Validation of Non-Linear Relationships-Based UTAUT Model on Higher Distance Education Students’ Acceptance of WhatsApp for Supporting Learning

Download Article

DOI: 10.21522/TIJAR.2014.07.02.Art004

Authors : Douglas Yeboah, Paul Nyagorme

Abstract:

This study examined relationships among the exogenous constructs of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model to identify those that significantly predict others. Questionnaires were used to collect data from 273 distance education students pursuing various diploma, bachelor’s degree and post-graduate diploma programs at the Cape Coast study center of the Institute for Distance and e-Learning (IDeL) of the University of Education, Winneba in Ghana. Proportional stratified random sampling technique was employed to obtain the sample of students. The data were analyzed using Partial Least Squares – Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results indicated that in acceptance of WhatsApp for supporting higher distance learning, effort expectancy and social influence predict performance expectancy; mobile self-efficacy and facilitating conditions predict effort expectancy; and facilitating conditions predict social influence. Also, mobile self-efficacy was found to significantly predict behavioral intention. We recommend that prior to introduction of a new technology such as WhatsApp for supporting learning, necessary resources and training should be provided by educational administrators and faculty to the students. This would make the students perceive that they can use the technology effectively to bring about gains in their learning; and subsequently accept the technology.

References:

[1]    Smith, R. (2015). The role of social media in higher education marketing. Retrieved May 12, 2015 from http://www.bostoninteractive.com/blog/industries/socialmedia-higher-education-marketing.

[2]    Fattah, S. F. E. S. A. (2015). The effectiveness of using WhatsApp messenger as one of mobile learning techniques to develop students' writing skills. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32), 115-127.

[3]    Vrocharidou, A., & Efthymiou, I. (2012). Computer mediated communication for social and academic purposes: Profiles of use and university students' gratifications. Computers & Education, 58(1), 609–616.

[4]    Ogara, S., Koh, C., & Prybutok, V. (2014). Investigating factors affecting social presence and user satisfaction with mobile instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 36(2014), 453–459.

[5]    Cifuentes, O., & Lents, N. (2010). Increasing student-teacher interactions at an urban commuter campus through instant messaging and online office hours. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(1), 1–13.

[6]    Venkatesh V., Morris M., Davis G. & Davis F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 27(3), 425-478. DOI: 10.2307/30036540.

[7]    Bervell, B. & Umar, I. N. (2017). Validation of UTAUT model: re-considering non-linear relationships of exogeneous variables in higher education technology acceptance research. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 13(10), 6472-6490. DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.01078a.

[8]    Davis, F. D. (1986). Technology acceptance models for empirically testing new end-user information systems: theory and results. Cambridge: MIT Sloan School of Management.

[9]    Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

[10]    Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342-365.

[11]    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.

[12]    Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.

[13]    Nikou, S. A., and Economides, A. A. (2017). Mobile-based assessment: investigating the factors that influence behavioral intention to use. Comput. Educ.109, 56–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.005.

[14]    Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

[15]    Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

[16]    Evans, N. D. (2013). Predicting user acceptance of electronic learning at the University of Zululand. Unpublished Thesis. Department of Information Studies, University of Zululand, South Africa.

[17]    Chao C-M (2019) Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: an application and extension of the UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1652), 1-14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01652.

[18]    Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., and Becker, J.-M. (2015). "SmartPLS 3." Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH, http://www.smartpls.com.

[19]    Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. 1st Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

[20]    Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. DOI: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

[21]    Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

[22]    Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10.