RESEARCH PAPER
Validation of the UTAUT Model: Re-Considering Non-Linear Relationships of Exogeneous Variables in Higher Education Technology Acceptance Research
 
More details
Hide details
1
College of Distance Education, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, GHANA
2
Centre for Instructional Technology and Multimedia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, MALAYSIA
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Brandford Bervell   

University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Tel:+233200937934
Online publish date: 2017-09-29
Publish date: 2017-09-29
 
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(10):6471–6490
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Over the years, The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) has served many researchers in unravelling technology acceptance intentions. What has become a chasm in the literature has been the seeming exclusion of non-linear relationships of UTAUT exogeneous variables (Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, Social Influence and Facilitating Conditions) in model formation and the overall determination of construct predictive relationships. Secondly, there is a dearth in technology acceptance research in distance-based higher education settings. In an attempt to bridge these gaps, this study adopted the UTAUT model and utilized the Partial Least Squares approach to evaluate a combined linear and non-linear relationships based UTAUT model. The survey design was employed in which a questionnaire was used to obtain data from a sample of 267 respondents (tutors) from a distance-based higher education milieu with a country-wide distribution. Results obtained indicated that non-linear relationships exist between exogeneous factors to better explain constructs’ behaviour in the model. A new relationship between facilitating condition and social influence was also discovered. The study thus concluded that in technology acceptance research, there is the need to include non-linear relationships in the UTAUT model to augment the predictive effects and explanations of the constructs’ relationships. It further recommended a comparative analysis between a proposed comprehensive UTAUT model with non-linear relationships and moderators to the original UTAUT model for further empirical analysis. This is to compare results in terms of coefficient of determination (R2) and predictive relevance (Q2).
 
REFERENCES (49)
1.
Ain, N., Kaur, K., & Waheed, M. (2015). The influence of learning value on learning management system use: An extension of UTAUT2. Information Development.
 
2.
Al-Gahtani, S. S., Hubona, G. S., & Wang, J. (2007). Information technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the acceptance and use of IT. Information & Management, 44, 681–691.
 
3.
Ambali, A., R., & Bakar, A. N. (2014). ICT adoption and application in the Malaysian public sector advances in public policy and administration: IGI Global Publishers, USA: Hershey, Pennsylvania.
 
4.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
 
5.
Attuquayefio, S. N., & Addo, H. (2014). Using the UTAUT model to analyze students’ ICT adoption. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 10(3), 75.
 
6.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 496–515.
 
7.
Chen, Y.-C., Shang, R.-A., Yu Hou, A. C., & Humaour, K. C. (2012). Organizational alienation, organizational support, and behavioural intention to adopt information systems. PACIS 2012 Proceedings. Association for Information Systems (AIS) Electronic Library.
 
8.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21-29.
 
9.
Davis, F. D. (1986). Technology acceptance models for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results. Cambridge: MIT Sloan School of Management.
 
10.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
 
11.
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.
 
12.
Evans, N. D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of electronic learning at the University of Zululand. Unpublished Thesis University of Zululand, South Africa.
 
13.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
 
14.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 1st Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
 
15.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
 
16.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135.
 
17.
Jairak, K., Praneetpolgrang, P., & Mekhabunchakij, K. (2009). An acceptance of mobile learning for higher education students in Thailand. Special Issue of the International Journal of the Computer, the Internet and Management, 17(SP3), 361–368.
 
18.
Khechine, H., Lakhal, S., Pascot, D., & Bytha, A (2014). UTAUT model for blended learning: the role of gender and age in the intention to use webinars. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 10, 33-52.
 
19.
Kihoro, J. M., Oyier, P. A., Kiula, B. M., Wafula, J. M., & Ibukah, R. W. (2013). E-Learning ecosystem for mobility and effective learning: A Case of JKUAT IT students. In IST-Africa 2013 Conference, 1–9.
 
20.
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling Methodology in the Social Sciences 4th ed. Guilford Publication: NY.
 
