The main purpose of this study is to determine whether the TAM (Technology Acceptance Model) could be extended to include external variables including computer self-efficacy, prior experience, computer anxiety, management support and compatibility, to further understand the learners’ perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of an e-learning system. The study also aims to clarify which factors are more influential in affecting the decision to use e-learning. Five factors were examined together with the TAM construct using the SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) technique. The study reveals that management support, prior experience, computer anxiety and compatibility have predictive power towards behavioral intention to use e-learning systems. The results gained from this study, which took place in the banking workplace in Indonesia, provide a conceptual framework for individuals and organizations to better understand the critical factors which influence e-learning acceptance in developing countries.
AgarwalRPrasadJ (1998) A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research9(2): 204–215.
2.
AgarwalRSambamurthyVStairRM (2000) Research report: The evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy – An empirical assessment. Information Systems Research11(4): 418–430.
3.
AliASB (2005) An assessment of the impact of the fit among computer self efficacy, task characteristic and system characteristic on performance and information system utilization. PhD Thesis, George Washington University. USA.istrative
4.
AliGEMagalhaesR (2008) Barriers to implementing e-learning: a Kuwaiti case study. International Journal of Training and Development12(1): 36–53.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
7.
BersinJ (2005) The four stages of e-learning: a maturity model for online corporate training. Bersin & Associates, Oakland, CA.
8.
ChauPYK (1997) Reexamining a model for evaluating information center success using a structural equation modeling approach. Decision Sciences28(2): 309–334.
9.
ChauPYK (2001) Influence of computer attitude and self-efficacy on IT usage behavior. Journal of End User Computing13(1): 26–33.
10.
ChauPYKHuPJH (2001) Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: A model comparation approach, Decision Sciences32(4): 699–721.
11.
CompeauDRHigginsCA (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly19(2): 189–211.
12.
CompeauDRHigginsCAHuffS (1999) Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: a longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly. 23(2): 145–58.
13.
DavisFD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user adoption of IT. MIS Quarterly13(3): 319–340.
14.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: an introduction to theory and research. Addison Willey, Reading. MA. USA.
15.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
16.
FryK (2001) E-learning markets and provides: some issues and prospects. Education and Training43(4/5): 233–239.
17.
GlassN (1998) Management masterclass: a practical guide to the new realities of business. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, Sonoma, CA.
18.
GordonJ (2003) E-learning tagged as best corporate IT investment. e-learning4(1): 8.
19.
GovindasamyT (2002) Successful implementation of e-learning pedagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education4(3–4): 287–299.
20.
HairJF JrAndersonRETathamRLBlackWC (1998) Multivariate data analysis, 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. USA.
21.
HashimJ (2008) Factors influencing the acceptance of web-based training in Malaysia: applying the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Training and Development12(4): 253–264.
22.
HardgraveBCDavisFDRiemenschneiderCK (2003) Investigating determinants of software developers' intentions to follow methodologies. Journal of Management Information System20(1): 123–151.
23.
HayashiAChenCRyanTWuJ (2004) The role of social presence and moderating role of computer self efficacy in predicting the continuance usage of e-learning systems. Journal of Information Systems Education15(2): 139–154
24.
HeinssenRKGlassCRKnightLA (1987) Assessing computer anxiety: development and validation of the computer anxiety rating scale. Computers in Human Behavior3(1): 49–59.
25.
HongWThongJYLWongWMTamKY (2001) Determinant of user acceptance of digital libraries: An empirical examination individual differences and system characteristics. Journal of Management Information Systems18(3): 97–124.
26.
HowardSGSmithDR (1986) Computer anxiety in management: myth or reality?. Communications of the ACM29(7): 611–615.
27.
HoyleRH (1995) The structural equation modeling approach: basic concepts and fundamental issues. In HoyleR.H. (Ed.) Structural equation modeling: concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
28.
IgbariaMGuimaraesTDavisGB (1995) Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model. Journal of Management Information Systems11(4): 87–114.
KonradtUChristophersenTSchaeffer-KuelzU (2006) Predicting user satisfaction, strain and system usage of employee self-services. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies64(11): 1141–1153.
31.
LandryBJLGriffethRHartmanS (2006) Measuring student perceptions of Blackboard using the technology acceptance model. Decision Sciences4(1): 87–99.
32.
LauSHWoodsPC (2008) Understanding learner acceptance of learning objects: the roles of learning object characteristics and individual differences. British Journal of Educational Technology40(6): 1059–1075.
33.
LeeYC (2006) An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review30(5): 517–541.
34.
