Students' acceptance of Tablet PCs and implications for educational institutions

Educational Technology and Society

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 58-70

  El Gayar, Omar ^a   Moran, Mark ^a   Hawkes, Mark ^a  

^a DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

College students; Education; Tablet PC; Technology acceptance

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961232385     PISSN: 11763647     EISSN: 14364522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557-582.
2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
3. Al-Gahtani, S. S. (2001). The applicability of TAM outside North America: An empirical test in the United Kingdom. Information Resouces Management Journal, 14(3), 37-46.
4. Anderson, J. E., Schwager, P. H., & Kerns, R. L. (2006). The Drivers for Acceptance of Tablet PCs by Faculty in a College of Business. Journal of Information Systems Education, 17(4), 429.
5. Anderson, R., Anderson, R., Davis, P., Linnell, N., Prince, C., Razmov, V., et al. (2007). Classroom Presenter: Enhancing Interactive Education with Digital Ink. Computer, 40(9), 56.
6. Barak, M., Lipson, A., & Lerman, S. (2006). Wireless laptops as means for promoting active learning in large lecture halls. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 245-263.
7. Chau, P. Y. K., & Hu, P. J. (2002). Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(4), 191-229.
8. Chin, W. W. (1998). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modelling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research (pp. 448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.. Hillsdale, NJ:: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
11. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
12. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance of Computer-Technology - a Comparison of 2 Theoretical-Models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003.
13. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132.
14. Davis, R., & Wong, D. (2007). Conceptualizing and Measuring the Optimal Experience of the eLearning Environment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(1), 97.
15. Falk, R., & Miller, N. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.
16. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesey.
17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error - Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.
18. Gao, Y. (2005). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to Educational Hypermedia: A Field Study. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 14(3), 237-248.
19. Garfield, M. J. (2005). Acceptance of Ubiquitous computing. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 24.
20. Gefen, D., & Straub, D. W. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-GRAPH: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91-109.
21. Gong, M., Xu, Y., & Yu, Y. (2004). An Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for Web-Based Learning. Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365.
22. Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:: Prentice Hall.
23. Hartwick, J. H., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40, 440-465.
24. Hu, P. J. H. (2005). User acceptance of intelligence and security informatics technology: A study of COPLINK. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(3), 235-244.
25. Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (1999). The psychological origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Information & Management, 35(4), 237.
26. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755.
27. Kiraz, E., & Ozdemir, D. (2006). The relationship between educational ideologies and technology acceptance in pre-service teachers. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 152-165.
28. Landry, B. J. L., Griffeth, R., & Hartman, S. (2006). Measuring Student Perceptions of Blackboard Using the Technology Acceptance Model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4(1), 87.
29. Lindsey, S. D. (2003). On-Demand Lectures Create an Effective Distributed Education Experience. T.H.E. Journal, 31(4), 16.
30. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 173-191.
31. Meso, P., & Liegle, J. (2005). An Exploratory Assessment of the Pedagogical Effectiveness of a Systems Development Environment. Journal of Information Systems Education, 16(2), 157.
32. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33. Ozok, A. A., Benson, D., Chakraborty, J., & Norcio, A. F. (2008). A Comparative Study Between Tablet and Laptop PCs: User Satisfaction and Preferences (Vol. 24, pp. 329 - 352): Taylor & Francis.
34. Saadé, R. G. (2007). Dimensions of Perceived Usefulness: Toward Enhanced Assessment. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(2), 289.
35. Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44, 90-103.
36. Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating Instruments in MIS Research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 146-169.
37. Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 561-570.
38. van der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 695-704.
39. 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), 342-365.
40. Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273.
41. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481.
42. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
43. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F. D., & Morris, M. G. (2007). Dead Or Alive? The Development, Trajectory And Future Of Technology Adoption Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 267.
44. 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.
45. Weitz, R. R., Wachsmuth, B., & Mirliss, D. (2006). The tablet PC for faculty: A pilot project. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 68-83.
46. Yang, H. D., & Yoo, Y. (2004). It's all about attitude: revisiting the technology acceptance model. Decision Support Systems, 38(1), 19-31.