You are on page 1of 7

Theoretical Background

EPSA is still a new concept to developing countries like Malaysia despite the fact that
EPSA has been developed by INTAN since 2007. The UTAUT model suggests that when
users are presented with a new technology, a number of factors influence their decision about
how and when they will use it. The UTAUT Model proposed by Venkatesh et al., (2003),
incorporates eight famous Models/Theories in the diverse discipline. The idea behind the
unifications of these Models/Theories is to arrive at the unified view of user acceptance of ecommerce in Nigeria (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Abdulwahab and Dahalin, 2010). A lot of
literature exists in understanding technology acceptance in general (Abdulwahab and
Dahalin, 2010), but there is limited research on e-learning in developing countries
particularly in Malaysia

The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) is a technology
acceptance model formulated by Venkatesh and others in "User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view". The UTAUT aims to explain user intentions to use
an information system and subsequent usage behaviour. The theory holds that there are four
key constructs:
1) performance expectancy,
2) effort expectancy,
3)social influence, and
4) facilitating conditions.

The first three are direct determinants of usage intention and behaviour, and the fourth
is a direct determinant of use behaviour. Gender, age, experience, and voluntariness of use are

UTAUT was chosen as a ground theory in this study for investigating the acceptance of teachers in using EPSA. 2011). 2007). Hong. 2012). Because of its novelty in the field of user acceptance research and relatively little presence in existing literature regarding e-learning in public sector. Subsequent validation by Venkatesh et al. Model Of Personal Computer Use. . Technology Acceptance Model. 7. Diffusion Of Innovations Theory and Social Cognitive Theory. 5. Educational technology acceptance in Turkey (Göğüş. & Wang. & Kang. 8. 6. The eight models are 1. among others. 4. The theory was developed through a review and consolidation of the constructs of eight models that earlier research had employed to explain information systems usage behaviour. (2003) of UTAUT in a longitudinal study found it to account for an impressive 70% of the variance in Behavioural Intention to Use (BI) and about 50% in actual use. MP3 player and Internet banking in Korea (Im. 2. Theory Of Reasoned Action. 3. & Nistor. Mixed support for the original UTAUT theory was found when UTAUT was applied in other cultural contexts which led some researchers to argue that UTAUT should be extended to include cultural constructs alongside the current constructs. Theory Of Planned Behaviour.posited to moderate the impact of the four key constructs on usage intention and behaviour. A Combined Theory Of Planned Behaviour/Technology Acceptance Model. Hubona. Research on cross-cultural validation of UTAUT includes a study on employees’ acceptance and use of computers in Saudi (Al-Gahtani. Motivational Model. UTAUT has been tested in several cultures and organizational contexts.

& Zhang. 2004).g. Ifinedo. Bhattacherjee.g. constructs related to students and the academic environment. 2012). For example. There has been some research suggesting adding contextspecific constructs to UTAUT. Similarly. government organizations (e. there are still many contexts where the need for additional constructs in UTAUT has to be explored. price value. Previous studies using UTAUT as a model to evaluate user acceptance and use of technology. TOE (technological. 2011. use. Birsch & Irvine 2009). and Educational institutions (e. Vekatesh et al’s (2012) paper on consumer acceptance and use of information technology suggests adding three constructs to UTAUT: hedonic motivation.g. and Ma (2009) suggested adding IT’s perceived work compatibility to “fit the context of organizational work”.. or effectiveness of technology in higher-education institutions. educational compatibility (Chen. 2004). organizational and environmental) factors (Mills. 2011). However. This research focuses on students’ acceptance and use of technology in their academic institutions in an attempt to compare the results with the original UTAUT findings and explore whether context specific constructs should be added to UTAUT. Sykes. specifically.Besides being tested in several cultures. for the context of consumer technology use. Sun. Venkatesh. Literature on technology in education have studied the effect of faculty and peers encouragement (Martins & Kellermanns.. availability of technology (Chung. 2011). diffusion..g. have several purpose and methodological differences leading to different conclusions about the applicability of UTAUT in higher-education institutions. UTAUT has also been tested in several organizational contexts including healthcare organizations (e. . & Xia. Wang. and habit. 2008). among others on the acceptance. Anderson & Schwager.. business organizations (e. Zhan. 2002).

Despite the interesting findings and questions these studies provide. a study on educational technology acceptance using UTAUT (Gogus & Nistor. and how their perception and adoption decision change over time. Consistent with the original UTAUT model. 103). For example. they capture the users’ perception at one point only. Research that studies a technology familiar to the users. liu and Kostiwa (2007) studied “students’ perceptions of using Blackboard” (p. this study is examining new technologies that are introduced to the users and measures their first impression about it currently. The original UTAUT study focuses on user acceptance of technologies that are newly introduced to capture the user’s first perception and how that perception changes with increased experience of using the technology. rather. 103) when the students were already familiar with that technology and had been using it prior to the study. discussion forums and chat.The use of UTAUT in an educational environment is that some studies survey students on technologies that are not newly introduced to them. 2012) studied “the computer as a learning tool. . contrary to the original UTAUT study. communication and interaction between internet users” (p. The authors reported that “the study did not find strong support for the UTAUT model” (p. well after the users’ acceptance or rejection decision. are not longitudinal studies that evaluate user acceptance over time. they do not follow the same methodology as the original UTAUT study with regards to the timing of the survey. 398) which also includes email. Another study by Marchewka. information search on the internet. with specific references to office software.

Figure 3 presents the research model with hypothesised relationships between UTAUT constructs. The following hypothesis is proposed: H1: Performance expectancy is related to attitudes toward using EPSA . Performance expectancy is the degree to which an individual believes that using EPSA will help him or her to attain gains in motivation.

the following hypothesis is proposed: H2: Performance expectancy is related to behavioural intentions. . It has been shown by Venkatesh et al. So. Therefore. that performance expectancy is the strongest predictor of intention to use a technology. Venkatesh et al. Accordingly. The perceived ease of use assumes that a system perceived to be easier to use is more likely to induce perception of usefulness and behavioural intention. Effort expectancy is the degree of ease associated with the use of a system (EPSA). . the next hypothesis is proposed : H3: Effort expectancy is related to attitudes towards using EPSA. H6: Social influence is positively related to behavioural intention. Social influence is the degree to which an individual perceives that important people believe they should use the new system. the following hypotheses are proposed: H5: Social influence is positively related to attitudes towards using EPSA. the following hypothesis are formulated: H4: Effort expectancy is related to behavioural intention.. Accordingly. stated that social influence as a direct determinant of behavioural intention is represented as a subjective norm in various. [16].

Morris.. Gordon B. 2010 . the following hypothesis is suggested: H8: Attitudes toward use is related to behavioural intention. Abdulwahab and Dahalin. The behavioural intention is a significant determinant of actual use of technology in different intention models. Michael G. 1. Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed: H7: Facilitating conditions is related to use of EPSA. The construct facilitating conditions stands for the factors and resources that an individual believes exist to support their activities. Davis. Davis. therefore the following hypothesis is proposed: H9: Behavioural intention is related to actual use of the Moodle system. 2. enjoyment. So. Viswanath. It stands for an individual’s liking.. Venkatesh. MIS Quarterly 27 (3): 425–478.Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an organisational and technical infrastructure exists to support the use of a system. joy and pleasure associated with technology use. Attitude toward using technology is an individual’s overall affective reaction to using a system. (2003-01-01). The attitude toward using a system has been shown as a determinant of behavioural intention in different studies. "User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View". Fred D.