Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.83.6.355-359
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Technology Acceptance in an Academic Context:
Faculty Acceptance of Online Education
Shanan G. Gibson , Michael L. Harris & Susan M. Colaric
To cite this article: Shanan G. Gibson , Michael L. Harris & Susan M. Colaric (2008) Technology
Acceptance in an Academic Context: Faculty Acceptance of Online Education, Journal of
Education for Business, 83:6, 355-359, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.6.355-359
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.355-359
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 186
View related articles
Citing articles: 20 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:16
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
TechnologyAcceptanceinanAcademic
Context:FacultyAcceptanceofOnline
Education
SUSANM.COLARIC
SAINTLEOUNIVERSITY
SAINTLEO,FLORIDA
SHANANG.GIBSON
MICHAELL.HARRIS
EASTCAROLINAUNIVERSITY
GREENVILLE,NORTHCAROLINA
ABSTRACT. Theauthorssurveyed
facultyfromacollegeofbusinessanda
collegeofeducationregardingtheirattitudestowardonlineeducation.Resultsof
thesurveywereexaminedtodetermine
thedegreetowhichthetechnologyacceptancemodelwasabletoadequatelyexplain
facultyacceptanceofonlineeducation.
Resultsindicatethatperceivedusefulness
isastrongindicatoroffacultyacceptance;
however,perceivedeaseofuseofferslittle
additionalpredictivepowerbeyondthat
contributedbyperceivedusefulnessof
onlineeducationtechnology.
Keywords:distanceeducation,onlineeducation,technologyacceptance
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
E
mployees tasked with using new
technologies seldom wholeheartedly welcome the organizational
changes associated with them. Online
educationembodiesashiftawayfrom
traditional, classroom-based teaching
activitiestypicallyassociatedwithuniversityeducationtowardatechnological realm where teaching requires the
use of computers equipped with specializedcoursesoftwaresystems,both
synchronous and asynchronous computer applications, and the frequent
frustrations associated with dependenceontheInternet.Onlineeducation
representsadramaticstepforuniversities—onethatmaybecharacterizedas
analogoustomanyorganizations’technology-based change initiatives.As in
other organizations, university administratorsfrequentlyviewthesetechnologicalchangesasbeingarequirement
for providing one’s product or service
on demand, reaching a broader demographic, and sustaining one’s competitive advantage in an increasingly
competitive market. However, despite
the perceived necessity of new and
sophisticatedtechnology,theendusers
of such technology may not readily
embrace such tools. Our study examines the degree to which the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis,
1989) explains the acceptance of new
technology, operationalized as online
education,byfacultyinbothacollege
ofbusinessandacollegeofeducation
atalargeregionaluniversity.
TheTechnologyAcceptance
Model
Organizationalchangeisnoteasyto
accomplish, and technological changes
cannot be implemented without resistance. The implementation of new
technology is recognized by many as
an event characterized by fear of the
unknown, concern over organizational
changesandtheirimplications,andcriticismfrommanyconstituents.Specific
toonlineeducation,CohenandLippert
(1999)commentedthatcomputer-based
instruction “may be useful for skillsbasedtrainingbutmaynotbeusefulfor
creative-thinking instruction or general
managementeducation”(p.745).
Davis’TAM(1989)hasbeenthedominanttheoryassociatedwithunderstanding this phenomenon and remains an
importantandviabletoolforresearchers
in this arena. We based our research
model on the TAM not only because it
isawell-accepted,theoreticallygrounded,generalmodelofuseracceptanceof
new information technologies, but also
becauseithasbeenusedinpriormanagementeducationresearch(Arbaugh,2000;
Martins&Kellermanns,2004).According to the TAM, perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use are hypothesized and empirically supported as the
July/August2008
355
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
fundamentaldeterminantsofuseracceptance of a given new technology. Perceivedusefulnessisdefinedastheextent
to which a person believes that using a
particulartechnologywillenhancehisor
herjobperformance,andperceivedease
ofuseisdefinedasthedegreetowhich
a person believes that using the system
willbefreefromeffort(Davis).InTAM
research, user acceptance is characterizedasacombinationofapositiveattitudetowardthetechnology,intentionto
use the system, and actual use of the
system (Davis; Taylor & Todd, 1995).
