Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.83.6.355-359

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Technology Acceptance in an Academic Context:

Faculty Acceptance of Online Education

Shanan G. Gibson , Michael L. Harris & Susan M. Colaric

To cite this article: Shanan G. Gibson , Michael L. Harris & Susan M. Colaric (2008) Technology Acceptance in an Academic Context: Faculty Acceptance of Online Education, Journal of Education for Business, 83:6, 355-359, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.83.6.355-359

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.83.6.355-359

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 186

View related articles

฀ ฀ 355 mployees฀ tasked฀ with฀ using฀ new฀

technologies฀ seldom฀ whole-heartedly฀ welcome฀ the฀ organizational฀ changes฀ associated฀ with฀ them.฀ Online฀ education฀embodies฀a฀shift฀away฀from฀ traditional,฀ classroom-based฀ teaching฀ activities฀typically฀associated฀with฀uni- versity฀education฀toward฀a฀technologi-cal฀ realm฀ where฀ teaching฀ requires฀ the฀ use฀ of฀ computers฀ equipped฀ with฀ spe-cialized฀course฀software฀systems,฀both฀ synchronous฀ and฀ asynchronous฀ com-puter฀ applications,฀ and฀ the฀ frequent฀ frustrations฀ associated฀ with฀ depen-dence฀on฀the฀Internet.฀Online฀education฀ represents฀a฀dramatic฀step฀for฀universi-ties—one฀that฀may฀be฀characterized฀as฀ analogous฀to฀many฀organizations’฀tech-nology-based฀ change฀ initiatives.฀As฀ in฀ other฀ organizations,฀ university฀ admin- istrators฀frequently฀view฀these฀techno-logical฀changes฀as฀being฀a฀requirement฀ for฀ providing฀ one’s฀ product฀ or฀ service฀ on฀demand,฀reaching฀a฀broader฀demo-graphic,฀ and฀ sustaining฀ one’s฀ com-petitive฀ advantage฀ in฀ an฀ increasingly฀ competitive฀ market.฀ However,฀ despite฀ the฀ perceived฀ necessity฀ of฀ new฀ and฀ sophisticated฀technology,฀the฀end฀users฀ of฀ such฀ technology฀ may฀ not฀ readily฀ embrace฀ such฀ tools.฀ Our฀ study฀ exam-ines฀ the฀ degree฀ to฀ which฀ the฀ technol-ogy฀ acceptance฀ model฀ (TAM;฀ Davis,฀ 1989)฀ explains฀ the฀ acceptance฀ of฀ new฀ technology,฀ operationalized฀ as฀ online฀ education,฀by฀faculty฀in฀both฀a฀college฀

of฀business฀and฀a฀college฀of฀education฀ at฀a฀large฀regional฀university.฀

The฀Technology฀Acceptance฀ Model฀

Organizational฀change฀is฀not฀easy฀to฀ accomplish,฀ and฀ technological฀ changes฀ cannot฀ be฀ implemented฀ without฀ resis-tance.฀ The฀ implementation฀ of฀ new฀ technology฀ is฀ recognized฀ by฀ many฀ as฀ an฀ event฀ characterized฀ by฀ fear฀ of฀ the฀ unknown,฀ concern฀ over฀ organizational฀ changes฀and฀their฀implications,฀and฀crit-icism฀from฀many฀constituents.฀Specific฀ to฀online฀education,฀Cohen฀and฀Lippert฀ (1999)฀commented฀that฀computer-based฀ instruction฀ “may฀ be฀ useful฀ for฀ skills-based฀training฀but฀may฀not฀be฀useful฀for฀ creative-thinking฀ instruction฀ or฀ general฀ management฀education”฀(p.฀745).

Davis’฀TAM฀(1989)฀has฀been฀the฀dom- inant฀theory฀associated฀with฀understand-ing฀ this฀ phenomenon฀ and฀ remains฀ an฀ important฀and฀viable฀tool฀for฀researchers฀ in฀ this฀ arena.฀ We฀ based฀ our฀ research฀ model฀ on฀ the฀ TAM฀ not฀ only฀ because฀ it฀ is฀a฀well-accepted,฀theoretically฀ground-ed,฀general฀model฀of฀user฀acceptance฀of฀ new฀ information฀ technologies,฀ but฀ also฀ because฀it฀has฀been฀used฀in฀prior฀manage-ment฀education฀research฀(Arbaugh,฀2000;฀ Martins฀&฀Kellermanns,฀2004).฀Accord-ing฀ to฀ the฀ TAM,฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ and฀ perceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ are฀ hypoth-esized฀ and฀ empirically฀ supported฀ as฀ the฀

