Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 407–425 | Cite as

The role of behavioral expectation in technology acceptance: a CEGEP case study

  • Tenzin Doleck
  • Paul Bazelais
  • David John Lemay
Article
First Online:

Abstract

It is widely recognized and accepted that behavioral intention is the key direct determinant of technology use and the majority of research continues to promote this practice. Yet the influence of behavioral intention (i.e., an individual’s conscious plan to use a technology) has been called into question more recently, as behavioral intention does not always lead to actual use or in some cases exerts little influence on use (Maruping et al. in J Assoc Inf Sci Technol, 2016.  10.1002/asi.23699; Venkatesh et al. in MIS Q 32(3):483–502, 2008). Maruping et al. (2016) suggested that behavioral expectation (i.e., an individual’s subjective probability to use a technology) deserves to be considered as a potential construct in the technology acceptance process. Alternative immediate antecedents to use have been largely ignored in the educational technology literature, and behavioral expectation presents an alternative to behavioral intention. We attempt to address this need by examining the determinants and effects of behavioral expectation in the context of Collège d’enseignement général et professionnel students’ acceptance of e-learning using a partial least squares approach. We do not find evidence sufficient to distinguish between behavioral intention and expectation in practice. We advance the alternative claim that technology acceptance models must take into consideration situative factors such as modality of beliefs. Given specific situational determiners, factors take on different salience and lead to qualitatively different kinds of beliefs varying in terms of necessity, certainty, and conditionality of belief. We argue that behavioral intention is moderated by contextual variables that influence the relationship between intention and use, and cannot be divided into internal and external factors as even internal factors are influenced by situational determinants. The situative perspective on technology acceptance provides an explanatory mechanism for the high variability in accounts reported in the technology acceptance literature as other situative factors influence the modality of antecedent beliefs and moderate the relationship between intention and use. We call for the study of the moderating effects of belief modalities on use relative to intention.

Keywords

E-learning Technology acceptance Behavioral expectation Behavioral intention Partial least squares analysis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, T., Pearson, A. W., Pearson, R., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2015). Five-factor model personality traits as predictors of perceived and actual usage of technology. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(4), 374–390. doi: 10.1057/ejis.2014.10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazelais, P., Doleck, T., & Lemay, D. (2017). Investigating the predictive power of TAM: A case study of CEGEP students’ intentions to use online learning technologies. Education and Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-017-9587-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouhnik, D., & Marcus, T. (2006). Interaction in distance-learning courses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 299–305. doi: 10.1002/asi.20277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, T., & Chen, T. (2006). Examination of attitudes towards teaching online courses based on theory of reasoned action of university faculty in Taiwan. British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(5), 683–693. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2006.00590.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Chow, M., Herold, D., Choo, T., & Chan, K. (2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1136–1144. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2016a). Examining CEGEP students’ acceptance of CBLEs: A test of acceptance models. Education & Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9559-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2016b). Examining the antecedents of social networking sites use among CEGEP students. Education & Information Technologies. doi: 10.1007/s10639-016-9535-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Garson, J. (2016). Modal logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/logic-modal/.
  17. Gee, J., & Green, J. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning, and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119. doi: 10.2307/1167289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Gu, J., Lee, S., & Suh, Y. (2009). Determinants of behavioral intention to mobile banking. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9), 11605–11616. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2009.03.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Jackson, C., Chow, S., & Leitch, R. (1997). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences, 28(2), 357–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01315.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 51–60. doi: 10.1177/002200275800200106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelman, H. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(1), 57–78. doi: 10.1086/266996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kock, N. (2015a). WarpPLS. Retrieved from http://www.warppls.com.
  25. Kock, N. (2015b). WarpPLS 5.0 user manual. ScripWarp Systems. Retrieved from http://cits.tamiu.edu/WarpPLS/UserManual_v_5_0.pdf.
  26. Kuo, Y., & Yen, S. (2009). Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use 3G mobile value-added services. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 103–110. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., & Hsu, C.-N. (2011). Adding innovation diffusion theory to the technology acceptance model: Supporting employees’ intentions to use E-learning systems. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 124–137.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemay, D. J., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2017). “Passion and concern for privacy” as factors affecting snapchat use: A situated perspective on technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 264–271. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Luarn, P., & Lin, H. (2005). Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use mobile banking. Computers in Human Behavior, 21(6), 873–891. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maruping, L., Bala, H., Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. (2016). Going beyond intention: Integrating behavioral expectation into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. doi: 10.1002/asi.23699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191. doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Park, S., Nam, M., & Cha, S. (2011). University students’ behavioral intention to use mobile learning: Evaluating the technology acceptance model. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(4), 592–605. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01229.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1), 90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sun, P., Tsai, R., Finger, G., Chen, Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1183–1202. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (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
  39. Teo, T. (2011). Factors influencing teachers’ intention to use technology: Model development and test. Computers & Education, 57(4), 2432–2440. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Teo, T., Lee, C., & Chai, C. (2007). Understanding pre-service teachers’ computer attitudes: Applying and extending the technology acceptance model. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 24(2), 128–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00247.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., Maruping, L. M., & Bala, H. (2008). Predicting different conceptualizations of system use: The competing roles of behavioral intention, facilitating conditions, and behavioral expectation. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 483–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. T., & Xu, (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Warshaw, P., & Davis, F. (1984). Self-understanding and the accuracy of behavioral expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(1), 111–118. doi: 10.1177/0146167284101013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warshaw, P., & Davis, F. (1985). Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21(3), 213–228. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(85)90017-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welsh, E., Wanberg, C., Brown, K., & Simmering, M. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245–258. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-3736.2003.00184.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  49. Zhang, D., Zhao, J., Zhou, L., & Nunamaker, J. (2004). Can e-learning replace classroom learning? Communications of the ACM, 47(5), 75–79. doi: 10.1145/986213.986216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options