The TAM’s utility is evidenced by the
numerous modifications and augmentationsthathavebeenmadebyresearchers
to address the question of technology
acceptance as it relates to several variables.GefenandStraub(1997)usedthe
TAM and concluded that women and
men differ in their perceptions, but not
use,ofe-mail,andVenkateshandMorris
(2000)identifiedgenderdifferenceswith
regardtotherelativeimpactofperceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use in
predicting technology acceptance. User
inexperiencehasalsobeenfoundtoplay
aroleintherelativepredictivepowerof
theTAM’s central constructs of ease of
useandusefulness(Taylor&Todd).
Although technology acceptance
researchhasmadevaluableinroadsinto
thecomplexitiesofhowandwhyhumans
choosetoacceptorrejecttechnology—
andthepaceatwhichthatacceptanceor
rejection occurs—many of the studies
using the TAM or some variant thereof
have centered on the technology acceptancedynamicsassociatedwithnonspecificuserpopulationsworkinginvarious
occupationalsettings,usingawidespectrumofinformationtechnologysolutions
(Gefen&Straub,1997;Taylor&Todd,
1995; Veiga, Floyd, & Dechant, 2001;
Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). University
faculty represent an unusual (although
not unique) population—individuals
who are highly educated, accustomed
to having considerable autonomy, and
who frequently work in highly politicized environments. Studying technologyacceptanceoperationalizedasonline
educationrepresentsadistinctcontributiontothisresearchfield;thetechnology,
user group, and organizational context
areallnewtothetechnologyacceptance
andadoptionresearchdomain.
356
JournalofEducationforBusiness
OnlineEducation
Distancelearningisabroadtermthat
encompassesbothdistanceeducation(a
termcommonlyusedinacademia)and
distancetraining(atermcommonlyused
in industry). We examined the acceptance of distance education as defined
by Bourdeau and Bates (1997): education that is computer-based, remote, or
asynchronous and supported by some
instructional system. We use the term
online education to more specifically
describe the nature of distance educationconsideredherein.
For universities and colleges, online
education provides the opportunity
to serve more students who desire an
education. This influx of students is
typically seen as encouraging, because
although there are additional demands
placed on the technological systems of
the organization (e.g., computing networks, new hardware and software),
there is no corresponding demand for
increased physical space associated
withon-sitestudents.Thismayresultin
increasedrevenuefromtuitionwiththe
increasedexpensesrelatedtotechnologysupportedbythenewstudentbody.
Faculty frequently express apprehensionregardingonlineeducationbecause
ofthetechnologicalproblemsassociated
withdeliveringthematerial,whichmay
leadtostudentfrustrationandpoorstudentevaluations.Faculty have also indicated concerns over the technological
competence of students and their ability to use advanced synchronous online
tools(Perreault,Waldman,Alexander,&
Zhao,2002).Likewise,concernsrelated
tostudentlearningandoutcomespersist,
despite several indications that online
education results in comparable, if not
better,educationalresults.Spooner,Jordan, Algozzine, and Spooner’s (1999)
summary of past studies that compared
cognitivefactorssuchasamountoflearning, academic performance, achievement, and examination and assignment
grades in distance learning and campus
coursestypicallyreflectednodifferences
incognitivefactorsbetweenthedistance
andtraditionalclasses.
ObjectiveoftheStudy
Withtheincreasingdemandforonline
education and the need for faculty to
embrace this as a viable teaching tool,
useracceptanceoftechnologicallybased
teachingisanimportantissue.Drawing
onearlierfindingsrelatedtotechnology
acceptance, our research extends the
TAM by testing its efficacy in a distinctive population and organizational
context. However, the defining characteristics discussed in this study are not
uniquetooneorganizationorindustry;
therefore, we believe the findings will
havefar-reachingimplicationsformany
organizationsengagedinchangeinitiativescenteredontechnologicalinnovation.Suchinsightscanleadtonewand
innovative ways to mentor, train, and
motivate technology users in diverse
industriesandorganizations.