Technology฀Acceptance฀in฀an฀Academic฀

Context:฀Faculty฀Acceptance฀of฀Online฀

Education

SHANAN฀G.฀GIBSON฀ MICHAEL฀L.฀HARRIS

EAST฀CAROLINA฀UNIVERSITY GREENVILLE,฀NORTH฀CAROLINA

E

ABSTRACT. The฀authors฀surveyed฀

faculty฀from฀a฀college฀of฀business฀and฀a฀ college฀of฀education฀regarding฀their฀atti-tudes฀toward฀online฀education.฀Results฀of฀ the฀survey฀were฀examined฀to฀determine฀ the฀degree฀to฀which฀the฀technology฀accep-tance฀model฀was฀able฀to฀adequately฀explain฀ faculty฀acceptance฀of฀online฀education.฀ Results฀indicate฀that฀perceived฀usefulness฀ is฀a฀strong฀indicator฀of฀faculty฀acceptance;฀ however,฀perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀offers฀little฀ additional฀predictive฀power฀beyond฀that฀ contributed฀by฀perceived฀usefulness฀of฀ online฀education฀technology.฀

Keywords:฀distance฀education,฀online฀edu-cation,฀technology฀acceptance

฀

Copyright฀©฀2008฀Heldref฀Publications

SUSAN฀M.฀COLARIC SAINT฀LEO฀UNIVERSITY SAINT฀LEO,฀FLORIDA

fundamental฀determinants฀of฀user฀accep-tance฀ of฀ a฀ given฀ new฀ technology.฀ Per-ceived฀usefulness฀is฀defined฀as฀the฀extent฀ to฀ which฀ a฀ person฀ believes฀ that฀ using฀ a฀ particular฀technology฀will฀enhance฀his฀or฀ her฀job฀performance,฀and฀perceived฀ease฀ of฀use฀is฀defined฀as฀the฀degree฀to฀which฀ a฀ person฀ believes฀ that฀ using฀ the฀ system฀ will฀be฀free฀from฀effort฀(Davis).฀In฀TAM฀ research,฀ user฀ acceptance฀is฀ character- ized฀as฀a฀combination฀of฀a฀positive฀atti-tude฀toward฀the฀technology,฀intention฀to฀ use฀ the฀ system,฀ and฀ actual฀ use฀ of฀ the฀ system฀ (Davis;฀ Taylor฀ &฀ Todd,฀ 1995).฀ The฀ TAM’s฀ utility฀ is฀ evidenced฀ by฀ the฀ numerous฀ modifications฀ and฀ augmenta-tions฀that฀have฀been฀made฀by฀researchers฀ to฀ address฀ the฀ question฀ of฀ technology฀ acceptance฀ as฀ it฀ relates฀ to฀ several฀ vari-ables.฀Gefen฀and฀Straub฀(1997)฀used฀the฀ TAM฀ and฀ concluded฀ that฀ women฀ and฀ men฀ differ฀ in฀ their฀ perceptions,฀ but฀ not฀ use,฀of฀e-mail,฀and฀Venkatesh฀and฀Morris฀ (2000)฀identified฀gender฀differences฀with฀ regard฀to฀the฀relative฀impact฀of฀perceived฀ usefulness฀ and฀ perceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ in฀ predicting฀ technology฀ acceptance.฀ User฀ inexperience฀has฀also฀been฀found฀to฀play฀ a฀role฀in฀the฀relative฀predictive฀power฀of฀ the฀TAM’s฀central฀constructs฀of฀ease฀of฀ use฀and฀usefulness฀(Taylor฀&฀Todd).฀

Although฀ technology฀ acceptance฀ research฀has฀made฀valuable฀inroads฀into฀ the฀complexities฀of฀how฀and฀why฀humans฀ choose฀to฀accept฀or฀reject฀technology— and฀the฀pace฀at฀which฀that฀acceptance฀or฀ rejection฀ occurs—many฀ of฀ the฀ studies฀ using฀ the฀TAM฀ or฀ some฀ variant฀ thereof฀ have฀centered฀on฀the฀technology฀accep-1995;฀ Veiga,฀ Floyd,฀ &฀ Dechant,฀ 2001;฀ Venkatesh฀ &฀ Morris,฀ 2000).฀ University฀ faculty฀ represent฀ an฀ unusual฀ (although฀ not฀ unique)฀ population—individuals฀ who฀ are฀ highly฀ educated,฀ accustomed฀ to฀ having฀ considerable฀ autonomy,฀ and฀ who฀ frequently฀ work฀ in฀ highly฀ politi-cized฀ environments.฀ Studying฀ technol-ogy฀acceptance฀operationalized฀as฀online฀ education฀represents฀a฀distinct฀contribu-tion฀to฀this฀research฀field;฀the฀technology,฀ user฀ group,฀ and฀ organizational฀ context฀ are฀all฀new฀to฀the฀technology฀acceptance฀ in฀ industry).฀ We฀ examined฀ the฀ accep-tance฀ of฀ disaccep-tance฀ education฀ as฀ defined฀ by฀ Bourdeau฀ and฀ Bates฀ (1997):฀ educa-tion฀that฀is฀computer-based,฀remote,฀or฀ asynchronous฀ and฀ supported฀ by฀ some฀ instructional฀ system.฀ We฀ use฀ the฀ term฀ online฀ education฀ to฀ more฀ specifically฀ describe฀ the฀ nature฀ of฀ distance฀ educa-tion฀considered฀herein.

