Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Computers in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal R (2000) Individual acceptance of information technologies. In: Framing the domains of IT management: Projecting the future through the past. Pinnaflex Education Resources, Cincinnati, OH (pp. 85–104).

  • Ajjan, H., & Hartshorne, R. (2008). Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and empirical tests. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 71–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer, pp. 11–39.

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26, 1113–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, F., Robinson, J., Shaver, P., & Wrightsman, L. (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. Houston: Gulf Professional Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, C., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R., & Everett, G. (2009). Post-graduation reflections on the value of a degree. British Educational Research Journal, 35, 333–349. doi:10.1080/01411920802044370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chau, P. (1996). An empirical assessment of a modified technology acceptance model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, 185–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., Lee, S., Crooks, S. M., & Song, J. (2012). An investigation of mobile learning readiness in higher education based on the theory of planned behavior. Computers & Education, 59, 1054–1064. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.04.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, C. (2012). Influence of teachers’ perceived e-portfolio acceptance on teacher evaluation effectiveness in Taiwan. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28, 719–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compeau, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 1, 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Compeau, D., Higgins, C., & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23, 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429–1464. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD (1986) A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems.

  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. doi:10.2307/249008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearing R (1997) Report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education (The Dearing Report).

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief. Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An introduction to theory and research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, J. (2004). The theory of planned behavior and internet purchasing. Internet Research, 14, 198–212. doi:10.1108/10662240410542634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbic P, Lewis L, Northover M (2009) Student perspectives of eportfolios: A longitudinal study of growth and development. In Proceedings of the ASCILITE Conference, Auckland, New Zealand (pp. 327–331).

  • Goertz, G. (2012). Social science concepts: A user’s guide. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L.-A. B. (2010). Research methods for the behavioral sciences (Gravetter). Belmont: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Celsi, M. W., Money, A. H., et al. (2003). Essentials of business research methods. New York: ME Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Money, A. H., Samouel, P., & Page, M. (2007). Research methods for business. England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle RH (1995) The structural equation modeling approach. Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In: Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1–15).

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, E., & Chuang, M. H. (2007). Extending the theory of planned behaviour as a model to explain post-merger employee behaviour of IS use. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 240–257. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.10.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huh, H. J., Kim, T. T., & Law, R. (2009). A comparison of competing theoretical models for understanding acceptance behavior of information systems in upscale hotels. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28, 121–134. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. (2015). A structural equation model to analyse the antecedents to students’ web-based problem-solving performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31, 400–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., Ackerman, R. A., & Russell, D. W. (2009). Reporting and interpreting research in PSPB: Practices, principles, and pragmatics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1131–1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai H-J (2016) Examining civil servants’ decisions to use Web 2.0 tools for learning, based on the decomposed theory of planned behavior. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–11.

  • Lee, M.-C. (2010). Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: An extension of the expectation–confirmation model. Computers & Education, 54, 506–516. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitch, S. (2006). Prosperity for all in the global economy-world class skills: Final report. Norwich: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 140, 55.

  • Lin, H.-F. (2007). Predicting consumer intentions to shop online: An empirical test of competing theories. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6, 433–442. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.02.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo, G., & Ittelson, J. (2005). An overview of e-portfolios. Educause Learning Initiative, 1, 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchoomun, D., McLuckie, J., & Van, Wesel M. (2010). Collaborative e-learning: e-Portfolios for assessment, teaching and learning. Electron J e-Learning, 8, 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masrom M (2007) Technology acceptance model and E-learning. In 12th International Conference on Education, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education, Universiti Brunei Darussalam 21–24 May 2007 (pp. 1–10).

  • Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: Comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research, 2, 173–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144. doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.521684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M., & Jolley, J. (2012). Research design explained. Belmont: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2, 192–222. doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GC, Benbasat I (1996) Integrating diffusion of innovations and theory of reasoned action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users. In: Diffusion and adoption of information technology. Springer, pp. 132–146.

  • Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force. Personnel Psychology, 53, 375–403. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00206.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller R (2015) Shifting from product to pedagogy: Investigating the use of e-portfolios as pedagogical practice.

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Sydney: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paver, J., Walker, D. A., & Hung, W. C. (2014). Factors that predict the integration of technology for instruction by community college adjunct faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38, 68–85. doi:10.1080/10668926.2013.799449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pituch, K. A., & Lee, Y. (2006). The influence of system characteristics on e-learning use. Computers & Education, 47, 222–244. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2004.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • QAA (2003) Progress files for higher education: Guidelines for HE progress files.

  • Ramayah, T., Rouibah, K., Gopi, M., & Rangel, G. J. (2009). A decomposed theory of reasoned action to explain intention to use Internet stock trading among Malaysian investors. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1222–1230. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov, T., & Maarcoulides, G. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling. Second Edi: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renda dos Santos LM, Okazaki S (2015) Planned e-learning adoption and occupational socialisation in Brazilian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 1–21.

  • Robins, R., Fraley, R., & Krueger, R. (2009). Handbook of research methods in personality psychology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovation. New York, London: Free Press, Collier Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadaf, A., Newby, T., & Ertmer, P. (2013). Exploring factors that predict preservice teachers’ intentions to use Web 2.0 technologies using decomposed theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 45, 171–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadaf, A., Newby, T. J., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). An investigation of the factors that influence preservice teachers’ intentions and integration of Web 2.0 tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64, 37–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research method for business: A skill building approach. Wiley.

  • Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36. doi:10.1080/14792772143000003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H., Jon, H., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–343. doi:10.2307/2489467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, H.-P. (2008). Using a cognition-motivation-control view to assess the adoption intention for Web-based learning. Computers & Education, 50, 327–337. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shih, Y.-Y., & Fang, K. (2004). The use of a decomposed theory of planned behavior to study internet banking in Taiwan. Internet Research, 14, 213–223. doi:10.1108/10662240410542643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shroff, R. R. H., Deneen, C. C. C., & Ng, E. M. W. E. (2011). Analysis of the technology acceptance model in examining students’ behavioural intention to use an e-portfolio system. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 600–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The search for “optimal” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74, 267–288. doi:10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e-portfolios: Supporting personal development and reflective learning. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation guidelines for is positivist research. The Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13, 380–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995a). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995b). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 137–155. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(94)00019-K.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor S, Todd P (1995c) Assessing IT usage: The role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly, 561–570.

  • Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers & Education, 56, 1032–1044. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson R, Higgins C, Howell J (1991) Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 125–144.

  • Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29, 28–45. doi:10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis H (1979) Values, attitudes, and interpersonal behavior. University of Nebraska Press.

  • Universities U (2007) Beyond the Honours degree classification: The Burgess Group final report.

  • Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365. doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39, 273–315. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. F. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. M. G., Davis, G. G. B., & Davis, F. D. F. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27, 425–478. doi:10.2307/30036540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widaman, K. F. (2010). Multitrait-multimethod analysis. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yao, Y., & Thomas, M. (2008). Validity evidence of an electronic portfolio for preservice teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27, 10–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yousafzai, S. Y., Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (2007). Technology acceptance: a meta-analysis of the TAM: Part 1. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2, 281–304. doi:10.1108/17465660710834462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Informatics, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK

    E. Ahmed & R. Ward

Authors
  1. E. Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Ward
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Ahmed.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix: Questionnaire items

Appendix: Questionnaire items

Perceived ease of use (PEU)

PEU1:

Learning to use the e-portfolio is easy for me

PEU2:

My interaction with the e-portfolio is clear and understandable

PEU3:

It is easy for me to become skilful at using the e-portfolio

PEU4:

I find the e-portfolio easy to use

(Davis 1989; Moore and Benbasat 1991; Chau 1996; Pituch and Lee 2006; Huang and Chuang 2007; Venkatesh and Bala 2008; Shroff et al. 2011).

Perceived usefulness (PU)

PEU1:

I believe that using the e-portfolio would enhance my professional development

PEU2:

Using the e-portfolio would increase my academic productivity

PEU3:

I believe that using the e-portfolio would make it easy for me to achieve my academic and professional goals

PEU4:

I find using the e-portfolio useful

(Davis 1989; Moore and Benbasat 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995a; Chau 1996; Pituch and Lee 2006; Huang and Chuang 2007; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008; Shroff et al. 2011; Chou 2012).

Compatibility (C)

C001:

Using the e-portfolio is compatible with my study

C002:

Using the e-portfolio fits well with my personal, academic and professional development needs

(Moore and Benbasat 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995a; Huang and Chuang 2007; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008).

Attitude towards behaviour (AB)

AB01:

I have a generally favourable attitude towards using the e-portfolio

AB02:

It is a good idea to use the e-portfolio for academic, personal and professional development

AB03:

Overall, I am satisfied with using the e-portfolio

(Taylor and Todd 1995a; Huang and Chuang 2007; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008; Shih 2008).

Superior influences (SI)

SI01:

My lecturer thinks that I should use the e-portfolio

SI02:

I want to use the e-portfolio because my lecturer requires it

SI03:

The opinion of my lecturer is important to me

(Taylor and Todd 1995a; Huang and Chuang 2007).

Peer influences (PI)

PI01:

My friends and classmates would think that I should use the e-portfolio

PI02:

The opinion of my friends and classmates is important to me

(Taylor and Todd 1995a; Huang and Chuang 2007; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008).

Subjective norms (SN)

SN01:

People who influence my behaviour would think that I should use the e-portfolio

SN02:

People who are important to me would think that I should use the e-portfolio

(Davis 1989; Moore and Benbasat 1991; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).

Self-efficacy (SE)

SE01:

I would feel comfortable using the e-portfolio on my own

SE02:

There is no gap between my existing skills and knowledge and those required to work on the e-portfolio

SE03:

I have knowledge and ability to make use of the e-portfolio

(Taylor and Todd 1995a; Huang and Chuang 2007; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008).

Facilitating conditions (FC)

FC01:

The equipment (computer hardware, software and communication network) is available to me to work on the e-portfolio

FC02:

The resources (guides, time and support) are available to me to work on the e-portfolio

FC03:

The e-portfolio is compatible with the computers and application I already use in my studies

(Thompson et al. 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995a; Venkatesh 2000; Venkatesh et al. 2003).

Perceived behavioural control (PBC)

PBC1:

Using the e-portfolio is entirely within my control

PBC2:

I have the resources, knowledge and ability to use the e-portfolio

PBC3:

I would be able to use the e-portfolio

(Huang and Chuang 2007; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008; Shih 2008).

Behavioural intention (BI)

BI01:

I intend to use the e-portfolio in the future

BI02:

I intend to use the e-portfolio for personal, academic and professional development

BI03:

I intend to use the e-portfolio during my studies

(Taylor and Todd 1995a; Venkatesh and Davis 2000; Ajjan and Hartshorne 2008; Shih 2008; Venkatesh and Bala 2008).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmed, E., Ward, R. A comparison of competing technology acceptance models to explore personal, academic and professional portfolio acceptance behaviour. J. Comput. Educ. 3, 169–191 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0058-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0058-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation