Acceptance and Continuance Intention of Web-based Learning Technologies (WLT) Use among University Students in a Baltic Country

Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-20

  Ifinedo, Princely ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71549144791     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16814835     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00151.x     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adams, D.A., Nelson, R.R. and Todd, P.A. (1992) Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication, MIS Quarterly, 16, 2, 227–247.
2. Agarwal, R., Samabamurthy, V. and Stair, R. (2000) Research Report: The Evolving Relationship between General and Specific Computer Self-efficacy: An Empirical Assessment, Information Systems Research, 11, 4, 418–430.
3. Anandarajan, M., Igbaria, M. and Anakwe, U. (2002) IT Acceptance in a Less-developed Country: A Motivational Factor Perspective, International Journal of Information Management, 22, 1, 47–65.
4. Ajzen, I. (1971) The Theory of Planned Behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
5. Barclay, D., Thompson, R., and Higgins, C. (1995) The Partial Least Squares Approach to Casual Modeling: Personal Computer Adoption and Use as an Illustration, Technology Studies, 2, 2, 285–324.
6. Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1986) An Experimental Investigation of the Effectiveness of Graphical and Color Enhanced presentation under varying Time Constraints, MIS Quarterly, 10, 1, 59–84.
7. Benbasat, I. and Zmud, R.W. (1999) Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance, MIS Quarterly, 23, 1, 3–16.
8. Berthon, P., Pitt, L., Ewing, M. and Carr, C.L. (2002) Potential Research Space in MIS: A Framework for Envision and Evaluating Research Replication, Extension and Generalization, Information Systems Research, 13, 4, 416–427.
9. Bhattacherjee, A (2001) Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An Expectation-Confirmation Model, MIS Quarterly, 25, 3, 351–370.
10. Brown, I. (2002) Individual and Technological Factors Affecting Perceived Ease of Use of Web-based Learning Technologies in a Developing Country, Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 9, 5, 1–15.
11. Brislin, R. (1986) The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments, in W.J. Lonner, and J.W. Berry, (Eds.), Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, Sage.
12. CIA: World Factbook (2004), Country Report: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications.
13. Chin, W. (1998) Issues and Opinions on Structural Equation Modeling, MIS Quarterly, 22, 1, vii–xvi.
14. Chin, W. (2000) Tutorial – Partial Least Squares for Researchers: An Overview and Presentation of Recent Advances Using the PLS Approach, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, Brisbane, Australia.
15. Compeau, D. and Higgins, C.A. (1995) Computer Self-efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test, MIS Quarterly, 19, 2, 189–212.
16. Davis, F.D. (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology, MIS Quarterly, 13, 3, 319–339.
17. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989) User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models, Management Science, 35, 8, 982–1002.
18. Dishaw, M. and Strong, D. (1999) Extending Technology Acceptance Model with Task Technology Fit Constructs, Information and Management, 36, 1, 9–21.
19. Estonian eUniversity (2004a) The UNIVe Project. http://www.e-uni.ee/Minerva.
20. Estonian eUniversity (2004b) Estonian e-University NEEDS Analysis. http://www.e-uni.ee/doc/uuring/E-ylikool_vajaduste_analyys_mp2.pdf.
21. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981) Evaluating Structural Equations Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
22. Gefen, D. and Straub, D. (2000) The Relative Importance of Perceived Ease of Use in the IS Adoption: A Study of E-Commerce Adoption, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 1, 8, 1–28.
23. Goldberg, M. (1997a) WebCT and First Year: Student Reaction to and Use of a Web-based Resource in First Year Computer Science, in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, Uppsala, Sweden.
24. Goldberg, M. (1997b). Communication and Collaboration Tools in WebCT, In Proceedings of the Conference on Enabling Network-Based Learning, May 28–30, Espoo, Finland.
25. th. Americas Conference on Information Systems, 2001.
26. Ifinedo, P. (2005a) Uncertainties and Risks in the Implementation of E-Learning Information Systems Project in a Higher Learning Environment: Viewpoints from Estonia, Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 4, 1, 37–46.
27. Ifinedo, P. (2005b) E-learning Technology Adoption Factors in an Eastern European Country: An Exploratory Study, In Proceedings of the 9th East-European Conference on Advances in Databases and Information Systems (ADBIS’2005), September 12–15, 2005, Tallinn, Estonia.
28. Ifinedo, P. and Davidrajuh, R. (2005) Digital Divide in Europe: Assessing and Comparing the E-readiness of a Developed and an Emerging Economy in the Nordic Region, Electronic Government: An International Journal, 2, 2, 111–133.
