Abstract
In the technology acceptance studies, both the theory of reasoned action and the technology acceptance model have been widely adopted to study the factors that influence users’ technology usage intentions. While these frameworks have been mostly tested in Western nations, there has been a little effort to apply these frameworks in non-Western nations. With the globalization of education and technology, there is an urgent demand to know whether TRA and TAM apply in another culture. This study compared TRA, TAM and integrated frameworks that best explained or predicted students’ technology usage intention. Structural equation model was employed to perform the data analysis collected from 487 university students. The results showed that there were no differences in predictive strength of behavioral intention among the three models. Thus, the predictive strength of the three models was similar. This study contributed to the ongoing discourses in employing theoretical models to understand undergraduate students’ behavioral intention in educational contexts in developing countries. Implications, limitations and future studies were discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Albarq, A. N., & Alsughayir, A. (2013). Examining theory of reasoned action in internet banking using SEM among Saudi consumers. International Journal of Marketing Practices, 1(1), 16–30.
Al-Emran, M., Elsherif, H. M., & Shaalan, K. (2016). Investigating attitudes towards the use of mobile learning in higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 93–102.
Al-Qirim, N., Rouibah, K., & Yammahi, M. A. (2018a). Learning orientations of IT higher education students in UAE University. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 129–142.
Al-Qirim, M., Rouibah, K., & Yammahi, M. A. (2018b). Towards a personality understanding of information technology students and their IT learning in UAE University. Education and Information Technologies, 23(1), 29–40.
Althunibat, A. (2015). Determining the factors influencing students’ intention to use m-learning in Jordan higher education. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 65–71.
Bagozzi. (2007). The legacy of technology acceptance model and a proposal for paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 244–254.
Birch, A., & Irvine, V. (2009). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of ICT integration in theclassroom: applying the UTAUT model. Educational Media International, 46(4), 295–315.
Buabeng-Andoh, C., & Yidana, I. (2014). An investigation of secondary school students’ attitudes toward pedagogical use of ICT in learning in Ghana. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 11(4), 302–314.
Chen, R. (2010). Investigating models for preservice teachers’ use of technology tosupport student-centered learning. Computer and Education, 55, 32–42.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.
Chuang, H. H., Weng, C. Y., & Huang, F. C. (2015). A structure equation model among factors of teachers' technology integration practice and their TPCK. Computers & Education, 86, 182–191.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
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.
Dishaw, M. T., & Strong, D. M. (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information Management, 36(1), 9–21.
Drennan, J., Kennedy, J., & Pisarksi, A. (2005). Factors affecting student attitudes toward flexible online learning in management education. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 331–338.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications, student value edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (pls--sem). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Hassandoust, F., Logeswaran, R., & Kazerouni, M. F. (2011). Behavioral factors influencing virtual knowledge sharing: Theory of reasoned action. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 3(2), 116–134.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hosseini, Z., Gharghani, Z. G., Mansoori, A., Aghamolaei, T., & Nasrabadi, M. M. (2015). Application of the theory of reasoned action to promoting breakfast consumption. Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 29, 289–297.
Huang, R. T., Deggs, D., Machtmes, K., & Rouge, B. (2011). Faculty online technology adoption: The role of management support and organizational climate. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 14(2), 12–24.
Kim, B., & Park, M. J. (2017). Effect of personal factors to use ICTs on e-learning adoption: Comparison between learner and instructor in developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 23(2), 1–27.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guildford Press.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information Management, 40, 191–204.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.
Moghavvemi, S., Paramanathan, T., Rahin, N. M., & Sharabati, M. (2017). Student’s perceptions towards using e-learning via Facebook. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(10), 1081–1100.
Nicholas-Omoregbe, O. S., Azeta, A. A., Chiazor, I. A., & Omoregbe, N. (2017). Predicting the adoption of E-learning management system: A case of selected private universities in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(2), 106–121.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, S. Y. (2009). An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students’ behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
Peslak, A., Ceccucci, W., & Sendall, P. (2011). An empirical study of social networking behavior using theory of reasoned action. 2011 CONISAR Proceedings. Conference for Information Systems Applied Research, Wilmington North Carolina, USA.
Raza, S. A., Umer, A., Qazi, W., & Makhdoom, M. (2017). The effects of attitudinal, normative, and control beliefs on M-learning adoption among the students of higher education in Pakistan. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117715941.
Rienties, B., Giesbers, B., Lygo-Baker, S., Ma, H. W. S., & Rees, R. (2016). Why some teachers easily learn to use a new virtual learning environment: A technology acceptance perspective. Interactive Learning Environment, 24(3), 539–552.