21.
Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.
 
22.
Kock, N. (2016). Advantages of non-linear over segmentation analyses in path models. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 12(4), 1-6.
 
23.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 7-19.
 
24.
Lee, S. M., Kim, K., Paulson, P., & Park, H. (2008). Developing a socio-technical framework for business-IT alignment. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108(9), 1167-81.
 
25.
Macharia, J., & Nyakwende, E. (2010). Vice-chancellors influence on academic staff intentions to use Learning Management System (LMS) for teaching and learning. The Journal of Language, Technology & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 2(1), 220-230.
 
26.
Maina, M. K., & Nsuki, D. M. (2015). Adoption determinants of E-learning Management System in institutions of higher learning in Kenya: A Case of selected universities in Nairobi metropolitan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(2).
 
27.
Mtebe, J. S., & Raisamo, R. (2014) Investigating students’ behavioural intention to adopt and use mobile learning in higher education in East Africa. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 10(3), 4-20.
 
28.
Mtega, W. P., Bernard, R., Msungu, A. C., & Sanare, R. (2012). Using mobile phones for teaching and learning purposes in higher learning institutions: The case of Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania. In 5th UbuntuNet Alliance annual conference, 118–129. Retrieved from http://www.ubuntunet.net/sites... ubuntunet.net/files/mtegaw.pdf.
 
29.
Nassuora, A. B. (2012). Student acceptance of mobile learning for higher education. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 4, 0–5.
 
30.
Nicholas-Omoregbe, O., S., Azeta, A., A., Chiazor, I., A., & Omoregbe, N. (2017). Predicting the adoption of E-Learning Management System: A case of selected private Universities in Nigeria. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education-TOJDE, 18(2).
 
31.
Oye, N. D., Iahad, A. N., & Rahim, A.B. N. (2012). Acceptance and usage of ICT by university academicians using UTAUT Model: A case study of University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Computing and Information Sciences, 3(1), 2079-8407.
 
32.
Pardamean, B., & Susanto, M. (2012). User acceptance toward blog technology using the UTAUT model. International Journal of Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 1(6), 203-212.
 
33.
Percy, T., & Van Belle, J. P. (2012, September). Exploring the barriers and enablers to the use of open educational resources by university academics in Africa. In IFIP International Conference on Open Source Systems, 112-128. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
 
34.
Raman, A., & Don, Y. (2013). Preservice teachers’ acceptance of Learning Management Software: An application of the UTAUT2 model. International Education Studies, 6(7).
 
35.
Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis”. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865-1886.
 
36.
Roberts, W. (1986). Nonlinear models of development: An example from the socialization of competence. Child Development, 57, 1166-1178.
 
37.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
 
38.
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2015). E-business, organizational innovation and firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: an empirical study in Spain. Technological and Economic Development of Economy. DOI:10.3846/20294913.2015.1074126.
 
39.
Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size - or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282.
 
40.
Šumak, B., Polančič, G., & Heričko, M. (2010). An empirical study of virtual learning environment adoption using UTAUT. Second International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-Line Learning, IEEE Computer Society.
 
41.
Taiwo, A. A., Downe, A. G., & Mahmood, A. K (2012). User acceptance of E-government: integrating risk and trust dimensions with UTAUT model. In proceedings at the International Conference on Computer and Information sciences. Kuala Lumpur.
 
42.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-learning environments in developing countries: a structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(1), 54.
 
43.
Venkatesh, Thong, J.Y.L, & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
 
44.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 2.
 
45.
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management. Science, 46, 186–204.
 
46.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, G. B. & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27.
 
47.
Warshaw, P. R. (1980). A new model for predicting behavioral intentions: An alternative to Fishbein. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 153–172.
 
48.
Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14, 490–495.
 
49.
Yeap, J., A. L., Ramayah, T. & Soto-Acosta, P. (2015). Factors propelling the adoption of m-learning among students in higher education. Electronic Markets, 26(4), 323-338.0.
 
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215