For฀ universities฀ and฀ colleges,฀ online฀ education฀ provides฀ the฀ opportunity฀ to฀ serve฀ more฀ students฀ who฀ desire฀ an฀ education.฀ This฀ influx฀ of฀ students฀ is฀ typically฀ seen฀ as฀ encouraging,฀ because฀ although฀ there฀ are฀ additional฀ demands฀ placed฀on฀the฀technological฀systems฀of฀ the฀ organization฀ (e.g.,฀ computing฀ net-works,฀ new฀ hardware฀ and฀ software),฀ there฀ is฀ no฀ corresponding฀ demand฀ for฀ increased฀ physical฀ space฀ associated฀ with฀on-site฀students.฀This฀may฀result฀in฀ increased฀revenue฀from฀tuition฀with฀the฀ increased฀expenses฀related฀to฀technolo-gy฀supported฀by฀the฀new฀student฀body.

Faculty฀ frequently฀ express฀ apprehen-sion฀regarding฀online฀education฀because฀ of฀the฀technological฀problems฀associated฀ with฀delivering฀the฀material,฀which฀may฀ lead฀to฀student฀frustration฀and฀poor฀stu-dent฀evaluations.฀Faculty have also indi-cated฀ concerns฀ over฀ the฀ technological฀ competence฀ of฀ students฀ and฀ their฀ abil-ity฀ to฀ use฀ advanced฀ synchronous฀ online฀ tools฀(Perreault,฀Waldman,฀Alexander,฀&฀ Zhao,฀2002).฀Likewise,฀concerns฀related฀ to฀student฀learning฀and฀outcomes฀persist,฀ despite฀ several฀ indications฀ that฀ online฀ education฀ results฀ in฀ comparable,฀ if฀ not฀ better,฀educational฀results.฀Spooner,฀Jor-dan,฀ Algozzine,฀ and฀ Spooner’s฀ (1999)฀ summary฀ of฀ past฀ studies฀ that฀ compared฀ cognitive฀factors฀such฀as฀amount฀of฀learn-ing,฀ academic฀ performance,฀ achieve-ment,฀ and฀ examination฀ and฀ assignment฀ grades฀ in฀ distance฀ learning฀ and฀ campus฀ courses฀typically฀reflected฀no฀differences฀ in฀cognitive฀factors฀between฀the฀distance฀ and฀traditional฀classes.

Objective฀of฀the฀Study

With฀the฀increasing฀demand฀for฀online฀ education฀ and฀ the฀ need฀ for฀ faculty฀ to฀

embrace฀ this฀ as฀ a฀ viable฀ teaching฀ tool,฀ user฀acceptance฀of฀technologically฀based฀ teaching฀is฀an฀important฀issue.฀Drawing฀ on฀earlier฀findings฀related฀to฀technology฀ acceptance,฀ our฀ research฀ extends฀ the฀ TAM฀ by฀ testing฀ its฀ efficacy฀ in฀ a฀ dis-tinctive฀ population฀ and฀ organizational฀ context.฀ However,฀ the฀ defining฀ charac-teristics฀discussed฀in฀this฀study฀are฀not฀ unique฀to฀one฀organization฀or฀industry;฀ therefore,฀ we฀ believe฀ the฀ findings฀ will฀ have฀far-reaching฀implications฀for฀many฀ organizations฀engaged฀in฀change฀initia- tives฀centered฀on฀technological฀innova-tion.฀Such฀insights฀can฀lead฀to฀new฀and฀ innovative฀ ways฀ to฀ mentor,฀ train,฀ and฀ motivate฀ technology฀ users฀ in฀ diverse฀ industries฀and฀organizations.

METHOD

Research฀Setting,฀Participants,฀ and฀Procedure

As฀ part฀ of฀ an฀ ongoing,฀ multiphase฀ research฀endeavor฀examining฀online฀edu-cation฀and฀learning,฀faculty฀associated฀with฀ both฀a฀college฀of฀business฀and฀a฀college฀of฀ education฀from฀a฀large฀regional฀university฀ were฀ asked฀ to฀ complete฀ an฀ anonymous฀ survey฀ regarding฀ their฀ perceptions฀ of฀ online฀education.฀The฀response฀rate฀for฀the฀ survey฀was฀46.8%;฀110฀completed฀surveys฀ (52%฀men,฀45%฀women,฀3%฀undisclosed)฀ were฀ received฀ from฀ the฀ 235฀ faculty฀ who฀ were฀ invited฀ to฀ participate.฀ The฀ average฀ age฀of฀faculty฀participants฀was฀48฀years,฀ professors,฀ and฀ 6%฀ reported฀ some฀ other฀ status฀or฀rank.฀Approximately฀28%฀of฀par-ticipants฀reported฀teaching฀undergraduate฀ courses฀ online,฀ and฀ 49%฀ reported฀ teach-ing฀graduate฀courses฀online.