METHOD
ResearchSetting,Participants,
andProcedure
As part of an ongoing, multiphase
researchendeavorexaminingonlineeducationandlearning,facultyassociatedwith
bothacollegeofbusinessandacollegeof
educationfromalargeregionaluniversity
were asked to complete an anonymous
survey regarding their perceptions of
onlineeducation.Theresponserateforthe
surveywas46.8%;110completedsurveys
(52%men,45%women,3%undisclosed)
were received from the 235 faculty who
were invited to participate. The average
age of faculty participants was 48 years,
withanaverageof12.3yearsteachingat
theuniversitylevelandanaverageof2.1
yearsteachingonline.APhD,EdD,MD,
orotherterminaldegreewasheldby77%
ofrespondents,and23%hadanMA,MS,
MBA,orothermaster’sleveldegree.With
regardtoacademicrank,33%wereassistantprofessors,22%werelecturers,19%
wereassociateprofessors,19%werefull
professors, and 6% reported some other
statusorrank.Approximately28%ofparticipantsreportedteachingundergraduate
courses online, and 49% reported teachinggraduatecoursesonline.
SurveyQuestions
The survey instrument used for the
current study was based on questions
derived from Davis’ TAM (1989). Participantsrespondedtoquestionsmeasuring the central constructs of the TAM;
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
theperceivedeaseofuseofonlineeducation technologies and the perceived
usefulness of online education. In all
instances, respondents used a 5-point
Likert-type scale with scores ranging
from1(notatall)to5(verymuchso).
Both the Perceived Ease of Use Scale
and the Perceived Usefulness Scale
were constructed of items modified to
specifically reflect online education as
thetechnologyofinterest.
Toassessthecriterionoftechnology
acceptance, participants were asked to
indicatethedegreetowhichtheyagreed
withastatementassessingtheirintention
tousedistanceeducationtechnologyin
thefuture.Thisishighlyconsistentwith
previous TAM studies that have used
intentiontousetechnologyasindicative
oftechnologyacceptance(Ferren,2002;
Gefen&Straub,1997;Venkatesh,Morris,Davis,&Davis,2003).
All survey items and corresponding
measuresofinternalvalidityareshown
inTable1.
RESULTS
Initialexploratoryanalysesexamined
the relationships among the predictor
and criterion variables. Table 2 presentsthemeans,standarddeviations,and
intercorrelations of all variables in the
model.
Toexaminethedegreetowhichboth
perceivedusefulnessandperceivedease
ofusewereassociatedwithonlineeducation technology acceptance, we con-
ductedtwoseparatemultipleregression
procedures. The first analysis included
the five variables associated with the
perceived usefulness of online education and the second analysis included
the four variables associated with perceived ease of use of online education
teaching technologies. The regression
TABLE1.SurveyItems
PredictorItems
PerceivedEaseofUseItems(α=.594)
1. Ifindouronlineeducationresources(coursemanagementsoftware,etc.)to
beeasytouse.
2. Itisnoteasyformetobecomemoreskillfulinusingtheonlineeducation
technology(reversescored).
3. IfinditeasytogetourcoursemanagementsoftwaretodowhatIneeditto
doinmyclasses.
4. Ifindonlineeducationtechnologyinflexible(reversescored).
PerceivedUsefulnessItems(α=.859)
1. Ifindonlineeducationtechnologynotusefulforeducation(reversescored).
2. Onlineeducationwilllowermyteachingeffectivenessinthelongrun
(reversescored).
3. OnlineeducationisnotcompatiblewithhowIteachmycourses(reverse
scored).
4. Onlineeducationisaneffectivewayforstudentstolearn.
5. Onlineeducationisanappropriatetoolforprofessorstouseasateaching
medium.
