Factors Influencing Pupils' Acceptance of an E-Learning System for Secondary Schools

Abstract

The present study aims at investigating which factors are significant for pupils' acceptance of an E-Learning system introduced into secondary schools. The E-Learning system consisted of interactive learning modules for several school subjects and a Learning Management System (LMS). Research on IT acceptance and attitudes guided the specification of independent variables as predictors of acceptance. Survey data were collected from 125 pupils from 8 German high schools in January and July 2005. Results from a three-step hierarchical regression reveal that perceived usefulness was a significant positive predictor of pupils' acceptance, with perceived usefulness of the LMS having the greatest weight. Computer related attitude, self-efficacy, and gender had negligible or no influence on acceptance. The final regression model accounted for approximately 51% of the variance in the outcome measure. The findings indicate the critical importance of perceived usefulness in predicting pupils' acceptance of the E-Learning system, as is likewise known from acceptance research on IT at the work place.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

Anderson

D. K.

, & Reed

W. M.

(1998). The effects of Internet instruction, prior computer experience, and learning style on teachers' Internet attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(3), 227–246.

Astleitner

, & Steinberg

(2005). Are there gender differences in web-based learning? An integrated model and related effect sizes. AACE Journal, 13(1), 47–63.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bates

, & Khasawneh

(2007). Self-efficacy and college students' perceptions and use of online learning systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 175–191.

Cohen

, & Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Compeau

D. R.

Higgins

C. A.

, & Huff

(1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145–158.

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–339.

Davis

F. D.

Bagozzi

R. P.

, & Warshaw

P. R.

(1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.

10.

Dillon

(2001). User acceptance of information technology. In Karwowski

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1181–1184). London: Taylor & Francis.

11.

Durndell

, & Haag

(2002). Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towards the Internet and reported experience with the Internet, by gender, in an East European sample. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 521–535.

12.

Ertmer

P. A.

(2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.

13.

Felix

(2001). A multivariate analysis of students' experience of web-based learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 17(1), 21–36.

14.

Gardner

D. G.

Dukes

R. L.

, & Discenza

(1993). Computer use, self-confidence, and attitudes: A causal analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 9(4), 427–440.

15.

Gunn

McSporran

Macleod

, & French

(2003). Dominant or different? Gender issues in computer supported learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 14–30.

16.

Hron

, & Friedrich

H. F.

(2008). Das Projekt “Digitate Oberstufe” (DigiO): Erprobung eines internetbasierten integrierten Lehr-/Lernsystems [The “Digital Senior High School”-project (DigiO): Testing of an Internet-based learning system]. Computer + Unterricht, 69, 50–53.

17.

Joshi

(1991). A model of users' perspective on change: The case of information technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229–242.

18.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

19.

Karahanna

Agarwal

, & Angst

C. M.

(2006). Reconceptualizing compatibility beliefs in technology acceptance research. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 781–804.

20.

Karatzias

Power

K. G.

Flemming

Lennan

, & Swanson

(2002). The role of demographics, personality variables and school stress on predicting school satisfaction/dissatisfaction: Review of the literature and research findings. Educational Psychology, 22(1), 33–50.

21.

Koohang

(1989). A study of attitudes toward computers: Anxiety, confidence, liking, and perception of usefulness. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(2), 137–150.

22.

Kozma

, & Anderson

(2002). Qualitative case studies of innovative pedagogical practices using ICT. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(4), 387–394.

23.

Kunter

Schümer

Artelt

Baumert

Klieme

Neubrand

(2002). PISA 2000: Dokumentation der Erhebungsinstrumente [PISA 2000: Documentation of research instruments]. (Materialien aus der Bildungsforschung Nr. 72). Berlin: Max-Plank-Institut für Bildungsforschung.

24.

Langer

Schulz von Thun

, & Tausch

(2002). Sich verständlich ausdrücken [Express yourself clearly] (7th ed.). München: Ernst Reinhardt Verlag.

25.

Law

Pelgrum

W. J.

, & Plomp

(2008). Pedagogy and ICT use in schools around the world: Findings from the IEA SITES 2006 study. Hong Kong: CERC-Springer.

26.

Lee

M. K. O.

Cheung

C. M. K.

, & Chen

Z. C.

(2005). Acceptance of Internet-based learning medium: The role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information & Management, 42(8), 1095–1104.

27.

Mathieson

(1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 173–191.

28.

Ong

C. S.

, & Lai

J. Y.

(2006). Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 816–829.

29.

Panero

J. C.

Lane

D. M.

, & Napier

H. A.

(1997). The computer use scale: Four dimensions of how people use computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(4), 297–315.

30.

Peng

Tsai

C.-C.

, & Wu

Y.-T.

(2006). University students' self-efficacy and their attitudes toward the Internet: The role of students' perceptions of the Internet. Educational Studies, 32(1), 73–86.

31.

Shashaani

(1997). Gender differences in computer attitudes and use among college students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 16(1), 37–51.

32.

Tuovinen

J. E.

(2007). The effects of ICT standards on educational motivation and learning: The Australian experience. In McInerney

D. M.

van Etten

, & Dawson

(Eds.), Standards in education (pp. 147–171). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

33.

Venkatesh

, & Davis

F. D.

(2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

34.

Venkatesh

, & Morris

M. G.

(2000). Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behaviour. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139.

35.

Venkatesh

Morris

M. G.

Davis

, & Davis

F. D.

(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

36.

Whitley

B. E.

(1997). Gender differences in computer-related attitudes and behaviour: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 13(1), 1–22.

37.

M. Y.

, & Hwang

(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.