Survey฀Questions

The฀ survey฀ instrument฀ used฀ for฀ the฀ current฀ study฀ was฀ based฀ on฀ questions฀ derived฀ from฀ Davis’฀TAM฀ (1989).฀ Par- ticipants฀responded฀to฀questions฀measur-ing฀ the฀ central฀ constructs฀ of฀ the฀ TAM;฀

the฀perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀of฀online฀edu-cation฀ technologies฀ and฀ the฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ of฀ online฀ education.฀ In฀ all฀ instances,฀ respondents฀ used฀ a฀ 5-point฀ Likert-type฀ scale฀ with฀ scores฀ ranging฀ from฀1฀(not฀at฀all)฀to฀5฀(very฀much฀so).฀ Both฀ the฀ Perceived฀ Ease฀ of฀ Use฀ Scale฀ and฀ the฀ Perceived฀ Usefulness฀ Scale฀ were฀ constructed฀ of฀ items฀ modified฀ to฀ specifically฀ reflect฀ online฀ education฀ as฀ the฀technology฀of฀interest.฀

To฀assess฀the฀criterion฀of฀technology฀ acceptance,฀ participants฀ were฀ asked฀ to฀ indicate฀the฀degree฀to฀which฀they฀agreed฀ with฀a฀statement฀assessing฀their฀intention฀ to฀use฀distance฀education฀technology฀in฀ the฀future.฀This฀is฀highly฀consistent฀with฀ previous฀ TAM฀ studies฀ that฀ have฀ used฀ intention฀to฀use฀technology฀as฀indicative฀ of฀technology฀acceptance฀(Ferren,฀2002;฀ Gefen฀&฀Straub,฀1997;฀Venkatesh,฀Mor-ris,฀Davis,฀&฀Davis,฀2003).฀

All฀ survey฀ items฀ and฀ corresponding฀ measures฀of฀internal฀validity฀are฀shown฀ in฀Table฀1.฀

RESULTS

Initial฀exploratory฀analyses฀examined฀ the฀ relationships฀ among฀ the฀ predictor฀

and฀ criterion฀ variables.฀ Table฀ 2฀ pres-ents฀the฀means,฀standard฀deviations,฀and฀ intercorrelations฀ of฀ all฀ variables฀ in฀ the฀ model.

To฀examine฀the฀degree฀to฀which฀both฀ perceived฀usefulness฀and฀perceived฀ease฀ of฀use฀were฀associated฀with฀online฀edu-cation฀ technology฀ acceptance,฀ we฀

con-ducted฀two฀separate฀multiple฀regression฀ procedures.฀ The฀ first฀ analysis฀ included฀ the฀ five฀ variables฀ associated฀ with฀ the฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ of฀ online฀ educa-tion฀ and฀ the฀ second฀ analysis฀ included฀ the฀ four฀ variables฀ associated฀ with฀ per-ceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ of฀ online฀ education฀ teaching฀ technologies.฀ The฀ regression฀

TABLE฀1.฀Survey฀Items

Predictor฀Items

฀ Perceived฀Ease฀of฀Use฀Items฀(α฀=฀.594)

฀ ฀ 1.฀ I฀find฀our฀online฀education฀resources฀(course฀management฀software,฀etc.)฀to฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ be฀easy฀to฀use.

฀ ฀ 2.฀ It฀is฀not฀easy฀for฀me฀to฀become฀more฀skillful฀in฀using฀the฀online฀education฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ technology฀(reverse฀scored).

฀ ฀ 3.฀ I฀find฀it฀easy฀to฀get฀our฀course฀management฀software฀to฀do฀what฀I฀need฀it฀to฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ do฀in฀my฀classes.

฀ ฀ 4.฀ I฀find฀online฀education฀technology฀inflexible฀(reverse฀scored).

฀ Perceived฀Usefulness฀Items฀(α฀=฀.859)

฀ ฀ 1.฀ I฀find฀online฀education฀technology฀not฀useful฀for฀education฀(reverse฀scored). ฀ ฀ 2.฀ Online฀education฀will฀lower฀my฀teaching฀effectiveness฀in฀the฀long฀run฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ (reverse฀scored).

฀ ฀ 3.฀ Online฀education฀is฀not฀compatible฀with฀how฀I฀teach฀my฀courses฀(reverse฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ scored).

฀ ฀ 4.฀ Online฀education฀is฀an฀effective฀way฀for฀students฀to฀learn.

฀ ฀ 5.฀ Online฀education฀is฀an฀appropriate฀tool฀for฀professors฀to฀use฀as฀a฀teaching฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ medium.

Criterion฀Item

฀ 1.฀ Assuming฀that฀I฀have฀the฀opportunity,฀I฀will฀teach฀online฀courses฀as฀much฀as฀ ฀ ฀ possible.