29. Igbaria, M. and Parasuraman, S. (1989) A Path Analytic Study of Individual Characteristics, Computer Anxiety, and Attitudes toward Microcomputers, Journal of Management, 15, 3, 373–388.
30. Igbaria, M. (1990) End-User Computing Effectiveness: A Structural Equation Model, Omega, 18, 6, 637–652.
31. Igbaria, M., Zinatelli, N., Cragg, P. and Cavaye, A.L.M. (1997) Personal Computing Acceptance Factors in Small Firms: A Structural Equation Model, MIS Quarterly, 21, 3, 279–305.
32. Jones, P., Packham, G., Miller, C., and Jones, A. (2004) An Initial Evaluation of Student Withdrawals within an e-Learning Environment: The Case of e-College Wales, Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 2, 1, 113–120.
33. Keller, C. and Cernerud, L. (2002) Students’ Perceptions of E-learning in University Education, Journal of Educational Media, 27, 1/2, 55–67.
34. Kent, T. (2003) Supporting Staff Using WebCT at the University of Birmingham in the UK, Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 1, 1, 1–10.
35. Lederer, A., Maupin, D., Sena, M. and Zhuang, Y. (2000) The Technology Acceptance Model and the World Wide Web, Decision Support Systems, 29, 3, 269–282.
36. Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P. (2003) Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model, Information and Management, 40, 3, 191–204.
37. Leidner, D.E. and Jarvenpaa, S.L. (1993) The Information Age Confronts Education: Case Studies on Electronic Classrooms, Information Systems Research, 4, 1, 24–54.
38. Lee, J, Cho, H., Gay, G., Davidson, B. and Ingraffea, A. (2003) Technology Acceptance and Social Networking in Distance Learning, Educational Technology & Society, 6, 2, 50–61.
39. th. International Conference on Information Systems.
40. Mann, B. (1998) Instructional Design for Online Learning: A Case Study of WebCT Developers. Universities in a Digital Era: Transformation, Innovation and Tradition, In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual EDEN Conference, June 26, University of Bologna, Italy.
41. th. International Conference on Information Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark.
42. Mioduser, D., Nachmias, R., Lahav, O. and Oren, A. (2000) Web-based Learning Environments: Current Pedagogical and Technological State, Journal of Research on Computing and Education, 33, 1, 55–76.
43. Morss, D.A. and Fleming, P.A. (1998) WebCT in the Classroom: A Student View, In Proceedings of North American Web Developers Conference, University of New Brunswick, Canada.
44. Neuman, W.L. (1997) Social Research Methods (2nd.) London: Allyn and Bacon.
45. Nissinen, M. (2002) The Baltics as a Business Location for Information Technology and Electronics Industries, VTT Research Notes 2166, Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy.
46. nd. Edn. McGraw-Hill.
47. Pan, C., Siva, S. and Brophy, J. (2003) Students’ Attitude in a Web-enhanced Hybrid Course: A Structural Equation Modeling Inquiry, Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences, 41, 2, 181–194.
48. Roblyer, M. and Edwards, J. (2000) Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching, (2nd ed.) Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
49. Sala, N. (2003) Hypermedia Modules for Distance Education and Virtual University: Some Examples, International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 1, 1, 78–95.
50. Sandholtz, J., Ringstaff, C. and D. Dwyer, D. (1997) Teaching with Technology: Creating Student-Centered Classrooms, New York: Teachers College.
51. Sørebø, A. M. (2004) A Replication of the Post-Acceptance Model in the Context of E-Learning, In Proceedings of 2004 IRMA International Conference, Louisiana, USA.
52. Straub, D., Limayem, M. and Karahanna, E. (1995) Measuring System Usage: Implications for IS Theory Testing, Management Science, 41, 8, 1328–1342.
53. Szajna, B. (1996) Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model, Management Science, 42, 1, 85–92.
54. Tavangarian, D., Leypold, M. E., Nölting, K., Röser, K. M. and Voigt, D. (2004) Is E-Learning the Solution for Individual Learning?, Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 2, 2, 273–280.
55. Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A. (1995) Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models, Information Systems Research, 6, 2, 144–176.
56. Tiger Leap Foundation (1997) www.tiigrihype.ee/eng/sihtasutus/tootajad.html.
57. Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D (2000) A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies, Management Science, 46, 2, 186–204.
58. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View”, MIS Quarterly, 27, 3, 425–478.
59. World Economic Forum [WEF] (2004) The Networked Readiness Index Rankings 2003. http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Gcr/GITR_2003_2004/Framework_Chapter.pdf.
60. Yohon, T., Zimmermann, D. and Keeler, L. (2004) An Exploratory Study of Adoption of Course Management Software and Accompanying Instructional Changes By Faculty in the Liberal Arts and Sciences, Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 2, 2, 313–320.