Tablet Personal Computer Integration in Higher Education: Applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and use Technology Model to Understand Supporting Factors
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2010
Tablet Personal Computer Integration in Higher Education: Applying the Unified Theory of Acceptance and use Technology Model to Understand Supporting Factors
Many educational institutions have implemented ubiquitous or required laptop, notebook, or tablet personal computing programs for their students. Yet, limited evidence exists to validate integration and acceptance of the technology among student populations. This research examines student acceptance of mobile computing devices using a modification of the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” (UTAUT) recently developed by leading researchers in the technology acceptance field. The objective of the study is to identify the variance of selected acceptance elements that contribute to the overall behavioral intent to use Tablet PCs (TPC). These outcomes are then used as a means to forecast, explain, and improve integration of the technology in the higher education context. The research also contributes to UTAUT's theoretical validity and empirical applicability and to the management of information technology (IT) based initiatives in education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
BanduraA. (1977). Social learning theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BauerJ., & KentonJ. (2005). Toward technology integration in schools: Why it isn't happening. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(4), 519–546.
6.
BolickC. M.BersonM. J.FriedmanA. M., & PorfeliE. J. (2007). Diffusion of technology innovation in the preservice social studies experience: Results of a national survey. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 174–195.
CambreM., & HawkesM. (2004). Toys, tools, and teachers: The challenges of technology.Scarecrow Education Press.
9.
CampbellD. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.
10.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: Rand McNally.
11.
ChinW. (1996). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 296–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12.
ChinW. W.MarcolinB. L., & NewstedP. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
13.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14.
CompeauD. R., & HigginsC. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189–211.
15.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P., & WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
16.
DruckerM. J. (2006). Commentary: Crossing the digital divide: How race, class, and culture matter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 6(1), 43–45.
ErM., & KayR. (2005, July). Mobile technology adoption for mobile information systems: An activity theory perspective. IEEE International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB), Sydney, Australia.
19.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.
20.
FishbeinM., & AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
FranklinC. A., & MolebashP. E. (2007). Technology in the elementary social studies classroom: Teacher preparation does matter. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(2), 153–173.
22.
FornellC., & LarckerD. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
23.
GulekJ. C., & DemirtasH. (2005). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop use on student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(2), 1–31. http://www.jtla.org
24.
HategekimanaC.HawkesM.El-GayarO., & ChristophR. (2005). The effects of wireless mobile computing on course performance: A course comparison and participant perception analysis. Unpublished thesis, Dakota State University. Madison, South Dakota.
25.
HewK. F., & BrushT. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
26.
HorsleyD., & LoucksH. S. (1998). CBAM brings order to the tornado of change. Journal of Staff Development, 19, 4.
27.
HuP. J.ChauP. Y.ShengO. R. L., & TamK. Y. (1999). Examining the Technology Acceptance Model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.
28.
HughesJ. E., & OomsA. (2004). Content-focused technology inquiry groups: Preparing urban teachers to integrate technology to transform student learning. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 397–411.
29.
JailletA. (2004). What is happening with portable computers in schools?Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 115–128.
30.
JarvisC. B.MacKenzieS. B., & PodsakoffP. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 199–218.
31.
JonassenD. H.HowlandJ.MooreJ., & MarraR. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
32.
JudgeS.PuckettK., & CabukB. (2004). Digital equity: New findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383–396.
33.
KnezekG., & ChristensenR. (2005). Student findings from the spring 2005 Irving laptop survey.University of North Texas: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning.
34.
LaneD. M. M. (2003, April). The Maine Learning Technology Initiative: Impact on students and learning. Occasional Paper #1. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine Center for Education Policy, Applied Research, and Evaluation.
35.
LawlessK. A., & PellegrinoJ. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77, 575–614.
36.
LegrisP.InghamJ., & ColleretteP. (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information and Management, 40, 191–204.
37.
LightD.McDermottM., & HoneyM. (2002). Project Hiller: The impact of ubiquitous portable technology on an urban school. New York: Center for Children and Technology, Education Development Center.
38.
LowtherD.RossS., & MorrisonG. (2003). When each one has one: The influences on teaching strategies and student achievement of using laptops in the classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51(3), 23–44.
39.
MeisterD. B., & CompeauD. R. (2002). Infusion of innovation adoption: An individual perspective. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ASAC.
40.
MouzaC. (2006). Learning with laptops: The impact of one-to-one computing on student attitudes and classroom perceptions. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Learning Sciences (pp. 488–494). International Society of the Learning Sciences, Bloomington, Indiana.
41.
NewbyT. J.StepichD. A.LehmanJ. D., & RussellJ. D. (2006). Educational technology for teaching and learning. Saddle River, NJ: Pearson: Merrill, Prentice-Hall.
42.
NorrisC., & SolowayE. (2004). Envisioning the handheld centric classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 281–294.
43.
NunnallyJ., & BernsteinI. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
44.
PenuelW. (2006). Implementation and effects of one-to-one computing initiatives: A research synthesis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 329–348.
45.
PenuelW. R.KimD. Y.MichalchikV.LewisS.MeansB., & MurphyB. (2001). Using technology to enhance connections between home and school: A research synthesis.Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
46.
PijpersG. (2001). Executives' use of information technology: An examination of factors influencing managerial beliefs, attitude and use of information technology. Information and Software Technology, 43(15), 959–971.
47.
PlouffeC. R.HullandJ. S., & VandenboschM. (2001). Research report: Richness versus parsimony in modeling technology adoption decisions—Understanding merchant adoption of a smart card-based payment systems. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 208–222.
RoblyerM. D., & EdwardsJ. (2001). Integrating educational technology into teaching.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
50.
RockmanS. (2003). Learning with laptops. Threshold Magazine, 1(1), 24–28.
51.
RogersE. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
52.
SchaumburgH. (2001, June). Fostering girls' computer literacy through laptop learning. Paper presented at the National Educational Computing Conference, Chicago, Illinois.
53.
SegarsA. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25(1), 107–121.
54.
SingletonR. A., & StraitsB. C. (2004). Approaches to social research (4th ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
55.
StraubD. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 146–169.
56.
StraubD.BoudreauM.-C., & GefenD. (2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380–426.
57.
SurryD. W., & LandS. M. (2000). Strategies for motivating higher education faculty to use technology. Innovations in Education & Training International, 37(2), 145–153.
58.
SwainC., & PearsonT. (2003). Educators and technology standards: Influencing the digital divide. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(3), 326–335.
59.
SwanK.van't HooftM., & KratcoskiA. (2005). Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K–8 classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(1), 99–112.
60.
TaylorS., & ToddP. (1995). Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 561–570.
61.
TrimmelM., & BachmannJ. (2004). Cognitive, social, motivational and health aspects of students in laptop classrooms. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20(2), 151–158.
62.
VallerandR. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.New York: Academic Press.
63.
van't HooftM., & SwanK. (2007). Ubiquitous computing in education: Invisible technology, visible impact. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
64.
VenkateshV., & DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
65.
VenkateshV.MorrisM.DavisG., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
66.
WeiserM. (1998). The future of ubiquitous computing on campus. Communications of the ACM, 41, 41–42.
67.
WixonB., & WatsonH. J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factor affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17.
68.
ZhangP.LiN., & SunH. (2006, January). Affective quality and cognitive absorption: Extending technology acceptance research. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, Hawaii.
69.
ZuckerA., & McGheeR. (2005). A study of one-to-one computer use in mathematics and science instruction at the secondary level in Henrico County Public Schools. Menlo Park: SRI.