TABLE฀2.฀Means,฀Standard฀Deviations,฀and฀Intercorrelations฀of฀Predictor฀and฀Criterion฀Variables

Variable฀ M฀ SD฀ 1฀ 2฀ 3฀ 4฀ 5฀ 6฀ 7฀ 8฀ 9฀ 10 ฀ 1.฀I฀find฀our฀online฀education฀resources฀฀

฀ ฀ (course฀management฀software,฀etc.)฀฀

฀ ฀ to฀be฀easy฀to฀use.฀ 3.80฀ 0.79฀ —฀ .21฀ .12฀ .58฀ .53฀ .46฀ .70฀ .55฀ .55฀ .34 ฀ 2.฀It฀is฀not฀easy฀for฀me฀to฀become฀more฀฀

฀ ฀ skillful฀in฀using฀the฀online฀education฀฀

฀ ฀ technology.฀ 3.72฀ 1.05฀ ฀ —฀ .20฀ .17฀ .19฀ .16฀ .29฀ .18฀ .07฀ .21 ฀ 3.฀I฀find฀it฀easy฀to฀get฀our฀course฀฀

฀ ฀ management฀software฀to฀do฀what฀I฀฀

฀ ฀ need฀it฀to฀do฀in฀my฀classes.฀ 3.71฀ 1.03฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .02฀ –.09฀ –.01฀ –.02฀ .012฀ .12฀ .12 ฀ 4.฀I฀find฀online฀education฀technology฀฀

฀ ฀ inflexible.฀ 4.03฀ 0.96฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .76฀ .46฀ .58฀ .57฀ .51฀ .58 ฀ 5.฀I฀find฀online฀education฀technology฀not฀฀

฀ ฀ useful฀for฀education.฀ 4.08฀ 0.85฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .59฀ .58฀ .52฀ .52฀ .53 ฀ 6.฀Online฀education฀will฀lower฀my฀฀

฀ ฀ teaching฀effectiveness฀in฀the฀long฀run.฀ 3.32฀ 1.19฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .55฀ .53฀ .62฀ .46 ฀ 7.฀Online฀education฀is฀not฀compatible฀฀

฀ ฀ with฀how฀I฀teach฀my฀courses.฀ 3.47฀ 1.13฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .41฀ .46฀ .70 ฀ 8.฀Online฀education฀is฀an฀effective฀way฀฀

฀ ฀ for฀students฀to฀learn.฀ 4.14฀ 0.85฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .72฀ .56 ฀ 9.฀Online฀education฀is฀an฀appropriate฀฀

฀ ฀ tool฀for฀professors฀to฀use฀as฀a฀฀

฀ ฀ teaching฀medium.฀ 4.07฀ 0.95฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —฀ .55 ฀10.฀Assuming฀that฀I฀have฀the฀opportunity,฀฀

฀ ฀ I฀will฀teach฀online฀courses฀as฀much฀฀

฀ ฀ as฀possible.฀ 3.53฀ 1.25฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ —

equation฀ with฀ the฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ was฀ significant,฀R2_{฀ =฀ .587,฀ adjusted฀R}2_฀

=฀ .567,฀F(5,฀ 104)฀ =฀ 29.517,฀p฀ <฀ .01.฀ Likewise,฀ the฀ regression฀ equation฀ for฀ perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀was฀significant,฀R2_฀

=฀.363,฀adjusted฀R2_฀=฀

.

_{339,฀F(4,฀105)฀=฀}

14.986,฀p฀<฀.01.฀Based฀on฀these฀results,฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ measures฀ appear฀ to฀ be฀ better฀ predictors฀ of฀ technology฀ acceptance.

Next,฀ a฀ multiple฀ regression฀ analysis฀ was฀conducted฀with฀all฀of฀the฀perceived฀ usefulness฀and฀the฀perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀ measures฀as฀predictors.฀The฀linear฀com-bination฀ of฀ the฀ measures฀ was฀ signifi-cantly฀related฀to฀technology฀acceptance,฀ R2_{฀=฀.602,฀adjusted฀R}2_{฀=฀.567,฀F(4,฀105)฀}

=฀16.835,฀p฀ <฀.01.฀The฀perceived฀useful-ness฀ measures฀ predicted฀ self-reported฀ intention฀to฀use฀distance฀education฀tech-nology฀significantly฀over฀and฀above฀the฀ perceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ variables,฀∆R2_฀

=฀ .239,฀F(5,฀ 100)฀ =฀ 12.022,฀p฀<฀ .01,฀ but฀ the฀ perceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ variables฀ did฀ not฀ predict฀ significantly฀ over฀ and฀ above฀usefulness฀measures,฀∆R2_{฀=฀.016,฀}

F(4,฀ 100)฀ =฀ 0.993,฀p฀ =฀ .415.฀ Based฀ on฀ these฀results,฀the฀perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀ measures฀ offer฀ little฀ additional฀ predic-tive฀ power฀ beyond฀ that฀ contributed฀ by฀ knowledge฀ of฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ of฀ online฀teaching฀technology.

