1. A closer look at the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
2nd Annual eLearning Symposium
Presented by
Sizwe Dlalisa & Dr Jane Skinner
26 May 2016
Part I

2. The Empirical Research at DUT
The rapid emergence of e-learning tools in the educational sector is a clear indication that e-learning has the potential or is solving, to a certain extent, some challenges faced by higher education.
However, the resistance from the principal stakeholders (academics) result in underutilization.

3. BACKGROUND
Universities around the world have invested heavily in technology and Learning Management Systems(LMS) which accommodate the digital- age society, and support current students’ learning experience.
Durban University of Technology (DUT) has recently aligned their strategic planning to revive e-learning by improving pedagogical plans.

4. Literature Review
The need is for a transferral from outdated ‘industrial age’ models to ‘information age’ models because outdated models can no longer support modern students' learning and communication experience (Blewett,2012).
E-Learning will play a critical role in meeting contemporary students' needs not met by current approaches to instruction (Watson and Watson,2007).

5. RESEARCH PROBLEM
The successful implementation of LMS depends heavily on the academic staff buying-in (Alharbi and Drew, 2014).
Blackboard has been deployed but there appears to be resistance on the part of the principal stakeholders (academics) which may result in underutilization.

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study sought to answer the following research questions:
What are the factors affecting adoption and usage of Blackboard at DUT?
Does the perceived ability of the system meet the academics' requirements?

7. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) was used as a baseline to assess to what extent various factors influence adoption and usage on the proposed model and the model comprises three major factors (i.e., Personal Factors, Technological Factors, and Organizational Factors).
Personal factors(computer experience, LMS experience, and job relevance)
Technological factors(system quality, service quality, and technology complexity)
Support factors (organizational factors, technical factors and training

8. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative)approach, involving a questionnaire and interviews was used to collect data on academics with a teaching responsibility.

9. ACADEMICS’ ACCEPTANCE MODEL
Personal factors(computer experience, LMS experience, and job relevance)
Technological factors(system quality, service quality, and technology complexity)
Support factors (organizational factors, technical factors and training

10. SELECTED FINDINGS
The results of the survey therefore showed perceived usefulness was high and perceived ease of use was higher
The results of the interviews revealed that course management and communication features were positive affecting the acceptance and usage of the system. Teaching and learning features however were used much less.
The study did concur with all TAM’s determinants relationships except behavioural intention and actual usage,
In fact:
Intention to use and actual usage had no statistical correlation

11. The theory re-examined Part II

12. Widening the focus
An extensive literature search subsequently confirmed these findings:
Nationally and internationally LMS systems are used mostly for administration and their innovative teaching and learning features are underutilized.
TAM and its variants have proved weak in helping to understand the situation

13. The value of (good)theoretical models
‘A theoretical model is a theory designed to explain an entire situation or behaviour, with the idea that it would eventually be able to predict that behaviour’.
TAM fits this definition well
(but requires that the research be reliable and valid).

14. Unresolved contradictions
TAM has stood the test of time (Davis, Bagozzi &Warshaw, 1989)
It is simple and elegant
It is intuitively right,
but
It does not work well in educational research.

15. Solutions proposed Up to now:
Additions to TAM -> UTAUT (Unified theory of the acceptance and use of technology)
->“a state of theoretical chaos and confusion" (Benbasat & Barki 2007)
No longer simple and elegant!
Instead
Let’s look differently/ elsewhere and ask:
Are researchers who use TAM to investigate LMS all talking about the same things? If not, can the research ever be guaranteed to be reliable and valid?

16. Terms explored ‘learning’ Learning management systems
Are these concerned with the management of learning (administration)? or
With the management of learning (education)?
‘useful’
For what? For administration? /or for learning?/ or for teaching?
‘teaching’
For transmission of knowledge (an administrative function) or for facilitation of learning?
‘learning’
For memorising or understanding (self empowerment)?

17. Examples of current ambiguities
Examples of confusion arising within research projects:
The Actual Use is not significantly correlated with Intention To Use (r=.149, p=.118), the strength being low (Dlalisa, 2015).
The very same system (WebCT) was perceived as usable at one university and not at another. (Mlitwa & van Belle, 2011)
In this study mixed support for this model (UTAUT) was found in terms of the reliability of the scale items representing the UTAUT constructs and the hypothetised relationships (Marchewka & Kostiwa, 2007)

18. Re-establishing TAM as an educational research tool
However, if researchers and their respondents are aware that they are either
discussing the usefulness of an LMS system in terms of administration, or
as a means of enhancing student-centred teaching or learning
then strong validity and reliability measures become feasible again.
It should then be possible, in broad terms, for TAM to “Explain an entire situation or behaviour with the idea that it would eventually be able to predict that behaviour” – i.e to rely upon research which uses TAM to explain and predict the value of an LMS system.