CriterionItem
1. AssumingthatIhavetheopportunity,Iwillteachonlinecoursesasmuchas
possible.
TABLE2.Means,StandardDeviations,andIntercorrelationsofPredictorandCriterionVariables
Variable
1.Ifindouronlineeducationresources
(coursemanagementsoftware,etc.)
tobeeasytouse.
2.Itisnoteasyformetobecomemore
skillfulinusingtheonlineeducation
technology.
3.Ifinditeasytogetourcourse
managementsoftwaretodowhatI
needittodoinmyclasses.
4.Ifindonlineeducationtechnology
inflexible.
5.Ifindonlineeducationtechnologynot
usefulforeducation.
6.Onlineeducationwilllowermy
teachingeffectivenessinthelongrun.
7.Onlineeducationisnotcompatible
withhowIteachmycourses.
8.Onlineeducationisaneffectiveway
forstudentstolearn.
9.Onlineeducationisanappropriate
toolforprofessorstouseasa
teachingmedium.
10.AssumingthatIhavetheopportunity,
Iwillteachonlinecoursesasmuch
aspossible.
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.80 0.79
—
.21
.12
.58
.53
.46
.70
.55
.55
.34
3.72 1.05
—
.20
.17
.19
.16
.29
.18
.07
.21
3.71 1.03
—
.02 –.09 –.01
–.02
.012 .12
.12
4.03 0.96
—
.76
.46
.58
.57
.51
.58
4.08 0.85
—
.59
.58
.52
.52
.53
3.32 1.19
—
.55
.53
.62
.46
3.47 1.13
—
.41
.46
.70
4.14 0.85
—
.72
.56
4.07 0.95
—
.55
3.53 1.25
M
—
July/August2008
357
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
equation with the perceived usefulness
was significant, R2 = .587, adjusted R2
= .567, F(5, 104) = 29.517, p
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Technology Acceptance in an Academic Context:
Faculty Acceptance of Online Education
Shanan G. Gibson , Michael L. Harris & Susan M. Colaric
To cite this article: Shanan G. Gibson , Michael L. Harris & Susan M. Colaric (2008) Technology
Acceptance in an Academic Context: Faculty Acceptance of Online Education, Journal of
Education for Business, 83:6, 355-359, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.6.355-359
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.355-359
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 186
View related articles
Citing articles: 20 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 23:16
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
TechnologyAcceptanceinanAcademic
Context:FacultyAcceptanceofOnline
Education
SUSANM.COLARIC
SAINTLEOUNIVERSITY
SAINTLEO,FLORIDA
SHANANG.GIBSON
MICHAELL.HARRIS
EASTCAROLINAUNIVERSITY
GREENVILLE,NORTHCAROLINA
ABSTRACT. Theauthorssurveyed
facultyfromacollegeofbusinessanda
collegeofeducationregardingtheirattitudestowardonlineeducation.Resultsof
thesurveywereexaminedtodetermine
thedegreetowhichthetechnologyacceptancemodelwasabletoadequatelyexplain
facultyacceptanceofonlineeducation.
Resultsindicatethatperceivedusefulness
isastrongindicatoroffacultyacceptance;
however,perceivedeaseofuseofferslittle
additionalpredictivepowerbeyondthat
contributedbyperceivedusefulnessof
onlineeducationtechnology.