DISCUSSION

Although฀ previous฀ researchers฀ have฀ not฀used฀the฀TAM฀to฀examine฀university฀ faculty฀ acceptance฀ of฀ technology,฀ nor฀ online฀ education฀ in฀ particular,฀ similar฀ results฀ have฀ been฀ obtained฀ when฀ TAM฀ has฀ been฀ used฀ to฀ examine฀ technology฀ acceptance฀of฀other฀highly฀educated฀per-sons.฀Hu,฀Chau,฀Sheng,฀and฀Tam฀(1999)฀ focused฀ on฀ the฀ technology฀ acceptance฀ of฀physicians,฀a฀population฀with฀similar฀ characteristics฀ as฀ university฀ faculty.฀As฀ pointed฀ out฀ by฀ Hu฀ et฀ al.,฀ profession-als฀ might฀ subtly฀ differ฀ in฀ their฀ accep-tance฀ of฀ technology฀ when฀ compared฀ with฀individuals฀in฀an฀ordinary฀business฀ setting.฀ The฀ findings฀ indicated฀ that฀ the฀ TAM฀was฀able฀to฀provide฀a฀reasonable฀ explanation฀ of฀ the฀ intentions฀ of฀ physi-cians฀ to฀ use฀ telemedicine฀ technology.฀ Specifically,฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ was฀ found฀ to฀ have฀ a฀ significant฀ and฀ strong฀ influence฀on฀the฀physicians’฀intention฀to฀ use฀telemedicine฀technology.฀

Contrary฀ to฀ the฀ predictions฀ of฀ the฀ TAM,฀perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀did฀not฀play฀ a฀ significant฀ role฀ in฀ predicting฀ technol- ogy฀acceptance฀in฀our฀study.฀For฀exam-ple,฀Arbaugh฀ (2000)฀ found฀ that฀ student฀ satisfaction฀ in฀ online฀ Master฀ of฀ Busi-ness฀Administration฀(MBA)฀courses฀was฀ positively฀related฀to฀perceived฀usefulness฀ but฀not฀related฀to฀ease฀of฀use.฀A฀possible฀ explanation฀of฀this฀finding,฀as฀proposed฀ by฀ Hu฀ et฀ al.฀ (1999),฀ is฀ that฀ although฀ physicians฀ and฀ university฀ professors฀ may฀ exhibit฀ considerable฀ differences฀ in฀ general฀ technology฀ competence฀ and฀ adaptability,฀ they฀ are฀ able฀ to฀ learn฀ new฀ technologies฀quickly฀and฀with฀less฀train-ing฀ than฀ other฀ employee฀ populations.฀ Agarwal฀ and฀ Prasad฀ (1999)฀ found฀ that฀ level฀of฀education฀was฀positively฀associ-ated฀ with฀ ease฀ of฀ use,฀ thereby฀ offering฀ additional฀ support฀ to฀ this฀ notion.฀Addi-tionally,฀ Taylor฀ and฀ Todd฀ (1995)฀ found฀ that฀those฀without฀experience฀may฀focus฀ first฀ on฀ ease฀ of฀ use,฀ and฀ as฀ experience฀ increases,฀ users฀ presumably฀ overcome฀ concerns฀ about฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ and฀ may฀ focus฀their฀attention฀on฀perceived฀useful-ness.฀ This฀ suggests฀ that฀ the฀ path฀ from฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ to฀ attitude฀ will฀ be฀ stronger฀ for฀inexperienced฀users,฀whereas฀the฀path฀ from฀perceived฀usefulness฀to฀attitude฀will฀ be฀ stronger฀ for฀ experienced฀ users.฀ Our฀ findings฀were฀consistent฀with฀this;฀In฀the฀ current฀ population฀ 69%฀ of฀ respondents฀ described฀their฀personal฀level฀of฀comput-ing฀competence฀as฀being฀either฀good฀or฀ excellent;฀hence,฀restriction฀of฀range฀with฀ regard฀to฀overall฀computing฀skills฀cannot฀ be฀ruled฀out฀as฀impacting฀our฀findings.฀

It฀ is฀ likely฀ that฀ both฀ professors฀ and฀ physicians฀tend฀to฀be฀pragmatic฀in฀their฀ acceptance฀ of฀ technology฀ and฀ place฀ more฀ emphasis฀ on฀ the฀ compatibility฀ of฀ the฀technology฀with฀their฀duties.฀In฀this฀ context,฀ perceived฀ usefulness฀ must฀ be฀ emphasized฀ early฀ on฀ in฀ the฀ adoption฀ process,฀ whereas฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ does฀ not฀ seem฀ to฀ be฀ a฀ major฀ concern฀ for฀ this฀ professional฀ group.฀ Early฀ emphasis฀ on฀ usefulness฀ can฀ be฀ critical฀ because฀ our฀ research,฀ among฀ other฀ studies฀ (e.g.,฀ Dasgupta,฀Granger,฀&฀McGarry,฀2002),฀ has฀ shown฀ that฀ perceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use฀ does฀not฀always฀have฀a฀positive฀impact฀ on฀technology฀acceptance.

