Technology Adoption Models - An Empirical Comparative Analysis for LMS Technology in Higher Education

  • Authors

    • Kavitha T C
    • Chetana Maddodi
    2018-12-19
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.41.24523
  • Learning Management System, Technology Adoption, Behavioral Intention, TAM, C-TAM-TPB

  • The rapid technological advancement is changing the landscape of higher education. The efficacy of technology has spurred higher educational institutions to transform their educational structures and modes of knowledge dissemination from process-focused to student-focused.    Higher educational institutions are adopting new information and communication technological (ICT) tools to enhance teaching-learning process and student engagement.  One such ICT tool which blends technology in the classrooms into educational experiences is the learning management system (LMS). The LMS usage by the higher education institutions facilitates the students for “anytime and anywhere access†to the contents. In this context this paper examines the acceptance of learning management system as a technological tool among students. And, examines the critical factors that effects the behavioral intentions of students towards LMS usage and factors influencing the actual usage of the LMS. The study also focuses on comparing the threemodelsof technology adoption, TAM, revised version of TAM and C-TAM-TPB.  The comparative analysis of three models discloses that perceived ease of use and perceived behavioral control being an important exogenous variable in understanding the behavioral intention and actual usage. The study was conducted among the first year business management students of private deemed university.

     

     

  • References

    1. [1] Ahmad AssafAlfadly, (2013),"The efficiency of the “Learning Management System (LMS)†in AOU, Kuwait, as a communication tool in an E-learning system", International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 27 Issue 2 pp. 157 - 169

      [2] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

      [3] Ajzen, I. &Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

      [4] Ali Tarhini, Ra’edMasa’deh, Kamla Ali Al-Busaidi, Ashraf Bany Mohammed, Mahmoud Maqableh, (2017), "Factors influencing students’ adoption of e-learning: a structural equation modeling approach", Journal of International Education in Business, Vol. 10 Issue: 2, pp.164-182, https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-09-2016-0032

      [5] Allan Yuen, Robert Fox, Angie Sun, Liping Deng, (2009) "Course management systems in higher education: understanding student experiences", Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 6 Issue: 3, pp.189-205, https://doi.org/10.1108/17415650911005393

      [6] André Pretorius, (2010) "Factors that contribute towards improving learning effectiveness using a specific learning management system (LMS) at the Military Academy (MA): A demonstration", Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol. 27 Issue: 5, pp.318-340, https://doi.org/10.1108/10650741011087757

      [7] Chen, C.D., Fan, Y.W. and Farn, C.K. (2007), “Predicting electronic toll collection service adoption: an integration of the technology acceptance model and the theory of planned behaviorâ€, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 300-311.

      [8] Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary education and management, 11, 19-36

      [9] Eynon, R. (2005), “The use of the internet in higher education: academics experiences of using ICTs for teaching and learningâ€, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 168-180.

      [10] Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &Warshaw, P. R. (1989). “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models.†Management Science 35, 982-1003.

      [11] Dillon, A. & Morris, M. (1998). From "can they" to "will they?": Extending usability evaluation to address acceptance. In E. D. Hoadley& B. Izak (Eds.), Proceedings Association for Information Systems Conference. Baltimore, MD.

      [12] Dutton, W. H., Cheong, P. H., & Park, N. (2004). The Social Shaping of a Virtual Learning Environment: The Case of a University-Wide Course Management System. Electronic Journal of e-learning, 2(1), 69-80.

      [13] Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

      [14] Fornell, C., &Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 39-50.

      [15] Garrison, D. R. (2011). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. Routledge.

      [16] Hanafizadeh, P., Keating, B.W. and Khedmatgozar, H.R. (2014), “A systematic review of internet banking adoptionâ€, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 492-510.

      [17] Hanson, P., & Robson, R. (2004). Evaluating course management technology: A pilot study. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, Research Bulletin, 24.

      [18] Harrington, C., Gordon, S.A. and Schibik, T.J. (2004), “Course management system utilization and implications for practice: a national survey of department chairpersonsâ€, Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration

      [19] Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M. and Mena, J. A.( 2012), ‘An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40(3), 414-433.

      [20] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2012), ‘Using partial least squares path modeling in advertising research: basic concepts and recent issues’, Handbook of Research on International Advertising, 252-276.

      [21] Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), ‘A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43, 115–135.

      [22] Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The virtual classroom: Learning without limits via computer networks. Intellect Books.

      [23] Hong, J. Y., Suh, E. H., & Kim, S. J. (2009). “Context-aware systems: A literature review and classification. Expert Systems with Applicationsâ€, 36(4), 8509-8522.

      [24] Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). “Why do people play online games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience†Information and Management, 41(7), 853-868.

      [25] Iuliana D., (2014). “Learning Management Systems for higher education - an overviewâ€, The 6th International Conference Edu World 2014 “Education Facing Contemporary World Issuesâ€, 7th - 9th November 2014of available options for Higher Education Organizations

      [26] Leonard, L.N.K. , Cronan, T.P. and Kreie, J. (2004), “What influences IT ethical behavior intentions – planned behavior, reasoned action, perceived importance, or individual characteristics?â€, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 143-158.

      [27] Lewis, W. , Agarwal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2003), “Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workersâ€, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 657-678.

      [28] Lonn, S., &Teasley, S. D. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53(3), 686-694.

      [29] Marshall, S. (2004), “Leading and managing the development of e-Learning environments: an issue of comfort or discomfort?†Proceedings Ascilite, Institute of Higher EducationResearch and Development, December, available at: www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/y/marshall key note.html.

      [30] 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(2), 150–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00340-009-3513-0

      [31] Paulsen, M. F. (2002). Online education systems: Discussion and definition of terms. NKI Distance Education, 202.

      [32] Szabo, M. and K. Flesher (2002). CMI Theory and Practice: Historical Roots of Learning Management Systems. World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare and Higher Education, Montreal, Canada, AACE.

      [33] Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS quarterly, 561-570.

      [34] Teo, T. (2012), “Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: an integration of the technology acceptance model and theory of planned behaviorâ€, Interactive Learning Environments, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp .3-18.

      [35] SevgiOzkan, RefikaKoseler, Nazife Baykal, (2009) "Evaluating learning management systems: Adoption of hexagonal eâ€learning assessment model in higher education", Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, Vol. 3 Issue: 2, pp.111-130, https://doi.org/10.1108/17506160910960522

      [36] Surry, D., Ensminger, D. and Haab, M. (2005), “Strategies for integrating instructional technology into higher educationâ€, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 327-329.

      [37] Venkatesh, V. Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified viewâ€, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.

      [38] Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., Hu, P. J. H., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the twoâ€stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527-555.

      [39] Weller, M. (2007). Virtual learning environments: Using, choosing and developing your VLE. Routledge.

      [40] Weaver, D., Spratt, C., & Nair, C. S. (2008). Academic and student use of a learning management system: Implications for quality. Australasian journal of educational technology, 24(1).

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    T C, K., & Maddodi, C. (2018). Technology Adoption Models - An Empirical Comparative Analysis for LMS Technology in Higher Education. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.41), 179-184. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.41.24523