Keywords:distanceeducation,onlineeducation,technologyacceptance
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
E
mployees tasked with using new
technologies seldom wholeheartedly welcome the organizational
changes associated with them. Online
educationembodiesashiftawayfrom
traditional, classroom-based teaching
activitiestypicallyassociatedwithuniversityeducationtowardatechnological realm where teaching requires the
use of computers equipped with specializedcoursesoftwaresystems,both
synchronous and asynchronous computer applications, and the frequent
frustrations associated with dependenceontheInternet.Onlineeducation
representsadramaticstepforuniversities—onethatmaybecharacterizedas
analogoustomanyorganizations’technology-based change initiatives.As in
other organizations, university administratorsfrequentlyviewthesetechnologicalchangesasbeingarequirement
for providing one’s product or service
on demand, reaching a broader demographic, and sustaining one’s competitive advantage in an increasingly
competitive market. However, despite
the perceived necessity of new and
sophisticatedtechnology,theendusers
of such technology may not readily
embrace such tools. Our study examines the degree to which the technology acceptance model (TAM; Davis,
1989) explains the acceptance of new
technology, operationalized as online
education,byfacultyinbothacollege
ofbusinessandacollegeofeducation
atalargeregionaluniversity.
TheTechnologyAcceptance
Model
Organizationalchangeisnoteasyto
accomplish, and technological changes
cannot be implemented without resistance. The implementation of new
technology is recognized by many as
an event characterized by fear of the
unknown, concern over organizational
changesandtheirimplications,andcriticismfrommanyconstituents.Specific
toonlineeducation,CohenandLippert
(1999)commentedthatcomputer-based
instruction “may be useful for skillsbasedtrainingbutmaynotbeusefulfor
creative-thinking instruction or general
managementeducation”(p.745).
Davis’TAM(1989)hasbeenthedominanttheoryassociatedwithunderstanding this phenomenon and remains an
importantandviabletoolforresearchers
in this arena. We based our research
model on the TAM not only because it
isawell-accepted,theoreticallygrounded,generalmodelofuseracceptanceof
new information technologies, but also
becauseithasbeenusedinpriormanagementeducationresearch(Arbaugh,2000;
Martins&Kellermanns,2004).According to the TAM, perceived usefulness
and perceived ease of use are hypothesized and empirically supported as the
July/August2008
355
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
fundamentaldeterminantsofuseracceptance of a given new technology. Perceivedusefulnessisdefinedastheextent
to which a person believes that using a
particulartechnologywillenhancehisor
herjobperformance,andperceivedease
ofuseisdefinedasthedegreetowhich
a person believes that using the system
willbefreefromeffort(Davis).InTAM
research, user acceptance is characterizedasacombinationofapositiveattitudetowardthetechnology,intentionto
use the system, and actual use of the
system (Davis; Taylor & Todd, 1995).
The TAM’s utility is evidenced by the
numerous modifications and augmentationsthathavebeenmadebyresearchers
to address the question of technology
acceptance as it relates to several variables.GefenandStraub(1997)usedthe
TAM and concluded that women and
men differ in their perceptions, but not
use,ofe-mail,andVenkateshandMorris
(2000)identifiedgenderdifferenceswith
regardtotherelativeimpactofperceived
usefulness and perceived ease of use in
predicting technology acceptance. User
inexperiencehasalsobeenfoundtoplay
aroleintherelativepredictivepowerof
theTAM’s central constructs of ease of
useandusefulness(Taylor&Todd).
Although technology acceptance
researchhasmadevaluableinroadsinto
thecomplexitiesofhowandwhyhumans
choosetoacceptorrejecttechnology—
andthepaceatwhichthatacceptanceor
rejection occurs—many of the studies
using the TAM or some variant thereof
have centered on the technology acceptancedynamicsassociatedwithnonspecificuserpopulationsworkinginvarious
occupationalsettings,usingawidespectrumofinformationtechnologysolutions
(Gefen&Straub,1997;Taylor&Todd,
1995; Veiga, Floyd, & Dechant, 2001;
Venkatesh & Morris, 2000). University
faculty represent an unusual (although
not unique) population—individuals
who are highly educated, accustomed
to having considerable autonomy, and
who frequently work in highly politicized environments. Studying technologyacceptanceoperationalizedasonline
educationrepresentsadistinctcontributiontothisresearchfield;thetechnology,
user group, and organizational context
areallnewtothetechnologyacceptance
andadoptionresearchdomain.
