Caution Notice

Volume 7, Issue 1

Home / Journal / Browse Issues / Journal Of General Management Research /
Volume 7, Issue 1

Investigating Students’ Intentions to adopt MOOCs: An Application of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Author(s)

Arti Yadav and Kriti Priya Gupta

Affiliations

Symbiosis Centre for Management Studies, NOIDA

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to examine the predictors of students’ intentions to adopt Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). A model comprising of the constructs of “Technology Acceptance Model” (TAM), along with “computer self-efficacy” and gender of students is proposed to study the students’ behaviour towards adopting MOOCs. The study employs a descriptive research design wherein data pertaining to students’ perceptions were gathered from a convenience sample of 196 respondents. The respondents (students) were selected from a reputed higher educational institution (HEI) in the National Capital Region (NCR) of Delhi, using non-random sampling. The data were analysed using “Exploratory Factor Analysis” (EFA) and “Multiple Regression Analysis” (MRA). The findings indicate that both the constructs of TAM namely, “perceived usefulness” and “perceived ease of use”, as well as “computer self-efficacy”, are significant predictors of students’ behavioural intention to adopt MOOCs. However, the findings don’t indicate any role of gender in determining the students’ adoption intention of MOOCs.

Keywords

Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), Computer Self-Efficacy, Adoption Intention

