Extending the TAM model to empirically investigate the students' behavioural intention to use e-learning in developing countries

Proceedings of 2013 Science and Information Conference, SAI 2013

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 732-737

  Tarhini, Ali ^a   Hone, Kate ^a   Liu, Xiaohui ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Developing Countries; E learning; Lebanon; Structural Equation Modeling; TAM; Technology Acceptance Model

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS; CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEYS; LEBANON; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; STUDENTS' LEARNING EXPERIENCES; TAM; TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTION; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL;

DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; E-LEARNING; JOB SATISFACTION; STUDENTS;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 84892515382     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (50)

1. Raab, R. T., W. W. Ellis, and B. R. Abdon, Multisectoral partnerships in e-learning A potential force for improved human capital development in the Asia Pacific. Internet and Higher Education, 2002. 4: p. 217-229.
2. Govindasamy, T., Successful implementation of e Learning Pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education, 2002. 4: p. 287-299.
3. Fletcher, K. M., Self-efficacy as an evaluation measure for programs in support of online learning literacies for undergraduates. The Internet and higher education, 2005.8(4): p. 307-322.
4. Ngai, E. W. T., J. K. L. Poon, and Y. H. C. Chan, Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 2007.48(2): p. 250-267.
5. Surry, D. W., D. C. Ensminger, and M. Haab, A model for integrating instructional technology into higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2005.36(2): p. 327-329.
6. Elloumi, F., Value chain analysis: A strategic approach to online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2004: p. 61.
7. Kim, K. and J. Moore, Web-based learning: Factors affecting student' satisfaction and learning experience. First Monday, 2005. 10 (11).
8. Kilmurray, J., E-learning: It's more than automation. The Technology Source, 2003.
9. Arbaugh, J. and R. Duray, Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Management Learning, 2002.33(3): p. 331-347.
10. Wu, J., et al., An integrative model to predict the continuance use of electronic learning systems: hints for teaching. International Journal on E-learning, 2006. 5 (2).
11. Saadé, R. G. and I. Galloway, Understanding intention to use multimedia information systems for learning. Informing Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 2005. 2: p. 287-296.
12. Li, N. and G. Kirkup, Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers & Education, 2007.48(2): p. 301-317.
13. Straub, D., M. Keil, and W. Brenner, Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: A three country study. Information & Management, 1997.33(1): p. 1-11.
14. Anandarajan, M., M. Igbaria, and U. P. Anakwe, IT acceptance in a lessdeveloped country: a motivational factor perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 2002.22(1): p. 47-65.
15. Teo, T., W. S. Luan, and C. C Sing, 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, 2008.11(4): p. 265-280.
16. Nasser, R., Abouchedid, K., Attitudes and concerns towards distance education: the case of Lebanon. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2000.3(4): p. 1-10.
17. UNDP, United Nations Development Program, in Arab Human Development Report. 2002: New York.
18. Baroud, F. and K. Abouchedid, eLEARNING IN LEBANON: Patterns of E-learning Development in Lebanon's Mosaic Educational Context, in In Demiray, U. (Editor) e-learning practices: cases on challenges facing e-learning and national development, institutional studies and practices 2010: Eskisehir-Turkey, Anadolu University. p. 409-424.
19. Venkatesh, V. and H. Bala, Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 2008.39(2): p. 273-315.
20. Zhang, S., J. Zhao, and W. Tan, Extending TAM for online learning systems: An intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science & Technology, 2008.13(3): p. 312-317.
21. Yi-Cheng, C, et al., Predicting College Student'Use of E-Learning Systems: an Attempt to Extend Technology Acceptance Model. 2007.
22. Chang, S. C. and F. C. Tung, An empirical investigation of students' behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2008.39(1): p. 71-83.
23. Park, S. Y., An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-learning. Educational Technology & Society, 2009.12(3): p. 150-162.
24. Saeed, K. A. and S. Abdinnour-Helm, Examining the effects of information system characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of information systems. Information & Management, 2008.45(6): p. 376-386.
25. McCarthy, R., MEASURING STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS OF BLACKBOARD USING THE TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL: A PLS APPROACHES. E-learning, 2006.26(2): p. 18.
26. Liu, I. F., et al., Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community. Computers & Education, 2010.54(2): p. 600-610.
27. Walker, G. and N. Johnson, Faculty intentions to use components for Web-enhanced instruction. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON E LEARNING, 2008.7(1): p. 133.
28. Kripanont, N., Examining a technology acceptance model of internet usage by academics within Thai business schools. 2007, Victoria University Melbourne, Australia.
29. Zakour, A. B. Cultural differences and information technology acceptance. 2004.
30. Chesney, T., An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems. 2006.
31. Liu, S. H., H. L. Liao, and C. J. Peng, Applying the Technology Acceptance Model And Flow Theory to Online E-learning Users' Acectpance Behavior. E-learning, 2005.4(H6): p. H8.
32. Landry, B. J. L., R. Griffeth, and S. Hartman, Measuring student perceptions of blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 2006.4(1): p. 87-99.
33. Davis, F. D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly, 1989: p. 319-340.
34. Venkatesh, V. and F. D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 2000: p. 186-204.
35. Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein, Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Vol. 278. 1980: Prentice-Hall.
36. Venkatesh, V., et al., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 2003: p. 425-478.
37. Venkatesh, V. and M. G. Morris, Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS quarterly, 2000: p. 115-139.
38. Van Raaij, E. M. and J. J. L. Schepers, The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Computers & Education, 2008.50(3): p. 838-852.
39. Dishaw, M. T. and D. M. Strong, Extending the technology acceptance model with task-technology fit constructs. Information & Management, 1999.36(1): p. 9-21.
40. Chau, P. Y. K. and P. J. Hu, Examining a model of information technology acceptance by individual professionals: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 2002.18(4): p. 191-230.
41. Lewis, W., R. Agarwal, and V. Sambamurthy, Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: An empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS quarterly, 2003: p. 657-678.
42. Martinez-Torres, M., et al., A technological acceptance of e-learning tools used in practical and laboratory teaching, according to the European higher education area 1. Behaviour & Information Technology, 2008.27(6): p. 495-505.
43. Hair, J. F. J., et al., Multivariate data analysis. 7 Ed ed. 2010, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
44. DeVellis, R. F., Scale development: theory and applications. 2 ed. 2003, Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
45. Nunnally, J. C., Introduction to psychological measurement. 1970, New York: McGraw-Hill.
46. Blunch, N. J., Introduction to structural equation modelling using SPSS and AMOS. 2008: SAGE.
47. Janssens, W., et al., Marketing research with SPSS. 2008: Prentice Hall.
48. Gefen, D., D. W. Straub, and M. C. Boudreau, Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. 2000.
49. Tabachnick, B. G. and L. S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. 2007: Pearson. 980.
50. Yuan, K. H., Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2005.40(1): p. 115-148.