision Sciences, 30(2), 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R. M. (2000). The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy: An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 418–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1988). Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. Anxiety Research, 1, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bellone, L. M., & Czerniak, C. M. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs about accommodating students’ learning styles in science classes. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2), 4–29.Google Scholar
  12. Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2005). Individual differences and usage behaviour: Revisiting a technology acceptance model assumption. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, 36(2), 58–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, S. C., & Lu, M. T. (2004). Understanding internet banking adoption and use behaviour: A Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 13, 22–44.Google Scholar
  14. Chau, P. Y. (2001). Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage. Journal of End User Computing, 13(1), 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen, K., Chen, J., & Yen, D. (2011). Dimensions of self-efficacy in the study of smart phone acceptance. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 33, 422–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, Y. C., Lin, Y. C., Yeh, R. C., & Lou, S. J. (2013). Examining factors affecting college students’ intention to use web-based instruction systems: Towards an integrated model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 12(2), 111–121.Google Scholar
  17. Chow, M., Herold, D. K., Choo, T. M., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use second life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers and Education, 59(4), 1136–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Durndell, A., & Haag, Z. (2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an east European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behaviour: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gu, X., Zhu, Y., & Guo, X. (2013). Meeting the “Digital Natives”: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology and Society, 16(1), 392–402.Google Scholar
  25. Guriting, P., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2006). Borneo online banking: Evaluating customer perceptions and behavioural intention. Management Research News, 30, 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  27. Hodden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(4), 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoelter, D. R. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopson, M. H., Simms, R. L., & Knezek, G. A. (2002). Using a technologically enriched environment to improve higher-order thinking skills. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoyle, R. H. (2011). Structural equation modelling for social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Hsu, M. K., Wang, S. W., & Chiu, K. K. (2009). Computer attitude, statistics anxiety and self-efficacy on statistical software adoption behaviour: An empirical study of online MBA learners. Computers in Human Behaviour, 25, 412–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Lai, M. L. (2008). Technology readiness, internet self-efficacy and computing experience of professional accounting students. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 25(1), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lederer, A. L., Maupin, D. J., Sens, M. P., & Zhuang, Y. (2000). The technology acceptance model and the World Wide Web. Decision Support Systems, 29, 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Who do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lim, C. P., & Khine, M. S. (2006). Managing teachers’ barriers to ICT integration in Singapore schools. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), 97–125.Google Scholar
  38. Ma, Q., & Liu, L. (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Macharia, J. K. N., & Pelser, T. G. (2012). Key factors that influence the diffusion and infusion of information and communication technologies in Kenyan higher education. Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.729033.
  40. Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., & Johnson, R. D. (1998). The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: Toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research. Information Systems Research, 9, 126–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marcinkiewicz, H. R., & Regstad, N. G. (1996). Using subjective norms to predict teachers’ computer use. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 13(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
  42. Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers and Education, 56(2), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.Google Scholar
  44. Nandedkar, A., & Midha, V. (2012). It won’t happen to me: An assessment of optimism bias in music piracy. Computers in Human Behaviour, 28, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., & Chan, Y. H. C. (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education, 48, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Padilla-Melendez, A., Garrido-Moreno, A., & Aguila-Obra, A. R. D. (2008). Factors affecting e-collaboration technology use among management students. Computers and Education, 51, 609–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioural intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology and Society, 12(3), 150–162.Google Scholar
  48. Rauniar, R., Rawski, G., Yang, J., & Johnson, B. (2014). Technology acceptance model (TAM) and social media usage: An empirical study on Facebook. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(1), 6–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  50. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44, 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Straub, E. T. (2009). Understanding technology adoption: Theory and future directions for informal learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 625–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Surry, D. W., Ensminger, D. C., & Haab, M. (2005). A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Svendsen, G. B., Johnsen, J. A. K., Almås-Sørensen, L., & Vittersø, J. (2013). Personality and technology acceptance: The influence of personality factors on the core constructs of the technology acceptance model. Behaviour and Information Technology, 32(4), 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Teo, T. (2008). A path analysis of pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward computer use: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model in an educational context. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Teo, T. (2009a). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers and Education, 52(1), 302–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teo, T. (2009b). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1139–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teo, T. (2010). Establishing gender structural invariance of technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers and Education, 57, 2432–2440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Teo, T. (2013). An initial development and validation of a digital native’s assessment scale (DNAS). Computers and Education, 67, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Teo, T. (2014). Unpacking teachers’ acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences. Computers and Education, 75, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Teo, T., & Fan, X. (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. The Asia-Pacific Education Research, 22(2), 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., & Chai, C. S. (2008). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers and Education, 53(3), 1000–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Teo, T., Ursavas, O. F., & Bahcekapili, E. (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modelling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 199–210.Google Scholar
  65. Teo, T., & Wong, S. L. (2013). Modelling key drivers of e-learning satisfaction among student teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 71–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tung, F. C., & Chang, S. C. (2008). Nursing students’ behavioural intention to use online courses: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1299–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Turner, M., Kitchenham, B., Brereton, P., Charters, S., & Budgen, D. (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 463–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of favourable user perceptions: Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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), 342–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Wallace, L. G., & Sheetz, S. D. (2014). The adoption of software measures: A technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Information and Management, 51, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams, P. (2002). The learning Web: The development, implementation and evaluation of Internet-based undergraduate materials for the teaching of key skills. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(1), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wong, K. T., Teo, T., & Russo, S. (2013). Interactive whiteboard acceptance: Applicability of the UTAUT model among student teachers. The Asia Pacific Education Researcher, 22(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wu, P. F. (2012). A mixed methods approach to technology acceptance research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3), 172–187.Google Scholar
  76. Yi, M., & 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, 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Yousafzai, S. Y., Pallister, J., & Foxall, G. (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yuen, A. H. K. (2002). Gender differences in teacher computer acceptance. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 365–382.Google Scholar
  79. Zhao, Y., & Cziko, G. A. (2001). Teacher adoption of technology: A perceptual control theory perspective. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 5–30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of MacauTaipaMacau SAR, China

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options