You are here:

Factors of Online Learning Adoption: A Comparative Juxtaposition of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Technology Acceptance Model
Article

, Monash University Malaysia, Malaysia

International Journal on E-Learning Volume 5, Number 4, ISSN 1537-2456 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Organisational investments in information technologies have increased significantly in the past few decades. All around the globe and in Malaysia particularly, a number of educational institutions are experimenting with e-learning. Adopting the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and the technology acceptance model (TAM) this article tries to compare the predictive power of the two models in determining online learning acceptance among Malaysian students. By juxtaposing both models, this article furnishes a better understanding of individual, technological, and social factors of online learning adoption intention. A total of 300 students who were earlier introduced to e-learning were surveyed after a period of exposure to the system. The purposive sampling method was used to select the participants. The Multiple Regression Analysis was used to determine the key influences on behavioural intention. The effects of potential confounding factors were verified and controlled. The results show that both TAM and TPB predict e-learning adoption intention well, although the impact of the TAM is more robust than the TPB. Research findings are discussed.

Citation

Ndubisi, N. (2006). Factors of Online Learning Adoption: A Comparative Juxtaposition of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(4), 571-591. Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved August 9, 2022 from .

© 2006 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control; from cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). New York: Springer Verlag
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
  3. Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. (1992). Application of theory of planned behavior to leisure Choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24(3), 207-224. Ajzen,
  4. Beller, M., & Or, E. (1998). The crossroads between lifelong learning and information technology a challenge facing leading universities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(2). Berger, I. (1993). A framework for understanding the relationship between environmental attitudes and consumer behavior. In R. Varadarjan & B. Jaworski (Eds.), Marketing Theory and Application, 4, 157-163. Chicago: American Marketing Association.
  5. Bergeron, F., Rivard, S., & De Serre, L. (1990). Investigating the support role of the information center. MIS Quarterly, 14(3), 247-259.
  6. Bersin, J. (2002, July). Measuring e-learning’s effectiveness: A five-step program for success, E-Learning, 3(3), 36-38.
  7. Bushweller, K. (2002, May 15). Report says e-learning is redefining k-12 education. Education Week, 21(36), 10.
  8. Chattergee, S., & Price, B. (1991). Regression analysis by example. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Clear, T. (2002). E-learning: A vehicle for e-transformation or trojan horse for enterprise? Revisiting the role of public higher education institutions. International Journal of E-learning, 1(4), 47-60.
  9. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.
  10. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982-1002.
  11. Davis, F.D., & Vankatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 45, 19-45.
  12. Doucette, L. (2002). E-learning: A new classroom for success. Foodservice Equipment & Supplies, 55(7), 33-34.
  13. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  14. Goodridge, E. (2002, May 13). E-learning struggles to make the grade. Information Week, 888, 64-65.
  15. Harrison, D.A., Mykyttyn, P.P., & Riemenschneider, C.K. (1997). Executive decisions about adoption of information technology in small business: Theory and empirical tests. Information Systems Research, 8, 171-195. Ndubisi
  16. Jabnoun, N., & Al-Tamimi, H.A.H. (2003). Measuring perceived service quality at UAE commercial banks. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(4), 458-472.
  17. Kite, M. (1996). Age, gender, and occupational label. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 361-374. Lefkowitz, J. (1994). Sex-related differences in job attitudes and dispositional variables: Now you see them. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 323-349.
  18. Masie E. (2002). Slow down, you move too fast: Some things simply need more time. E-Learning, 3(7), 14-15.
  19. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behaviour. Information Systems Research, 2, 173-191. Morris, M.G., & Venkatesh, V.
  20. Ndubisi, N.O., Gupta, O.K., & Massoud, S. (2003). Organizational learning and vendor support quality by the usage of application software packages: A study of Asian entrepreneurs. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 12(3), 314-331.
  21. Ndubisi, N.O., Gupta, O.K., & Ndubisi, G.C. (2005). The moguls’ model of computing: Integrating the moderating impact of users’ persona into the technology acceptance model. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(1), 27-47.
  22. O’Connell, B. (2002). A poor grade for e-learning (classroom students did better). Workforce, 8(7), 15.
  23. Oon, Y. (2002, June 2). Internet time: The trouble with e-learning. The Edge.
  24. Praeger, K. (1986). Identity development, age, and college experience in women. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 147(1), 31-36.
  25. Randall, D., & Gibson, A. (1991). Ethical decision making in the medical profession: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(2), 111-122. Sakurdi, J. (2002). Foreign faux pas: Culture-the final barrier to going global. E-Learning, 3(7), 26-30. Schifter, D.E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 843-851. Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P.R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325-343.
  26. Sparks, P., Gothrie, C.A, & Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimensional structure of the perceived behavioral control costruct. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 418-438.
  27. Sparta, P. (2002). Before you buy…an elearning system, think enterprise wide. T+ D, 56(7), 34-35. Taylor, S., & Todd, P.A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144-176.
  28. Troha, F.J. (2002, December). Ensuring e-learning success: Six simple tips for initiative leaders. Internet Wire, 16(12).
  29. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems
  30. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., & Ackerman, P.L. (2000). A longitudinal field investigation of gender differences in individual technology adoption decision making processes. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 83, 33-60.
  31. Warshaw, P.R. (1980). A new model for predicting behavioural intentions: An alternative to Fishbein. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 153-172.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Cited By

View References & Citations Map

These links are based on references which have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake, please contact info@learntechlib.org.