The Influence of the Social, Cognitive, and Instructional Dimensions on Technology Acceptance Decisions among College-Level Students
More details
Hide details
McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, CANADA
Publication date: 2018-09-28
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(12):em1635
Technology acceptance models are primarily focused on the cognitive dimension of user beliefs. However, researchers have identified a range of situational and contextual factors that influence user attitudes and behavioral intention towards a given technology. We advance a situated model of e-learning acceptance among college students combining factors from the community of inquiry (COI) framework and the technology acceptance model (TAM), specifying core relationships within, and theoretically informed path relationships between the two frameworks. Using a sample of 121 respondents, we test a structural model using generalized structured component analysis. Collectively the situated model helped explain 63.7% variance in Behavioral Intention and 25% of the variance in Use suggesting that our model has strong explanatory power. Policymakers can leverage this information to boost acceptance of e-learning and platforms among their academic communities by promoting e-learning environments with strong Teacher, Social, and Cognitive Presence.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Barwise, J. (1981). Scenes and other situations. Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 369–397.
Barwise, J., & Perry, J. (1981). Situations and attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78(11), 668–691.
Burton-Jones, A., & Hubona, G. S. (2006). The mediation of external variables in the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43(6), 706–717.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017a). Examining the Antecedents of Social Networking Sites Use among CEGEP Students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2103–2123.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2017b). Examining CEGEP Students’ Acceptance of CBLEs: A Test of Acceptance Models. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2523–2543.
Doleck, T., Bazelais, P., & Lemay, D. J. (2018). Is a General Extended Technology Acceptance Model for E-learning Generalizable? Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 10(2), 133–147.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
Garrison, D. R. (2017). E-Learning in the 21st Century: A Community of Inquiry Framework for Research and Practice (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge.
Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2013). The Community of Inquiry Theoretical Framework. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of Distance Education (3rd ed., p. 753). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9.
Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 31–36.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychological Review, 101(2), 336–342. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.2.336.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5–26.
Hwang, H. & Takane, Y. (2004). Generalized structured component analysis. Psychometrika, 69(1), 81-99.
Hwang, H. (2008). VisualGSCA 1.0 - A graphical user interface software program for generalized structured component analysis. In K. Shigemasu, A. Okada, T. Imaizumi, & T. Hoshino (Eds.). New Trends in Psychometrics (pp. 111-120). Tokyo: University Academic Press.
Hwang, H. (2011). GeSCA User’s Manual. Retrieved from
Kim, S., Cardwell, R., & Hwang, H. (2016). Using R Package gesca for generalized structured component analysis. Behaviormetrika, 44(1), 3-23.
King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 43, 740-755.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Larsen, K. (2003). The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and, future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(50), 752–780.
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 40(3), 1-14.
Lemay, D. J., Doleck, T., & Bazelais, P. (2017). “Passion and Concern for Privacy” as Factors Affecting Snapchat Use: A Situated Perspective on Technology Acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 264–271.
Lemay, D. J., Morin, M. M., Bazelais, P., & Doleck, T. (2018). Modeling Students' Perceptions of Simulation-Based Learning Using the Technology Acceptance Model. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 20, 28–37.
Liaw, S. (2008). Investigating students’ perceived satisfaction, behavioral intention, and effectiveness of e-learning: A case study of the Blackboard system. Computers & Education, 51(2), 864-873.
McFarland, D. J., & Hamilton, D. (2006). Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(3), 427–447.
Ryoo, J., & Hwang, H. (2017). Model Evaluation in Generalized Structured Component Analysis Using Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information and Management, 44(1), 90–103.
Sun, H., & Zhang, P. (2006). The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(2), 53–78.
Teo, T. (2009). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(2), 302-312.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences, 27, 451–481.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.