356
JournalofEducationforBusiness
OnlineEducation
Distancelearningisabroadtermthat
encompassesbothdistanceeducation(a
termcommonlyusedinacademia)and
distancetraining(atermcommonlyused
in industry). We examined the acceptance of distance education as defined
by Bourdeau and Bates (1997): education that is computer-based, remote, or
asynchronous and supported by some
instructional system. We use the term
online education to more specifically
describe the nature of distance educationconsideredherein.
For universities and colleges, online
education provides the opportunity
to serve more students who desire an
education. This influx of students is
typically seen as encouraging, because
although there are additional demands
placed on the technological systems of
the organization (e.g., computing networks, new hardware and software),
there is no corresponding demand for
increased physical space associated
withon-sitestudents.Thismayresultin
increasedrevenuefromtuitionwiththe
increasedexpensesrelatedtotechnologysupportedbythenewstudentbody.
Faculty frequently express apprehensionregardingonlineeducationbecause
ofthetechnologicalproblemsassociated
withdeliveringthematerial,whichmay
leadtostudentfrustrationandpoorstudentevaluations.Faculty have also indicated concerns over the technological
competence of students and their ability to use advanced synchronous online
tools(Perreault,Waldman,Alexander,&
Zhao,2002).Likewise,concernsrelated
tostudentlearningandoutcomespersist,
despite several indications that online
education results in comparable, if not
better,educationalresults.Spooner,Jordan, Algozzine, and Spooner’s (1999)
summary of past studies that compared
cognitivefactorssuchasamountoflearning, academic performance, achievement, and examination and assignment
grades in distance learning and campus
coursestypicallyreflectednodifferences
incognitivefactorsbetweenthedistance
andtraditionalclasses.
ObjectiveoftheStudy
Withtheincreasingdemandforonline
education and the need for faculty to
embrace this as a viable teaching tool,
useracceptanceoftechnologicallybased
teachingisanimportantissue.Drawing
onearlierfindingsrelatedtotechnology
acceptance, our research extends the
TAM by testing its efficacy in a distinctive population and organizational
context. However, the defining characteristics discussed in this study are not
uniquetooneorganizationorindustry;
therefore, we believe the findings will
havefar-reachingimplicationsformany
organizationsengagedinchangeinitiativescenteredontechnologicalinnovation.Suchinsightscanleadtonewand
innovative ways to mentor, train, and
motivate technology users in diverse
industriesandorganizations.
METHOD
ResearchSetting,Participants,
andProcedure
As part of an ongoing, multiphase
researchendeavorexaminingonlineeducationandlearning,facultyassociatedwith
bothacollegeofbusinessandacollegeof
educationfromalargeregionaluniversity
were asked to complete an anonymous
survey regarding their perceptions of
onlineeducation.Theresponserateforthe
surveywas46.8%;110completedsurveys
(52%men,45%women,3%undisclosed)
were received from the 235 faculty who
were invited to participate. The average
age of faculty participants was 48 years,
withanaverageof12.3yearsteachingat
theuniversitylevelandanaverageof2.1
yearsteachingonline.APhD,EdD,MD,
orotherterminaldegreewasheldby77%
ofrespondents,and23%hadanMA,MS,
MBA,orothermaster’sleveldegree.With
regardtoacademicrank,33%wereassistantprofessors,22%werelecturers,19%
wereassociateprofessors,19%werefull
professors, and 6% reported some other
statusorrank.Approximately28%ofparticipantsreportedteachingundergraduate
courses online, and 49% reported teachinggraduatecoursesonline.
SurveyQuestions
The survey instrument used for the
current study was based on questions
derived from Davis’ TAM (1989). Participantsrespondedtoquestionsmeasuring the central constructs of the TAM;
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
theperceivedeaseofuseofonlineeducation technologies and the perceived
usefulness of online education. In all
instances, respondents used a 5-point
Likert-type scale with scores ranging
from1(notatall)to5(verymuchso).
Both the Perceived Ease of Use Scale
and the Perceived Usefulness Scale
were constructed of items modified to
specifically reflect online education as
thetechnologyofinterest.