LeeYHHsiehYCMaCY (2010) A model of organizational employees’ e-learning systems acceptance. Knowledge-Based Systems24(3): 355–366.
35.
LiuI-FanChenMCSunYSWibleDKuoCH (2010) Extending the TAM model to explore the factors that affect intention to use an online learning community. Computers & Education54(2): 600–610.
36.
McFarlandDJHamiltonD (2006) Adding contextual specificity to the technology acceptance model. Computers in Human Behavior22(3): 427–447.
37.
MadorinSIwasiwC (1999) The effects of computer-assisted instruction on the self-efficacy of baccalaureate nursing students. Journal of Nursing Education38(6): 282–295.
38.
MooreGCBenbasatI (1991) Development of instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research2(3): 192–222.
39.
MunYYHwangY (2003) Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation and the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies59(4): 431–449.
40.
NdubisiNOJantanM (2003) Evaluating IS usage in Malaysian small and medium-sized firms using the technology acceptance model. Logistics Information Management16(6): 440–450.
41.
NelsonDL (1990) Individual adjustment to information-driven technologies: a critical review. MIS Quarterly14(1): 79–98.
42.
NgaiEWTPoonJKLChanYHC (2007) Empirical examination of the adoption of WebCT using TAM. Computers and Education48(2): 250–267.
43.
OngCSLayJYWangYS (2004) Factors affecting engineers’ adoption of asynchronous e-learning systems in high-tech companies. Information & Management41(6): 795–804.
44.
OngCSLaiJY (2006) Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior22(5): 816–829.
45.
ParkSY (2009) An analysis of the technology acceptance model in understanding university students' behavioral intention to use e-Learning. Educational Technology & Society12(3): 150–162.
46.
ParkNRomanRLeeSChungJE (2009) User acceptance of a digital library system in developing countries: an application of the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Information Management29(3): 196–209.
47.
PiccoliGAhmadR (2001) Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skills training. MIS Quarterly25(4): 401–426.
48.
PituchKALeeYK (2006) The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education47(2): 222–244.
49.
RezaiMMohammadiHMAsadiAKalantaryK (2008) Predicting e-learning application in agricultural higher education using technology acceptance model. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education9(1): 85–95.
50.
RogersE (1995) Diffusion of innovations4th ed. New York: Free Press.
51.
SaadeRGKiraD (2006) The emotional state of technology acceptance. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology3: 529–539.
52.
SaadeRGKiraD (2009) Computer anxiety in e-learning: The effect of computer self-efficacy. Journal of Information Technology Education8: 177–191.
53.
SelimHM (2003) An empirical investigation of student acceptance of course websites. Computers & Education40(4): 343–360.
54.
StraubDWKeilMBrennerWH (1997) Testing the technology acceptance model across cultures: a three country study. Information & Management33(1): 1–11.
55.
SugiarsonoJ (2007) e-learning award 2007. SWA Online, Jakarta, Indonesia.
56.
SunHZhangP (2006) The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies64(2): 53–78.
57.
SunPCTsaiRJFingerGChenYYYehD (2008) What drives a successful e-learning? An empirical investigation of the critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers and Education50(4): 1183–1202.
58.
TanMTeoTSH (2000) Factors influencing the adoption of Internet banking. Journal of the Association for Information Systems1(5): 1–42.
59.
TaylorSToddP (1995) Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarteriy19(4): 561–570.
60.
TornatzkyLGKleinKJ (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption implementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management29(1) 28–45.
61.
UntariR (2007) E-learning for MSME in Central Java, Indonesia, International Conference on E-learning for Knowledge-Based Society, November18–19, Bangkok, Thailand.
62.
VaughanKMacVicarA (2004) Employees’ pre-implementation attitudes and perceptions to e-learning: a banking case study analysis. Journal of European Industrial Training28(5): 400–413.
63.
VenkateshV (1999) Creation of favorable user perceptions: exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly23(2): 239–260.
64.
VenkateshVDavisFD (1996) A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences27(3): 451–481.
65.
VenkateshVDavisFD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies, Management Science46(2): 186–204.
66.
WahyuniAS (2008) Analysis of e-learning system acceptance by using technology acceptance model on PT Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk. Master thesis. Magister Management. Gadjah Mada University. Yogyakarta. Indonesia.
67.
WalkerGM (2004) Faculty intentions to use web-enhanced instructional components, PhD thesis. Capella University. USA.
68.
WuJHWangSC (2005) What drives mobile commerce? An empirical investigation of the revised technology acceptance model. Information & Management42(5): 719–729.
