Exploring E-Learning Acceptance among University Students in Thailand: A National Survey

Abstract

This study surveys the e-learning acceptance of university students in Thailand. One thousand nine hundred and eighty-one (1,981) participants completed the E-Learning Acceptance Measure (Teo, 2010) which measures three constructs that predict e-learning acceptance (tutor quality, perceived usefulness, and facilitating conditions). Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling (SEM). The results of this study showed that the three constructs were significant predictors of e-learning acceptance. Further analysis with MIMIC (multiple indicators, multiple causes) modeling revealed that university students' e-learning acceptance was significantly different by age and perceived technology competence. Younger students and those who perceived themselves to be technologically more competent reported a higher level of e-learning acceptance than older students and those who perceived themselves as less competent in using technology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Afshari

Bakar

K. A.

Luan

W. S.

Samah

B. A.

Fooi

F. S.

(2008). School leadership and information communication technology. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 7(4), 82–91.

Bhatiasevi

(2011). Acceptance of e-learning for users in higher education: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. The Social Sciences, 6, 513–520.

Bhuasiri

Xaymoungkhoun

Rho

J. J.

Ciganek

A. P.

(2012). Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty. Computers & Education, 58(2), 843–855.

Cegarra-Navarro

Rodriguez

(2012). Factors affecting the use of an e-learning portal at university. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 85–103.

Chow

Herold

D. K.

Choo

T. M.

Chan

(2012). Extending the technology acceptance model to explore the intention to use Second Life for enhancing healthcare education. Computers & Education, 59, 1136–1144.

Commission on Higher Education, Thailand. (2007). Second long-term 15-year higher education plan (2008–2022). Retrieved from http://www.mua.go.th/∼bpp/developplan/download/long_range_plan/executive_report_eng.pdf

Davis

F. D.

(1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.

Dawson

(2006). Online forum discussion interactions as an indicator of student community. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(4), 495–510.

Duggan

Hess

Morgan

Kim

Wilson

(1999). Measuring students' attitude toward educational use of the Internet. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 429 117.)

10.

Friedrich

H. F.

Hron

(2010). Factors influencing pupils' acceptance of an e-learning system for secondary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42(1), 63–78.

11.

George

Mallery

(2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

12.

Groves

M. M.

Zemel

P. C.

(2000). Instructional technology adoption in higher education: An action research case study. International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(1), 57–65.

13.

Hair

J. F.

Black

Babin

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.

14.

Helsper

E. J.

Eynon

(2010). Digital natives: Where is the evidence? British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 503–520.

15.

Hoyle

R. H.

(2011). Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage.

16.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

17.

Johnson

E. M.

Cowie

De Lange

Falloon

Hight

Khoo

(2011). Adoption of innovative e-learning support for teaching: A multiple case study at the University of Waikato. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(3), 499–513.

18.

Joreskog

Goldberger

(1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of American Statistical Association, 70, 631–639.

19.

Kline

R. B.

(2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

20.

Laohajaratsang

(2010). e-Education in Thailand: Equity, quality and sensitivity for learners and teachers. Proceedings of Global Learning 2010 (pp. 694–700). Penang, Malaysia: AACE.

21.

Ranieri

(2010). Are “digital natives” really digitally competent? A study on Chinese teenagers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(6), 1029–1042.

22.

Liaw

S. S.

(2002). Understanding user perceptions of world-wide web environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(2), 137–148.

23.

Lin

Y.-M.

Lin

G.-Y.

Laffey

J. M.

(2008). Building a social and motivational framework for understanding satisfaction in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(1), 1–27.

24.

Luan

W. S.

Atan

Sabudin

(2010). Exploring teachers' perceptions of their pedagogical role with computers: A case study in Malaysia. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 388–391.

25.

Luan

W. S.

Teo

(2009). Investigating the technology acceptance among student teachers in Malaysia: An application of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(2), 261–272.

26.

Mardia

K. V.

(1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.

27.

Miller

M. T.

M. Y.

(2003). Serving non-traditional students in e-learning environments: Building successful communities in the virtual campus. Educational Media International, 40(1–2), 163–169.

28.

Moses

Khambari

M. N.

Luan

W. S.

(2008). Laptop use and its antecedents among educators: A review of literature. European Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 104–114.

29.

Porter

C. E.

Donthu

(2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59(9), 999–1007.

30.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.

31.

Raykov

Marcoulides

G. A.

(2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

Saekow

Samson

(2011). E-learning readiness of Thailand's universities comparing to the USA's cases. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 1(2), 126–131.

33.

Siritongthaworn

Krairit

Dimmitt

N. J.

Paul

(2006). The study of e-learning technology implementation: A preliminary investigation of universities in Thailand. Education and Information Technologies, 11(2), 137–160.

34.

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization. (2010). Report of the status of ICT integration in education in South East Asian countries. Retrieved from http://www.icde.org/filestore/Resources/Reports/SEAMEO_ICT-Integration-Education2010.pdf

35.

Suangpang

Petocz

(2006). E-learning in Thailand: An analysis and case study. International Journal on E-learning, 5(3), 415–438.

36.

Tan

(2013). Students' adoptions and attitudes towards electronic placement tests: A UTAUT analysis. American Journal of Computer Technology and Application, 1(1), 14–23.

37.

Teo

(2009a). Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers. Computers & Education, 52(1), 302–312.

38.

Teo

(2009b). The impact of subjective norm and facilitating conditions on pre-service teachers' attitude towards computer use: A structural equation modeling of an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 89–109.

39.

Teo

(2010). Development and validation of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM). The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 148–152.

40.

Teo

(2013). An initial development and validation of a Digital Natives Assessment Scale (DNAS). Computers and Education, 67, 51–57.

41.

Teo

Koh

J. H. L.

(2010). Assessing the dimensionality of computer self-efficacy among pre-service teachers in Singapore: A structural equation modeling approach. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 6(3), 7–18.

42.

Teo

Lee

C. B.

(2010). Explaining the intention to use technology among student teachers: An application of the Theory of Planned behaviour (TPB). Campus-Wide Information Systems, 27(2), 60–67.

43.

Teo

Noyes

(2014). Explaining the intention to use technology among educational users: A multi-group analysis of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Interactive Learning Environment, 22(1), 51–66.

44.

Teo

van Schaik

(2009). Understanding technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: A structural-equation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 18(1), 47–66.

45.

Teo

Wong

S. L.

(2013). Modeling key drivers of e-learning satisfaction among student teachers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 48(1), 71–95.

46.

Teo

Wong

S. L.

Thammetar

Chattiwat

(2011). Assessing e-learning acceptance by university students in Thailand. In Hong

K. S.

Lai

K. W.

(Eds.), ICT for accessible, effective and efficient higher education: Experiences of Southeast Asia. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(8), 1356–1368.

47.

Wang

Y. S.

M. C.

Wang

H. Y.

(2009). Investigating the determinants and age and gender differences in the acceptance of mobile learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 92–118.

48.

Wong

K. T.

Teo

Russo

(2012). Influence of gender and computer teaching efficacy on computer acceptance among Malaysian student teachers: An extended technology acceptance model. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(7), 1190–1207.

49.

Venkatesh

Morris

M. G.

Davis

G. B.

Davis

F. D.

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

50.

Yee

H. T.

Luan

W. S.

Ayub

A. F. M.

Mahmud

(2009). A review of the literature: Determinants of online learning among students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 246–252.