References
  1. Aboshady, O. A., Radwan, A. E., Eltaweel, A. R., Azzam, A., Aboelnaga, A. A., Hashem, H. A., . . . Hassouna, A. (2015). Perception and use of massive open online courses among medical students in a developing country: Multicentre cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 5(1), e006804. https:/doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen- 2014-00680
  2. Al-Adwan, A., Al-Adwan, A., & Smedley, J. (2013). Exploring students’ acceptance of e- learning using Technology Acceptance Model in Jordanian universities. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology (IJEDICT), 9(2), 4–18
  3. Alario-Hoyos, C., Perez-Sanagustin, M., Delgado-Kloos, C., Parada G, H. A., & Munoz- Organero, M. (2014). Delving into participants’ profiles and use of social tools in MOOCs. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 260–266. https:/doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2014.231180
  4. Al-Al-hawari, M. A., & Mouakket, S. (2010). The influence of technology acceptance model (TAM) factors on students’ e-satisfaction and e- retention within the context of UAE e-learning. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 3(4), 299–314. https:/doi.org/10.1108/17537981011089596
  5. Barclay, C., & Logan, D. (2013). Towards an understanding of the implementation and adoption of massive online open courses (MOOCS) in a developing economy context. Paper presented at the In Proceedings Annual Workshop of the AIS Special Interest Group for ICT in Global Development, Milano, Italy
  6. Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with “technology-enhanced learning”? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. https:/doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.91585
  7. Belanger, Y., & Thornton, J. (2013). Bioelectricity: A quantitative approach Duke University’s first MOOC
  8. Brothers, P. (2017). MOOC learners in developing countries are vastly different than their developed world counterparts. Retrieved from https://medium.com/navitas- ventures/mooc-learners-in-developingcountries- are-vastly-different-than-their-developed-world- counterparts-1d7eb156bd4c
  10. Calonge, D. S., & Shah, M. A. (2016). MOOCs, graduate skills gaps, and employability: A qualitative systematic review of the literature. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(5), 67–90. https:/doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2675
  11. Chauhan, J. (2017). An overview of MOOC in India. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology, 49(2), 111–120. https:/doi.org/10.14445/22312803/IJCTT- V49P117
  12. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https:/doi.org/10.2307/249008
  13. Deimann, M. (2015). Current Issues in Emerging elearning the dark side of the MOOC- A critical inquiry on their claims and realities. Current Issues in Emerging Elearning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://umb.edu/ciee/vol2/iss1/3.
  14. Diver, P., & Martinez, I. (2015). MOOCs as a massive research laboratory: Opportunities and challenges. Distance Education, 36(1), 5–25. https:/doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.1019968
  15. Fianu, E., Blewett, C., Ampong, G. O. A., & Ofori, K. S. (2018). Factors affecting MOOC usage by students in selected Ghanaian universities. Education Sciences, 8(2), 1–15. https:/doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020070
  16. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https:/doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  17. de Freitas, S. I., Morgan, J., & Gibson, D. (2015). Will MOOCs transform learning and teaching in higher education? Engagement and course retention in online learning provision. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(3), 455–471. https:/doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12268
  18. Gao, S., & Yang, Y. (2015). Exploring users’ adoption of MOOCs from the perspective of the institutional theory. In WHICEB. Proceedings, 2015, (282–290).
  19. Gupta, K. P. (2019). Investigating the adoption of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of technology-user-environment framework and self-determination theory. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 17(4), 355– 375. https:/doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-06-2019-0033
  20. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  21. Hartman, J., Moskal, P., & Dziuban, C. (2005). Educating the next generation.
  22. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https:/doi.org/ 10.1080/10705519909540118
  23. Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses. Learning, 15(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/vi ew/1651. https:/doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i1.1651
  24. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441–450. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008
  25. Khan, I. U., Hameed, Z., Yu, Y., Islam, T., Sheikh, Z., & Khan, S. U. (2018). Predicting the acceptance of MOOCs in a developing country: Application of Task-Technology Fit Model, Social Motivation, and self-determination Theory. Telematics and Informatics, 35(4), 964–978. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.09.009
  26. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  27. 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), 191–204. https:/doi.org/10.1016/S0378- 7206(01)00143-4
  28. Ma, L., & Lee, C. S. (2019). Investigating the adoption of MOOCs: A technology–user– environment perspective. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(1), 89–98. https:/doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12314
  29. Mohamad, M., & Rahim, M. K. I. A. (2018). Factors influencing MOOCs continuance intention in Malaysia: A proposed conceptual framework. Journal of Humanities, Language, Culture and Business, 2(7), 61–72.
  30. Mulder, F., & Janssen, B. (2013). Opening up education. Trend report. Open Educational Resources, 36–42.
  31. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., Liao, J. Y. C., Sadik, O., & Ertmer, P. (2018). Evolution of teachers’ technology integration knowledge, beliefs, and practices: How can we support beginning teacher’s use of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(4), 282–304, https:/doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2018.1487350
  32. Palos-Sanchez, P., Saura, J. R., Reyes- Menendez, A., & Esquivel, I. V. (2018). Users’ acceptance of location-based marketing apps in tourism sector: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 6(3), 258–270.
  33. Park, S. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students’ Behavioural Intention to Use e- learning. Education Technology & Society, 12(3), 150–162.
  34. Park, S. H., & Ertmer, P. A. (2007). Impact of problem-based learning (PBL) on teachers’ beliefs regarding technology use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 247–267. https:/doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2007.1078250 7
  35. Reich, J. (2015). Rebooting MOOC research. Science, 347(6217), 34–35. https:/doi.org/10.1126/science.1261627
  36. Reich, J., & Ruipérez-Valiente, J. A. (2019). The MOOC pivot. Science, 363(6423), 130– 131. https:/doi.org/10.1126/science.aav7958
  37. Sandeen, C. (2013). Integrating MOOCs into traditional higher education: The emerging “MOOC 3.0” era. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(6), 34–39. https:/doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2013.842103
  38. Saunders, M. N. (2011). ‘Research Methods for Business Students’, 5/e. India: Pearson Education.
  39. Sun, Y., & Jeyaraj, A. (2013). Information Technology adoption and continuance: A longitudinal study of individuals’ behavioral intentions. Information and Management, 50(7), 457–465. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.07.005
  40. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal filed studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https:/doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
  41. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M., Davis, G., & Davis, F. (2003). User acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https:/doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  42. Wani, T. A., & Ali, S. W. (2015). Innovation diffusion theory: Review and scope in the study of adoption of smartphones in India. Journal of General Management Research, 2(2), 98–115.
  43. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67(February), 221–232. https:/doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028
  44. Wu, B., & Chen, X. (2017). Continuance intention to use MOOCs: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 221–232. https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028
  45. Yi, M. Y., & Hwang, Y. (2003). Predicting the use of web-based information systems: Self- efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(4), 431–449. https:/doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00114-9
  46. Zhou, G., & Xu, J. (2007). Adoption of educational technology: How does gender matter? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 140–153.

Quick Links