Sarfo, F. K., & Ansong-Gyimah, K. (2011). Ghanaian senior high school students’ access to and experiences in the use of information and communication technology. In A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed.), Education in a Technological world: Communicating current and emerging research and technological efforts(pp. 216–222). Badajoz: Formatex Research Centre.
Simbolon, S. (2015). Application of theory of reasoned action in predicting the consumer behavior to buy the Toyota Avanza Veloz at PT. Putera Auto Perkasa Medan. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 5(7), 357–372.
Smarkola, C. (2007). Technology acceptance predictors among student teachers and experienced classroom teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 31, 65–82.
Song, Y., & Kong, S.-C. (2017). Investigating students’ acceptance of a statistics learning platform using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 0(0), 1–33.
Srite, M. (2006). Culture as an explanation of technology acceptance differences: An empirical investigation of Chinese and US users. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 5–26.
Straub, D., Keil, M., & Brenner, W. (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three-country study. Information Management, 33(1), 1–11.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2014). The effects of individual differences on e-learning users’ behaviour in developing countries: A structural equation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 153–163.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2015). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 739–755.
Tarhini, A., Teo, T., & Tarhini, T. (2016). A cross-cultural validity of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM) in Lebanon and England: A confirmatory factor analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 21(5), 1269–1282.
Tarhini, A., Masa'deh, R., Al-Busaidi, K., & Maqableh, M. (2017). Factors influencing students' adoption of e-learning: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of International Education in Business, 10(2), 164–182.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
Teo, T. (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18.
Teo, T., & van Schaik, P. (2012). Understanding the intention to use technology by preservice teachers: An empirical test of competing theoretical models. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(3), 178–188.
Teo, T., Luan, W. S., & Sing, C. C. (2008). A cross-cultural examination of the intention to use technology between Singaporean and Malaysian pre-service teachers: An application of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11, 265–280.
Teo, T., Zhou, M., & Noyes, J. (2016). Teachers and technology: Development of an extended theory of planned behavior. Educational Technology Research & Development, 64(3), 1–22.
Teo, T., Huang, F., & Hoi, C. K. W. (2017). Explicating the influences that explain intention to use technology among English teachers in China. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(4), 460–475.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesk, V., Morris, M. G., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wong, S. L., & Teo, T. (2009). Investigating the technology acceptance among student-teachers in Malaysia: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 261–272.
Wong, K., Russo, S., & McDowall, J. (2013). Understanding early childhood student teachers’ acceptance and use of interactive whiteboard. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 30(1), 4–16.
Yeou, M. (2016). An investigation of students’ acceptance of moodle in a blended learning setting using technology acceptance model. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 44(3), 300–318.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Survey instrument
Appendix: Survey instrument
This survey is for academic purpose only. All information that is collected in this study will be treated confidentially. At no time will the name of any school or individual be identified. Please use a writing pen to write your answers.
Instruction:Please indicate your response to the following questions by ticking or circling the appropriate letter.
1.1 Part I: Demographic Information
1.2 Part II: Your Views on Technology
Using the scale provided, please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree to the following statement regarding the use of computer technology ion the classroom.
Item | Strongly Disagree | Moderately Disagree | Slightly Disagree | Neutral | Slightly Agree | Moderately Agree | Strongly Agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PU1: Using technology enables me to accomplish tasks more quickly | |||||||
PU2: Using technology improves my performance | |||||||
PU3: Using technology will increase my productivity | |||||||
PU4: Using technology enhances my effectiveness. | |||||||
PEOU1: I find it easy to use technology to do what I want to do. |
Item | Strongly Disagree | Moderately Disagree | Slightly Disagree | Neutral | Slightly Agree | Moderately Agree | Strongly Agree |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PEOU2: My interaction with technology does not require much effort. | |||||||
PEOU3: It is easy for me to become skillful at using technology. | |||||||
PEOU4: I have control over technology | |||||||
PEOU5: I have the knowledge necessary to use technology. | |||||||
ATU1: I look forward to those aspects of my job that require me to use technology. | |||||||
ATU2: I like working with technology | |||||||
ATU3: I have positive feelings towards the use of technology. | |||||||
BIU1: I intend to continue to use technology in the future. | |||||||
BIU2: I expect that I would use technology in the future. | |||||||
BIU3: I plan to use technology in the future. |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buabeng-Andoh, C., Yaokumah, W. & Tarhini, A. Investigating students’ intentions to use ICT: A comparison of theoretical models. Educ Inf Technol 24, 643–660 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9796-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9796-1