Toassessthecriterionoftechnology
acceptance, participants were asked to
indicatethedegreetowhichtheyagreed
withastatementassessingtheirintention
tousedistanceeducationtechnologyin
thefuture.Thisishighlyconsistentwith
previous TAM studies that have used
intentiontousetechnologyasindicative
oftechnologyacceptance(Ferren,2002;
Gefen&Straub,1997;Venkatesh,Morris,Davis,&Davis,2003).
All survey items and corresponding
measuresofinternalvalidityareshown
inTable1.
RESULTS
Initialexploratoryanalysesexamined
the relationships among the predictor
and criterion variables. Table 2 presentsthemeans,standarddeviations,and
intercorrelations of all variables in the
model.
Toexaminethedegreetowhichboth
perceivedusefulnessandperceivedease
ofusewereassociatedwithonlineeducation technology acceptance, we con-
ductedtwoseparatemultipleregression
procedures. The first analysis included
the five variables associated with the
perceived usefulness of online education and the second analysis included
the four variables associated with perceived ease of use of online education
teaching technologies. The regression
TABLE1.SurveyItems
PredictorItems
PerceivedEaseofUseItems(α=.594)
1. Ifindouronlineeducationresources(coursemanagementsoftware,etc.)to
beeasytouse.
2. Itisnoteasyformetobecomemoreskillfulinusingtheonlineeducation
technology(reversescored).
3. IfinditeasytogetourcoursemanagementsoftwaretodowhatIneeditto
doinmyclasses.
4. Ifindonlineeducationtechnologyinflexible(reversescored).
PerceivedUsefulnessItems(α=.859)
1. Ifindonlineeducationtechnologynotusefulforeducation(reversescored).
2. Onlineeducationwilllowermyteachingeffectivenessinthelongrun
(reversescored).
3. OnlineeducationisnotcompatiblewithhowIteachmycourses(reverse
scored).
4. Onlineeducationisaneffectivewayforstudentstolearn.
5. Onlineeducationisanappropriatetoolforprofessorstouseasateaching
medium.
CriterionItem
1. AssumingthatIhavetheopportunity,Iwillteachonlinecoursesasmuchas
possible.
TABLE2.Means,StandardDeviations,andIntercorrelationsofPredictorandCriterionVariables
Variable
1.Ifindouronlineeducationresources
(coursemanagementsoftware,etc.)
tobeeasytouse.
2.Itisnoteasyformetobecomemore
skillfulinusingtheonlineeducation
technology.
3.Ifinditeasytogetourcourse
managementsoftwaretodowhatI
needittodoinmyclasses.
4.Ifindonlineeducationtechnology
inflexible.
5.Ifindonlineeducationtechnologynot
usefulforeducation.
6.Onlineeducationwilllowermy
teachingeffectivenessinthelongrun.
7.Onlineeducationisnotcompatible
withhowIteachmycourses.
8.Onlineeducationisaneffectiveway
forstudentstolearn.
9.Onlineeducationisanappropriate
toolforprofessorstouseasa
teachingmedium.
10.AssumingthatIhavetheopportunity,
Iwillteachonlinecoursesasmuch
aspossible.
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3.80 0.79
—
.21
.12
.58
.53
.46
.70
.55
.55
.34
3.72 1.05
—
.20
.17
.19
.16
.29
.18
.07
.21
3.71 1.03
—
.02 –.09 –.01
–.02
.012 .12
.12
4.03 0.96
—
.76
.46
.58
.57
.51
.58
4.08 0.85
—
.59
.58
.52
.52
.53
3.32 1.19
—
.55
.53
.62
.46
3.47 1.13
—
.41
.46
.70
4.14 0.85
—
.72
.56
4.07 0.95
—
.55
3.53 1.25
M
—
July/August2008
357
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:16 11 January 2016
equation with the perceived usefulness
was significant, R2 = .587, adjusted R2
= .567, F(5, 104) = 29.517, p