A comparison of competing technology acceptance models to explore personal, academic and professional portfolio acceptance behaviour

E. Ahmed, R. Ward

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper presents a comparison analysis of two competing models, the technology acceptance model and the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (DTPB), which can be used for predicting and explaining students’ acceptance of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios). E-portfolios are considered important pedagogical tools, with a substantial amount of literature supporting their role in personal, academic and professional development. However, achieving students’ acceptance of e-portfolios is still a challenge for higher education institutions. Data were collected from 204 participating students via a cross-sectional survey method and analysed using structural equation modelling. An in-depth analysis of measures was completed before structural level analysis of the two models was undertaken, in which goodness-of-fit indices were observed and hypotheses analysed. The results from structural level analysis were compared in terms of overall model fit, explanatory power and path significance. The results demonstrated that the DTPB attained higher explanatory power with better insight of the phenomenon under investigation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)169-191
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Computers in Education
Volume3
Issue number2
Early online date26 Mar 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2016

Fingerprint

acceptance
Students
electronics
student
Education
education

Cite this

@article{557845b67baa429b8dd25bc8dc1cfed5,
title = "A comparison of competing technology acceptance models to explore personal, academic and professional portfolio acceptance behaviour",
abstract = "This paper presents a comparison analysis of two competing models, the technology acceptance model and the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (DTPB), which can be used for predicting and explaining students’ acceptance of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios). E-portfolios are considered important pedagogical tools, with a substantial amount of literature supporting their role in personal, academic and professional development. However, achieving students’ acceptance of e-portfolios is still a challenge for higher education institutions. Data were collected from 204 participating students via a cross-sectional survey method and analysed using structural equation modelling. An in-depth analysis of measures was completed before structural level analysis of the two models was undertaken, in which goodness-of-fit indices were observed and hypotheses analysed. The results from structural level analysis were compared in terms of overall model fit, explanatory power and path significance. The results demonstrated that the DTPB attained higher explanatory power with better insight of the phenomenon under investigation.",
keywords = "Technology Acceptance Model, Decompose theory of planned behaviour, theory of planned behaviour, E-portfolio, educational technology, Higher Education",
author = "E. Ahmed and R. Ward",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1007/s40692-016-0058-1",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "169--191",
journal = "Journal of Computers in Education",
issn = "2197-9987",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of competing technology acceptance models to explore personal, academic and professional portfolio acceptance behaviour

AU - Ahmed, E.

AU - Ward, R.

PY - 2016/6

Y1 - 2016/6

N2 - This paper presents a comparison analysis of two competing models, the technology acceptance model and the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (DTPB), which can be used for predicting and explaining students’ acceptance of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios). E-portfolios are considered important pedagogical tools, with a substantial amount of literature supporting their role in personal, academic and professional development. However, achieving students’ acceptance of e-portfolios is still a challenge for higher education institutions. Data were collected from 204 participating students via a cross-sectional survey method and analysed using structural equation modelling. An in-depth analysis of measures was completed before structural level analysis of the two models was undertaken, in which goodness-of-fit indices were observed and hypotheses analysed. The results from structural level analysis were compared in terms of overall model fit, explanatory power and path significance. The results demonstrated that the DTPB attained higher explanatory power with better insight of the phenomenon under investigation.

AB - This paper presents a comparison analysis of two competing models, the technology acceptance model and the decomposed theory of planned behaviour (DTPB), which can be used for predicting and explaining students’ acceptance of electronic portfolios (e-portfolios). E-portfolios are considered important pedagogical tools, with a substantial amount of literature supporting their role in personal, academic and professional development. However, achieving students’ acceptance of e-portfolios is still a challenge for higher education institutions. Data were collected from 204 participating students via a cross-sectional survey method and analysed using structural equation modelling. An in-depth analysis of measures was completed before structural level analysis of the two models was undertaken, in which goodness-of-fit indices were observed and hypotheses analysed. The results from structural level analysis were compared in terms of overall model fit, explanatory power and path significance. The results demonstrated that the DTPB attained higher explanatory power with better insight of the phenomenon under investigation.

KW - Technology Acceptance Model

KW - Decompose theory of planned behaviour

KW - theory of planned behaviour

KW - E-portfolio

KW - educational technology

KW - Higher Education

U2 - 10.1007/s40692-016-0058-1

DO - 10.1007/s40692-016-0058-1

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 169

EP - 191

JO - Journal of Computers in Education

JF - Journal of Computers in Education

SN - 2197-9987

IS - 2

ER -