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

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 739-755

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

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; E-LEARNING; EDUCATION COMPUTING; JOB SATISFACTION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; STUDENTS;

BEHAVIOURAL INTENTIONS; COMPUTER SELF-EFFICACY; E-LEARNING ENVIRONMENT; EXTENDED TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODELS; FACILITATING CONDITIONS; ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS; RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING;

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

EID: 84930457335     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bjet.12169     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Ajzen, I., (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
2. Ajzen, I., &, Fishbein, M., (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior Vol. 278. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Arbuckle, J., (2009) Amos 18 User's Guide. SPSS Incorporated.
4. Bagozzi, R. P., (2007). The legacy of the technology acceptance model and a proposal for a paradigm shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 3, 244-254.
5. Bandura, A., (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control Vol. 604. New York: W.H. Freeman.
6. Baroud, F., &, Abouchedid, K., (2010). e-learning in Lebanon: patterns of e-learning development in lebanon's mosaic educational context. In, U. Demiray, (Ed.), e-learning practices: cases on challenges facing e-learning and national development, institutional studies and practices (pp 409-424). Eskisehir, Turkey: Anadolu University.
7. Blackboard Inc. (2012). Accelerate with Blackboard Learn. [online document] Retrieved September 9, 2012, from http://blackboard.com/Platforms/Learn/Products/Blackboard-Learn.aspx
8. Benbasat, I., &, Barki, H., (2007). Quo vadis, TAM. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 211-218.
9. Carmines, E. G., &, McIver, J. P., (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures. Social measurement, 10, 65-115. Current issues.
10. Carvalho, A., Areal, N., &, Silva, J., (2011). Students' perceptions of blackboard and moodle in a portuguese university. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 824-841.
11. Cascio, W. F., &, McEvoy, G., (2003). Managing human resources: productivity, quality of work life, profits. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Chang, S. C., &, Tung, F. C., (2008). An empirical investigation of students' behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 71-83.
13. 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, 191-230.
14. Chesney, T., (2006). An acceptance model for useful and fun information systems.
15. Chung, J. E., Park, N., Wang, H., Fulk, J., &, McLaughlin, M., (2010). Age differences in perceptions of online community participation among non-users: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1674-1684.
16. Clark, R. C., &, Mayer, R. E., (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. New York: Pfeiffer.
17. Davis, F. D., (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340.
18. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &, Warshaw, P. R., (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 982-1003.
19. DeVellis, R. F., (2003). Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury Park: CA: Sage.
20. Gefen, D., &, Straub, D. W., (1997). Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly, 21, 4, 389-400.
21. Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., &, Tatham, R. L., (2010). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
22. Hofstede, G., &, Hofstede, J., (2005). Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. McGraw-Hill.
23. Hu, L., &, Bentler, P. M., (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
24. Iskander, M., (2008). Innovative techniques in instruction technology, E-learning, E-assessment and education. New York, NY: Springer.
25. King, W. R., &, He, J., (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43, 6, 740-755.
26. Kline, R. B., (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
27. Kripanont, N., (2007) Examining a technology acceptance model of internet usage by academics within Thai business schools. Victoria University Melbourne, Australia.
28. Lewis, W., Agarwal, R., &, Sambamurthy, V., (2003). Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly, 27, 4, 657-678.
29. Li, N., &, Kirkup, G., (2007). Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: a study of China and the UK. Computers & Education, 48, 301-317.
30. Liaw, S., &, Huang, H., (2011). A study of investigating learners attitudes toward e-learning.
31. Liaw, S.-S., (2008). Investigating students' perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: a case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51, 864-873.
32. Liu, I. F., Chen, M. C., Sun, Y. S., Wible, D., &, Kuo, C. H., (2010). Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect Intention to Use an Online Learning Community. Computers & Education, 54, 600-610.
33. Maldonado, U. P. T., Khan, G. F., Moon, J., &, Rho, J. J., (2009) E-learning motivation, students' acceptance/use of educational portal in developing countries: a case study of Peru. Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology, 2009. ICCIT'09. Fourth International Conference on. (pp 1431-1441). IEEE.
34. McCoy, S., Everard, A., &, Jones, B., (2005). An examination of the technology acceptance model in Uruguay and the U.S.: a focus on culture. Journal of Global Information Technology, 8, 27-45.
35. McCoy, S., Galletta, D. F., &, King, W. R., (2005). Integrating national culture into IS research: the need for current individual level measures. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 15, 12, 211-224.
