Empirical investigation of e-learning acceptance and assimilation: A structural equation model

Applied Computing and Informatics

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 27-50

  Al Gahtani, Said S ^a  

^a KING KHALID UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

Author keywords

E learning; LMS; Structural equation modeling; TAM; TAM3; Technology acceptance model

Indexed keywords

EID: 85032848476     PISSN: 26341964     EISSN: 22108327     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.aci.2014.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Abbad, M.M., Morris, D., Al-Ayyoub, A., Abbad, J.M., Students’ decisions to use an e-learning system: a structural equation modelling analysis. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 4:4 (2009), 4–13.
2. Agarwal, R., Prasad, J., Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?. Decis. Sci. 30:2 (1999), 361–391.
3. Ajzen, I., From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., (eds.) Springer Series in Social Psychology, 1985, Springer, Berlin, 11–39.
4. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., Smedley, J., Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. Int. J. Educ. Dev. Inf. Commun. Technol. 9:2 (2013), 4–18.
5. Al-Gahtani, S.S., Testing for the applicability of the TAM Model in the Arabic context: exploring an extended TAM with three moderating factors. Inf. Resour. Manage. J. 21:4 (2008), 1–26.
6. Al-Gahtani, S.S., Hubona, G.S., Wang, J., Information Technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: culture and the acceptance and use of IT. Inf. Manage. 44:8 (2007), 681–691.
7. Al-Harbi, K.A., E-Learning in the Saudi tertiary education: potential and challenges. Appl. Comput. Inf. 9 (2011), 31–46.
8. Bagozzi, R.P., Causal Models in Marketing. 1980, Wiley, New York, NY.
9. Baker, E.W., Al-Gahtani, S.S., Hubona, G.S., Cultural impacts on acceptance and adoption of information technology in a developing country. J. Global Inf. Manage. 18:3 (2010), 35–58.
10. Bjerke, B., Al-Meer, A., Culture's consequences: management in Saudi Arabia. Leadership Org. Dev. J. 14:2 (1993), 30–35.
11. Brislin, R., The wording and translation of research instruments. Lonner, W., Berry, J., (eds.) Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research, 1986, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 137–164.
12. Bryman, A., Bell, E., Business Research Methods. second ed., 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, NY.
13. F.H. Chanchary, S. Islam, Mobile learning in Saudi Arabia – prospects and challenges, in: Paper Presented at the International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT’2011), Zarqa University, Jordan, 2011.
14. Chau, P., Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modeling approach. Decis. Sci. 28:2 (1997), 309–334 Y.K.
15. W.W. Chin, B.L. Marcolin, P.R. Newsted, A partial least squares latent variables modelling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte-Carlo simulation study and voice mail emotion/adoption study, in: Paper Presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, OH, 1996.
16. CITC, Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC), “Internet Usage Study in Saudi Arabia” 2012 < http://www.internet.sa/en/internet-usage-study/#more-120> (retrieved June, 2014).
17. Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A., Application of social cognitive theory to training for computer skills. Inf. Syst. Res. 6 (1995), 118–143.
18. Compeau, D.R., Higgins, C.A., Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quart. 19 (1995), 189–211.
19. Davis, F.D., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 13:3 (1989), 319–340.
20. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35 (1989), 982–1002.
21. Davis, F.D., Venkatesh, V., Toward preprototype user acceptance testing of new information systems: implications for software project management. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. 51:1 (2004), 31–46.
22. eLi, The Second International Conference of E-learning and Distance Education: < http://eli.elc.edu.sa/2011/files/%20%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AD%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A.pdf> 2011.
23. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. 1975, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
24. Fornell, C.R., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. JMR 18:1 (1981), 39–50.
25. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Market. Theory Pract. 19:2 (2011), 139–151.
26. Hirschheim, R., Introduction to the special issue on “Quo Vadis TAM – Issues and Reflections on Technology Acceptance Research”. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8:4 (2007), 203–205.
27. Hu, P.J.-H., Hui, W., Examining the role of learning engagement in technology-mediated learning and its effects on learning effectiveness and satisfaction. Decis. Support Syst. 53 (2012), 782–792.
28. Jasperson, J.S., Carter, P.E., Zmud, R.W., A comprehensive conceptualization of the post-adoptive behaviors associated with IT-enabled work systems. MIS Quart. 29 (2005), 525–557.
29. Jöreskog, K.G., Wold, H., The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: historical and comparative aspects. Wold, H., Jöreskog, K.G., (eds.) Systems Under Indirect Observation, Part I, 1982, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 263–270.
30. Mirza, A.A., Al-Abdulkareem, M., Models of e-learning adopted in the Middle East. Appl. Comput. Inf. 9 (2011), 83–93.
31. Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I., Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2 (1991), 192–222.
32. Nassuora, A.B., Students acceptance of mobile learning for higher education in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Learn. Manage. Syst. 1:1 (2013), 1–9.
33. Newsted, P., Huff, S., Munro, M., Survey instruments in information systems. MIS Quart., 1998, 553–554.
34. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory. second ed., 1978, McGraw-Hill, New York.
35. C.M. Ringle, S. Wende, A. Will, SmartPLS 2.0 (beta), 2005 < http://www.smartpls.de>.
36. Selim, H.M., An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Comput. Educ. 40 (2003), 343–360.
37. Seliaman, M.E., Al-Turki, M.S., Mobile learning adoption in Saudi Arabia. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 69 (2012), 391–393.
38. Singh, G., Hardaker, G., Barriers and enablers to adoption and diffusion of eLearning: a systematic review of the literature – a need for an integrative approach. Education + Training 56:2/3 (2014), 105–121.
39. University World News, Saudi Arabia: E-learning Education Shake-Up, 2008 < http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20080529145753433> (retrieved May, 2014).
40. Yoo, Y., Alavi, M., Media and group cohesion: relative influences on social presence, task participation, and group consensus. MIS Quart. 25:3 (2001), 371–390.
41. Venkatesh, V., Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11:4 (2000), 342–365.
42. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46:2 (2000), 186–204.
43. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., Morris, M.G., Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8:4 (2007), 267–286.
44. Venkatesh, V., Bala, H., Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39:2 (2008), 273–315.
45. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27 (2003), 425–478.
46. Wang, T., Rethinking teaching with information and communication technologies (ICTs) in architectural education. Teach. Teacher Educ. 25:8 (2009), 1132–1140.
47. Webster, J., Martocchio, J.J., Microcomputer playfulness: development of a measure with workplace implications. MIS Quart. 16 (1992), 201–226.