Although฀our฀results฀offer฀insight฀into฀ faculty฀acceptance฀of฀online฀education,฀ additional฀ research฀ is฀ warranted.฀ First,฀

we฀ suggest฀ that฀ this฀ exploratory฀ study฀ be฀ replicated฀ at฀ other฀ universities฀ to฀ allow฀ for฀ the฀ comparison฀ of฀ results.฀ An฀ obvious฀ limitation฀ of฀ the฀ current฀ study฀is฀the฀use฀of฀a฀convenience฀sam-ple;฀ introducing฀ additional฀ institutions฀ would฀likely฀increase฀the฀variance฀asso-ciated฀ with฀ types฀ of฀ online฀ education฀ systems฀used.฀Perceived฀ease฀of฀use฀var-ies฀ based฀ on฀ individual฀ characteristics,฀ and฀ is฀ also฀ likely฀ to฀ vary฀ based฀ on฀ the฀ types฀ of฀ technology฀ used฀ by฀ a฀ college฀ or฀ university฀ and฀ the฀ support฀ systems฀ available฀for฀faculty฀using฀these฀central- ized฀systems.฀Next,฀it฀would฀be฀of฀inter-est฀ to฀ incorporate฀ samples฀ of฀ faculty฀ from฀other฀academic฀disciplines฀to฀com-pare฀ findings฀ with฀ regard฀ to฀ the฀ TAM.฀ Involving฀ faculty฀ from฀ different฀ aca-demic฀ fields฀ would฀ add฀ to฀ understand-ing฀ of฀ the฀ acceptance฀ of฀ online฀ educa-tion.฀ Finally,฀ additional฀ research฀ may฀ examine฀possible฀relationships฀between฀ demographic฀ characteristics฀ of฀ faculty฀ members฀and฀their฀acceptance฀of฀online฀ education฀ as฀ a฀ viable฀ delivery฀ meth-od฀ for฀ higher฀ education.฀ Past฀ research฀ has฀ indicated฀ that฀ both฀ gender฀ and฀ age฀ may฀play฀roles฀in฀technology฀usage฀and฀ adoption฀ patterns,฀ and฀ it฀ would฀ be฀ of฀ interest฀to฀examine฀whether฀this฀applies฀ to฀a฀highly฀educated฀population฀such฀as฀ university฀faculty.฀

NOTES

Shanan฀ G.฀ Gibson฀ is฀ an฀ assistant฀ professor฀ of฀ management฀ at฀ East฀ Carolina฀ University.฀ Her฀ research฀interests฀include฀entrepreneurship฀educa-tion,฀online฀training฀and฀development,฀and฀฀human฀ resources฀management฀issues.

Michael฀ L.฀ Harris฀ is฀ an฀ assistant฀ professor฀ of฀ management฀ and฀ director฀ of฀ the฀ Small฀ Busi-ness฀ Institute฀ at฀ East฀ Carolina฀ University,฀ where฀ his฀research฀encompasses฀rural฀entrepreneurship,฀ small฀business฀management,฀and฀virtual฀education฀ and฀training.

Susan฀ M.฀ Colaric฀ is฀ the฀ Director฀ of฀ Instruc-tional฀ Technology฀ at฀ Saint฀ Leo฀ University.฀ Her฀ research฀ interests฀ focus฀ on฀ instructional฀ design,฀ educational฀ systems฀ design,฀ and฀ the฀ impact฀ of฀ online฀learning.

Correspondence฀ concerning฀ this฀ article฀ should฀ be฀ addressed฀ to฀ Dr.฀ Shanan฀ G.฀ Gibson,฀ Assistant฀ Professor฀of฀Management,฀East฀Carolina฀University,฀ 3103฀Bates฀Building,฀Greenville,฀NC฀27858,฀USA.

E-mail:฀gibsons@ecu.edu

REFERENCES

Agarwal,฀R.,฀&฀Prasad,฀J.฀(1999).฀Are฀individual฀ differences฀ germane฀ to฀ the฀ acceptance฀ of฀ new฀ information฀ technologies?฀Decision฀ Sciences,฀ 30,฀361–391.฀

Arbaugh,฀J.฀B.฀(2000).฀Virtual฀classroom฀charac-

based฀ MBA฀ courses.฀Journal฀ of฀ Management฀ Education,฀24,฀32–54.

Bourdeau,฀ J.,฀ &฀ Bates,฀ A.฀ (1997).฀ Instructional฀ design฀for฀distance฀learning.฀In฀S.฀Dijkstra,฀N.฀ M.฀ Seel,฀ F.฀ Schott,฀ &฀ R.฀ D.฀ Tennyson฀ (Eds.),฀ Instructional฀ design:฀ International฀ perspec- tives:฀vol.฀2.฀Solving฀instructional฀design฀prob-lems฀(pp.฀369–397).฀Mahwah,฀NJ:฀Erlbaum. Cohen,฀ D.฀ J.,฀ &฀ Lippert,฀ S.฀ K.฀ (1999).฀ The฀ lure฀

of฀ technology:฀ Panacea฀ or฀ pariah?฀Journal฀ of฀ Management฀Education,฀23,฀743–746. Dasgupta,฀S.,฀Granger,฀M.,฀&฀McGarry,฀N.฀(2002).฀

User฀acceptance฀of฀e-collaboration฀technology:฀ An฀ extension฀ of฀ the฀ technology฀ acceptance฀ model.฀Group฀Decision฀and฀Negotiation,฀11(2),฀ 87–99.