36. Nasser, R., &, Abouchedid, K., (2000). Attitudes and concerns towards distance education: the case of Lebanon. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 3, 1-10.
37. Ngai, E. W. T., Poon, J. K. L., &, Chan, Y. H. C., (2007). Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers & Education, 48, 250-267.
38. 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, 150-162.
39. Peng, H., Su, Y. J., Chou, C., &, Tsai, C. C., (2009). Ubiquitous knowledge construction: mobile learning re-defined and a conceptual framework. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 171-183.
40. Pituch, K. A., &, Lee, Y., (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222-244.
41. Robinson, J. P., Wrightsman, L. S., &, Andrews, F. M., (1991) Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Academic Pr.
42. Roca, J. C., Chiu, C. M., &, Martínez, F. J., (2006). Understanding e-learning continuance intention: an extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 683-696.
43. Rogers, M., (2003) Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.
44. Rodriguez, T., &, Lozano, P., (2011). The acceptance of Moodle technology by business administration students. Computers & Education, 58, 1085-1093.
45. Sánchez, R. A., &, Hueros, A. D., (2010). Motivational factors that influence the acceptance of Moodle using TAM. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1632-1640.
46. Saeed, K. A., &, Abdinnour-Helm, S., (2008). Examining the effects of information system characteristics and perceived usefulness on post adoption usage of information systems. Information & Management, 45, 376-386.
47. Sanchez-Franco, M. J., (2010). WebCT-The quasimoderating effect of perceived affective quality on an extending Technology Acceptance Model. Computers & Education, 54, 37-46.
48. Schepers, J., &, Wetzels, M., (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44, 90-103.
49. Sekaran, U., &, Bougie, R., (2011). Research methods for business: a skill building approach (5th ed.). Wiley India Pvt. Ltd.
50. Srite, M., &, Karahanna, E., (2000) A Cross-Cultural Model of Technology Acceptance. The Annual Diffusion of Innovations Group in Information Technology (DIGIT). Charlotte, NC.
51. Srite, M., &, Karahanna, E., (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30, 679-704.
52. Straub, D., &, Burton-Jones, A., (2007). Veni, vidi, vici: breaking the TAM logjam. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8, 223-229.
53. Straub, D., Keil, M., &, Brenner, W., (1997). Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Information & Management, 33, 1-11.
54. Sun, H., &, Zhang, P., (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 53-78.
55. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., &, Liu, X., (2013a) Extending the TAM model to empirically investigate the students' behavioural intention to use e-learning in developing countries. Science and Information Conference (SAI), 2013. (pp 732-737). IEEE.
56. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., &, Liu, X., (2013b). Factors affecting students' acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries: a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3, 54-59.
57. Tarhini, A., Hone, K., &, Liu, X., (2013c). User acceptance towards web-based learning systems: investigating the role of social, organizational and individual factors in european higher education. Procedia Computer Science, 17, 189-197.
58. Taylor, S., &, Todd, P., (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: a study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 137-155.
59. Teo, T., (2009a). The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers' attitude toward computer use: a structural equation modeling of an extended Technology Acceptance Model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 89-109.
60. Teo, T., (2009b). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 1139-1141.
61. Teo, T., (2010). A structural equation modelling of factors influencing student teachers' satisfaction with e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, E150-E152.
62. Teo, T., (2011). Assessing the cross-cultural validity study of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM): a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 8, 43-53.
63. Teo, T., &, Noyes, J., (2011). An assessment of the influence of perceived enjoyment and attitude on the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: a structural equation modeling approach. Computers & Education, 57, 1645-1653.
64. 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.
65. UNDP (2002) United nations development program. Arab Human Development Report. New York.
66. Venkatesh, V., &, Bala, H., (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273-315.
67. Venkatesh, V., &, Davis, F. D., (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186-204.
68. Venkatesh, V., &, Morris, M. G., (2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24, 115-139.
69. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., &, Davis, F. D., (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
70. Wang, Y. S., Wu, M. C., &, Wang, H. Y., (2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 92-118.
71. Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., &, Pallister, J. G., (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 251-280.
72. Zakour, A. B., (2004) Cultural differences and information technology acceptance. (pp 156-161).
73. Zhang, S., Zhao, J., &, Tan, W., (2008). Extending TAM for online learning systems: an intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13, 312-317.
74. Zikmund, W., (2009). Business research methods. New Haven, CT: Texere Publishing Limited.