Davis,฀ F.฀ D.฀ (1989).฀ Perceived฀ usefulness,฀ per-ceived฀ ease฀ of฀ use,฀ and฀ user฀ acceptance฀ of฀ information฀ technology.฀MIS฀ Quarterly,฀ 13,฀ 319–339.

Ferren,฀A.฀(2002).฀Gaining฀MD฀buy-in:฀Physician฀ order฀entry.฀Journal฀of฀Healthcare฀Information฀ Management,฀16(2),฀67.

Gefen,฀ D.,฀ &฀ Straub,฀ D.฀ (1997).฀ Gender฀ differ-ences฀ in฀ the฀ perception฀ and฀ use฀ of฀ e-mail:฀An฀ extension฀to฀the฀technology฀acceptance฀model.฀ MIS฀Quarterly,฀21,฀389–400.

Hu,฀ P.,฀ Chau,฀ P.,฀ Sheng,฀ O.,฀ &฀ Tam,฀ K.฀ (1999).฀ Examining฀ the฀ technology฀ acceptance฀ model฀ using฀ physician฀ acceptance฀ of฀ telemedicine฀ technology.฀Journal฀ of฀ Management฀ Informa-tion฀Systems,฀16(2),฀91–112.

Martins,฀L.฀L.,฀&฀Kellermanns,฀F.฀W.฀(2004).฀A฀model฀ of฀business฀school฀students’฀acceptance฀of฀a฀web-based฀ course฀ management฀ system.฀Academy฀ of฀ Management฀Learning฀and฀Education,฀3(1),฀7–26. Perreault,฀ H.,฀ Waldman,฀ L.,฀ Alexander,฀ M.,฀ &฀

Zhao,฀J.฀(2002).฀Overcoming฀barriers฀to฀success-ful฀delivery฀of฀distance-learning฀courses.฀Journal฀ of฀Education฀for฀Business,฀77,฀313–318.

Spooner,฀F.,฀Jordan,฀L.,฀Algozzine,฀B.,฀&฀Spooner,฀ M.฀(1999).฀Student฀ratings฀of฀instruction฀in฀dis-tance฀learning฀and฀on-campus฀classes.฀Journal฀ of฀Educational฀Research,฀92,฀132–141. Taylor,฀S.,฀&฀Todd,฀P.฀(1995).฀Assessing฀IT฀usage:฀

The฀ role฀ of฀ prior฀ experience.฀MIS฀ Quarterly,฀ 19,฀561–570.

Veiga,฀J.,฀Floyd,฀S.,฀&฀Dechant,฀K.฀(2001).฀Towards฀ modeling฀ the฀ effects฀ of฀ national฀ culture฀ on฀ IT฀ implementation฀ and฀ acceptance.฀ Journal฀ of฀ Information฀Technology,฀16,฀145–158. Venkatesh,฀V.,฀ &฀ Morris,฀ M.฀ (2000).฀ Why฀ don’t฀

men฀ ever฀ stop฀ to฀ ask฀ for฀ directions?฀ Gender,฀ social฀ influence,฀ and฀ their฀ role฀ in฀ technology฀ acceptance฀and฀usage฀behavior.฀MIS฀Quarterly,฀ 24,฀115–139.

Venkatesh,฀V.,฀Morris,฀M.,฀Davis,฀G.,฀&฀Davis,฀F.฀ (2003).฀ User฀ acceptance฀ of฀ information฀ tech-nology:฀Toward฀a฀unified฀view.฀MIS฀Quarterly,฀ 27,฀425–478.

�������฀���������฀�฀�������฀������������������฀��������฀�������฀��฀���฀��������฀���฀�������฀�������฀ ���������฀���฀���฀�������฀�������฀�������฀����������฀���฀�����฀��฀����฀����������฀��������฀��������฀ ��฀���������฀���������฀�������฀�����������฀����������฀����������������฀������������฀����������฀ ��฀���฀����������฀���฀��������������฀��฀��������฀����฀�����฀�����฀��฀����������฀�������฀�����฀ ��������฀�����������������฀����������฀���฀����฀����฀�����฀�������฀��������฀���������฀���฀����฀���฀ ������฀�����������฀��฀��������฀��������฀����฀��฀��������฀��������฀���฀������������฀���฀��������฀���฀

��������������฀����������฀��฀�������฀���฀��������฀���฀��������฀��������฀��฀������฀�����������฀��฀�������฀���������

���������� ������ ����

������� �������� �������

����������฀����฀��������� �������฀������฀������������฀������ �����������฀฀���฀������฀�����฀���฀�����฀���฀������

��������������฀����฀������฀�����฀����฀�����฀�����฀����฀�����฀���฀������ ���฀���฀���฀�������฀�������฀���฀����

�����������������

��������������������

���������฀���฀�����฀�������฀������������฀�������

������������฀ � ������ ��฀ ���฀ ������

�����������฀ ��฀ ���������� ��฀ ������������฀�฀��฀ ������������

������������������������������ ���������������